Yep, I got the gist from 'checkboxes'.

:up: fair points well made.

I think the conversation should be about something deeper than surface appearances like diversity and visible inclusion. We need to include people in our hearts, not just on paper with ethnic frouonandnsecualnorietstiin checkboxes. — Fire Ologist

Yes, that's reasonable.

The meaning of the expression 'everything is in consciousness' is elusive. It is often taken to mean that its adherents say the world is all in the mind of the perceiver - everything is in my consciousness. But that leads to problems of solipsism. — Wayfarer

Yes, unless you have Kastrup's Mind-at-Large or Berkeley's God grouding all things. Although Mind-at-Large might be seen as almost solipsistic by some, in as much as you and I, and all members here are dissociated alters of M.a.L. We are all one.

This process of world-creation is actually going on, all the time - it is what consciousness is doing every second. Becoming directly aware of that world-making process is key. As I've mentioned, I learned about Kant from a scholarly book comparing Buddhist and Kantian philosophy (ref). — Wayfarer

I find this view plausible. And phenomenology seems to take similar positions.

So if someone says 'there is nothing except consciousness" what is your view of this?

The general, rather than the exact, difference reduces to an investigation of the faculty, thus the role of, and limitations imposed on, pure reason, as that which provides the principles for proper thinking, re: in accordance with logical laws, hence the name “transcendental” as a modified doctrinal idealism. — Mww

Difficult to understand exactly but I can see some light. The mind structures experience.

I’m still not entirely clear on the exact difference between Kant’s transcendental idealism and classical idealism. Kant isn’t really saying that everything is consciousness, is he? He’s saying that there is something out there (we can't apprehend), and we shape our experience of it through our cognitive apparatus and this we experience as phenomena/reality. Which sounds similar to some of the perspectives you have offered. Thoughts?

It’s such a powerful tool when the right phrase or description is found to illustrate something complex like this.

Now you mention it, I don’t recall Kastrup saying much about Kant, but I think Kant, Schopenhauer, and Kastrup could comfortably fit under one umbrella, so to speak. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I think Kastrup’s notion that materialism is how consciousness appears when viewed across the dissociative divide, if that's the precise wording, (or does he call it the external appearance of inner experiences?) seems compatible with phenomena.

Nicely put. I wonder what Kant would have made of Bernardo Kastrup’s formulation of idealism.

:up: No worries. You have no idea what oceans I have already crossed.

Sorry, I appreciate your efforts and good luck to you, but if I’m going to attempt something complex, it’ll be Heidegger. I have absolutely no idea what most of your sentences mean.

How could you say that?

You know what humility is.

You said above that you “support diversity”. — Fire Ologist

Diversity and tolerance and acceptance of those who are different are made possible by humility.

Humility is being grateful. And thankful. It is thanking someone else for what they do for you. It is acknowledging others, before yourself, above yourself at times. It is not taking credit for the good you might do, and even giving credit to others for the good you do.

We all do these things. That is humility. — Fire Ologist

Sorry, I don’t relate to this frame. I’m not saying it isn’t right in its own way but it just doesn’t come up in my framing of this matter. I tend to go more with a rights approach (I don't ground rights in humility or any brand of ultimate truth, just pragmatically), but I am not a theorist.

(Added later) I guess we would hope for a form of humility: or at least a lack of dogmatism and arrogance, in all interlocutors when we are in discussion about an apparent clash of values.

Here is where we have to be careful. We just said we value conversation with people who think differently. So isn’t binary thinking just another different way of thinking that we should humbly respect (at least once in a while)? Is binary thinking nothing but a stumbling block? What is really wrong with a little binary simplification, once in a while? We should tolerate that too, at times. — Fire Ologist

Dividing people into “us” and “them” is so often the nub of the problem: binary. In fact, this is how you appeared to frame the discourse when you wrote this:

I think progressives need to understand that being conservative doesn’t mean having no heart or empathy or feelings.
And conservatives need to understand that being liberal doesn’t mean having no common sense. — Fire Ologist

But I didn’t say that some binary thinking isn’t useful. We didn’t get into parsing the notion of binary or dualistic thinking more broadly; I was just pointing to the tribalism and dualistic frames that seems to be at the heart of our culture wars.

Can you square tolerance, acceptance, support for diversity, with people who don’t share our values? — Fire Ologist

I have no problem with this. All we can do is have a conversation advocating for our values and present some reasons. I tend to value solidarity over division. But I'm not interested in getting into a conversation about my 'worldview', there have been enough monomaniacs flogging brittle worldviews on this site already.

I focus on solidarity, because for me all we really have are conversations with others, not the exchange of ultimate truths. Talking about values this way helps me understand others and build empathy. The aim is finding ways to live together respectfully, not proving anyone right.

Are you both equating the values we happen to choose with our feelings, or saying we make our choices out of gut feelings, and random “cultural influences” and “innate traits” that we don’t choose? — Fire Ologist

I have no advanced theory about this. What I experience is people settling on what appeals to them aesthetically and culturally (often through upbringing ) so it’s contingent. Reasoning often seems post hoc.

An obvious response is: ‘If all is contingent, then there’s no right or wrong, and how can one view (mine for instance) be superior to another?’ But contingency only describes how values arise, not whether we can evaluate them. We can still judge perspectives based on consequences, coherence, or social effects ‘no absolute truth’ doesn’t mean ‘no basis for judgment.’ This process will always be a bit loose and jagged.

If people’s opinions are a bundle of randomly developed value choices not even really in their control (influenced and innate) then a real, open conversation Tom mentioned above is hardly ever going to happen. Only by shaping society first can we even open people up to those conversations. And to want to reshape society we can’t be tolerant, we can’t respect diversity, we can’t humbly include those who think things that should not be valued. We have to reshape the diverse to conform. — Fire Ologist

Even if our values are influenced by factors beyond our control, conversation is still the main way we learn from each other and reconsider what we care about. I’ve had many useful conversations with fundamentalist Christians in the atheism space—no arguments, no antipathy.

If you’re asking how we change the opinions of people who hold firm beliefs opposite our own, I think it happens slowly, through time and exposure and boredom. And conversation. I suspect, for instance, in 50-100 years transpeople will be commonplace and mostly accepted. Which is how we come to no longer jail gay people or force treatment upon them (except, perhaps, in a small subset of fundamentalist communities).

Help me make the connection between what I said about philosophy and your response.

My arguments are based on the (conditional) truth of the existence of physical things - the valid Pole of Existence (on my Geodesic of Knowledge). — Pieter R van Wyk

Perhaps you could sketch out in a few dot points how this relates to the point that philosophy should have solved all the world's problems. If it's too hard to adapt your complicated ideas to this request, we can move on.

I think progressives need to understand that being conservative doesn’t mean having no heart or empathy or feelings.
And conservatives need to understand that being liberal doesn’t mean having no common sense. — Fire Ologist

Yes, that's a point I often make too.

I hold progressive and conservative positions, depending on the issue. Conservatives have almost never concerned me - reactionaries and hard right people I'm less optimistic about.

What is humility? — Fire Ologist

Not sure.

If humility and respect really were our personal goals, there wouldn’t be so much outrage involved. People don’t seem to really want to be tolerant or appreciate true diversity, or think of themselves as all equal - people would rather hate the deplorables, hate maga, hate liberal elites, hate wokeist whiners. — Fire Ologist

I tend to come from a starting point that people do the best with what they have or with what that can understand and all we can do is have a conversation with those who think differently and maybe something positive can come from that. The stumbling block to me seems to be tribalism and binary thinking. And when it comes to public discourse, the inflammatory approach of media tends to promote extreme, black and white.

Being offended is its own genus and arena of thought, to my mind. I recently wrote a short essay on this topic with focus on slurs if you have any interest. It is incomplete as I was too ambitious - but i still got a 92 lol — AmadeusD

I'd be interested if it isn't too theoretical.

I'm curious about this idea, but I feel uneasy about it. While it seems true that how we react is our responsibility, it also seems clear that if someone is persistently described by others as less than human, inferior, dumb, or inadequate and is verbally abused, they will inevitably be affected. This is simply how people are. We respond to and internalize our interactions, conversations, and even name-calling, just as we respond positively to constructive feedback.

There may well be a case for teaching people to change their reactions, to emotionally detach from other's judgments and ill will, but that, to me, seems to require an enormous change management process. We appear to be dealing with an embedded intersubjective history of human interaction that may not simply be set aside with some rationalism.

I do. I didn't see a "poor me" in the OP. I saw this:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
— Nietzsche — frank

What do you take to be the meaning of that often proffered quote?

I agree, there are a number of factors that are involved, but everyone believes that their version of god is on their side. — Paula Tozer

Everyone believes their version of 'truth' is on their side.

The problem isn't so much religion as it is tribalism and dogma.

I don't think "philosophy" has been to blame for mass murders, etc so much as dogmas have — 180 Proof

I agree. A critical point abotu human behaviours and tribalisms.

These represent only a fraction of the religious conflicts throughout history. The total number of people killed in the name of a god is likely in the hundreds of millions, if not more. — Paula Tozer

Lists are easy here, thanks to ChatGPT, are some of the non-religious wars and no doubt people will debate the finer points:

20th & 21st Century
Wars & Armed Conflicts

World War I (1914–1918) — Rooted in nationalism, imperial rivalries, alliances, and militarism.

World War II (1939–1945) — Driven by fascism, militarism, expansionism, and racial ideologies (e.g., Nazi doctrine) rather than religion.

Korean War (1950–1953) — Cold War proxy conflict over competing political systems (communism vs. capitalism).

Vietnam War (1955–1975) — Anti-colonial struggle evolving into a Cold War ideological battle.

Falklands War (1982) — Argentina vs. UK over territorial claims.

Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) — Although both sides were Muslim, the main cause was territorial and political rivalry, not theological difference.

Russia–Ukraine Conflict (2014–present) — Geopolitical, territorial, and national identity disputes.

Ethiopia–Eritrea Border War (1998–2000) — Primarily about border demarcation.

State-led Atrocities & Mass Killings

Holodomor (1932–1933) — Soviet-engineered famine in Ukraine under Stalin; political/economic repression.

Great Purge (1936–1938) — Stalin’s political purges in the USSR.

The Holocaust — Although Jews were targeted partly on religious identity, Nazi ideology was racial/ethno-nationalist, not religious.

Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) — Economic policies leading to famine and tens of millions of deaths.

Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) — Political and ideological purging under Mao.

Khmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia (1975–1979) — Pol Pot’s agrarian communist vision, ~1.7 million killed.

North Korean purges and gulags — Political control and suppression of dissent.

Rwandan Genocide (1994) — Ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi.

Bosnian War Massacres (1992–1995) — Mainly ethnic nationalism, though with some cultural identity overlap.

Earlier History

Mongol Conquests (13th–14th centuries) — Expansionist empire building, not religious conversion campaigns.

Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) — This one had a pseudo-Christian ideology, so not fully non-religious — but many other Chinese civil wars (e.g., An Lushan Rebellion, 8th century) were political/territorial.

Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) — French expansionism, nationalism, and power politics.

American Civil War (1861–1865) — Primarily about slavery and state rights, not theology.

Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) — Territorial and political rivalry.

Key Points

Many of the deadliest conflicts in history — World War II, Mao’s campaigns, Stalin’s purges, the Khmer Rouge — were entirely non-religious in origin.

Even when ethnic groups with religious identities are involved, the core cause can be political, nationalist, or economic.

Political ideologies like fascism, communism, and nationalism have caused as many or more deaths than explicitly religious wars.

Philosophy is all about recognizing the forces that shaped you and trying to peep beyond them.
— frank

But is it really? If one is aware, truly, of what shapes not only one's self but the entire world, is it not something perhaps a bit more internal? :chin: — Outlander

It would seem to me that a key role of philosophy is to transcend one’s limitations - cultural and self-created. To ask better questions and move beyond the quotidian. I suspect there are many ways this could be done.

More people have been killed in the name of a diety than any other way. — Paula Tozer

Can you demonstrate that? I doubt it’s accurate.

I’m an atheist, but I don’t blame religion for everything that’s wrong or bad. Just look at Pol Pot, an atheist whose regime murdered millions of men, women, and children for a political agenda. Mao, another atheist, killed 30–40 million for his political vision. Stalin? Same story. One might even argue that philosophy (if we include political ideologies) may have been been responsible for more deaths than any other pathway.

Sounds like you've had a tough time of things, but perhaps it's important not to assume that one’s own experience is the whole reality of the world.

the Dialogues show Plato testing every proposition from multiple angles, leaving many questions unresolved. They’re not a compendium of answers so much as of questions. In that sense, philosophy has always been “critical” — not just of others’ views, but reflexively aware of its own assumptions. — Wayfarer

This is a critical point so often overlooked,

:up: The cartoon is nice.

Clever dick... Out of interest, who do you prefer, Sartre or Camus. I was never able to get through Being and Nothingness.

Put seeds for celery, cauliflower, cabbage and silverbeet in the heated tray. Hope to start lines for carrot, beetroot and parsnip in a bit. — Banno

The essence of good gardening.

But don’t we need to scrutinize and dissect feelings from logic from biases, from theories and propositions - everything isn’t about feelings. Although I think there is a case to made that wokeness is all about feelings - it is for the sake of feelings and driven by emotions. — Fire Ologist

I'm not certain on this. But as a supporter of diversity and inclusion in general terms, I’d say it’s as much a question of values as anything else, values that are informed by our affective and aesthetic dispositions. The hard part is knowing where to draw the line regarding when feelings are important in a discourse and when they’re not. I suspect you and I might draw that line in different places, which probably makes further discussion superfluous. I’m personally opposed to the coarsening of public discourse, name-calling, personal attacks, dismissive labeling, because I believe such behaviour damages people and undermines constructive dialogue.

Youngsters can be led by conservative values. I suppose you mean that youths may have a slight tendency to lean liberal. That appears to be statistically true according to recent surveys. — praxis

Indeed. And by extension we would imagine that the values held by 'woke' activism would be strongest amongst this cohort.

I'm curious what you mean by the younger being more values led. — praxis

My experince working with younger people is that they tend to be more values led - hence more radical and often more politically engaged. Isn't this merely a commonplace observation? What's the famous quote which satirizes this process - "If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

I’d take this to mean more led by feelings, much in line with Number2018 thesis of the OP. — Fire Ologist

If that is intended to trivialise people’s position, then not exactly.

But at a broader level, everything is about feelings, isn’t it? I tend to hold that our choices are guided by our affective dispositions.

My point is that some people hold certain values to be important. When they see ads that trade in implicit racism or sexism, they are disappointed by the choices made. That was certainly my reaction to this campaign. I also recognize that certain people, owing to age or education come away with different understandings.

the campaign may appeal to a teens rebellious nature—defiantly anti-woke or whatever. — praxis

I would have thought the younger, the more values led, with a tendency to be turned off by these sorts of campaigns. Interesting what you say about younger people.

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility: — Pieter R van Wyk

It's obvious you find this peculiar or hard to fathom. The real question is, why?

But you’ve chosen the word 'disinterest', and that’s not the correct word. Disinterest makes an assumption we’re avoiding something that you’ve already decided is obvious and valuable. We (or at least I) don't share this presupposition. I would simply doubt that philosophy holds the power of wrapping up all problems neatly into a single, unified solution that solves all problems. That sounds more like the promise of Marxism or some kind of immature notion of philosophy as a kind of magic spell you cast so the jagged, messy parts of human life (your poverty, hunger, revolution and war) vanish.

Why would you think philosophy has this purpose? Is it because you believe philosophy (as some see religion) uncovers capital-T Truth, and that this will set us free? I don't see how philosophy is a guide to perfect living or a pathway to ultimate truth. Help me see what you see. I think the difference between us is that perhaps you see philosophy as a kind of blueprint for healing the world, while I see more as an attempt to ask better questions.

It’s more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. — praxis

I saw the ad and found it distasteful in a retro way, but many ads annoy me. I was wondering if it was trying to be playfully defiant towards identity politics. Maybe it was trying to generate controversy and talking points which some advertising wanker felt would translate into sales. I was surprised the ad ran, as I would have thought making a childish pun about a white, shall we say, 'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad?

What point would there be in explaining it to someone who thinks it's meaningless? — Wayfarer

That's an odd quesion. As I've said many times, I am interested in what others believe and why. No need for antipathy. As you have seen, I am generous towards your contributions and think highly of your approach. So my quesion is genuine. I find idealism fascinating, just as I find Sufi mysticism or Kabbalah fascinating. Doesn't mean I'm a follower.

Of course it is a truism that the advent of modernity shattered this sense - this is what Max Weber described as the disenchantment of the world. So we need to understand the tectonic shifts, so to speak, that underlie all of these massive changes. It is no easy task, especially as we ourselves are both its proponents and its casualties. — Wayfarer

Yes, it’s interesting. Historically, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from the idea that life is meaningless, that there’s no intrinsic purpose and that the world is disenchanted and pointless. It's generally cheered me up and helped me make sense of things. In the end, games of reasoning aside, we tend to select and hold views that appeal to our aesthetic sense, our cultivation of meaning, and our cultural experiences. But either view; that the world is magical or meaningless, can be used in terrible ways. I don’t subscribe to the various nostalgic projects, the kind of “woke MAGA” (or should that be Make Awareness Great Again?) projects of people like Vervaeke or McGilchrist, who seek to recapture lost traditions (or however they choose to market these notions).

These days, I’m more temperate. I don’t really mind either way about interpretations of the world as inherently anything in particular. I'm more interested in what others think and why to try to understand what's informing the choices around me.

As an idealist, what impact does this have on your day to day living?

Thank you for your nuanced response. I tend to hold what some might describe as progressive views on many issues but recognize that there can be extreme positions on all sides. I have a little contact with universities and politics (I sometimes advise political parties) and don't generally see much in the way of 'woke' activities around me. I am generally pro trans rights and feel this can be explored without rancour in person directly with people, but rarely on line. I'm not a theorist, nor do I mine the internet for egregious examples of zealots at work (and I am not saying you do this). I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda.

Trump is an expression of the anti-woke’s frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. — Fire Ologist

So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world ‘taken over’ by Leftist fanatics?

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. — Fire Ologist

To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.

Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences.

That's a very interesting and incisive post.

I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc. — Hanover

Nicely put.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way. — praxis

I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this?

More of a Kantian?

Are you an idealist?

But disagreements are disagreements, and there’s no getting around that. — Wayfarer

I have no issue with disagreements. I disagree with myself.

...views I think are wrong are incorrect - rather than some more inflammatory term, which I was often tempted to use in the past. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's the preferred approach. I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. But we don’t have to engage with everyone.

I don’t have a deep view on this, but I generally avoid engaging with people I assess as hostile or aggressively obtuse. I suspect many who come across as belligerent aren’t necessarily self-aware, they likely see themselves as committed to truth or other ideals that, to them, justify what others experience as harshness or dogmatism. I avoid using abuse and inflammatory language but I've noticed that even measured engagement can be misinterpreted or misdiagnosed as sophistry or insincerity.

Ok.

If someone wrongs you, do not add to the offense by inflicting anger upon yourself. — Dogbert

I'm having trouble interpreting this one because I honestly can't remember the last time someone 'wronged me.' People have made mistakes that made things harder for me in some ways, but I haven’t been a specific target. The second part, about inflicting anger on yourself: what do you mean by that? How does one inflict anger on themselves? Do you mean that by being angry at others, you're actually harming yourself in the process?

If you experience loss, do not seek grief, but acceptance. inflicting misery does you no favors. — Dogbert

Do you mean inflicting misery, here? Do you mean by this that experiencing grief amounts to inflicting it? Or do you mean that you may become resentful and try to share the misery?

Some of what you're advocating has Christian and Buddhist overtones, but ultimately the simplified maxim of Stoicism, so beloved by our self-development gurus these days and foundational to CBT, may address all of this too. 'It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.' - Epictetus

Flowering occurs when we finally learn to stop inflicting misery upon ourselves, — Dogbert

What would be an example of this in action? I suspect some people should probably be harder on themselves than they are.

One should expect to be a typical individual—say, a hydrogen ion—but the extreme opposite is the case. To resolve this discrepancy, and thereby render sapient life ordinary, unprivileged, or otherwise expected, we must invoke the Everett interpretation and posit that each individual perceives the timeline in which they become conscious of the self. Existence then becomes a blossoming tree of self-realization, with one's life but a single branch — Dogbert

What does this mean?