No, it's not at your expense. It's just a playful juxtaposition. :pray:

But, these mental tools are effective when the entire group uses them. This is why I'm advocating for it being part of a cultural practice, something that is common practice, or at least common practice in situations that benefit from it. — Christoffer

I get that and while I don't disagree with the principles you outline - there is also the big problem that what you suggest is not going to happen and is effectively like suggesting if we all behaved like Gandhi (or insert idealised human being of your preference), there'd be world peace and love all about us. Which may well be true. But 'if' is a monumental hurdle. Anyway - no point going on about it as it's off topic. :wink:

Does it even make sense to quantify knowledge?
— Moliere
No less sense than it makes to quantify ignorance. — 180 Proof

:lol: :ok:

Don't know. If I am a realist and a pragmatist, I am so in the non-philosophical sense. I think life is a messy business and we mostly do the best we can. I think human thought and values are expressions of our creative imagination; some useful some not. I am more interested in the arts than the sciences.

How do you determine what perfection is?

Beyond that, I don't think the activities shown are a good measure of interest. — T Clark

Pretty much my thoughts.

That's a nice summary. I reflect on matters like what products to buy, or where to go on a holiday. I don't really reflect greatly on life decisions - as these come intuitively and emerge from my 'whole self' - not just the rational domain in my process. Decision making is a multifactorial equation. And I also have a personality that likes to wing things.

While a tragedy, what should we expect among millions of people? The angry person supposedly provides evidence that such people have a negative impact on society, yet just points at one case pertaining to one individual here. — jorndoe

Yes, it's done all the time. It's a hasty generalization fallacy, where an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. E.g., 'I met a couple of beggars who were frauds - therefore all beggars are fraudulent and we need to arrest them all.'

Would you agree that these glib answers and simplified polarization out of fear can arise out of the lack of philosophical approaches? Aren't they the emerging traits of ignoring such a mental tool? And wouldn't such tools be a way out of these? — Christoffer

Maybe, but I think it's unclear. I wouldn't say these answers are glib, so much as deep and instinctive. I have no idea what, if any solutions might work, but I have a strong intuition that you are unlikely to get very far trying to use reason to talk people out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason.

In my personal experience, this is how I approach daily life. I do not jump onto ideas and opinions lightly, I don't decide on anything before I have a somewhat objective reasoning surrounding it. — Christoffer

You advocate your particular approach of reasoning because this is a fundamental value through which you already view life. Good for you and good luck trying to get others to agree. But are you essentially saying here: 'If everyone thought they way I do, the world would be better?' Don't most people think that, even the prodigiously irrational ones?

Trying to reeducate society along appropriate philosophical principles sounds totalitarian (I know that's not how you intended it) and is not going to happen, it's entering a speculative realm where I have little to contribute. :wink:

I can't say I have ever met or known too many people in Australia who are not interested in these subjects, but they might articulate this interest differently. Do they read books on the matter or attend classes on the subject? No. Do they attend meetings or volunteer for political causes. No. Are they concerned about where their country is heading and who is in charge? Yes.

The average person does not have an interest in governance, politics, and nationwide ideals. — L'éléphant

I'm not saying you are wrong, but how do you know this is true? Does this hinge upon what 'have an interest' means?

As I said, we haven't had the equivalent of a Trump factor. Yet.

Question - I get the impression that things in Australia are much less contentious than they are here in the US. Is that not true? — T Clark

I think so. My take: We're a fairly small population and have a different history - negligible military power, virtually no guns, far less religion and a social welfare safety net, including free or low cost medical care. But we have become more 'American' in recent times, partly owing to the changing nature of right wing populism and also the influence of News Limited and social media.

And we also have a culture war around race and politics (a low calorie version compared to yours). Ours hasn't been fueled by a Trump equivalent.

No, I don't, but I think changing our attitudes toward each other would be easier than somehow creating a nation of so-called critical thinkers. — T Clark

I think you're correct in your intuition that humans having a shared purpose is more important than critical thinking combined with internecine goals. One of the big issues we face these days seems to be the atomized nature of culture and the lack of solidarity. How do we get important projects initiated and completed without broad cooperation?

In so far as the hard-problem is considered to be a metaphysical problem that is an artifact of representationalism, idealism can be considered to be a metaphysical strategy for dissolving the hard-problem, even if such a strategy is regarded to be epistemically impractical for the inter-subjective purposes of science , as the positivists discovered. — sime

I'm assuming ontological monism is foundational to most conceptions of idealism? Any thoughts on how apparent separate instantiations of consciousness arise out of 'the one'?

I think that these are the result of either not listening to philosophers, misinterpreting them, or outright ignoring them in combination with enforcing the very problems that philosophy is a tool against. I.e these things emerges out of the chaos of non-philosophical approaches to questions that arrises in history. — Christoffer

The forest of confusion is what leads to genocide, meaning, failure at philosophy leads to genocide. We can invent anything, but only philosophy as a tool can keep our biases and destructive emotions at bay and make us more morally capable of understanding the practical use of technology without it leading to genocide. — Christoffer

Interesting comments. I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but my take is that fear and our tendency towards dualistic thinking may lie behind most problems like this. People are frightened and are easily galvanized by scapegoating, quick fixes, sloganeering and appeals to tribal identity (white nationalism, etc). The notion that you are either for us or against us becomes a kind of touch stone for social discourse.

I should think that in times of uncertainty, where fear is brewing and readily activated as a motivating energy (largely thanks to Murdoch in the West) we see people embracing glib answers which promise deliverance and perverse forms of solidarity.

I'm not sure that philosophy as such plays a key role here, but certainly ideas do.

Father, Alpha male that he is, has time to play with the dog but mother doesn't have time to sit and pet puff. Dick, helmet on and balls in hand, is playing too. Little Sally is being trained to be a household drudge just like her mother.

Where is Jane? Mothers for Liberty might well ask where Jane is--certainly not being supervised by here mother and father. She's probably out on the street being tricked into prostitution. She'll be seeing a lot of dick. — BC

Don't know how I missed this. Nicely done. :wink:

Nice.

As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking." — T Clark

That's an interesting comment and seems right.

We do live in a time where many seem to share the same mantra - society and individual standards are collapsing and a golden era has passed. I've been hearing this for decades. My grandmother told me people were saying the same thing during the roaring '20's, before Hitler and the later catastrophies of the 20th century. No doubt friends of Socrates felt the same way.

What if I described the function of human morality as solving a cooperation/exploitation dilemma that is innate to our universe? Would this help clarify that exploitation is opposite the function of human morality and therefore objectively immoral if we choose the function of human morality as a moral reference? — Mark S

As a layperson, I wonder if there is a clearer way to set this out? I'm beginning to see more plainly what your point is - that good morality may come through getting the fidelity of the model (cooperation strategies) right. Everything flows from this premise.

“In our universe, cooperation can produce many more benefits than individual effort. But cooperation exposes one to exploitation. Unfortunately, exploitation is almost always a winning short-term strategy, and sometimes is in the long term. This is bad news because exploitation discourages future cooperation, destroys those potential benefits, and eventually, everybody loses.
All life forms in the universe, from the beginning to the end of time, face this universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma. This includes our ancestors.”

Which is the more revealing description of the function of human morality?

• “Human morality solves cooperation problems” (what I have been typically using) or
• “Human morality solves the cooperation/exploitation dilemma” — Mark S

I'm not sure this is written as clearly as it needs to be for someone like myself.

If I read this you seem to be saying cooperation can be taken in bad directions and is therefore fraught and may not be helpful?

In relation to your two choices - my problem with these sentences is that they fail to sufficiently explain themselves. Perhaps you need to provide something more.

I'm not keen on the word 'solves' or 'dilemma' in the second choice.

Are you saying: The function of human morality is to facilitate cooperation in the mutual interests of all?

Choosing as a moral reference the function of human morality - moral 'means' as cooperation strategies that solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma - gives us two constraints on moral behavior:

Acting morally requires acting consistently with cooperation strategies
The goals of morality cannot be achieved by exploitation — Mark S

Ok - I see this. Focusing on the strategies rather than the ends (which have long been unclear). So essentially, in getting the 'how' right, you believe you can ensure a consistent and progressive morality.

For example - Arthur Schopenhauer is regarded as a textbook atheist. — Wayfarer

I think of him more as a classic crank (in the Orwell use of the word).

I mean, I'm not even going to argue the point, beyond saying that I would have thought it better to be part of a plan than part of an accident ;-) . — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but you see I prefer the notion of accident. And I think this is a question of taste. I happen to like the random, the unplanned, the enigmatic.

But you seem to have red flags about whatever can be called religious. — Wayfarer

Fair point. I'm not a big fan of any meta-narratives in general. I think I dislike social media and pop music more than religion if that means anything. :wink:

Anyway let's move on. Thanks for your continued nuanced contributions.

Are secular humanists unable to be hateful bastards? No, they are able. — BC

Sure - my little joke was, can we name the secular humanist equivalent to the Westboro Baptists? Former Baptist, now public atheist, Matt Dillahunty often says that the Westboro mob are far more faithful to the Bible than progressive Christians. Maybe. Of course secular humanists are capable of hate. All people are.

The point I'm labouring in all this, is the philosophical one - that (true or false) religious philosophies provide a framework within which to situate humankind in the Cosmos, and not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

And I guess I keep saying is that it isn't a forgone conclusion that the former is better than the latter. It seems more about aesthetics or personal taste. There's not a good deed going that hasn't also been done by a secular humanist or atheist, nor a vile crime available that hasn't been committed by a devoted religious person.

not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

How would you demonstrate that, apart from, perhaps, being less attractive than religious language (intention, connection and oneness, etc), the latter is in some way inferior - which is essentially what you are pointing to.

We can point to almost any period in history, when religion was dominant - when people believed we were situated as part of a divine plan - and the culture wasn't any kinder or more connected or tolerant. It seems to me that a lot of progressive reform about the status of women, children, gay people was taken up by non religious deists or freethinkers. Hence the old bar-fighting Bishop Spong back in the day:

The Bible has lost every major battle it has ever fought. The Bible was quoted to defend slavery and the Bible lost. The Bible was quoted to keep women silent, and the Bible lost. And the Bible is being quoted to deny homosexuals their equal rights, and the Bible will lose.

- Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong

Not exactly representative of anything other than psychopathy. — BC

I did say extreme example, but there are many other churches who hold similar hateful views about women, gay people and culture. The interesting thing for me is there doesn't seem to be an equivalent Hillsboro Secular Humanists. :razz:

:up:

you have accepted the almost ubiquitous presumption that philosophical enquiry consists in self-reflection. I think that presumption mistaken. — Banno

I only thought self-reflection was a frequent starting point (not philosophical of itself) but one that may lead you to explore what is true and to examine the presuppositions held personally and by culture. But as a non-philosopher, I can't say I know what philosophy is. One reason why I'm here.

It's the philosophers' inept response to "everyone likes a good book" - when you read that, do you immediately look for counter instances? — Banno

I'm worse than that. If I see people queuing for something, I'm immediately suspicious of it.

So for you, what makes philosophy worthwhile? I think I read you say somewhere that ethics should replace religion. Is that right? Is so, what did you have in mind?

Twisted and degraded forms of religious belief are not necessarily illustrative of what was originally meaningful about them. — Wayfarer

That's true of course. But when did that original meaning become lost; was there ever a golden era of Christianity, say? Luther obviously though it happened hundreds of years ago.

It's not good for you, and probably ought be discouraged in children. Certainly philosophy is not something for adolescent minds.

If you have a choice. — Banno

That's a tantalizing thing to write. Do you feel like exploring this any further so I get the nuances?

I often wonder is there a point where useful self-reflection becomes philosophy? Is it there a demarcation point where we become aware or our presuppositions and vulnerable to philosophical enquiries, demolitions and glib answers. I always found philosophy too difficult and tendentious to get much involved.

As is well known, Nietszche - I'm not an admirer - forecast that nihilism would be the default condition of Western culture, which had supposedly killed its God. Heidegger likewise believed that the root cause of nihilism was the technological way of thinking that has come to dominate modern society, reducing everything quantifiable facts, and leaving no room for the kinds of intangible values and meanings that are essential to human existence, which he sought to re-articulate in a non-religious framework (albeit many suggest that his concerns and preoccupations remained religious in some sense.) — Wayfarer

I understand this but I would suggest the case hasn't been fully made and is an opinion or judgement. And people repeat it endlessly so that it's almost, ironically, an article of faith. Modern culture is bereft: discuss.

Martin Luther thought Christianity was a racket of transactional materialism back in the 16th Century when religion was unassailable.

What do you mean by 'the purported nihilism of religion'? — Wayfarer

Well, for me Islamic State or Westboro Church might be seen as examples of more extreme instantiations. But any religion that seeks to restrict the full expression of what it means to be human and denigrate rights, might be seen to have strong nihilistic inclinations - the root of nihilism here being humans are nothing but dirt before god and divine command morality. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, many forms of Protestantism do this. And the actual functioning of significant aspects of Catholicism, which seem to abandon all moral values in order to protect pedophile priests seems an apropos example. Needless to say, I am not arguing that all religion is bad just that it doesn't necessarily affirm human life.

Some good general advice would be not to do philosophy if you can avoid it. — Banno

Ha! A jest or a truth?

It's not fortuitous, but intentional, as a matter of definition. — Wayfarer

It's still our fortune that god did it and we may benefit.

But much of this argument hinges on very specific, expressions or versions of religion.

How could we determine the difference between the purported nihilism of secularism and the potential nihilism of religion? If religion had the same cultural prominence today as it did 300 years ago, would our culture be much less nihilistic? How would we be better off?

I don't think so. Imagine if someone is suicidal for mental health reasons. I would want to give them a reason to live. They may have formed the belief that life is pointless and meaningless. False beliefs can motivate people do harmful things and reach bad conclusions. — Andrew4Handel

I don't see how this is related to whether a lack of belief isfunctionally the same as disbelief, as I think I have illustrated.

I assume you don't believe in in the deity Ahura Mazda - like any gods, he can't be disprove, but I am assuming you live as though he doesn't exist. That's my point.

As various philosophers (including Adorno) have observed, this is associated with the upsurge of nihilism, and the view of mankind as the fortuitous product of chance and physical necessity. — Wayfarer

Isn't the view of mankind as the fortuitous product of theism and divine necessity just as lopsided and potentially dire?

Don't you think it's a rather easy charge to make? How could we determine the difference between the purported nihilism of secularism and the potential nihilism of religion? If religion had the same cultural prominence today as it did 300 years ago, would our culture be much less nihilistic? How would we be better off?

But an issue here is the contest between religious lore, containing many symbolic and allegorical depictions of the human condition, on the one hand, with an attitude from which the human subject is altogether removed, or treated exclusively as phenomenon, on par with any other object of analysis (the 'view from nowhere'). — Wayfarer

I think it remains to be demonstrated how this matters other than speculative ruminations about what we may have lost (unclear though that seems).

We are talking about legal lies here and giving men access to women's identities is a legal and existential lie being forced on us

Women should not have to accomodate men in their spaces and awards because these men have chosen to feminise themselves. — Andrew4Handel

It's probably important to try to bracket off personal experiences and trauma from an understanding of a broader social issue. While lived experience can sometimes be a helpful frame, it can also colour and distort a person's views.

In my work life, I have only ever used unisex bathrooms. In over 30 years it has never been an issue.

For my money it is important in life not to be too concrete about human behaviour. I see trans women (and some men) at work. Have done for many years. They quite properly use women's services and bathrooms without incident or problems. Functionally it works. Humans have the capacity to be inclusive and accommodating.

Sure, anyone can dig out some horror stories - as you can about any human behavior. But a deliberate focus only on examples where things might have gone wrong does a disservice to any social issue.

But you can compare it to Pascal's wager and whether there is anything to lose by believing or not believing in God. — Andrew4Handel

Two clear problems with Pascal's wager - 1) Which god/s do you pretend to believe in? If you settle on the Anglican Christ, boy is Allah going to be pissed. 2) You can't fake a belief - you are either convinced or you are not convinced. And pretending to believe is not going to fool any deities. Even if you manage to pick the correct deity or version of that deity to believe in. :worry:

One issue about the truth is what to do after you have discovered it. How would you react if there was proven to be an afterlife? And how should we react if we could prove there was no afterlife and why? — Andrew4Handel

Hard to say. But even if someone can prove that consciousness survives death, what of it? It says nothing of itself about whether Hinduism (say) is true or not. We would actually need to know there is an afterlife AND why and how this is the case to derive any coherent meaning from it.

I think that if we don't know something we should live as if we don't know it. — Andrew4Handel

Isn't living like you don't know functionally no different than living like you don't believe? In the case of gods and goddesses - if I don't know, then I have no reason to believe - no reason to hold sacrifices or prayers or follow religious rules. And therefore I behave as if they are not a thing.

Do you hold a view that all problems are solvable if the intellect or computation capacity is sufficiently high enough?

I think that no after life has problematic implications for life and meaning and that moral nihilism is a negative conclusion but could be true.

It could be decided our behavior is highly unethical such as failure to help the poor and disadvantaged and global inequality. I think creating new children is ethically problematic. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you're not going to be alone with these sorts of ideas. Many people I know have been aflame with such notions since they were teenagers, decades ago.

I can't imagine how an afterlife would make sense, but that's more about me than a philosophical argument. Personally, I think not having a belief in an afterlife makes many of us more concerned about the only life we do have, which matters more than if it were just some brief stepping stone on the way to Allah and paradise. I think this likely to intensify the motivation to do something substantive about social justice and climate change - at least that's how it has played out for most of the secular humanists I have known.

I was watching Rick Roderick the other day and he pointed out that the best books, whether in philosophy or not, are those that produce the most, and the most diverse, interpretations. I agree with him. The idea that philosophers, by means of clarity and brevity, can pin down the meaning of their works, has not stood up to scrutiny.

That’s not to say all interpretations are equally good though. — Jamal

Fair point. It was more personal taste - and what I should have said is that I am not sufficiently immersed in philosophy to obtain useful readings from complex works.

Generalizing, we can say that philosophy is critical: critical of prevailing beliefs, certainly fanatical or fundamentalist beliefs, but perhaps more importantly, beliefs that seem obvious. — Jamal

A lot of people would probably agree. In this vein, I guess we've been in a period where the enlightenment project and the presuppositions of science are themselves under scrutiny, and debunking physicalism seems to be a key attraction. More and more people are reaching for the word scientism.

There are two big negatives on the periphery of much philosophical discussion - inadequate philosophy used by atheist polemicists and bad speculative quantum physics used by advocates of the 'supernatural '- a word some people think of as a lazy pejorative. Both approaches turn a lot of people off the more serious arguments presented by both orientations.

For me as a layperson, there's philosophy I can use or learn from and philosophy for academics who relish jargon saturated, recondite deliberations about thinkers so intricate or verbose, no one can seemingly agree about the correct reading of their work.

Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof

As you ramble on through life, Brother,
Whatever be your goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
And not upon the hole.
- Unknown

That's perfectly reasonable and I can roll with that. I am interested in metaphysics and ontology. But owing to time limitations, I tend to look for the broad brushstrokes and count on people like yourself to do the hard thinking. :pray: It would possibly be helpful to flesh this idea out a little more by way of looking at some of the potential implications of monism.