I understand your argument and it has merit. Humans see red so it matters almost nothing that a bee sees something different. Why would it not - it has entirely different sensory equipment? I think this is what indirect realism affords.

Similarly, have you seen human skin under an electron microscope? It looks like the surface of the moon and is full of living creatures (mites) roaming over it, like marauding aliens. Does this mean that I am not seeing the same human skin as the microscope sees? If you say no then for me this is entirely a poetic use of the word.

If the perception of the bee of the flower is blue and the perception of the flower to me is red, what color is the flower? — Hanover

Red.

I feel like having this put on a T-shirt and sending it out to Christian apologists of the motherfuckin' presuppositional variety.

I think this is a good summary. What the bee is experiencing is of an entirely different nature to what the human experiences. Such a distinction is still at the level of common sense.

I'm a little puzzled by the term faith in humanity. Does this mean a trust in people to do the right thing (however this looks)? I don't generally have faith in anything. But in some instances I have 'reasonable confidence' that something is the case or is not the case.

I have no real answer to whether humans are good or bad. I wonder if the question is meaningful given all the variables and potential descriptions of this vast territory.

Probably it comes down to: do you like people or not? And depending upon your personal experiences and how you have made sense of them, you are likely to respond emotionally and instinctively to this kind of poll. I went with option 3.

Sounds like a very challenging situation. Hard to comment on specifics unless one knows the ins and outs. I've worked in the area of mental health for many years.

In most countries few people stay in a psychiatric hospital for more than a few days or months. In my country, Australia, the average stay in a psychiatric facility seems to be 7-15 days.

In the latter half of the 20th century most countries practiced deinstitutionalization. The approach is treatment in the community.

Generally paranoid schizophrenia may respond well to anti-psychotic medications and mood stabilizers. If treated, people can generally manage their own affairs in their own apartment in the community. I have known many people with the symptoms you describe who respond well to medication and were happy to receive this treatment. But not everyone wants to take medication and this aspect may present its own challenges.

Do people of higher intelligence in real life feel obligated to make the world a better place, or are they as self serving as the rest of us? — TiredThinker

Why? Couldn't it just as well be the other way around?

How does one even understand 'make the world a better place?' In what sense 'better'? This same idea has been put in a myriad of different ways - i.e., wealthy people should feel obliged to make the world a better place. I've heard this applied also to artists; musicians; Westerners; Americans...

Is your idea that with great intelligence there's an enhanced moral awareness?

I wonder how much musical taste is nature or nurture. — Jack Cummins

Pretty sure we are socialised into Western musical taste. Seems likely to me that the music we know would just be a series of sounds - wails, booms, thumps, moans, whoops and whirrs to the uninitiated. It's a type of language isn't it? Personally I have never much enjoyed rock or pop music - for the most part I find it ugly and dull - so personal taste clearly plays a roll.

I remember listing to Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik for the first time around the age of 6. I found it hilarious and remember hearing it as a series of amusing sound effects, without a narrative or melody.

Having sat in the bush listening to bird song, it's pretty clear that sound can take us places (it doesn't have to be music). Think of the meditative effect of falling rain, or the sound of a waterfall, or an old steam train.

I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes. — TheQuestion

That much is clear. But we can find exactly the same kind of 'preachy' subjective speculative views from Hindus and Islamic believers. Although their views would point to different conclusions. The issue isn't that people have imaginative opinions. We know this. The issue is what evidence do you, or they, have for such views. If none, why should anyone take notice?

Which is the common denominator in all types of faith. — TheQuestion

The common denominator of faith is that it is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for their belief. What can't be justified through an appeal to faith? Slavery... homophobia... capital punishment... clitorectomies. The problem with faith is it is not a reliable pathway to truth.

Yep, but the idea that one should not reduce work because it somehow confers a sort of virtue, is what I mean.. — schopenhauer1

Here is Australia in some sectors there are people that have reduced their hours per week. Working 25 to 30 hours a week is common enough and is encouraged. But the big problem is the idea of an hourly rate. If you are paid by the hour the incentive to cut back diminishes. This is an option taken by people who own their own homes and have money in the bank.

I've met a few wealthy people (business owners) who brag about only working 20 hours a week - so there is no inherent taboo against this. But they are still making huge money despite the moderate effort.

Most people I know would like to work 20 hours a week but can't afford it.

Fair question. I don't think it is the Protestant Work Ethic that holds this in place so much as capitalism and faith of free market economics - every bit as religious as Religion.

Mind you, as David Graeber (Bullshit Jobs: A Theory) points out that there are many, many men and women in 40 hour a week jobs that do 7 hours of actual work.

I did understand this and you are right to highlight this as a difference.

Yet none of the people who believe "there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe" do so because George Carlin told them so. He's just making misleading hyperbole. — baker

Are you being too concrete with his one liner? I'd say Carlin is an acute observer of how skepticism is used by people. They accept some claims (without ever thinking to question them) and these are often spectacular claims, like a God or some fulsome conspiracy theory. And yet, in another situation these same folk like to have evidence. As per the paint example. Yes it's hyperbole (he was a comic, after all) but I've certainly observed this inconsistency many times. The beauty of Carlin's quote is that he says it like an aphorism of Nietzsche, by way of the Bronx.

But being skeptic doesn’t always having to mean I don’t believe in God it just means I choose to use skepticism to think and solve a particular objective. — TheQuestion

Of course, I have met many Christian skeptics. Most people use skepticism in daily life, it's just that they are selective (and often inconsistent ) in how they apply their skepticism.

Hence this:

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin


Personally my definition of a skeptic is someone who requires good evidence before they believe something. Skepticism isn't denialism.

Statements like these below for instance -

I see the Universe as God’s canvas and energy that exist is his paint on a palette and gravity as his paint brush.

With each stroke of his brush he makes galaxies, stars, the cosmos and reality.

And like the sand mandala in traditional Buddhist fashion the Universe will be re-created again in God’s image. In “the Cyclic theory”. — TheQuestion

- say nothing about the world and simply describe the writer's imaginative use of words.

I personally have no reason to believe in god/s - none of the reasons presented have been convincing.

Nicely put and I think that's right.

Crossing the floor is hard to do. I see another independent candidate in the making.

I smell an election. — Banno

No, the man's a national hero and a savior of.... some shit.

What I am sure is that people tend to love to zone out, and then call that "bliss", or "a sense of the numinous" or some such. — baker

Yes. People I have known have called this meditation.

Pffft. Westerners, a sense of the numinous? When an aged Western celebrity chants some Eastern mantra, and does so for "inner peace", that isn't "a sense of the numinous", that's just commercialisation, consumerification of religion. She might as well pray Our Father, but, oh, those words she understands!

Unless, of course, having no clue what one is doing should pass for "a sense of the numinous". Yes, Westerners are very good at that when it comes to Eastern religions. — baker

I didn't mention Richard Gere... :gasp:

When I say 'numinous' I simply mean people's sense of mystery, awe or majesty when out in nature, say, or listening to some music. I meant nothing philosophically or spiritually intricate. I'm pretty sure this feeling of wonder is hard-wired in humans. Even in crass Westerners who buy books written by Herman Hesse or Jack Kornfield.

Buddhism appears to be especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation, probably largely due to its foundational scriptures being unknown and not readily available for a long time. — baker

I have no doubt of this. And I've noticed that for many Westerns who are rebelling against the religious culture of their parents and grandparents, Eastern faiths, particularly Buddhism, give them an opportunity for retaining a sense of the numinous whist virtue signalling their penchant for cultural diversity.

I think most people are not such relativists and "to interpret" is usually taken to be pejorative, derogatory. "Those who don't know the truth or who don't want to know or tell the truth, interpret." — baker

I think this is true but does it not also remain that any account of anything becomes an interpretation? So much more ironic when people are not aware they are holding on to a particular expression of a religion . I can't think of many or any traditions that don't have a plethora of sects or sub-groups, hardliners and liberals.

One of the great myths of spiritual traditions is that of the immutable truth. The truth (whatever that is) may well be immutable but the pathway there is as bent and conflicted as a Vegas pawnbroker.

Thanks James I just got the question. Yes. :up:

I don't understand what you just wrote.

Question: why people say, man made things are unnatural ? — Nothing

I think they simply mean that human made is not something that occurs in nature, like rocks or trees and is, by contrast, 'manufactured' and the process of consciousness. But I agree it is not as if anything made by people is unnatural.

Would we say then then climate change and plastic bags floating in the ocean are totally natural....?

It's been an impressive and amusing discussion. Sometimes like a colonoscopy of the mind but I think I have retained my girlish enthusiasm. I just wish I understood it... :groan:

I can see that.

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good. — baker

Indeed.

If we believe in an omniscient God (which I do not) would it not be the case that human understanding of good and evil is severely limited and that our attempt to pin what we think of as evil onto God's list of responsibilities is a fraught and shallow affair?

It would help me to understand your thinking if you used fully formed sentences and appropriate punctuation.

I think most of what you say here sounds dubious. Here are some problems:

as a subject goes through the objective facts — Qmeri

You are not going to get agreement on what objective facts are. Even the term 'objective facts' is a contestable anachronism.

in most eyes make it quite obvious that one of them is doing things way worse than another... — Qmeri

This seems naïve.

. current way of teaching just says very directly: creationism is wrong, which it is... but does that actually convince indoctrinated children? — Qmeri

Current teaching does not say this. Some teaching says, 'creationism is right. science is wrong.' Reconcile this? We are back to world views and ways of seeing.

teaching them to learn by themselves by cultivating their method and that that method would be a big part of what you would need to justify to get high scores at least in that subject. — Qmeri

You haven't provided a method yet or substantively addressed my question. You seem to be just making claims or motherhood statements about education which are not backed up with a method.

It wouldnt be more, it would be less. That is, the ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ presume too much about the minimal condition for ‘presencing’. — Joshs

Epoché?

Please, give me an example of teaching anything to anyone without affirming any values in any way. — Qmeri

That's my point. It can't be done. Your whole project is predicated on a critique of people's current worldview and values. This is bound to generate resentment.

Why not provide an example of your idea in action because so far it is just a series of not so clear principles. Let's take one issue, let's say a political issue. Can you drill down into this and demonstrate how it would work? How would you balance out a religious worldview - perhaps Evangelical Christianity versus a scientific view?

I can't see this working. The so called scientific method is problematic even to philosophers of science. This is a worldview - you affirming its value is just you valuing what you already value. Teaching people the right way to think implies there is a right way to think. (It also has Stalinist overtones) The matter of divergent views is considerably more nuanced that this.

Thank you. I don't quite get what this more might be either.

The conclusion is, again, that there is nothing to be learned in this thread. — Banno

I've learned that it is possible to fill 23 pages about one not very interesting word. I'm not sure it makes philosophy look particularly effective or useful but I had a good time reading some of it. It just leaves me with a simple question: What the fuck is being? :gasp:

My proposition: Make critical thinking, objectivity and methodology for example by going through their history in different cultures a new separate subject that is as big as mathematics in general education... — Qmeri

You wouldn't be the first person to recommend a radical program of critical thinking amongst their fellow creatures. Privileging a methodology for correct thinking will sound programmatic and dictatorial to many and is unlikely to gain adherents who may consider such an approach a technocratic imposition upon their worldview. In my view it is not the methodology of argumentation that is the issue, it's that people inhabit different worlds and simply don't apprehend things in the same way. I doubt that this is something that can be overcome readily using a process for thinking. I would also be skeptical of the idea of an 'objective' view of many subjects like politics - these are values derived and based upon the interpretive perspectives of human beings.

Not sure this illustrates what form intuition takes in Husserl's phenomenology which distinguishes it from conventional intuition.

Interesting. So what is an example of intuition operating in this way?

. My problem is that I see almost everything as completely pointless and this has profoundly affected my happiness. I used to study endlessly, but now I don’t see any purpose to it. You could work your entire life only to make a scratch on the edifice, but you’ll surely be forgotten afterwards. Even if you weren’t, the universe itself has a lifespan, so everything in it will eventually be undone. I used to play the piano too, but somehow I’ve lost motivation to play when I view it through this lens of hopelessness. — Nicholas Mihaila

Woody Allen made a career out of this idea. Many people at some point come to the conclusion that nothing matters, that life is meaningless and that in the end everything is lost. Generally this hits you in your twenties and it either halts you in your tracks or gives you a new place to start. The choice is yours.

I decided as a teenager that the only meaning available to people was the one they made for themselves. Even religious meaning is subjective because we are generally drawn to a spirituality that appeals to our personal preferences.

I'm no Buddhist but I found these ideas helpful decades ago when I first grappled with meaninglessness.

The Four Aryan (or Noble) Truths are perhaps the most basic formulation of the Buddha’s teaching. They may be expressed as follows:

1. All existence is dukkha. The word dukkha has been variously translated as ‘suffering’, ‘anguish’, ‘pain’, or ‘unsatisfactoriness’. The Buddha’s insight was that our lives are a struggle, and we do not find ultimate happiness or satisfaction in anything we experience. This is the problem of existence.

2. The cause of dukkha is craving. The natural human tendency is to blame our difficulties on things outside ourselves. But the Buddha says that their actual root is to be found in the mind itself. In particular our tendency to grasp at things (or alternatively to push them away) places us fundamentally at odds with the way life really is.

3. The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving. As we are the ultimate cause of our difficulties, we are also the solution. We cannot change the things that happen to us, but we can change our responses.

On the contrary, it puts you in more intimate contact with the world, and allows you to understand it in a more richly predictive manner — Joshs

You're such a tease... :razz:

Everything is in the mind, Miller, so the point holds. :cool:

There seem to have been a few threads on this idea.

I think there are several correct answers to this depending on your perspective and age. Personally I would not want to live forever. I wouldn't even like to have 200 years, mainly because I am getting bored now and I am only in my 50's.

The most interesting atheists I have known have argued that mortality and the lack of an afterlife (in their worldview) act as an aphrodisiac for living. Life is more precious if it is finite and if it is the only one we get. I respect this answer. Personally I think my valuing life is an emotional reaction based on enculturation, but who knows for certain?