I think most or all Buddhists believe that desire is the source of suffering — TiredThinker

The idea is broader and more nuanced than this and even the original word 'dukka' as suffering may also be translated as pain, dissatisfaction, anxiety or stress. Our mental states, our cravings, attachments and our desires undermine our serenity. We chase distractions and we mourn our inability to achieve our desires or we mourn their loss. In short the human condition seems set up for us to be in a constant state of transition, anxiety, restlessness and privation.

I'm not a Buddhist but it seems fairly apparent that people and things and the constant 'chase' are a source of people's joy and misery.

I think that the mystery of consciousness should not be dismissed too quickly. — Jack Cummins

I agree. I usually take 20 minutes. :razz:

I do believe that many people are not really able to do or think about this at all really, and do see themselves as being identical with the various roles they play. — Jack Cummins

Agree. But more importantly there are people who, for instance, think they are worthless, dim-witted and unlucky and constantly see evidence for this. But what others might see is someone who is resourceful, creative and fortunate. That's where it gets interesting. And one of the reasons Narrative Therapy was developed. People construct views of who they are based on self talk which is often triggered by negative experiences as children.

So am I being weak and should be able to accommodate Opiates being around me?
Or am I reinforcing a bold boundary that I know I have failed to be able to self control and the consequences of it? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Good questions, Tiff. I think it is always best not to be hard on yourself. Terms like weakness are not useful and I think it is helpful to know your own limits and boundaries and triggers. That's a good thing and insightful. If you don't want substances around you that's totally legitimate and for many this is at the centre of their recovery. You know better than anyone what it is you need and it's perfectly ok to go about working to make that happen. Just accept that, unfortunately, people around you may not understand or they may be callous on occasions. That's their problem, not yours. Do what you need to do to stay in control. It's worth it.

But, so much is about defense mechanisms and I am left wondering what it means to step outside of these entirely. — Jack Cummins

This is the real challenge, Jack. To be aware of the games we play with ourselves and to become cognisant of the constructed persona we have become. I don't have the answers to this and I am not recommending an obsessive and paralysing intellectual examination of everything we do and think - that would bring its own problems. However, being aware of one's self-talk and asking some simple questions about our assumptions can work wonders.

I am in complete disagreement with you here, believing that everything matters so much, on a personal, social and cosmic scale. — Jack Cummins

Ah... perhaps you need to explore this.

I was quoting AB, but I think it is a useful ingredient in the soup of life. I actually think it has a Taoist flavour.

You misinterpret and you take everything to be about you. I was not talking about antinatalism. And I was not talking about you. I was elaborating on the principles you raised and seeing where they go. Let's stop here.

How do you keep yourself up to date about last philosophy tendencies, research, important topics, new ideas? — Angelo

I don't. Perhaps I took Arthur Balfour's advice too seriously:

Nothing matters very much and most things don't matter at all.

What do you do when a practice is unfair or unjust or unempathetic or cruel? Stop it. — schopenhauer1

No. I would only consider stopping anything if there were no significant and damaging consequences. To do otherwise is naive. You can always make things worse, no?

Don't have people, it causes a state of affairs where the consequence is another person is having to work and feel stress.. the how goes along with the what basically. — schopenhauer1

Why don't you advocate death for children? They are only going to suffer through puberty, relationships, illness, work, and disappointments. Death is better, right? A rock solid guarantee of no more suffering? I also think anyone seriously interested in reducing their carbon footprint and environment impact could consider dying too.

With no further introduction to give, I ask the reader whether they think psychology is an important field or whether any of the above makes sense to assert about the importance that philosophers purported was the examination of one's life? — Shawn

As someone who works in the area of mental illness and addiction (and complex trauma), I would say that psychology (in the broadest sense of that word - counselling/psychiatry/therapy) saves lives on a daily basis. So it is important. It helps people get in touch with who they are and who they want to be. It helps them manage their emotions and experiences. Yes, there is an overlap with some philosophy.

Psychology is split into a myriad of sectarian divisions - from high theory psychotherapies, to practical no bullshit modalities. It's an absolutely vast area, with good and bad practitioners. Like any activity.

One thing's for sure, many people are fearful of and resent psychology, often because they are suspicious of disciplines which purport to 'understand' human behaviour and which may also be used by military and advertising to persuade people to do things against their interests. And there's people who hold a view that psychology is fatally constricted and is devoid of spirituality - its knowledge derived from a meaningless scientism of 'rats and stats'.

In my experience good psychology does not project a theory or viewpoint upon the person in treatment - it helps them to identify what's important to them and how to build a more sustainable emotional life, with enhanced relationships.

As far as it being science, I would say, of course - but it can depend on the modality or particular theory. Psychology is a vast and uneven area. Susan Haack (a leading philosopher of science) reminds us that:

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only:

The inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists.

The special tools and techniques gradually developed by scientists over the centuries (instruments of observation, the calculus, statistical techniques, models and metaphors, computers and computer programs, social helps such as peer-review, etc., etc.); which, being often local, and always evolving, are not used by all AND:

The involvement in scientific work of many people, who may be thousands of miles, or centuries, apart.

:pray:

Sure, but I was just making the point that work exists in many domains and the people involved don't get to choose. I wasn't attempting a distinction between cultures.

:100:

Exactly. Any person born into the world will have to work. Is that a fair decision on someone else's behalf? — schopenhauer1

I wonder if just being a human necessitates living with unfair decisions on other's behalf. The question for me is what can be changed, why should it be changed, and how can it be changed.

We didn't choose the system of government, the use of currency and the corporations which now dominate us (often unfairly). Where the hell do you begin?

Even a generally bad relationship with one's parents can have some bright moments, or at least such that aren't all bad. — baker

Not sure about 'bright' but I hear you. :smile:

Well, I am trying to find some standard here as to the ethical weight of forcing something else to work-in-order to X (survive, maintain, entertain), which is the situation of an average person born. — schopenhauer1

These are pretty old arguments and I wonder what the point might be - what does it bring you if you determine that it is unfair to have to work? Which of course how it seems to be to many, many people. World capitalism would suggest this approach is built into almost all cultures. Marxism might be one response for some. And you can pose similar 'fairness' based questions for almost anything humans do.

Why should people be forced to go looking for animals and edibles berries in a hunter gatherer tribe?

Why should everyone not be given a house and a car free when they turn 18, so they don't have to 'suffer' through work?

Why should a cleaner not be paid as much as a lawyer; is it unfair for some people to work hard for so much less reward?

You're not agreeing. I had a bad relationship with my parents.

And, of course, this whole conversation with your parents took place in an atmosphere of mutual trust, which made the conversation a very specific one, quite different from a plain syllogism written on a page somewhere. — baker

Of course not. You really love your assumptions, Baker.

Is Argumentum Ad Aetatem a concerning fallacy, and if so, how do we combat its widespread usage? — Bradaction

Sometimes we are too young to understand. I had this argument used on me by my parents a few times when young. It did not bother me. I understood that I lacked capacity to understand at the time, which was completely true.

Example: I asked why I couldn't accept a lift from a stranger. I didn't understand what my parents meant by potential danger or comprehend why someone might present risks to my safety. What did cut through was when my mum said as an adult she understood some risks I didn't understand and that she wanted me to follow direction until I was older enough to understand the issues. Made sense to me. Experience is a significant factor in understanding and even in having capacity to understand and reasoned argument sometimes falls flat or introduces other problems.

Human beings are differentists - they are always seething with bigotries and prejudices and fears. Are these natural or not?

Reminds me of the old Bedouin proverb: “Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger.”

The self is grounded in the experience of being. The pure experience of being is always there. — Apollodorus

I'm assuming this pure experience isn't necessarily available to the people who have it. The experience is mediated. Many people have a false sense of self and their experiences are rarely grounded or pure and are influenced and editorialized by a flawed personality or by a mental illness or simply through enculturation and socialization.

For example, does anyone continuously hold a truth for how to speak? Does anyone continuously hold a truth for how they can ensure they never rob a bank? Etc. — Cidat

It might help if you expand on your idea and contextualize it so we can understand better what you are asking. Who is anyone? Us on the forum, or philosophers?

:wink:

But should you decide that for someone else if the “like work” preferences are contingent and stochastic? — schopenhauer1

Who is deciding? Just adding to the picture not advocating any path.

Is it really necessary to do that for someone else? And if it’s not, why would such an unknown situation be considered permissible? — schopenhauer1

Permissible based on whose reckoning? Why use the word permissible? Nothing is necessary, I am just describing a situation, not making a prescription.

We live in a capitalist paradigm of work. It would be lovely to have a choice about this but how do you suggest we tackle it?

I think work should be done. My society has enculturated me to believe this is just a fact of life. I have embodied the value. Thus, other people should do the same. But this is true? — schopenhauer1

You're right - the world of employment and work is a product of enculturation. Nevertheless, people do question this set up, especially those in their teens and twenties who have recently joined the 'rat race' and are wondering why all this potential drudgery is ahead of them.

Many people would love not to work and many people don't work. There's off the grid living or being homeless and living on the street. But then other types of labour and survival hustling kick in. The best way avoid work in our culture is be born wealthy. Why do you think people want to be rich? That said, some people love their work and not all work is equal. Some involves doing things the worker loves. Some jobs are rewarding and useful to others. This matter is far from straight forward.

Age does not equal wisdom, and it would be fair to suggests that issues that the younger cohorts of people find troubling should be an issue for the older in society to find troubling, as the goal of society should be to improve it's future, not its present. Improving the future does require improving the present, but improving the present does not require improving the future. — Bradaction

It's an interesting matter. I agree age does not equal wisdom. Dumb young people often grow up to be dumb old people. It's true that we should all aim to improve the future. The hard part is getting agreement about what 'improve' actually means and how it would look. One person's idea of improvement is another person's idea of a catastrophe. And both sides generally think it's obvious what the result will be.

Even if we only see it as a construct, most of us do feel a sense of self, and how do we make sense of this at all in a way which is useful and meaningful for us in life? — Jack Cummins

I think self-deception is a significant issue for human beings. People hold views of themselves that are far from accurate or useful. A sense of self is generally constructed from dubious source material.

In order to answer the question of how to get people to use correct pronouns, you first have to deal with how to get people to understand the concept of psychological gender. Even when you achieve this , it will still
be a slow process to get the language to evolve. Edicts, pressure , cajoling and threats arent enough. Language changes on the basis of pragmatic usefulness. As people see for themselves the various advantages of changing pronouns , they will go along. — Joshs

Yep. Nail on the head. This is an issue many people won't be able to understand and, even if sympathetic, will struggle to practice.

No idea.

But do the Stoics misunderstand human nature and how our emotions affect us? — Ross Campbell

I think you hit on the answer without realizing it. Stoics were well aware that emotions could move us and often in wrong directions. Precisely for this reason they advocated the use of reason to temper the reactive component of human behavior. Makes sense to me.

One of the favorite barnstorming freethinkers on agnosticism:

The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.

― Robert G. Ingersoll

Kafka might help. I meant stacked.

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Because religion keeps trying to change politics, social policy, legislation and morals in its own interests and against the freedoms of others. For instance, 80 % of Evangelicals supported Trump. The High Court has been stacked with Christian conservatives. The role of women and the status of gay people and other minorities all around the world is made worse by harmful God beliefs. This idea of a magic man who created the world and who commands us is very dangerous. It leads to fundamentalism in almost every country where there is God belief. People who think they know what God wants are amongst the most dangerous people on earth. That's the point.

I was wondering if logical arguments on Existence of God could prove anything before, because God is out of the boundary of our reasoning. — Corvus

Probably only the case if you believe God exists.

structuralism is less controversial surely — Kenosha Kid

Structuralism is Old Testament to Postmodernism's New...

Sorry. :joke:

Nice bit of writing, Poss.

Skepticism (doubtful until evidence is furnished) is pointless in a community that values truth. — TheMadFool

I wonder about that. The assumption there is that it only functions around deception. My skepticism starts with me and I value truth (in as much as truth is possible). I often find myself pondering 'Why do I think that?" What evidence do I have for that view?' 'Do I really have an opinion on this subject?' "What am I not considering here?' Etc. I just consider it a necessary part of interacting with the world.

:cool:

darthbarracuda Big whup. You can barely hear us cursing the darkness over the cacophonous preaching of "thoughts and prayers" or prophetic glossolalia of religious huckers (and their mind-sheered flocks) would plunge the world back into if they could reimpose the Dark Ages unopposed. — 180 Proof

Amen brother. Don't you guys even have money with 'In God We Trust' emblazoned on it? WTF? I guess it might be a cute way to deal with Matthew's injunction to not serve both God and mammon.

Ergonomically speaking, it would be a waste of energy to be skeptical living in a community that values truth and so, over time living in one would eventually turn off the skeptic inside us. — TheMadFool

Hmm - I thought the key focus of skepticism was valuing truth above most things. I think sometimes people mistake skepticism for denialism and cynicism.

The real problem is corporations. When the Constitution was written, there were two powerful institutions that we needed to be protected from - the church and government. Now, there is a third, corporations, and there are no built-in legal protections. — T Clark

:100: