:up:

Finding Dennett's account unappealing is an aesthetic response, surely? Personally, I've not discovered a reason to think humans are anything more than clever animals who use language to help manage their environment. I'm not confident that much of that language maps to anything outside of human perspectives and does not get us to a reality outside of us.

If Dennett is right, it actually appeals to my sense of humour - much ado about nothing - which I generally think summarises most human enterprises. Some of us are so proud of our metacognition and our supposed elevation from the other animals, but what is it? A more elaborate form of pissing against a tree to mark out our territory?

If we really are robots or blindly-propagating genetic machines, then the only reason to value humanity as such is convention or sentimentality, it has no real basis, because nothing important is at stake. — Wayfarer

It matters to us. What better reason do we need? I don't need to affix life to anything transcendent for it to matter. Just as I don't need Great Expectations to be true to be moved and thrilled by it.

No doubt you know this one. I'm amused by this becasue I have a dull, literalist mind. :wink:

This Be The Verse
BY PHILIP LARKIN
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

Or it's a convoluted and playful way to say I'm a postFeuerbach humanist of some flavor. We humans are god. The divine predicates are human virtues. We 'eat' our old selves by criticizing what we've been as part of inventing what we will be. — plaque flag

This I understand.

Are we the ironic flowers of the heat death ? Are we coal's trick for getting itself burned ? Dissipative structures who didn't start but surely must maximize the fire ? Are we the gallows humor of the Universe in its hospital bed? — plaque flag

I think we are whatever we fancy ourselves to be. Or nothing in particular (which is my position).

It's intrinsically demeaning to declare that really, humans are confabulations of unconscious processes that only appear to be intelligent due to the requirements of survival. — Wayfarer

What if it is true? I don't hold to this view (or dismiss it) but I don't find it demeaning.

Wittgenstein and Heidegger both discussed something like the strangeness that the world (any world) is here. — plaque flag

I've never understood this. How is it strange?

I call myself an 'atheist' as a shorthand for not 'that' kind of theist. My God is a devouring fire. He eats atheists himself for breakfast. — plaque flag

Can you briefly explain this curious poetic sentence? Generally I find poetry as impenetrable as any foreign language (except, perhaps Dylan Thomas).

We can define sin as doing something against the will of God. — Art48

Yes, but how do we know whether or not god cares about what humans do? We have no source for sin except for the words of people regarding a particular version of god. So if we doubt that we can know what god wants for us - as you argued earlier - how can we know the idea of sin is even a thing for a god?

All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want. — Art48

But do we know that sin exists? If all we have are humans telling stories about what god wants and doesn't want...

Nice examples. And of course there were the neocons who initiated the war on terror - many were former young leftists who embraced the path of apostasy. :wink:

Irving Kristol, often described as the father of neoconservatism, was once a Trotskyist. He said a neocon is 'a liberal who's been mugged by reality'. Humorist PJ O'Rourke said much the same about his move from the left to the right.

Often feels that way to me too.

It's about as gross a classist condescension as it gets. — Isaac

Yes, I think this is how some progressives seem to operate. Echos of Hilary's, "Basket of deplorables'.

It's all over the world. It's the politics of fear. — Vera Mont

To some extent, my family is in Holland, my point was the English language version.

You sound like a reasonable person.

But I've never changed my basic principles, converted to a punitive religion, supported miltarizing the police, rewriting history, denying the efficacy of vaccines or letting the mega-rich off paying taxes. — Vera Mont

I've known quite a few people who have changed principles and done just these things. The question I often wonder about is how serious were their radical ideas when young?

I do recall a time when Canadian conservative, liberal and soft socialist parties conducted civil public discourse regarding their agendas. — Vera Mont

Here in Australia too. I suspect the Murdoch influence and cultivation of the 'culture wars' has been inimical throughout the English speaking world

Not mom. 80 is about done with life. I'm 56 I would probably provide a spot for the 20 year-old. Depends how much I like them. It also depends on the nature of the disaster - I am not much interested in surviving in a post- apocalypse reality and I am not afraid of death. I don't subscribe to an ethical system, nor care to develop one, other than imprecise and common sense notions of fairness and that we ought to prevent suffering.

Like most such thought experiments made up by philosophers, this one is over-simplistic, unrealistic, and misleading. — T Clark

I agree that thought experiments are fairly dreadful.

They represented a departure from conservatism, and some conservatives doubt that they were conservative at all. Thatcher was a radical. She rocked the boat. The conservatives went along with it, because conservatism is adaptable and she was not threatening many of their interests, even though she was not really a friend of the aristocracy.

Conservatives created the first welfare state and were quite happy to go along with a mixed economy in the UK from the end of the Second World War until Thatcher.

Conservatism is not essentially pro-free-market, but this might be because it has little in the way of essence—it defends hierarchy and power, and that takes different forms. Traditionally, conservatives are pragmatic, not doctrinal.

Generally, what you are describing is the popular, very modern use of the term “conservatism”, but because it is also a political philosophy that’s a couple of centuries old, one which is still influential, it’s worth looking at that too. Vera’s questions pertain to the discrepancies between the two. — Jamal

Nice summary.

Would you perhaps say that 'conservatism' these days is one of the minor strands within the broader categories of (another imprecise term) 'right-wing' thought? And like 'socialism' the term is often used with magnificent imprecision.

The reason we don’t know much about conservatism is because intellectual conservatives are rare and academia and the press are mostly captured by the opposition. — NOS4A2

Probably. Scruton makes this point too. Conservatism is more of a disposition and not as prone to generating theory as the left seems to be. Edmund Burke was a key philosophical influence on Scruton.

It irks me when I keep hearing that old people tend to be more conservative — Vera Mont

I think this refers to the well-known phenomena of those radical in youth who often later become obedient members of the bourgeoisie. I know I have become more conservative in age. My choices and my political orientation is less radical today then it was 35 years ago. I'd say the same for my comrades who have moved from wanting revolution and blood on the streets, to sending their kids to good schools and worrying about risotto recipes and cooking with coriander.

I'm sure Nagel shouldn't be on it. — Wayfarer

I took his famous Bat essay as being suggestive of mysterian inclinations.

Consciousness is what makes the mind-body problem really intractable. Without consciousness, the mind-body problem would be much less interesting. With consciousness, it seems hopeless.

Has he ever qualified the word 'seems'?

All of reality is a prison. The question is, what is outside of that prison? — an-salad

Prison is preferable to reality. Discuss.

:up:

Best source is Scruton who writes about this at length and was the poster boy for conservatism for many years. He was not always a fan of the right even though the right would borrow from his work rather lackadaisically.

You’re pointing to the fact that political categories are blurred and inexact.

But I do expect people of conviction to be able to articulate, clearly and consistently, their own values: what they believe, what they consider important personally and as a society; what they think is a desirable state of affairs. — Vera Mont

I would expect that of few people, theorists maybe. In my experience, people with conviction often have convictions in place of knowledge.

That's not my version; that's the version I see under the political label that identifiable parties, their public spokespeople and their supporters wear. — Vera Mont

Yes - as you described them earlier. Not yours personally.

I suppose there must be, though the leftist groups I've been associated with were a lot more like a herd of cats than a phalanx. When that happens, though, are they still socialists and liberals? Or is there a leftward equivalent of 'neoliberal'? All labels can be abused and perverted. — Vera Mont

Fair point. Labels are twisted. I think most Western governments are neo-liberal. They do not rock the boat of the corporate interest groups - Obama bailing out Wall Street; Tony Blair's "New Labour" were about conserving the status quo. Here in Australia, Labor's Hawke/Keating deregulated the markets, floated the dollar and embraced neo-liberalism fulsomely. My socialist friends have always considered Democrat and Labor to be virtually equivalent to Republican and Tory. In this vein we get philosopher Cornel West's observation that Obama was "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."

I think your version of ‘conservatives’ tends to be neoliberal folk who follow that cultural wrecking ball, Rupert Murdoch. But no doubt some neoliberals share some conservative values mainly on social issues.

Nothing is hard and fast.

I do not think the political right is identical to the Conservative position. What counts as Right wing? If it’s authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not ‘Leftist’ groups who do all this?

Maybe categories like this are approximate positions only.

It's a good question and a big subject because many people who say they are conservative are actually neo-liberals, who would sell off anything and take down any tradition for a buck. Although they might hold to some conservative social positions on the role of women or religion.

A conservative is someone who opposes radical change and what they call 'social engineering' and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law, royalty - in Britain and the Commonwealth). Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, they tend to believe in high culture and are suspicious of new ideas, technology and immigration. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, was a conservative and wrote a great deal about it.

“Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false.”
― Roger Scruton, How to Be a Conservative

The schools of enactivism and embodied cognition draw a great deal from phenomenology. (All these sources I've only become familiar with through the Forums in the last decade or so and am trying to get up to speed on.) — Wayfarer

Indeed. I've only been reading this stuff for the past 2 years. I find this material fascinating.

Given the amounts of hatred we also see in sport, the arts, university departments, businesses, media, etc, etc, would it not be the case that tribalism is the main issue, along with the human predisposition toward dualistic thinking? I don't see how we can do without politics. The fact that many candidates and parties seem to be so shit these days may also be a reflection that the public are not sufficiently engaged in politics and civic discourse to help elevate the enterprise.

Much hatred in politics seems to me to be confected hatred, generated by millionaire commentators ensconced in corporate media who have an interest in fueling the fires of prejudice and bigotry to enhance ratings and generate cash.

Yeah, I'll get pilloried for being too direct. Philosophy is hard. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I might be wrong, yours might be a brilliant and correct approach. But I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Philosophy certainly seems hard to me and no matter what you think you have learned, there are constant set backs. I think your approach is collegial and helpful. It's fascinating to see people getting angry or irritable when there's a disagreement. You like to tackle an argument head on and why not?

Husserl also criticized Descartes for relying on the language of subject and object, which he believed reinforced a dualistic view of the world. — Wayfarer

Which you would expect from someone who has made a set of different assumptions. I'm not clear if Husserl has actually resolved the question of dualism or simply bracketed the matter.

Husserl seems to be saying that the categories of mind and body are an abstraction and that everything is understood as pure experience or transcendental consciousness. Can you clarify? And does this really resolve the question or just push it to one side? I'm not aware of Husserl ever answering the mind body question, he just seems to have it in for Descartes' legacy on Western thought. Would anyone argue that Husserl was a successful monist? It seems to me that what remains is an 'I' who is experiencing consciousness and a body which the 'I' uses to interact with the life world.

If you want to look at the personal/emotional part of my answer, it would only make sense to me if you are a bit personal/emotional as well, as I believe that is in tune with the intentions of the thread. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think you've answered my questions, but I shan't press the point. In relation to the above - as I said -

Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm

I feel that people's imagination can be wrong and they impose a false representation onto someone else. It could be they diminish or exaggerate someone's experiences. — Andrew4Handel

However (in addition to @Banno's point about private language) as I said, we don't need to be too concrete about this. I am comfortable with notion that my pain/experience is similar enough to other people's pain/experience, sufficient for me to generate empathy. That's the point. I'm not saying it is an exact match or qualitative equivalent. It doesn't need to be.

As I said in my last post I think imagining someone else's experience may just be revisiting your own. — Andrew4Handel

You wrote 'may just' but it may not... the point is our own pain is enough to understand that pain is not good, not fun, not desirable and therefore we 'feel' for the other in their pain through our own experience and humanity. We can still retain the notion that everyone is slightly different in their experience yet hold enough commonality to share the experience of being human.

Cool. Thank you.

Do you have a few sentences to offer to summarise what clinched it for you?

Think of science as a map. I want to go from A to B. There are rivers, mountains, and private property between A and B. — Art48

Sure, I think that is the Sam Harris position in The Moral Landscape.

But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves. — Art48

Indeed - a divine command theory is a morality segregated from what is right and wrong. Socrates licked this one in Euthyphro.

Empathy is a controversial issue because it usually involves the alleged ability to imagine someone else's experiences.
I think this may be possible in a few cases but:

Can you imagine having HIV or Cancer if you don't have them? Can you imagine being a serial killer? Can you imagine being the opposite sex? Being (pregnant/menstruating). Being gay/straight/bi? — Andrew4Handel

I think it is possible to get too concrete with these sorts of matters. To 'imagine' doesn't require 100% match of another's experience. That's why it is called imagination. For instance, I have my own experiences to draw upon that may be used to imagine how others are experiencing things. I have been very sick - I can imagine the debilitations and complexities in having cancer or any illness (not to mention that I have watched many people die).

Serial killer? I can imagine being persecuted by obsessions and having the need to release myself through predatory behaviour.

Being gay? Is it difference to being straight? Love and sex are pretty much interchangeable. The experience of discrimination I can imagine, having experienced discrimination before.

Again, I don't think it is necessary to map onto another's experience 100% in order to imagine another's situation in a useful way to generate empathy. We have access to glimmers of another's experience.

The Roman poet Terence made the point that, 'I consider nothing that is human alien to me.' I think this resonates with many but perhaps not all of us.

I found that essay very moving.

:lol:

I agree. Having been in academia for many years I have some criticisms of it, but learned to separate the good from the bad. — Fooloso4

I suspect that much of this must come down to judgement which gets refined as one learns, right? Do you feel you can summarise any basic principles you have identified along the way, that supports you in the process of winnowing the wheat from the caff (philosophically speaking)?

I don't see this as a problem. The act of seeing other people as people requires we make a metaphorical connection with them. We intuitively, empathetically recognize they experience the world in ways very similar to the way we do. Without that recognition we could not even communicate. So, is my headache the same as theirs? Are my memories, beliefs, desires, thought, and dreams the same? Maybe. We can ask questions to figure that out. — T Clark

Nice. Totally agree.

I don't see why we can't just go back to saying that rocks are real. Doing so sorta cuts to the chase, if you see what I mean. — Banno

Yes. It reminds me of the point made by some that matter isn't 'real' and that all we see and experience is excitations in quantum fields. For a human being this doesn't really get us out of the world of rocks and bad pop music....

Cool. That drills down into it a bit better for me. Appreciate this.

But also, rocks are just PDA loopy thingies. — Banno

So rocks are how the loopys appear for us so we can deal with them in our Darwinist survival world...

What then? Surely he's heading somewhere to sell us something more? :wink:

It's not that "truth" has a compromised status. That would be a backward way of looking at things. We can still hold truth up to the highest standards. We simply need to recognize that empirical data and science are insufficient for truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry mate, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I made a small point about Hoffman's account of empiricism, not truth as such. But let's move on. :wink:

:up:

I don't know if Hoffman can have any corresponding ontology of what the real connections are between perceiving subjects and objects that correspond to his metaphor of creatures manipulating icons. He says it's not real - compared to what? — Wayfarer

Yes. That's a good point.

'conscious agents' are not necessarily human beings, but might be completely unknown to us. — Wayfarer

Hmm, I wonder... aliens? Interdimensional beings? Dissociated alters of a universal mind? Poker playing dogs?