Ryan beat Hamer in Kooyong. Thankfully.

I would say that intuitions are certainly feelings and the question would be as to whether they are anything more than that. We think an intuition is true if it "feels right". I wonder how else we could gauge its seeming truth. We can theorize further and posit noesis, direct knowledge, innate intelligibility and so on, but we have no way of testing those theories. — Janus

Yes that's very important.

Again, I agree entirely. I put stock in my own intuitions, but I would never claim that anyone else ought to believe anything on account of what I believe in following my own intuitions. So, the point for me is that intuitive knowledge is not amenable to intersubjective corroboration. — Janus

Nice.

I believe that not all intuition is equal. For example, when I interview people for jobs, I often have a strong sense about whether they’re going to be the right fit or not. This isn’t just a vague feeling; it’s based on a kind of digested, accumulated experience that I’ve built up over time. But it can't be put into words.

But my intuitions about whether someone is guilty of a crime or whether gods are real are far more speculative - rooted not in experience or repeated exposure, but in emotion, upbringing, and the general atmosphere of ideas I've been exposed to. I tend to believe there's a distinction between intuition that’s grounded in accumulated, tacit knowledge and intuition that is more reflective of personal background and impressionistic feeling.

Extraordinary - the banalities of Albo and the excesses of Trump have brought us to this. I can only imagine that Albo will waste the opportunity and fuck it up. But I hope I am wrong. Do you think he has a vision?

I would say that the amount of material goods one needs will tend to vary by culture and time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No question.

Or perhaps a better way to put it is that they take on special relevance in a culture where they are almost required for membership and recognition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that's very true.

Or perhaps the list of material goods you have mentioned are simply not the most important things for happiness? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I never said they were. But in my experience with unhappy people, which is extensive, as I work in mental health and addiction - people often forget or overlook how fortunate their situation is and how much they tend to catastrophize. It's amazing how many psychological problems ease or even disappear when individuals have access to material comfort and safety (if they don't have it) or when they are supported to reframe their thinking and experience. But it's just one dimension of psychological health and I wasn't suggesting it was The Answer.

Isn't this precisely what people like Laotze and St. Francis thought they were doing by telling people to stop following worldly ambitions, helping others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could be. I've read the former, not the latter. Like the rest of us here, I don't have anything original to say.

True, I was riffing off the theme. For me personally, when I take the time to consider my psychological state and then reflect on how comfortable I am, I tend to feel a greater sense of well-being and kindness toward others. Everything is connected. But possibly the best thing to do when one is fretting over how distorted and ambitious humans are is to go out and help others.

I'm one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world. — T Clark

That's certainly true for many of us in the West. We have quality food, decent medicine, clean water, sewage systems, electricity, access to books, the internet, and ideas, along with freedom, spare time, roads, transportation, heating and cooling, affordable goods. And sure, disadvantage is still with us - but I'd rather be disadvantaged today than 80 or 500 years ago.

One of the signs of prosperity and good fortune may be a tendency to grumble about how bad everything is. It's actually a kind of luxury — to have the time, safety, and resources to reflect, criticize, and worry about problems that, in many other times or places, wouldn’t even register amid the demands of daily survival. (This isn't to downplay or dismiss those who truly do struggle to access basic resources.)

It seems to me we live in an era dominated by nostalgia projects: so many people are invested in the idea that we currently inhabit a decadent culture and things were better "back then." Just insert the fantasy of your choice: religious revivalism, MAGA-style nationalism, golden-age economics, or liberal utopianism. People use the past to express their frustration with the present, even if that past wasn’t actually the way they imagine it. Or something like that.

with a bang or with a whimper...

I like your response. I’m not going to agree with all of it of course, but let's not let a little thing like God come between us. :wink:

I do not buy into the idea that it is simply due to plumbing convenience as we do not find toilets, baths or showers in kitchen areas. — I like sushi

Interestingly you see bath tubs in kitchens in old New York apartments. I remember seeing the painter Francis Bacon's apartment in London and it had a bath in his kitchen too. — Tom Storm

What's dawning on me is not at all romantic: it's the fear of God's judgement which is said to occur at the time of death. (That struck me recently when I watched a feature on Mt Athos, in an interview with the head monk.) In Buddhist terms, no God is involved, but Buddhists have just as vivid a depiction of the hell realms as well as the other realms which await one in the next life. That scares me a lot more than the idea that death is simply the end — Wayfarer

Well, that would certainly provide some incentive.

Yes, I find the idea of death as 'the end' oddly attractive and tidy.

The Buddhist idea of afterlife is not based on a soul, I understand, but more like a stream of consciousness that (what is the famous metaphor?) is like a candle lighting another candle. If there is no continuity or 'eternal essence' how is such a hell realm understood? Doesn't punishment only make sense in a context of continuity?

Me, I'm wrestling with it. I think a lot of what is said about it is obviously mythical, but it remains, for me, at least an open question, and something that nags me, now I'm in my 70's. And that if it turns out to be real after all, it could be the ultimate in rude awakenings. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think we live in a world where people follow the same inferences, but end up in differnt places. I imagine that culture and foundational axioms are often at the heart of this difference.

I'd like to think I am open to idealism and other domains of understanding - higher consciousness, call it what you like. And frankly part of me thinks, the hope of getting a reliable reading of Heidegger alone is a lifetime's study, what hope to access anything close to the noumena. Is it even worth thinking about?

I'm interested in your point about "rude awakenings" (which might be a funny pun, too). I know you came to your thinking through a counterculture path, but do you think there's also an element informed by a potential fear of missing out? Of being wrong: and so one needs to keep searching?

Some of our understandings may turn out to be incomplete or even wrong, to be sure. Is that what you mean when you refer to "true comprehension"? — Janus

Yes. I consider our understanding of the world to be tentative, the best we can do with what we know and how we know it.

You mentioned "complexities beneath our experiences"; by that I take you mean things we cannot gain cognitive access to? — Janus

Yes, but not necessarily in the Kantian sense - also our incomplete understanding of physics, maths, biology, consciousness, etc.

So, when I say we obviously comprehend the world, I'm only speaking in an everyday sense — Janus

I guess we agree on this.

Animals comprehend their environments through forming habits too. Habit is a sign of comprehension, in other words. — Janus

An animal can comprehend that an electric fence will hurt them btu they don't understand it - the whys and hows. I guess what I should've have said is understanding rather than comprehending.

I don't think we can infer unmediated access to a noumenal reality; I don't even really know what that could mean, and I certainly don't think it could be important. — Janus

I think we could only know what it meant if we could access it.

I don't know what you mean by "suppressing our metaphysical assumptions" ̶ did you mean "supposing"? — Janus

I meant supressing (but supposing also works - they are presuppositions) - in as much as we 'bracket' off our assumptions about the world when we take the sun and the earth and human science as true rather than just the product of contingent experince. And I guess some people might argue that contingent human experince is true enough to be getting on with.

We find the world to be comprehensible, so I don't see a need for any assumptions in that matter — Janus

Hmm. Not sayign you are wrong, but I probably wouldn't share that view. Sure we can navigate the world pragmatically, but claiming true comprehension overlooks the potential complexities beneath our experiences. Our confidence in “understanding” as you say often rests on habits of thought and inference, not on direct access to reality’s underlying structure. Habit and comprehension would seem to be different things.

We feel the sunlight and wind on our skins. We feel the force when we throw objects or wield a hammer or strain to walk up a steep hill and in all our bodily activities. — Janus

So you're a realist? I'd probably reserve judgment on this. We pragmatically engage a world of forces and sensations, but can we infer unmediated access to a noumenal reality beyond those experiential conditions? And at some level, sure, who gives a fuck? It works, so let's just intervene in the world. But isn't this just suppressing our metaphysical assumptions?

:up:

G.K. Chesterton has a great quote here: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Progressives and Conservatives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is making sure they never get fixed." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nice.

We don't need to make assumptions, in the sense of holding some metaphysical view or other, to do science, and I count science as part of philosophy. We don't even have to make assumptions in order to critically examine metaphysical assumptions. — Janus

Interesting. Is this right?

Doesn't science rest on metaphysical assumptions such as the world is comprehensible and that reason and observations are reliable and there's an external world and causality - those kinds of things? Or do hold a view that methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism) is a default common sense foundation that requires no justification other than our continued demonstrations of its reliability in action?

This forum, to me, is not really the place to account for God and suffering, as that would take Bible quotes and histories of saints and in the end, we will only be able to answer how God allows suffering by asking God, so if there is no God to you, there is not only no need to ask the question, but no need to think there would be an answer discoverable through our own reason. — Fire Ologist

That's fair and I think once one is appealing to versus and lives of saints we are really moving away from philosophy and into a world of faith, dogma and doctrine. I heard the same point recently from a Hindu Uber driver who was incensed at 'stupid Christianity' with its superstitions and held that his gurus lives and the scriptures and how these aligned with science clearly demonstrated the superior truth of Sanātana Dharma.

Sure, it's perfectly good way to use the word, and my own preference. But I hope you also agree with me that "how to use the word correctly" (assuming this could even be determined) is much less important than understanding the issues various philosophers are raising when they talk about being, truth, structure, logic, et al. Who knows, it might turn out that the word is dispensable entirely, but the questions raised under its banner won't therefore go away. We might just need more perspicuous ways of talking about them. — J

I think this is an important point. Too often, people get bogged down in dictionary definitions and an almost obsessive categorization of language, at the expense of nuance and context.

The older colonial mansions I have visited (which are not all that old given my country) did not have bathrooms. A tub was brought into the bedroom or dressing groom, for washing, perhaps once a week. Toilets in large mansions (if indoors) were often downstairs near the back because plumbing and water pressure was a problem. Income and class has a lot to do with it. My father, who grew up almost a hundred years ago, did not have access to a bathroom in the family home. People went to communal bath houses. Men had a shave twice a week at the barbers. Sometimes people would use a sink for a quick wash. Interestingly you see bath tubs in kitchens in old New York apartments. I remember seeing the painter Francis Bacon's apartment in London and it had a bath in his kitchen too.

I envision a system that elects leaders, that discards political parties entirely, and where we vote for ideas and not ideologies, empty dogma, or just the parties themselves. Our democratic system, while good in theory, doesn't actually work, because nobody is taking responsibility and nobody can be held accountable. We point fingers, we change political parties or representatives, but the fundamental issues remain. What good is politics if it doesn't serve the common man? — Martijn

This is a common view these days and, in the U.S., it helps explain the appeal of Trumpism. However, voting solely based on ideas is tricky, since ideas usually reflect dispositions and values: they are not free-floating or value-neutral. As soon as you engage with an issue like housing policy or immigration, people tend to organise based on how they interpret those interests through the lens of values and interests. That’s where politics begins.

Q
The only way that Q can be true is if P
therefore, P

I suggested that the issue is it's reliance minor premise; that there may be other ways, unimagined by ourselves, in which Q can be true that are not dependent on P being true. — Banno

Interesting - is this it?

Reality is the case
Reality could only be possibel if God were the case.
Therefore God must be the case.

In modus tollens
If not P, then not Q.
Q is the case.
Therefore P must be the case.

I guess a famous transcendental argument for god is this one (Plantinga, I recall)
If God does not exist (¬P), then rational thought, morality, or logic (Q) is not possible (¬Q).
But rational thought (or morality, logic, etc.) is possible (Q).
Therefore, God exists (P).

Your point about the first premise holds here too- it hasn't been demonstrated that premise one is correct, so the the argument isn't sound - but it is valid.

I find it interesting that you associate this sort of thing with Peterson. Nietzsche has tended to be more fodder for the left, and I think the "death of God" tends to get rolled out more often by post-structuralists, or at least Continentals more generally, than anyone else. The "political right" has, by contrast, tended towards "God never died in the first place" (or "if 'God is dead and we have killed him,' nonetheless he is risen!"), holding up living traditions as a counterpoint to modernity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. For years Peterson has been droning on about how Nietzsche is the only atheist who understood the implications of atheism through his death of God frame. There are several lectures on Nietzsche by Peterson on this and he brings it up in a heap of podcasts. He quotes Nietzsche a lot.

Peterson is sometimes incoherent I would not have always said that he is Right - he is conservative but that's slightly differnt. I used to think of him more as a Centrist politically. He self-defined as a progressive leaning centrist. Although his support of Trump and Musk and even Thiel may have moved him further right.

Peterson's bogus obsession with "postmodern Marxists" - is really just Stephen Hick's frame - the guy he seems to borrow most of his philosophical (but not his religious) ideas from. I think his views on Nietzsche may come from Hicks too. People who are learned in postmodernism and Nietzsche tell me Hicks is confused and misread. Of course one man's misreading is another's theorised interpretation. :wink: Any thoughts on Hicks?

My response all along has been the special pleading of religion as evil, not denying it can be evil. — Hanover

For what it's worth, I think your take on this is fair.

If we should examine each of the tens of thousands of bullets suspended in air, now in midflight, and place each under the microscope to decipher what anger is embeded in each of them, I'd suspect that remarkably few have thoughts of God and ancient theologies within them — Hanover

Nicely put.

The hail of gunfire in Ukraine, for example, is a better example of mass destruction than 9/11. What intention do you suppose is impregnated in those bullets, the advancement of Christianity, Judaism, Islam? That doesn't seem right. Probably a drive for natural resources, the rebuilding of a fallen empire, or a a diversion from a failing economy? Secular interests that is. — Hanover

Not so sure about that .

The Russian Orthodox Church, particularly under Patriarch Kirill, provides critical religious justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The church has framed the conflict as a "holy war" aimed at defending "Holy Russia" and protecting it from Western influences. Christian nationalism is central to Putin and Trump, it would seem. I would not underestimate the role of the Orthodox church in Putin's Russkiy Mir empire building. Identifying as a Orthodox Christian has been central to his project.

It's true that religion can be exploited by corrupt individuals to sway voters and soldiers: figures like Putin and Trump have utilized religious narratives to bolster their political agendas. This manipulation doesn't render religion any less dangerous; on the contrary, it often provides the anger, motivation, and justification for atrocities, even if the underlying motives may be rooted in nihilistic greed.

That said, I wouldn't argue that religion is the sole source of abject cruelty on our planet. It's merely one of the major players.

I simply believe that anything we find 'normal', including all our behaviours and attitudes, are shaped by the stories we tell ourselves. — Martijn

Of course. Many postmodern thinkers talk about this. Even the ability to question the status quo is embedded in narratives and webs of contingent values.

Well, my guy, Bandt was eventually vanquished. Not sure about Monique Ryan. Hamer is awful. Unfortunately Wilson got over the line.

Well written. J Krishnamurti makes many of these points - especially fear, competition, tradition and convention, the need to question and the need for a shift. I think thoughts like these occur to many people as they move from their teens into their 20s and beyond. But most get sucked into the rat race.

So yes, if we presume to know how God operates, and presume an all-good God would by definition care for my suffering, and presume I know what “all-good” actually means, and I suffer, then either my presumptions are false OR God doesn’t exist.

And so, if my presumptions about God may be false, it is not logically necessary to conclude God does not exist. Therefore, the conclusion of the problem of evil argument that “God does not exist”, is not necessarily a sound estimation of what actually exists and what suffering actually means. The problem of evil is a logical exercise, but not a sound estimation of God and suffering proving anything either exists or does not exist. — Fire Ologist

Yes, we agree - it isn't a logical necessity. The argument is directed at believers, specifically, most believers I've met, who hold to a personal God they think saves people from cancer, rescues lost children and helps them find parking spaces, and yet permits immense suffering on the world.

complaining about the God they don't believe in doing things they don't believe God ought to do. :roll:
— Wayfarer

Essentially, my whole way of thinking about the problem of evil. :100: — Fire Ologist

As you know, the argument from evil is often used by atheists to respond to certain believers who often insist, and I had one say this to me recently: 'Look at the perfection of the world and how good it is; it must be the creation of a benevolent God.' That was the thinking I heard in sermons as a child. The obvious response is that the world is bathed in suffering, and that creatures were created to hunt, kill, and eat each other, with pain as a fundamental expression of life. In my experience that usually ends that line of thinking.

Whatever people think of the argument, for some theists, the problem of evil gives rise to doubt. No less a thinker than David Bentley Hart has conceded this and believes it is one of atheism's best arguments. He is a sophisticated theological thinker, although conservatives often dislike his Left-leaning views. Believers are as tribal as any other group.

But of course, those who want to believe in a just personal God will always construct some kind of exculpatory theory or version of God in which suffering is either necessary, the result of some contamination, or entirely unrelated to the deity. Of course they would. And as I have already said, the argument is primarily used in response to certain naive accounts of God.

I've often thought that some personalities are drawn to narratives of enchantment, while others are not. Those who are see in metaphysics a realm of possibilities, alternative ways of being that imaginatively transcend the immediate and the empirical.

So, what is real? How do we know what is real? — Truth Seeker

You forgot scientism.

Theism – A personal God created and oversees the universe. — Truth Seeker

Not all theisms seem to accept a personal god.

From my perspective, none of the above really matters. I'm happy to drift on experience, not abstractions. I doubt that humans can truly uncover what is "real," since the very word is a construct, an umbrella term covering a multitude of possibilities, as you've shown.

Perhaps my perspective is closer to pragmatism. Which is sidestepping the matter.

At any rate, chasing after "reality" has become a kind of surrogate for God: an ultimate reference point that people invoke to ground meaning, truth, or authority. But just like the divine, it's elusive, shaped more by our frameworks and desires than by any stable essence. You can devote your entire life to chasing what's "real" and get precisely nowhere, and even forget what's actually important.

You can call yourself an idealist, a nondualist, or a psychophysical parallelist, but the moment anyone walks out the door, they're generally a realist and behave pretty much the same as everyone else.

There is a weird sort of relationship between modern culture and elitism, particularly on the left. There is an obsession with access to elite institutions, particularly universities and prep schools, but then this is paired with a denial that having received this sort of elite cultivation actually makes the elite any more suited to leadership. This is sort of contradictory though. If going to an elite prep school and Yale didn't better prepare one for leadership, or career/political success, then there would be no reason to expend so much effort trying to make sure that different people had access to these things. They would be hollow, ineffective status symbols. People could get ahead by ignoring them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is odd. In my experince, here, it's the left that is often elitist - in terms of culture and it's the right who are generally the low brow. I guess it all depends upon how one frames elite. Are we talking who owns the means of production, or who owns some Penguin classics?

I am reminded of art critic Robert Hughes' stance from his autobiography - "I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense. I prefer the good to the bad, the articulate to the mumbling, the aesthetically developed to the merely primitive, and full to partial consciousness. I love the spectacle of skill, whether it's an expert gardener at work or a good carpenter chopping dovetails. I don't think stupid or ill-read people are as good to be with as wise and fully literate ones."

With whatever conception of God there is that fits the all-good-powerful-knowing God of the argument, I am asking why is it we can’t account for all the pain and suffering if there is such a God, but we can account for it without God? Why is it we are fine adjudging “An all-good God would not want there to be any suffering let alone all of the gratuitous suffering, but nature needs there to be all of this suffering in order for it to function at all.’ ?? — Fire Ologist

This belief seems easy enough to parse. Isn’t it the case that if there is no god and no meaning then needless suffering actually makes sense? It’s what you’d expect to see in a world with no inherent purpose - struggle, chaos and suffering, But if creation is about genius design and magnificent order and if God cares for us and wants a relationship with us, then suffering by apparent design does not make much sense. It seems contradictory. This is a convincing idea. Of course if your God is an abstraction, a recondite, ground of being type deity, then one would be less likely to have any expectations of the ‘material world’. And no doubt theology can explain away anything.

Knowledge and reason are specifically developed to constrain our choices. — T Clark

Nice.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this can be used.

As I understand him, Nietzsche is an anti-foundationalist in that he rejects the idea of absolute, universal truths or fixed foundations for knowledge, morality, or meaning. Instead, he emphasizes interpretation and perspectivism—the contingency of all values and beliefs. I tend to agree with this.

Bedtime. Bye.

I've not heard of a grounding utility, but I am familiar with foundationalism, presuppositions, and grounding. I understand Nietzsche to reject all such attempts and to be resolutely anti-foundationalist.

I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe. — Quk

I don't see any harm. I just don't see any significant use yet.

Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? — Quk

I haven't found philosophy particularly useful, so I'm not expecting much.

That philosophical idea is not just an argument against nihilism. — Quk

I can't see it as an argument against nihilism. But it might depend on which version of nihilism you have in mind - it's a broad category. If you're the kind of nihilist who believe life isn't worth living, this principle is unlikely to help. I've worked with many suicidal people and nihilism is ususally about experience, not abstract arguments.

Life is Good - lets all start there. This is the utility it offers. — James Dean Conroy

So I guess this is our point of difference. I had already argued about this earlier. I can't see the utility of this axiom.

Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?

"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good.

Ok, well there's probably no point continuing.

As is this. You've refused to engage in the game - I'm past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt. — James Dean Conroy

I don't understand what you mean by game.

1. Life is, therefore value exists. — James Dean Conroy

Yes, I can see how this makes sense.

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy

I can't quite see how growth is valued. But I can see how this is similar to axiom one.

3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes. — James Dean Conroy

I can see how this makes sense. If life doesn't affirm itself it may perish.

A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain. — James Dean Conroy

So what does this ontology give us? I can’t see how this will help people who are wondering whether life is worth living. The fact that life chooses to live doesn’t mean it can’t also choose to die.

I live a fairly contented and privileged life. And yet, if I could press a button to no longer exist, and never have existed, I can’t say I wouldn’t press it. I don't have any overwhelming desire to exist and I am fortunate. The years of illness and old age await. Do I want to experience this?

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. — Quk

Ok. I don't see the point. Which is why I have been looking at the word 'good' assuming this was a moral argument of some kind.

No, you're not. — James Dean Conroy

You are calling me dishonest.

Or, if you want to continue misrepresentation — James Dean Conroy

Goodness... if I am misrepresenting you that it is not intentional.

The next step, frankly, is to recognise that once you do that (accept the first axiom) - they rest just follows logically. If you're ready - I can show you why. — James Dean Conroy

What's the next step?