Thanks, very interesting.

In any case, the systematic observation, analysis, and control of psychological processes, concentration, etc., are sufficiently similar to the practices found in Eastern systems like Yoga and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

I suspected this might be the case.

The Orthodox Philokalia tradition goes back to the early centuries of Christianity when there was a fusion of various contemplative schools, and is based on the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term Hesychasm. This prepares the mind for spiritual experience and, eventually, spiritual realization or perfection. — Apollodorus

The contemplative prayer tradition. Thanks for the word 'Philokalia'.

Which explains why new religious movements have such a ready audience - amongst all of those who feel the need for a mythological or spiritual framework around life, but who are completely lost to the ‘sheep and fields’ tropes of Biblical theology. — Wayfarer

Indeed. And it has to be said that no one does Christianity the kind of disservice that Christianity has done to itself, with its emphasis on shallow-faith literalism and punishment.

More later..

You yet need to show that the GR is a better theory of motivation than any other, such as adherence to rules (and threat of punishment for breaking them), or fear of God's punishment, and that it brings about better results than any other theory or more consistently. — baker

I don't need to show anything, Baker the GR is a principle and has been a motivator in many people's lives for centuries. But it won't please everyone. My approach is simply that we can recommend ideas to each other and people will either see the value or utility in them, or not. My view is that the GR can be defended as a useful principle and you seem to want something more compelling. I don't think there is such thing unless one is some kind of fundamentalist - religious or political.

For what? World peace? Feeling good about oneself no matter what? For what? — baker

I can't believe this is a genuine response. I've answered this. My view of morality is that it recommends principles to guide human behaviour towards each other and towards other conscious creatures. We discuss and decide upon which principles assists us best in this task. That's all. If you want some kind of totalising, meta-narrative that compels people, go for it, show us something better.

You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions. — baker

Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future.

Why not demonstrate that there is ultimate truth?

Thanks GT and TC, that was interesting to read.

Thanks.

One ought have the strength to do the deed out of compassion. — Banno

I wonder what Garrett's position is on compassion.

Nice thoughtful response.

And this can be a dangerous game as your adoptive culture will likely have its own faults that ought to be identified, exposed, and addressed instead of being covered up. — Apollodorus

Yep. That's always been my concern - swapping and romanticizing.

This is one of the reasons why there is often a higher level of fanaticism among new converts than among those who were born into a particular culture — Apollodorus

Agree. You certainly see this with Islamic fundamentalists.

Though apparently not enlightened stricto sensu, the Dalai Lama seems to be more enlightened than those who claim to be enlightened .... — Apollodorus

Could be, I have not followed his career. There's a trick many spiritual teachers employ - it's the art of staying humble whilst presenting as enlightened. You say things like, "Hey I'm a perpetual beginner, just like everyone." Meanwhile all your marketing and key people strongly suggest or even say outright that you are enlightened.

I'd be interested to know how you feel traditions of enlightenment (however this is understood) might apply to the Eastern Orthodox faith tradition. Are there any figures currently living who might be described as such?

"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment."

- Colonel Kurtz, 'Apocalypse Now'.

It's my major. — Garrett Travers

Nice. I don't have much knowledge of philosophy but I do have passions. Be gentle.

I've read some of the thinkers you have mentioned and am fond of Bentley Hart. This may be a shallow read but as I see it there's an ongoing discussion in Christianity that amounts to a kind of dualistic squabble between 1) the shallow faith or 2) the deeper faith. The latter seeing the Bible as allegorical and God as essentially unknowable - the Apophatic tradition. I am not a theist but this doesn't mean I haven't thought about this in my own limited way. I am not sympathetic to concrete thinking and literalism, so I do not think the idea of a personal god is helpful and I guess Classical theism on account of its roots in Greek philosophy is more sophisticated and justifiable.

I have always been convinced that classical theism is more logical — Dermot Griffin

I am not sure about logic and god and personally think there is more in father Richard Rohr's understanding of the tradition of contemplative prayer and mysticism. I generally find I resist discussions that try to shoehorn ideas of God into laws of physics and human relationships. If God is transcendent then surely he transcends all that?

Just understand, when I hear, or see legitimate frameworks being insulted, dismissed, or ridiculed without qualification, I will defend them, be that Objectivism, Utilitarianism, Correspondence Theory, or what have you. — Garrett Travers

Interesting. Have you studied philosophy?

There's no indication the mother is insane in the film. Also, she already had money, and clearly wasn't trading him in to obtain more. Thatcher was a hired man. I thought the scene made it apparent that Charles was being sent away because the mother feared what the father (or step-father, perhaps) would do to him. — Ciceronianus

Late to this party but absolutely correct. The shot of Anges Moorehead at the end of that exchange is highly charged. What a scene!

A great question. Here's a suprising answer for you: No. This is not how I see Objectivism. It's how I see all ethical epistemologies that can be used by individuals to standardize their ethical behavior in the world. However, not all are always applicable. Need any clarity on that? — Garrett Travers

I'll continue to look on and pop in the odd question. Your ideas are interesting to me because they are probably the opposite of mine. I am always most interested in ideas that don't match my worldview. But I am sure you are used to that scenario.

No disrespect intended but are you here to proselytize for Objectivism?

One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? Would they argue the subjectivity of science, or its divine dissemination? — Garrett Travers

They do argue vociferously about whether math is invented or discovered - that latter belonging to those (like Roger Penrose) who consider math to originate in a Platonic realm. And there are those who would argue that the mere intelligibility of the world and science presupposes some kind of foundational guarantee of that intelligibility. If all of life is just matter behaving through the blind evolutionary process, why would we presume that humans can apprehend truth or reality at all? (Donald Hoffman and others)

And phenomenology would probably argue that math and science belong to communities of shared understanding (intersubjectivity) and that human knowledge and truths are created.

I'm not a philosopher and I'm not sure if I can subscribe to any particular views like these but the world of philosophy is immense and ethics can be slippery. Some people are desperate to found their beliefs on a transcendent rock. Is this how you view Objectivism?

(BTW, I have never said or left be implied that Descartes proved the existence of this body, as Ree Zen mentioned.) — Alkis Piskas

Never said you did. :smile:

Interesting point. However, the existence of "I" is not based on an assumption. It is self-evident. I am aware of being aware. That's the proof --for me-- that I exist — Alkis Piskas

I get that common sense seems to indicate an "I" in daily living, which we may well have to presuppose is true to function in the reality we seem to be in, so we can certainly stop here. But this only goes so far. Even Nietzsche said of the cogito that there was an unjustifiable presupposition that there was an I.

And just to be a pain, and I don't know where I sit on this - Descartes went to all the trouble of imagining that an evil demon might have tricked him into seeing a fake world, but he never went the whole way to wonder what if the thoughts he was having were inserted by the same demon? Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? Thought insertion and the sense that your mind isn't really yours is a common experience.

Not that Heidegger is popular around here, but my shallow, incomplete reading of him suggests that the Cartesean distinction between subject and object are open to question. Heidegger appears to reject this distinction and posit that there is no subject distinct from the external world of things. He challenges the very idea of subjectivism and individualism that emerged from the cogito. All this means is that some very smart thinkers have taken the cogito in ways alien to Descartes' conclusion. I don't have the ability to tell for certain which view is the more accurate account. But I can say which one is more useful. :razz:

the laws of God
— Cornwell1

They are above my pay grade. — Bitter Crank

I wonder which version of the laws of god you're thinking of. Some versions are definitely in your paygrade, B.C. But would anyone wish to engage with such a sad tale?

When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. His body could be a figment of his thoughts. There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. — Ree Zen

It's even more serious than this. How did Descartes establish there was an "I" doing the thinking? He made some assumptions even here. A more accurate exclamation might have been, 'There is thinking."

The term itself, as we know, means "love of wisdom" from the Greek. But that doesn't help much until we know what "wisdom" means. — Xtrix

It's a good point this one. I used to assume this meant the love of attempting to find wisdom. I've often wondered how someone how isn't wise can recognize wisdom when they see it. There seems to be a small contradiction inherent in this for me. Many years ago my wife said to me - "I've met a guru who may be enlightened and is so wise that I am going to become a follower." I asked how she knew the gurus was wise. "They told me so and he looks it."

:up:

Is there any way to tell if someone has enough knowledge about how philosophical questions have been approached in the past? Would it suffice if they arrived at this knowledge on their own, rather than by studying historical records? — pfirefry

Good question. It's hard to get too concrete about this but I am reluctant to call anyone a philosopher if they have never read any philosophy, don't know what the key issues have been, but just happen to ask some of the sorts of questions philosophy has asked even if it is often. That's all.

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof

Yes. I wonder if the matter rests in how 'to make explicit the limits of questioning' might look in practice.

None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials. — Xtrix

Yeah, it may well be one of those difficult questions, like many of those philosophy covers.

Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis

No.

Nice work.

a philosopher is someone who knows philosophy — pfirefry

That seems important to me.

On a smaller scale, a philosopher is someone who dedicates their time to engage in philosophical thinking. — pfirefry

A small scale philosopher? Is that like being partly pregnant? :smile: For me this would be best described as a person with a philosophical imagination. I would never say contributing something new is critical, but I would consider that knowing something about how philosophical questions have been approached previously is.

Good response.

I think a level of competence is required - however that is measured (and I am not saying that I can identify what this is). Philosophy is an approach, sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone who takes this approach is a philosopher, just as not everyone who writes is a novelist.

How much engagement with these questions makes one a philosopher? That's the question, really. — Xtrix

Yes, that's close. It's not just how much engagement but for me it's in the nature of that engagement.

When you say "progress," I'm not sure that gets us far. — Xtrix

Noted. When I said 'progress' I didn't mean progress of the 'case closed' kind. I simply referred to those ideas that have already been well articulated and are well understood (whether these are useful or deemed failures). Someone who is attempting to answer philosophical questions with no knowledge at all of philosophy is likely to not get very far unless they have other prodigious gifts. Perhaps Wittgenstein was in this category - and even he had read some philosophy.

Maybe it would help to look at an example. If a neophyte philosopher said - "I don't believe that the real world exists because only my senses tell me what there is and they are often wrong" - we'd be right to refer them to the literature to get them up to speed with some of what's been explored in this space.

For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher.

I apologize if this is a bit of a windy post.

You're welcome. I enjoyed it.

Maybe she is. So what? Were the presocratics "philosophers"? What were their "basic reading and knowledge of logic"? — Xtrix

Well in the case of the pre-Socratics these were noteworthy, perhaps epoch defining explorations of the important questions. There has to be a start to everything.

But the key thing is, if a person was still approaching philosophy like no progress had been made since the pre-Socratics and they are unaware of the key issues philosophy has raised, are they really philosophers just by asking questions?

I can't accept at this point that a philosopher is someone who asks certain questions as the sole criteria for being called one. It seems shallow. To me there needs to be a deeper level of approach and possibly some knowledge of philosophy. I am happy to hear a compelling argument against this view.

An appeal to popularity isn't an argument. — Garrett Travers

I am not arguing that my position is popular, I am arguing that others understand it so it can't be incoherent as you seem to dogmatically suggest.

What position? That ethics applies to more than just interpersonal relations? — Garrett Travers

Of course. But you know what? I don't think this is going anywhere. I think we should move on. I have made my argument and you don't agree. This is a philosophy forum. So what... :wink:

There's perhaps in some an overhang og Christian morality, in which self-harm is frowned upon. But even that relies on one's relationship with another, in their case a supposed all-seeing god. — Banno

That would be my view too.

And I don't know what you mean on the citation thing. What do I need to cite for? — Garrett Travers

I've asked clearly for you to provide refences of philosophers who hold your position about the self and morality. Since you are the one who says all reasonable philosophers think this way it is only reasonable for us to see a reference or two. In my reading of James Taylor, John Rawls, Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch I have not encountered this. I am not saying it isn't there but please show us how it's an aspect of any inherent framework of morality.

That you and some others may hold this position is perfectly fine by me. It just won't be part of my framework unless I hear a good argument for why it should be.

Especially if you have no problem saying that such ethical deliberations are possible between humans. That quite literally doesn't make sense — Garrett Travers

Well several people here seem to agree with it so it isn't such a strange notion. Not making sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

:gasp:

No, you misunderstood, I said your assertion that morality ONLY applies to other people is not broadly accepted as even the most rudimentary of positions among moral philosophers. — Garrett Travers

Maybe it is just your wording in here, but what I am attempting to say is (and it's a yardstick, not a theory) that what we call morality is the result of people interacting with other conscious creatures - this can be direct or indirect interactions.

YOU don't see how it is unethical because your concept of ethics is binary, either interpersonal, or not a domain of ethics. Do you see what I'm saying? — Garrett Travers

So your position is ternary? I should not say that 'me, myself and I' can't be in the domain of ethics - what I properly should say is that I have not yet heard convincing arguments for why it should be. I am not a utilitarian. It would be helpful if you to make the case for or provide citations for your argument.

Because it isn't something that's broadly accepted as the most reasonable position in philosophy. — Garrett Travers

That sounds like an appeal to authority and it requires demonstration. Can you show us citations for 5 philosophers who hold your position?

For example, taking simply the utilitarian approach at ethics, smoking cigarretts increases your risk of cancer, thereby decreasing overall utility. This is an unethical behavior. — Garrett Travers

I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc.

I tried googling the definition of that word. No results. What does it mean? — Agent Smith

Perhaps probative - with an 'a" - Having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence.

So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor? — Garrett Travers

Only if what you do has impact on others. If you working alone leave nails on a deserted country road for passing cars in the night then this act can be assessed morally.

Btw, I prefer freethinker to "philosopher", and reserve the latter as an honorific for the dead (professors / PhDs aka "academic mandarins" don't count). — 180 Proof

Now this I can get.

So you don't see a need for any core competencies?
— Tom Storm

For example? — Xtrix

I'm asking you - but obviously not or you would listed some, hey? I was thinking some basic reading or knowledge of logic. Your definition means my grandmother is a philosopher. Ok.

To some degree, perhaps we're all philosophers. — Xtrix

To your own health, prosperity, success, happiness, and peace are you responsible, as you are the only person who can experience it. Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness. — Garrett Travers

I can't share this presupposition and perhaps don't fully understand it. I see morality as being in relationship with others. Your view sounds a bit like a version of the saying: you can't love anyone until you first love yourself.

So a philosopher is someone particularly interested in basic questions about the world. Similar to scientists -- with the difference being that scientists restrict themselves to nature. — Xtrix

So you don't see a need for any core competencies?

Of course, I have come to conclusions about the subject, but let's chat about it, because I want to view the opinions of my fellow peers. — Garrett Travers

Going back to your OP, it's a good question. I generally draw a distinction between a philosophically inclined person and a philosopher. There are people who think philosophically without going the full monty. I also think there is a difference between holding a worldview and doing philosophy, but this one is more contentious.

I am not a philosopher and I say this because I do not have a system or hold a coherent approach and nor am I steeped in the key works of the tradition.

But just as there is good and bad art I think there is good and bad philosophy - so it may well be that when someone says Jordan Peterson is NOT a philosopher what they could mean is he is not a good philosopher. There is a tendency to withhold a title from someone if they are deemed bad at it. But for me a bad artist is just as much an artist as a good one. (Actually Peterson seems to be a populariser/interpreter of other's ideas rather than an original thinker.)

More solid evidence you're an idiot! — karl stone

Ah, good 'evidence' keep going we may get to an actual idea soon...

Do you not know? How absolute is your lack of knowledge on this subject? I haven't the time or the patience to give you lessons in scientific method and epistemology! — karl stone

I'm going to assume you are a high school kid. Go well, Son.

No, I agree with your point. I have often said that some of the greatest novels, plays and musical compositions are probably in a box somewhere, or have been destroyed. There is artistic brilliance and there there is luck, opportunity and initiative.

don't believe in the God that a lot of atheists dispute the existence of, but I'm not atheist. — Wayfarer

As far as I can recall Paglia doesn't believe in idealism or any transcendent guarantees. Which is why I find it odd in her essays on aesthetics that she talks like a Platonist (truth beauty goodness). I think some forms of ardent Darwinism end up sounding like idealism possibly based on some notion that certain dispositions and states of affairs are reified by the evolutionary process.