Comments

  • What philosophical issue stays with you in daily life?
    Oh come on, do you really believe that your average Wisconsin Christian is examining their beliefs and studying the philosophy underpinning them more rigorously? This is not an "atheist" or "scientist" thing: most people don't have a solid philosophical foundation for what they believe, and probably shouldn't tbh. — Kenosha Kid

    I agree. Not sure why you raised the Wisconsin Christian thing with me - I was simply saying that there are also 'Wisconsin atheists'.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    It’s not a preference I actually don’t care! :wink: although I have to admit Pascal had an interesting take on it with his Pascal’s wager although personally I wouldn’t go that far. — Deus

    Not sure what your 'preference' reference is to (l'm assuming whether you prefer God or not god?)

    Pascal's wager is problematic as how do you know which God to make yourself believe in? What if you pick the wrong God? I also hold it is impossible to make yourself believe something. You are either convinced or not convinced.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    Think about the forces that hold a nuclei together or the electrons around it…the beauty of this design that holds matter together to form larger structures … without these scientific laws surely there would be nothing … so it is these laws built in the universe which makes me a believer of course but it’s more than that it’s unquantifiable personal experience which I will of course try to ignore for the sake of being unbiased. — Deus

    If you are a believer you are obviously going to prefer agnosticism because there appears to be room for the apologist's familiar arguments.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪180 Proof
    :up:
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪Deus
    Deus, I suspect that epistemology lies at the heart of your concerns here. Forget God, we don't really know anything with certainty. Knowledge is human created and often tentative and speculative. Science is a fallibilistic approach to gaining reliable knowledge based on the best evidence available but it should not make proclamations about ultimate truth. We simply can't say unless you are a dogmatist. The nature of certainty lies at the heart of this matter.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    ↪Deus
    Atheism is about belief agnosticism is about knowledge - they are two different things. Atheism only addresses belief in a deity - Zeus or Allah say. Some atheists believe in astrology and the supernatural. They just don't believe in the god idea.
  • Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
    The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

    As Banno says, it makes no practical difference. There's another thread on this already somewhere.

    Many atheists take the position that there are no convincing grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists - they do not say there is no God. Agnosticism refers to a knowledge claim, atheism refers to belief.

    Hence agnostic atheists who are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of a deity, but are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
  • Not all Psychopaths are serial killers
    Psychopathic thinking in a rational, less extreme and non-dysfunctional sense can make the decision easier to rationalize. Especially if you take in to consideration the emotional distress that comes with these type of decisions. — SteveMinjares

    I guess you need to ask if an anti-social personality also presents as a high risk individual for taking chances and making mistakes (extreme decisions) based on an inability to empathise. A leader with no empathy is in many cases not a good thing even if it is not unusual. It might even be argued we need fewer people like this in important roles which effect people's lives, not more.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything? — baker

    I identified three areas. It is not necessary to be a theorist to make practical changes and I have seen many improvements here over the decades. But I am not willing to explore examples from my work. And, as I alluded, improvements can also be undone.
  • Being a whatever vs being a good whatever
    ↪praxis
    :gasp:
  • Not all Psychopaths are serial killers
    Why is psychopathy classified under mental illness, when it helps people to be successful in their careers and life in general? — baker

    The matter of what success really is lies at the heart of this. You really need to ask an expert to get a proper answer, but one factor will be that in many cases the rest of their life will look like a wrecking yard.

    Oh, come on. Just look at that smug satisfaction! That self-confident contempt! If that isn't happiness (for adults), then what is??! — baker

    You sound bitter. I won't ask who you are thinking of. I'll bet you there's self loathing, poor interpersonal relationships, loneliness and substance abuse, just for starters. There almost always is.
  • Not all Psychopaths are serial killers
    ↪baker
    Why what? Who says they are happy?
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society? — baker

    I am not a theorist or have a vision. I hold a mix of conservative and reform based views which involve dealing with poverty, drug law reform and housing.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪baker
    the problem can never be solved. — baker

    I agree. But various approaches predominate at different times. Some worse than others.
  • Not all Psychopaths are serial killers
    So can Psychopathic characteristic be a virtual and a key to success in the career world? — SteveMinjares

    I think this is very old news. It has long been held that a person high in narcissism and devoid of conscience and concern for others will do better in any competitive area, from the entertainment business to politics (although politics is show business for ugly people).

    Kevin Dutton's book The Wisdom of Psychopaths is a best selling book based on the ideas in your thread.

    Psychopathy is more often known these days as antisocial personality disorder, I am fairly certain that people only present like this if they have experienced abuse of some kind. It's a post trauma state. I've met many people with this diagnosis over 30 years working in mental health and drug services and the criminal justice system.

    The non-violent versions do very well if they are also intelligent and skilled and have some charm. Just being cold and ruthless is not enough, no matter what the media says.

    There are people who have no empathy and have a limited capacity to feel fear. It is often argued that they can do well medicine, law and business. I think this is largely accurate.
  • Being a whatever vs being a good whatever
    ↪baker
    Yes, it's not straight forward. You can end up with the no true Scotsman, no true Scotsman fallacy...
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

    I still believe these must be tackled, perhaps in bold new ways. It's not likely to be readily achievable for a range of reasons. The corporate sector and their media has done a good job of using identity politics against reform movements or the Left and helped to further alienate the Left's traditional supporters. Of course, the more cynical we are about politics and change, the less likely change will happen. It greatly suits the status quo for us to think it's all hopeless.

    But 'jobs and housing' is tired and old - it's like flares, or good music - seemingly out of fashion. Because it's been talked about and campaigned for before there's no means by which a person can stand out, declare their clique via such worn out issues. — Isaac

    That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols.
  • What philosophical issue stays with you in daily life?
    ↪180 Proof
    I hear you and I sympathize. Thanks to the internet (presumably) there has been a growth of literalist fundies down under. Our far North is the equivalent of your deep South... Mindless anti-atheism is here too and likely pullulating as we 'speak'.
  • Is existence a Simulation?
    A simulation that is completely consistent and indistinguishable from our everyday reality is that everyday reality. If we can show we live in a simulated reality, we've just opened up a new scientific discipline. Or religion maybe. — T Clark

    That's my view too.
  • What philosophical issue stays with you in daily life?
    like Dawkins for me. — Manuel

    Dawkins is the height of sophistication next to some I've met. And I say this as an atheist.
  • Being a whatever vs being a good whatever
    I think anything can be called art and that framing something this way is merely an invitation to view it aesthetically, which is a beautiful thing really. — praxis

    No question. For me the act of curating something and hanging it up in a space for art makes it art. The question of merit is separate. This was the view of my favorite common man's art critic, Robert Hughes.

    But here is something I find interesting. A statue by Rodin, found in a building site is still art. But Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII found in a building site is just a pile of bricks.
  • Being a whatever vs being a good whatever
    Being a true Scotsman. — baker

    Nice - you beat me to it.
  • What philosophical issue stays with you in daily life?
    All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

    I'm not philosophically sophisticated but I am always interested in the reasons people have for holding certain beliefs. I have taken an interest recently in people who hold to atheism with almost zero knowledge of the arguments or understanding of science and epistemology. They are what I call 'practical atheists' they think anything to do with the supernatural (problematic word, I know) is bullshit and so a godless, materialist universe suits their outlook. But it seems to be more of an aesthetic choice than a rational one. It seems to me that some of them would be ripe for conversion if they ever met a competent apologist.

    Certainty and truth are constant companions in my conversations with people.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    I'm certain they don't feel disenfranchized. what a strange idea. Do you know (of) anyone who opposes a "progressive cause" who feels disenfranchized? — baker

    I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns."

    So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    It doesn't work at all. But look perhaps at the women's suffrage movement as another example. — unenlightened

    Apologies for speaking on TC's behalf, but I don't think this is the point he made. The point is that in talking to people who would oppose a progressive cause, let's say trans rights, it isn't helpful to be overly confrontational or abusive, as the goal is to incrementally build support not further disenfranchise the naysayers.

    Everyone seems to be taking this thread into different areas - all quite interesting in their own way.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪T Clark
    I'm very sympathetic to this take - it's certainly how some progress has been made before, but the state we seem to be in suggests things are not working. I'm really at a loss these days about how public discourse and cultural battles can be negotiated. Joshs may have a point but it seems cerebral, I'm not sure I understand all his nuances.

    I'm not crazy about head-butting with people who disagree on profound cultural matters. You get a headache and people tend to increase in their vehemence, almost as a defensive strategy.
  • The Creative Arc
    but there is also something creatively fulfilling about trying to do the same thing over and over again. Maybe it's psychosis, or maybe there's something noble in the pursuit. — Noble Dust

    I agree. I've known a few writers and artists. It looks to me, watching them, that sometimes there's an idea inside them that needs to be exorcized and they keep returning to it again and again in a kind of ritualistic catharsis. Perhaps it's intensely satisfying.

    You can actually see this repetitive theme exploration going on here from some members. There's an idea that they seem driven to pursue in endless variations.
  • The Creative Arc
    The trick to creativity is about showing up and being consistent. The more you try and fail, the more likely you are to strike gold. — Kasperanza

    I agree. The same thing is true for photography. If you want some excellent photos, you have to take a massive amount of shots.

    I think artists rehash old hits or masterpieces because they've found a formula, market niche where they have a "monopoly" or reliable source of money and attention. — Kasperanza

    That's true. But also I suspect that creative expression generally has built in limitations. Some artists don't mean to rehash but return to themes, sounds and subjects because there's fence around even the most fecund of creative imaginations.
  • How to deal with a society based on a class system?
    ↪Banno
    As you know there's an energetic welfare system subsidising privilege that is just seen as common sense and fairness by the toffs...
  • How to deal with a society based on a class system?
    ↪JohnLocke
    When I was a boy, here in Australia, if you wanted to be an actor or a radio personality, you generally had to speak with something approximating a received BBC accent. Anyone who used Australian vowels sounds or drawled or whatever was effectively excluded from a range of employment. I remember people describing the Australian accent as 'common' - and that was in Australia.
  • How to deal with a society based on a class system?
    ↪Banno
    Absolutely critical. And you can even see that where folks come from areas of comparative homogeneity, whether accidental or intentional, into this gaping ignorance an aqueous sap of bigotry, assumption and fear is poured.
  • How to deal with a society based on a class system?
    :100:
    Exposure to alternate accents leads to understanding and acceptance.

    Of course, this basic principle has more general application.     — Banno
  • Plato's Allegory of the Cave Takeaways
    Do you want forms with that? — Banno

    I avoid Plato's these days, I hear the nuggets are not free range and they use chemicals...
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    Translation: it pisses people off when their good intentions are being attacked and condemned on the basis of accusations of agendas of hegemony , privilege, domination and bias that is supposedly hidden and implicit in the idea of individualistic civility. — Joshs

    Yes, some of us have gone on a riff about etiquette.

    I guess a key point for me in this from the third theses:

    Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity. We do not need to debate civility; we need to clarify, expand, and intensify our demands.

    I'd like some more examples from mainstream political discourse.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪Judaka
    :up:
  • The Creative Arc
    Assuming one shares minimal tastes with mine, Leonard Cohen comes to mind (now deceased), as well as Tom Waits — javra

    Sure and agree. Nick Cave anyone? Waits is one of the few artists who became less accessible and more difficult with age. Mahler too in the classical realm but that's a whole different dynamic.
  • The Creative Arc
    ↪Noble Dust
    Agree on Scriaban.

    Because let's be honest, what's hinted at in the veneration of Shakespeare and The Beatles is that this art is truly eternal; we say it's "timeless" and we seem to assume that that's a figure of speech, but do we really mean it in that way? — Noble Dust

    That's why I raised them and hence the expression the evergreen classic. The notion that the themes, wisdom or humanity contained apply across ages.

    When it comes to Shakespeare it's complex. Reinterpretation is a different proposition. Works are reinterpreted out of their author's intentions, so is the text really evergreen? But since all authors died some decades ago, would anyone complain except for the remnants of old school Levisite criticism?
  • Plato's Allegory of the Cave Takeaways
    ↪Wayfarer


    The Cave: Daniel Dennett and his physicalist puppets (also not a bad name for a band)
    The Sunlight: Topos hyperuranios

    :razz:
  • The Creative Arc
    ↪Noble Dust
    This reminds me of the notion that the hallmark of a classic is a work that endures through time.

    I think this is just one common perspective. It might also be the case that a work created at a particular point in time and place is of staggering merit (then) but does not endure (now). So what? Maybe some types of genius are transitory or evanescent. hard to measure in the past tense since merit is generally about the present.

    But it seems we've already decided that multifarious reinterpretation across time is the central criterion of merit - hence eternal preoccupations with, say, Shakespeare or The Beatles (who I dislike). And for artists, the equivalent is reinvention, whilst retaining an enthusiastic following (some usual suspects include Bowie/Waits/Madonna... up to a point; but also Gustav Mahler and Stravinsky). I think this is the stuff of hipster music criticism, if nothing else.

    All this presumes an objective notion of what constitutes good aesthetics across a range of artforms and whether this is genuine or 'constructed' by elites; culture and criticism.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪Joshs
    The culture wars in a nutshell.
Home » Tom Storm