Then you appear to be stuck. Sorry.

Interesting and I feel for you. It sounds exhausting. Also sounds like there's a lot to unpack here but that's beyond the scope of this kind of site. Dare I suggest counselling?

Perhaps one solution for this is to accept life may be solipsistic but you can still be happy or unhappy, even if it is a type of dream. Maybe you can make it a lucid dream. Make it fun, embrace the appearance of reality and the beauty in the 'phoney' details, enjoy the ride, give it your best. But don't try too hard.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess it is just one of those fears that you either have or don't have. Is there something which helps manage it?

:joke: :cool:

Solipsism doesn't sound that bad to me. It means I wrote all of Beethoven's string quartets, directed all the great movies, and was the seminal (and only) figure in the development of Quantum Physics. I had no idea I had that sort of range. :wink:

However, underneath all of the unnecessary complex verbiage and syntax, there are sometimes very important points. — Ø implies everything

I make no argument against the texts themselves, the problem sits with me as an inadequate reader of such texts - for reasons of capacity and temperament.

But to think that the universe exists only in my mind, just affects me a certain way. — Darkneos

What is it about solipsism that affects you?

I saw this some time ago - it's astonishing. Courage... Ardono... truth as a way of life... small 't' truth... you can't fully grasp the way the world is... philosophy needs to go to school with the musicians... Curtis Mayfield and Beethoven... - To paraphrase Marlene Dietrich on Orson Welles, after listening to this, I feel like a plant which has just been watered.

That said - I love your contributions and the focus and scholarship you bring to the discussions. :up:

I do undertand your position and believe I have, if you'll forgive me, a reasonable, intuitive grasp of your perspective.

But I have no personal intuitions of any of what you describe, despite years of exposure to everything from Alan Watts, Suzuki, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Jung and Gnosticism and many other old favourites.

But these things are very deep, hard to fathom, so they're expressed in the language of signs and symbols - you can't simply spell them out or describe them, as they require a complete re-organisation of the personality in order to understand - hence my earlier reference to 'realisation' or 'self-realisation' — Wayfarer

There's no question that such esoterica is vague and lends itself to multiple interpretive expressions. I'm not crazy about following such signs and symbols around the world, like some mystical equivalent to a storm chaser.

I guess I take the view that this material appeals to some and not to others. And it doesn't much matter, except in academia or amongst the cognoscenti and in some corners of places like this. If there is a transcendent ultimate concern, it will take care of itself and doesn't need us.

But I've said before I think your position has aesthetic foundations. You appear to have a view that there has been a kind of fall (paradise lost?) - that the numinous and integrated has been displaced by an ugly, modernist, secular, scientistic worldview, which has led us to nihilism and disenchantment. The evidence being our current, divided world and the coarseness of public discourse. I would argue the world was coarse and divided and broken even when spiritual traditions meant life and the numinous was not scoffed at, and before modernism was a glint in TS Elliot's eye. My take is that traditions of higher awareness may lead us to the crass and the ugly, every bit as swiftly as any other type of belief system.

We stand on either sides of the river making similar arguments, but for opposite reasons.

:up:

The way I see it, the problem with faith is located in its instantiation. Faith in what? In Yahweh and the associated scriptures? In Allah and sharia? Is this kind of faith an intuition? It seems a lot more than this. The intuition always seems to run away with itself.

I wonder if relgious faith is comparable to moral intuitions. We have no choice but to live in community with others, having moral intuitions are practical and unavoidable (unless you are a sociopath). The intuition that there's an invisible 'magic' creator thing, versus an intuition located in community behaviour seem quite different. Can you say more about the similarity to make the connection for me?

Faith is almost never left merely at, 'I intuit there is some kind of deity and I will leave it there'. It is mostly faith in a particular god with a particular set of instructions. And that's where the problem begins when that faith is foundational to mysogyny, homophobia, racism, anti-abortion and anti-birth control, etc.

I come from outside philosophy and am here mainly to understand what others believe and why and to have conversations which might enlarge my perspective. Initially I came to see what I may have missed by not privileging philosophy in my life.

I have not privileged philosophy because I find the works mostly unappealing to read (I have tasted a lot of it) and don't believe I have innate capacity to develop useful readings of the texts.

Since most of us are not Kant or Wittgenstein, we are likely limited in our capacity to do original thinking and are relegated to acquiring a kind of history of ideas, with some allegiances to what others have thought before us.

I've said before - Humans seem to be machines for making meaning - drawing connections and telling stories. Hence, culture, art, entertainment, religion, literature, philosophy, science, etc, etc. We can't help ourselves. It's our thing. Some of us like our stories to be metanarratives - foundational and transcendent. Some of us (me) are happy with tentative accounts, subject to constant revision.

There appear to me so many dimensions to philosophy I don't think we can say what exactly it is let alone how we need to think to do it well. Is philosophy thinking about thinking? Is it being able to regurgitate and parse phrases from a cannon? Is it original thinking? Is it clarifying what the questions are and not worrying too much about the answers? Is it language? Is it ultimately about epistemology?

Question - if you can think philosophically (assuming we can nail down what this means) does that make you a philosopher or just someone who thinks philosophically?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you referencing Jung's theory of individuation (which is generally a benign construction)? I don't think people are much different now to when I was young 40 years ago. They are still socialised into belief systems, belong to communities, and have interests and concerns. In many instances, how these are organised is different owing to technology.

An older Australian Aboriginal activist here noted that people are no more bigoted today than they were 50 years ago, they are just better organised. It's much easier these days to find communities and subcultures than it used to be. I remember vividly community concern in the 1970's about the cult of individualism and the 'me generation'. I remember individualism being a concern again in the 1980's. My grandma told me that there was community concern about the cult of individualism in the 1920's.

The persistence of community and ongoing interdependence amongst citizens continues.

The majority of people in the West seem to have been gathered under science and mathematics as their new religion (even if they barely understand it) — Ø implies everything

Which may simply be people saying they prefer reason to superstition. Zeitgeist. Incomplete understanding is not unusual within communities. It's certainly true in religious communities, and it is true in political communities. Just because people share a belief system doesn't mean they understand it. Often it is about a preference to belong, which presents itself through various interrelationships, including kinship, friendship, locality, environment and education.

This however, is not incompatible with the possibility of individuation. You are not just part of one group; you are a part of many, and this intersectionality gives rise to individuality even under an assignment of identity via group membership. — Ø implies everything

I am not sure what this implies.

Tom Storm, the degree of faith in such movements is very little. Such movements can be blamed more on religion more than faith. I don't think that someone will have faith that "gay people are bad". — Raef Kandil

Faith is always about something - it doesn't stop at god, it incorporates what god wants. Having spent time discussing belief with South African Christians, I can tell you that they were people of sincere faith. Their faith told them that gays were anathema, that women were second class citizens and that racism was god's will. The problem with faith is that it can justify anything and if your belief in god comes to you without evidence, then what that god wants you to do and think comes equally unfounded.

But I have also seen this in action in some elements of the Baptist church (the tradition I grew up in) and in the conservative arms of Catholic faith.

You can't isolate faith as stopping once you decide god is real - almost always included in the leap of faith is the particular god with its commands and requirements.

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny. — Benj96

For me faith is belief without good evidence. I would rarely use the word outside of religious context. I do not have faith that a chair will accommodate my weight or that a plane I fly in will not crash. I would call this having a reasonable expectation. As you have pointed out, these are things for which there is evidence, which is not how faith in the religious context works. As per Hebrews 11: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I don't have faith in any beliefs, I hold beliefs with degrees of confidence.

The real problem with faith is that that it is possible to justify anything using an appeal to faith, from the Christian apartheid of South Africa, to anti-gay activists who hold their bigotries on faith.

It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide. — Isaac

Wise words.

Ought to inspire one to seek mokṣa, — Wayfarer

He never had the moxie for moska. I find that much Nietzsche reads like black comedy - possibly apropos given the Dionysian revels from which comedy traditions originally sprang.

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem. — Raef Kandil

I've worked in the area of suicide prevention and have supported many suicidal people over decades and have not often seen this. But it is the case that sometimes distressed and unhappy people need to find comfort in a belief or a galvanizing idea to help them through difficult times. This belief might be religious but it could also be a hope for family reconciliation, renewed involvement in a hobby or in education or a sport.

I think the problem you describe probably starts with the presuppositions you hold. I don't consider death a preoccupation or concern, so it holds no special fascination for me. Unfairness? Well you can help disadvantaged communities to tackle unfairness through work or volunteering. The things you can't control may be best understood through a more Stoic philosophical response.

We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it. — Raef Kandil

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

This may be an imprecise question - but in your view how difficult is it to obtain a useful reading of Heidegger? How would a student begin a process of understanding his work (outside of academe)?

I tend to find death-facing machismo a significant ingredient in the early Heidegger. — green flag

I find it unreadable so I can't comment, but I am interested to obtain a general understanding of his themes and subjects. An awareness of different readings and interpretations is engaging in itself.

Is there any humor in Heidegger?

I think most of us don't feel this terror very often. — green flag

Yes, it seems absent amongst my social groups and me personally. Of course people might 'cheat' and say that it's an unconscious fear that animates all aspects of our lives, etc.

Is childhood a largely forgotten magical world full of monsters and queens ? — green flag

Could be.

The terror of being a dying animal is foregrounded, along with various responses to that terror. — green flag

Do you think this terror is ubiquitous?

What do you mean? — Darkneos

If you don't believe in capital T truth then by definition all value systems are perspectival human artifacts.

Which means that values comprise of individual and community agreements (and disagreements) and they are still of immense significance since they organize and delineate culture and society.

There is a tendency to polarize ideas of human nature; either it is a Good Thing (Rouseau) or a Bad Thing (Hobbes). But either view is mistaken. — Ludwig V

I don't think this is relevant to my example and certainly not how this person would view human nature. I was trying (badly) to describe an aspect of Aboriginal spirituality as informing the man's view. No need to provide exegesis on it since the account is flawed and incomplete. :wink:

What you describe is classic Western dualistic thinking and this bifurcated view of reality is, I agree, unproductive.

Value is always subject to a criterion or scale and is generally contextualized though personal experience or a community. Like anything human 'value' is an artifact or perspective we employ to makes sense of and manage our environment. If one harbors no preconceptions of 'ultimate reality' or 'absolute truth' (themselves value systems), I don't find any concerns.

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? — Raef Kandil

Many contemporary atheists would not say that. There's plenty of evidence, from The Koran to personal experience. As an atheist I would simply say the evidence available has me unconvinced that there are gods. Most believers in one god use the same tools as atheists do to dismiss all the gods of other religions and perhaps to jettison belief in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions or ghosts.

The question of god/s existing is not about physicalism, or what we can create using our imaginations, it's about whether we have sufficient reasons to accept the proposition or not. Generally this will be tied to specific versions of god and the concomitant scriptures and traditions of belief.

For me the debate should switch focus from whether there are gods or not, to the question why should we care if there are gods? Which gods and for what reason?

There is no contemporary philosopher who has delved into the nature of affect, feeling, mood and emotion more deeply than Heidegger. Check out this paper from Matthew Ratcliffe: — Joshs

I'll check it out and thanks but I suspect it will be too impenetrable for me. :up:

I don't fully understand this question. Based on what criteria of value or against whose scale could you possibly measure such a question? The glib answer, of course is that no one deserves anything; but do we deserve not to exist? What follows from a 'yes' or 'no' answer? And what is the word 'merely' doing in front of exist? Do you mean to point to existence, with no additional attributes, like being happy or healthy?

The theological answer is given because most are not philosophers. They need answers and one that they cannot understand is better than no answer. And one that has the appearance of intelligibility and is the work of a god is even better. — Fooloso4

That made me laugh.

I think Heidegger was attempting to evoke a sense of wonder that there is anything at all, but it seems like mystification — Fooloso4

:fire: Interestingly the words of progressive theological thinker David Bentley Hart frequently come back to the 'wonder of being' or the 'surprise that there is anything at all'.

Coming outside of philosophy, I find the notion of being fairly uninteresting. No doubt there is rigorous and serious scholarship behind Heidegger's work, but it often sounds like high end bong talk. :wink:

The metaphysics of presence is a key preoccupation of the post-structuralists like Derrida.

Wiki has it like this, although I am unsure of the reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_presence

I'm curious to know what a " 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality' would look like to your friend — Janus

Fair point. It's likely to be Aboriginal culture/spirituality, which I don't pretend to understand but it is hinting at human nature having an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. This is put together from longer conversations.

wouldn't social justice and universal prosperity (and the other benefits that go with those) be in common, with the differences being more in the way of how to get there? — Janus

Yep. I think many human problems come down to how we get there. Just as morality is not a theory, it is what we do.

Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus

I think the problem is that progress is hard to define and aligned with worldviews. Hence the internecine battles between 'progressives' and conservatives.

From some ethical and aesthetical perspectives, there is certainly something ugly, something degraded, about capitalism — Janus

No arguments - but I was putting the view without wanting to explore this as a separate point.

The question is whether he meant to say that he believed in the ideal of progress — Janus

I think the notion of the ideal of progress was not overtly a part of his worldview. But he did feel there was some, shall we say 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality.

I was merely pointing out that there is a distinction between the defeatist attitude that it is impossible, the optimistic attitude that it is possible, and the complacent attitude that it is inevitable. — Janus

Interesting. Attitudes are central to this. I've been debating this idea of progress (mostly badly) for decades. Not as a philosopher but more simply as a reflection of my culture, here in Australia.

I think where people sit on this has a lot to do with their aesthetics and politics more than anything. For instance, it seems that there are many people who have an understandable critical antipathy towards capitalism and though this lens it is almost impossible to see a version of the world that is not one of ceaseless exploitation, degradation and suffering.

Pinker as an evidentialist seems to bracket the world and describe or isolate progress as a series of calculations that speak for themselves. It's a kind of progress positivism. Not sure what I think about this.

I was talking to an Aboriginal man I know who (like most First Nations people) can look back at his family and culture as a kind of history of white oppression and genocide. Families torn apart by deliberate social policies, not being able to vote as citizens until 1967, deaths in custody, racism, etc, etc. I asked him if he believed in progress. "Fuck yeah!" he responded. 'But we're only part of the way there.' Progress is situational, specific and reversible and never completed and can't be understood as some kind of Hegelian process.

The endless and fruitless search for foundations of knowledge certainly looks like a misapplication of an idea like the format of Euclid's writings about geometry. — Ludwig V

Could be. It's probably down to the notion of god which has historically been posited as the foundational grounding of human knowledge. So we get the inevitable question - how can knowledge be true or objective or foundational if god does not guarantee it? And then you get arguments like the evolutionary argument against naturalism by people like Alvin Plantinga.

The guiding question of metaphysics, “what is being?” has reached its end with Nietzsche. With its completion the grounding question, the question of the essence of Being, can once again be taken up by Heidegger. — Fooloso4

Great, thank you. I note you said this earlier:

Like many, I sensed that he had something mysterious and important to disclose. That thinking plays an essential role in to bringing being to presence. In time I came to think that pursuit of the question of "Being" is like chasing the wind. An oracular prophet without a revelation. — Fooloso4

Is this your view about the question "what is being?" more generally, or is it your view of the Heideggerian approach?

Is this question still pursued or relevant in philosophy? I note Derrida's early interest in Heidegger and his formulation of being as presence.

Does this count as ambivalence? :wink:

Heidegger comes along and says that there is a system where the system has not been competed yet. Nietzsche would have produced it if he had lived long enough. All of those ideas by H are laid out in the Lectures I linked to. — Paine

That's a tantalizing notion. Thanks for the context. Do you agree with Heidegger?