Human flourishing simply begs the question: why should humans flourish? Something more basic is required. Something that cannot be analyzed because it issues from t he world itself. — Astrophel

I consider this to be wishful thinking and mysticism. You said earlier that I was making it more complicated than it need be and now here you are saying something serpentine like this. :razz:

Sounds like you want a transcendent or magical foundation point to this question and this may well be an emotional reaction. You won't be the first to reach this position.

Human flourishing does raise the question what does human flourishing look like when done well? We know that pretty much all people are attempting to achieve this. Even the Taliban - they, like all fundamentalists, think a particular interpretation of God's will leads to human flourishing - generally flourishing in the afterlife.

We can debate how best to accomplish human flourishing but there seems little doubt to me that pretty much all people have agreed in their own way that this is a starting point. I don't think we need any more than this.

There is the old lady, and there is Raskolnikov, there is the bludgeoning. What about this is there of Plato or the logos?If not here, in this typical case, then nowhere. — Astrophel

This one seems uncomplicated (however I confess to finding Dostoevsky dull). Are you a Jordan Peterson neophyte?

If you believe in moral realism (derived via God or some kind of idealism) then you are likely to think killing is wrong.

If you believe there is no foundation, then you need to approach such questions existentially - what do you consider right and why. Maybe virtue can guide you, or principles like human flourishing - it's an open question.

When we think of the Platonic Good, we think of the Republic, right? And the cave, the shadows, the sun and so on. Now, Plato was, I guess, the father of rational realism, and we think of the Good, it is some IDEA that all instantiations of good are of. — Astrophel

Well yes - we kind of have two loose options - taking the Platonic ideal that all balance, goodness, order is located in the Logos and knowledge of this is available to all of us if we have the right teaching. Or we can take a more Nietzschian view, that all human truth is perspectival. Nietzsche has that great line - if you believe in grammar, you're a theist.

The counter to that is that people have different opinions on what is good or bad. Your assumption of good onto someone else could be drastically wrong. — schopenhauer1

I don't think the point is to take the Golden Rule in such a concrete manner. 'Do unto others' can mean we respect the other's preferences even if we don't share them, just as we how they well respect ours. Live and let live. No one has ever started a bar fight or war over being shown excessive courtesy... or not being stolen from or assaulted or murdered.

ask then, what is in an attraction or repulsion? — Astrophel

I suspect many are built into our lizards brains and may not be related to rational thought. Some are about survival and procreation. I hate it when people rest all things on evolution but I suspect that we are repulsed and attracted by biological imperatives which then work their way up over history into predilections and imperatives.

Curious point - many animals have strong codes of behaviour. Where does that come from? Same as above I'd say. They keep it simple, they clearly don't go on the lecture circuit advocating mindfulness or contemplative prayer.

I am asking that this be put off until we actually know what it is that sits before you that you are theorizing about. Is there an objection to this? — Astrophel

Good. What does phenomenology make of ethics - isn't this the approach you are suggesting? For my money what sits before ethics is behaviour that either repels or attracts us. Then comes the postulation.

Socrates is the most misguiding and most over-rated philosopher of all times. — god must be atheist

That's a ballsy statement. Nietzsche would have agreed but he was... Nietzsche. What's your excuse? :razz:

I ask, in order tp have a moral theory at all, you have to have something before you to theorize about. What is it there, in the reduced analysis of actual moral affair, that can make moral theorizing possible? — Astrophel

Human beings are meaning making creatures. We can't help but contrive and codify, systems, rules, positions, behaviours. Why is ethics different to any other human behaviour? Or are you coming at this from a foundational position?

:up:

Thanks. Good luck.

I'm mainly writing the book as something to accomplish before I pass away. — Sam26

Fair enough. It's good to have a project. I get that. But my question was aimed more at the book's purpose as a book. Can you explain in two or three dot points what it is attempting to address or discuss or elucidate in more specific detail?

It's supposed to get stuck and we're supposed to go silent. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Good to know - that's been my approach for the past 40 years.

I feel like the nature of reality debate often gets stuck at this point. I wonder if there are other ways to discuss the realism/idealism debate?

I can see a case for mind dependence and mind independence.

Is there room for us to step out the arguments in a more direct point form approach and identify precisely where things get stuck? Seems to be it boils down to presuppositions.

Thanks.

It also seems to me that those who mount arguments akin to Schopenhauer's very often do so for religious reasons, which indicates to me that they comprehensively misunderstand the relationship between logic, science and religion. — Janus

Yep. Nietzsche argues that even the great philosophers are propelled by a particular moral or ethical vision. Their philosophy boils down to a post-hoc rationalisation for their values - the ones they wish to inflict on us all. Doesn't let anyone off the hook that one.

l I think the argument that the world must be mind-dependent because a world cannot be imagined except by a mind is specious. The fact is that we can imagine a world without minds. — Janus

More contemporary idealists like Kastrup additionally make the point that materialism or physicalism is false (using a particular understanding of QM) therefore all which exists must be consciousness - ergo idealism.

What do you consider to be the best defeater/s for idealism?

Thanks. The Kastrup interview is bound to irritate some people. His approach often seems to me to be a more sophisticated Don Hoffman.

I the way he put this. If more philosophy could be written with clarity I'd be pleased.

Kant in the Western tradition was the first one to point out that space and time are not the objective scaffolding of the world but cognitive categories – our own way of taking things apart so we can comprehend them more easily.

In this discussion and so many others here, we keep coming back to such simple building blocks of understanding, namely can we know reality and how so?

Richard Rorty doesn't come up here much and I know many people disparage his work (he seems to be the wrong kind of postmodernist). However on this subject of reality I have always had a view that the following idea has legs and then I saw Rorty addresses it in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity.

Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.

For me the problem with the philosophical onion is that you can peel away layers of accepted beliefs to reveal something new underneath, but there are always more layers to peel away and then finally you are left with nothing. :wink:

Ok, thanks. How do you get from electric charge in matter to will?

Exactly! A mystery! — Raymond

Well it's such a mystery I have no idea what it's connected to. Is charge about cooking or trees?

What is charge?

Thanks. Totally forgot about this one. :wink:

Has there ever been a thread about the presuppositions necessary for the possibility of rationality and intelligible experience?

:up:

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank

I can't imagine it would be easy - my response was glib and inadequate. Ending poverty permanently - not just bailing people out temporarily by throwing billions in different directions is the salient matter. I am no expert but I would imagine it's about dealing substantively with complex social systems and structures, the workings and failures of capitalism and building people's skills and supporting them to gain more control of their lives and power in society. This would require radical social change, not just dollars or rubles.

Did you know that it costs so little each year to end severe poverty around the world? — L'éléphant

Of course but the problem is much more complex than money.

I'm not in a position to psychoanalyze him, — Saphsin

I hear you but I am not asking for anything as vulgar as amateur psychoanalysis. I'm asking if you think he is being disingenuous. You write -

Chomsky conspicuously doesn't mention any of this, and spends many pages talking about how Newton completely dismantled mechanistic philosophy and that what proceeded its course is what tells us about the nature of science. Well, there's no reason to take mechanical philosophy or its corollary seriously now that we have completely new notions, we know what Newton and his contemporaries did not know — Saphsin

Sounds to me as if you are describing a basic flaw from C and that this approach is possibly taken with calculative intent - leading us away from potential answers and into mystery. Or have I read you wrong?

I've heard this take on Chomsky's position before and it seems reasonable. What do you think is going on for Chomsky then? Is he being disingenuous in avoiding certain ideas and over capitalising on others? Do you think he is trying to lead people in a particular direction, or is he grappling with the facts?

So maybe we can’t “understand” the world in the way understanding was once meant. — Xtrix

I agree with you. And then there is the matter of individual capacity. I struggle to understand the system I work in, let alone recondite philosophy. The chances that I would every come close to understanding the 'true nature of reality' (however this is to be understood or redefined) is, I would imagine, infinitesimal.

But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government. — L'éléphant

It's more complex than this. I know of many people who live and die on the streets of our city of 5 million people (in Australia) who do not get any kind of government welfare - often because they are unable to meet criteria or because they are unable to be organised enough to meet the requirements. Poverty often being the consequence of physical and mental ill health. As a result in this wealthy city there are people who eat out of rubbish bins and sleep in parks and under bridges, etc. This I have seen in cities all over the world.

So by "mysterian" (not a term he likes for himself) — Manuel

Just heard the quote - of mysterianism Chomsky says, 'I'm cited as one of the culprits responsible for this strange post-modern heresy which I'll happily accept although I would prefer a different term for it, namely Truism."

The mischievious thought that occurs to me is that perhaps what's being shown here is that matter is basically unintelligible. — Wayfarer

Yes, he essentially says this in a couple of lectures I've seen from the 1980's.

I don't think he's advocating for "mysterianism" or mysticism. — Xtrix

Not mysticism, but he does include himself in mysterianism in the same lectures (which I will try to find, they're on YouTube).

About nearly everything, yes. Philosophy, history, politics, and most of the sciences. But we could mop the floor with him if it came to popular culture. — Xtrix

:gasp: I know very little popular culture, since I often dislike and avoid it; but with my lack of serious study I probably know more pop than Noam. Not much virtue in this, however. :groan:

Thanks for this. There are many people who dislike Chomsky and perhaps will not engage with this in good faith. For my money, Chomsky is likely to be better informed and smarter than possibly everyone on this forum. We can't readily ignore what he says. I have seen his talks on this subject several times and subscribe low-rent mysterianism myself. When I get some time, I will attempt to read this and understand it, which may be somewhat more challenging.

Lady Gaga said that her aim has been to become a star. She consciously chose the genre of pop music to achieve this aim.
She is fluent in several genres, but she specifically chose pop music to perfect this form, for the purpose of her aim.

I think much pop music is subversive. Sometimes, musicians will openly admit to this, other times hint to it. One also needs to master the art of subversion to "enjoy" this music as a listener.


↪Tom Storm
Except Thomas Kinkaid: His gooey, treacly, cloying sentimental village scenes are a criminal aggravation of the diabetes epidemic.
— Bitter Crank

See, his pictures don't bother me at all. I view them the same way I view any art. I assume subversion. (After all, Kinkade was an alcoholic and died as a consequence of it.) — baker

I find your ideas here very interesting.

I wonder if Kinkade drank out of self-hatred for his debased artworks... (sorry, that was just a cheap line). Lady Gaga is talented but I don't follow her work.

Why do you assume subversion?

I find it interesting that some art can only be understood as subversion or ironically for it to be 'enjoyed' by people. If they thought the artist was totally sincere the work would be hated. I think Warhol fits into this and so do some mid century singers like Dean Martin. The idea of art which is camp or kitsch has fascinated me for years. (setting aside what Susan Sontag wrote about this).

That's because you're not getting involved in it, you don't bother to empathize with it, and most of all, you see no problem with such non-involvement. — baker

I disagree. I have several friends who I adore who make make such art and i totally empathise with them and their projects. I still find it dull.

I love your line 'you see no problem with such non-involvement' at some point I'd like to explore this.

Yes, we can, because for those old texts, we know the rules for what counts as good and what doesn't. — baker

Many think they do but the debate is irresolvable and acrimonious. No one (even 'experts') can agree on anything so the 'rules' are elusive if they exist at all.

But how account for the mystique, the appeal of blood games in that case? Is the reference to virtue and artistry mere puffery? — Ciceronianus

I guess there is something primal in all this that reaches into our evolutionary history. Survival is important. I have hired many security guards in my work for protection (people sometimes go apeshit using meth (ice), etc) - I no longer relish rolling around on the ground in fights myself. And there is no question that some guards have exceptional fighting skills (performed in a honourable way with the minimum of force) and they are generally worshipped by the staff who work with them. There is an instant recognition of a kind of nobility in the person who can handle themselves in a brawl, keep their cool and who doesn't need to resort to dirty tricks or extreme retaliation.

I imagine a boxer or martial arts contestant would feel something similar. — Ciceronianus

I studied Wado Kai karate for 6 or 7 years as a teenager. The appeal was a kind of ritualistic combat combined with a form of mysticism. The idea that you could progress and become a master had a big appeal to some adherents. It provided meaning and community - not unlike a church group. A tournament combined all things humans seem to like - a festival, competition, crowds, spectacle, winners and losers, surprises and prizes.

I guess that explains why you dumped "The Thinker" at that construction site. — T Clark

Damn right, it just reminded me of how thoughtless I am.

Did the games provide examples of virtuous conduct? May blood games of this sort be examples of art? — Ciceronianus

I think Hemingway and Mailer felt this. Something becomes art generally by agreement. Is sport art or a craft - the execution of something functional? I think boxing is still very much tied to this line of putative virtue. In work with prisoners and young people boxing is still seen as a pathway that enhances character. The idea being it teaches discipline and courage and you have to follow the rules/code.

I personally think this is largely nonsense - playing the flute would probably accomplish the same end, but it isn't as cool and there's no blood unless you do it wrong. And it is probably true that any activity that helps people take their minds of drug use and hanging out looking for trouble is helpful in some way. Even golf...

There is a lot of quasi mystical virtue stuff written about sport that I have never understood. Most sport seems to come with a mystique and a lore - especially those which involve ritualistic combat. Think Spanish bullfighting...

I was reading the philosopher of aesthetics, Theodore Gracyk, on the functionalist understanding of art - eg - art functions to elicit an aesthetic experience. Under this category, enjoying African or Pre-Columbian art (for instance) is incorrect or ill judged, as these objects were not intended to be appreciated aesthetically but played a vital role in a culture in connecting to ancestors and spirits. Approaching them aesthetically and divorced from function could be seen as a form of disrespectful cultural appropriation and trivialization.

This is relevant to me for 2 reasons 1) I am fascinated by objects that start as one thing and end up as art. And 2) I am particularly keen on ethnographic art. I would rather have African and Oceanic sculpture in my home than a Rodin....

Which thread were you meaning? There are a number featuring Collingwood. Just read some of Collingwood's Aesthetics from the SEP. Brings back memories of just how deep the proper art versus craft and lesser arts rabbit hole can get. The idea that art is that which expresses the emotion of the artist is something I need to sit with again.

I think my early view has generally been that art communicates an emotion or idea for the purposes of sharing and transforming others (in some way) even if only in the moment. It seems to me that art is often about dramatizing/stylizing a worldview to influence the thinking of others, stopping just short (in most cases) from propaganda. Then big question here is what was the artist's conscious intent and how we could ever know we are right?

I've tried to cogitate over these themes without being too influenced by some 'proper' thinkers.