Why Heidegger came to my mind, I'm not sure, as I'm by no means an expert in his philosophy, but I think he too grasps that this kind of insight requires a different way of being in the world. The point being, there are precedents in philosophy for the idea, but it takes some study to begin to grasp what it means. — Wayfarer

Yes, I guess I took this as a given. But as an idealist are you not an ontological monist? How would you tentatively resolve the notion of different beings as expression of a great mind/cosmic consciousness? Or is your idealism of a different ontological status?

Ok. I thought some expressions of monism (idealism) understand humans as being dissociated metacognitive alters from the one source, but still with their own experiences. No reason why we shouldn't do the right thing by ourselves?

This is your area - any thoughts on the above?

:up:

Can you say how?

If you were told that no matter how hard you tried, you will never ever reach perfection, that flaw is proverbially "a neccesary evil", that perfection and imperfection are a mutually dependent dynamic.

How would it make you feel? — Benj96

I don't think I've ever lived in a world where this is a question that concerns me. 'Perfection' is a word. I just do things to the best of my capacity and move on. I can't imagine perfection even being on the table. It might concern me if I was a piano soloist or some kind of craftsperson, but even then...

Ideals exist for a reason. Realism also exists for a reason. How do approach them? — Benj96

I reflect on actions I take sometimes to see if they are consistent with my beliefs and practices, but I don't get too preoccupied by this. I am a pragmatist (in the non-philosophical sense).

Morality has failed and we have lost millions to war and genocide and preventable famine etc. And quite a lot of this seems to have been based around moral certainty and false "truths". — Andrew4Handel

Morality hasn't failed. People are flawed and no moral system can guarantee compassion and generosity. Never has - whether we are serving gods or some political ideology.

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice. — Andrew4Handel

Humans can't help but chose values and modes of being, so I think this is wrong. We quite readily develop an ethical systems on the principle of harm minimization and human flourishing. Just about all moral systems in the end boil down to these simple principles.

Humans build the ethical systems they want to suit cultures and times and situations and this has always been the case. Although perhaps the choices are a bit richer today than 200 years ago. To say genocide is wrong is a shared community value most cultures hold as true. But we know there are tyrants who don't care. That's always been the case. We are no less exposed to potential chaos now than ever before in history.

What's changed?

And this is what was sort of referred to in The Rorty et al discussion I posted. Would you say to Martin Luther King "But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity?"
Would you challenge his life and world changing statements by questioning his world view, authority and the truth value of his statements?

There are occasions where every little bit of activism and fight for your truth and values is vital. — Andrew4Handel

But the point is not what anyone says to Dr King. The point is everyone comes with a perspective. I do not have Dr King's perspective. Additionally, I was referring to your discussion about the nature of truth, not what one does about social justice as they go about their business. Beliefs and theories are cheap. What matters is what people actually do.

Are you saying action is more important than philosophical theory and justification? What problem are you working to solve?

I mentioned the book The One, by Heinrich Pas, earlier in the thread - see this Aeon essay by the author with a synopsis of some of the ideas in that book. (Also worth taking the time to peruse the reader comments and author responses.) — Wayfarer

Very interesting article. The comments and responses were indeed fascinating.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism" outside of genuinely ambiguous things that have proven good grounds to dispute. — Andrew4Handel

Extreme relativism is fairly rare. Sounds like you may be frightened of the postmodernists. I think that ship probably sailed decades ago.

Truth is an abstraction and does not work the same way wherever it is sought or found - there's mathematical truth, historical truth, cultural truth and subjective truth about ourselves, etc. To say the square root of 64 is 8, is a different type of truth from the statement we should not harm children. Truth may be necessary or contingent. And what about perspectival truths - the beliefs people hold as true, often without good reason - presuppositions, axioms, etc?

Somethings may not have truth value like moral claims and I think it is best to acknowledge this and put morality on fact based footing rather than have to create a society on unsustainable fictions unless that is a commitment we want to make. — Andrew4Handel

How does one put morality on a fact based footing? Personally I think that 'unstainable fiction' may be a good definition of society. Everything eventually changes, even that which we consider the immutable social order.

But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity? There are many people from a gamut of diverse religious backgrounds who think moral truths originate from god. They believe this is true. Is it likely that we will ever usher in a world where everyone agrees on what is true?

I'd phrase it as "Cooperation being a 'means' to a goal (wellbeing or flourishing), not the goal itself", but that is essentially the same. — Mark S

That's fine.

To me the most interesting aspect of morality is whether anyone can demonstrate objective goals.

No, that's cool. Thanks for the response, I was just looking for an overview. But it's moving away from the OP. Thanks.

I understand all that and you're right. Personally I doubt that 'reality' can be understood by human beings. But I think we do pretty well with our slice (or perspective) of whatever it is we access. I'm just wary of claims that science is faith based (the presuppositions are another case entirely).

Agree. As I read it, Rorty and Derrida, and presumably other postmodernist/poststructuralists, dismantle the notion of foundationalism on the basis that a statement's truth or a particular discourse is really only ever verifiable in terms of other statements and discourses. So foundationalism isn't really a possibility for them. There is no irrefragable piece of knowledge that founds any thought system - not even the cogito. If this approach involves an act of performative self-refutation, or engenders a regress problem, that only seems to further suggest the inability to obtain a foundational justification. Thoughts?

These metaphysical assumptions are not themselves subject to empirical verification but are instead based on faith in the rationality of the universe and in the ability of human beings to understand it. — Wayfarer

I wonder if this is a bit of a stretch. At least with science, for the most part, we are able to identify regularities and make predictions. There's nothing available like this for religious faith - the claims, the fruits of that faith are not repeatable or experienced publicly. I think it might be a better comparison to say that religion deals in faith and science deals in reasonable expectations. Metaphysical assumptions underpinning the scientific enterprise are a different matter again and a good scientist when pushed on these might say, 'I don't know,' rather that the faithful's answer to everything, 'God did it.'

Is there a difference for you between presuppositions and foundationalism?

Morality as Cooperation Strategies can come to Utilitarianism's rescue by limiting moral means to cooperation strategies that do not exploit others. This eliminates at least most traditional objections to Utilitarianism. — Mark S

Sorry Mark, I still haven't followed how we locate or arrive at corporation strategies that do not exploit others. Surely there are many potential cooperation strategies that can or do exploit others?

I see your point.

It's true that everyone holds presuppositions that enable them to take the next steps in their thinking and beliefs. Not sure this implies foundationalism with a capital F, however. It gets messy when one says (as I often have) that they don't believe in metanarratives (like theism or Platonism or progress). But to have an organized anti-system is to have a system, right?

Which is why I usually say I hold that human thought is paradoxical and that much of what we call reality is human projection based on our limited perspective. From this 'dimly lit' vantage point I generally hold that I (or any of us) don't have enough information or wisdom to make reliable judgements about the nature of reality.

Past candidates for such well-considered moral intuitions include the ideas that the most ethical choice is the one that will:

• produce the greatest good (or happiness) for the greatest number – Utilitarianism or
• minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or minimize suffering and, secondarily, maximize the total happiness. - Negative-Utilitarianism — Mark S

I'm no expert on morality and take no formal position on how to determine what is right other than an unsophisticated: minimize and/or end suffering position.

But couldn't enslaving 20% of the planet produce 1) the greatest happiness for most amount and minimize total suffering along with maximizing happiness? Such an approach could even be well considered.

How does one morally assess a moral system's methodology?

In the realm of philosophy, one of the fundamental questions that has intrigued humanity for centuries revolves around the pursuit of truth. However, upon closer examination of human behavior, it becomes apparent that our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking. — Raef Kandil

It's true that traditional philosophy seems to have galvanized around 'the good' and 'the true'. I'm not so sure people generally search for truth, as much as they assume that the values in which they are encultured are 'true'. Human behavior seems to be a reflection of the presuppositions people hold.

You can argue advantage seeking is one such presupposition, many people settle on power. Others settle on sex. Advantage seeking seems to lack something - advantage in what way? Does it all in come down to social-Darwinist survival advantages?

But even if you are highlighting 'advantage seeking' as the idea around which all human behavior pivots, it still comes down to what is true or not. We still need to determine (and this is not always easy) does X produce an advantage, true or false? And how do we determine the true nature of an advantage? Humans tend to crave certainty and predictability in order to navigate a dangerous world, which strongly suggests we are likely to need to determine what is true.

:up: Yep. I hold to the idea that gender is flexible. The trans people I know are just trying to live their best lives. I have friends, acquaintances and work colleagues who are 'trans' and like you, I see no reason to demonize and pillory.

Many times I see this fallacy start when people defend themselves by saying, "Most people". Now, sometimes this can be called for, and sometimes it cannot. When and how should this be parsed out?

“X is a moral intuition because most people believe X. — schopenhauer1

Yes, it's an interesting question and apologies for the rambling response. I guess it depends on what we think morality is. I am not convinced that there are moral facts and I generally think that the kind of putative 'moral truths' we believe humans hold - that we ought to protect children, say, are based on our 'shared subjectivity' and enculturation, which form intrinsic foundational values held by most people.

This is no small matter. Humans also tend to share a view that we ought to prevent or minimise suffering. Is this a product of evolution - our status as a social species whose strength and survivability seems to come about though nurturing and cooperation? Some of course see this as evidence of transcendence of some kind.

Seems to me that there are intrinsic or essential values most humans subscribe to and which may now be a part of our nature, and may even be hard wired. But is this old school essentialism? This also seems to be a kind of 'most people' argument. It's also the case that how shared values are instantiated around the world is highly variable.

It seems clear that popularity doesn't make a moral choice right. If it did then mass killing all people aged over 40 because the majority of people are in favor of it would make this justifiable moral action. But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What is the difference between a community standard which holds gay people are an abomination, or one which holds children should be protected from harm?

What makes one value seemingly immutable and another transitory or negotiable?

If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' — 180 Proof

Yep, this. :up:

:up:

What I reject is someone claiming they're all invalid since, as a whole, they're mutually incompatible. As I have shown, that's fallacious. — public hermit

But that’s not the argument. The argument, which I stated earlier, is that they all make contradictory claims using the same justifications and so there is no way to demonstrate if any are true, or even how we would begin such a process of discernment. So best we move on until there’s a breakthrough. We’ve been waiting for millennia.

Can you point to any religion that does not have some notion of transcendence as central?[/quote]

No.

If the Buddhist tells me they have experienced Nirvana, I can't reject the veracity of that claim simply because it's presumably incompatible with the dogmatic claims of Roman Catholicism. That makes no sense. — public hermit

If a Christian says that their faith tells them that God hates fags and thinks women should stay at home and black people are inferior - do you accept that claim because it is faith based and they experience the truth of these claims? How do you determine what religious claim you will accept? The same Christian religion will also have people who say faith tells them that god loves and endorses gay people and wants women to work and is a feminist. You might say that the same religion 'cancels itself out.'

Religion escapes legitimate critique precisely because, at its best, it deals in experience. You and I might not get it, but we can't say much about it until we have the experience. — public hermit

I don't think experience is a 'get out of jail free' card. Is there anything that can't be justified through claiming experience?

I think the general point is not that all religions are 'rubbish' but that no religion has demonstrated why it or others deals in Truth about reality. Until this happens, why take any of them seriously? I am not saying none of them are true, I am saying none of them are in a position to demonstrate their truths. And all religions justify their diverse 'authenticities' using similar arguments - personal experience, causation, meaning, truth, morality, etc.

I think the issue is is that religions hold to the idea that they are custodians of The Truth and they tell adherents, 'This is how you attain The Truth'. When these accounts are so different that they contradict each other, it is safe to say that religions are unlikely to be in the truth business and can be circumvented. At the very least, it seems impossible to say which one should be taken seriously.

Some vague notion that religions all focus on the idea of oneness or transcendence is so slippery and inexact it would seem to be foundational quicksand.

Your comparison with governments seems a false equivalence, as governments are nominally cooperative and administrative entities and by definition flexible and subject to constant modifications and never deal in transcendence or Truth. And don't forget that anarchists would seek to abolish governments precisely because they are contradictory and there are no best forms of government.

You argue well and write engagingly, but I am unconvinced. No need to take this much further. Thanks for your response.

Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc. — Christoffer

I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational.

I tend to think this is more apropos -

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blaise Pascal.

As true now as it was generations ago. :wink:

Could you point to what the following definition, from the Oxford definition is lacking?
"Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances."
— Oxford Dictionary — Hallucinogen

It's religious scholars who often argue the subject can't be adequately defined. Take it up with them. I'm not preoccupied with definitions, I'm more interested in usage. No doubt there are many definitions of religion but they lack or distort the idea. I always liked Ambrose Bierce's definition:

“Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.”

Interesting. What you say may be true although I can't say I personally want to be involved in community type rituals, contemplation, traditions or meditation. Sounds awful. But it takes all sorts. :wink:

Your response - and others have proffered similar ideas to yours - notably the prominent atheists, Sam Harris and Alain de Botton - leads me to some questions:

Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this?

Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar?

I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. — Christoffer

I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. I work in the area of mental ill health and drug and alcohol services and even though I meet a lot of people experiencing suicidal ideation, generally they are not nihilists. Ususally they are people dealing with psychological impact of trauma or a significant situational difficulty.

Nihilism seems moderately rare, although it seems to pop up frequently in overwrought internet conversations. On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. This could be found though sport, a book group, at church or at an atheist symposium.

I don't think we get to Truth and at best we create responses that allow us to intervene in the world to greater or lesser extents. Our relationship with what we call reality seems to be a constructionistic one. Humans are fixated with metanarratives (truth, purpose, transcendence) perhaps to keep us psychologically safe. Can we meddle with consciousness and tap into something above and beyond ourselves? I doubt it and how would it be demonstrated? If Plato's Cave is a salient allegory, what are we to make of the shadows cast upon the wall of our minds by 'spiritual' experiences?

Dawkins would denigrate religion as being something like a mind-parasite. — Wayfarer

Don't remember now if I have read any of his stuff (apart from the odd essay and paper) but I have seen some interviews.

But if you go into it, you discover it's really a very difficult path to actually follow. Not that people can't follow it, but there's a lot of room for error and endless scope for self-delusion — Wayfarer

Good point.

There's another level of similarity, though, between the two traditions, which is that the philosophical schools that early Christianity absorbed, such as neoplatonism, and also some of the gnostic sects adjacent to Christianity, likewise taught austere philosophical and contemplative practices with a view to acheiving divine union — Wayfarer

I am familiar with this and spent some time with Gnositcs.

I've also watched some lectures by John Vervaeke on Neoplatonism and the Western tradition. I have a rudimentary grasp of its centrality.

The point being, the realisation of higher planes of being, which permeates all of those forms of culture, is 'evidential', in the sense that for those who practice within those cultures, there is said to be the attainment of insight (jñāna or gnosis). Whereas in our technocratic age (and here on this forum) all of that is stereotyped under the umbrella of mere belief. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think this is a key insight. I obviously sit on the technocratic end of this, but I am interested in the 'other side' as it were. Although these days I might be less likely to use inflammatory language like 'mere belief' although it might depend upon my mood.

Although he would make an exception for evolutionary biology of course. — Wayfarer

Yes. And science in general. And aesthetics - he is big on Bach. And the notion of truth. The intelligibility of a natural world. He is riddled with old school metanarrative thinking.

Obviously, people can believe in something transcendent without belonging to a religion, without knowing anything about any religion. I suppose you would call that a personal religion? — praxis

I wonder too what counts as transcendence? Is intelligibility itself transcendent? Are the logical axioms? Maths? Morality? Do we go by Kant, Aristotle or Wittgenstein on this one?

Yeah Richard Dawkins would say that. — Wayfarer

Well, no - you may have misunderstood me. Dawkins believes staunchly in science and progress - surely cases of metanarratives in action?

That's nice - thanks for taking the trouble.

That they're parasitic on religion? — Wayfarer

Or is the 'parasite' the human urge to make and hold foundational metanarratives, from religion to aesthetics, literature to science - which is where I tend to go with this. There's safety and predictability in putative certainty.

Nice. There are forms of Communism - eg Stalinism - that seem to believe in transcendence - the inevitability of historical forces and the leader as a numinous figure of infallibility. Any thoughts on this?

Brings back memories - I spent much of the 1980's with the theosophists and lived in their Melbourne (Russell Street) bookshop and library. I blame Alan Watts and Krishnamurti who ignited my curiosity.