Probably. I always have to ask what reason would I have for accepting the proposition that there is an afterlife? Stories and claims won't do.

Agree

How often is this intuition a correct assumption of an actual intelligent person, or is it probably always too subjective to be true and they could totally be a dumbie? I assume recognizing intelligence must be evolutionarily necessary? — TiredThinker

I doubt it. I can't say I agree with your proposition. I have found it's often the reverse. People you assume to be intelligent because they appear 'alert and switched on' are often dumb as a box of hair.

I struggle to characterise the spirit of what you say, do you think my optimism is misplaced? Or did you perhaps just want to gripe about a practice, somewhat relevant to my comment, that you disapprove of? — Judaka

I almost forgot what my point was - it was simply a response to your notion about how more people are interested in philosophy today than in the past. My response was perhaps but at what level of quality? We simply differ on this.

Information is a product, rigorously studying a single topic doesn't sell as well as a neat, interesting presentation — Judaka

I've been involved in marketing so that's a given. But I think everyone already knows this.

I agree that a podcast or video will never outdo a book in terms of complexity or how rigorously it approaches a topic. A book has more words, which are more carefully arranged, it is the product of potentially years of work. — Judaka

A no brainer, surely. How books work is pretty well known. :smile:

think your characterisations are broad and unfair, perhaps we need to manage our expectations for the average lay person's interest in philosophy. Their involvement has never and will never resemble that of a dedicated academic. — Judaka

There was a time when lay people read quite closely the primary texts of philosophy. My own mother, who did not attend university, read Spinoza and Erasmus and read much of the good commentary too. People I knew used to read primary texts and study them quite deeply outside of academia. I'm sure people like this still exist.

I think the videos, etc, are more about having a tourist romp around the topics, rather than settling in, that's all. I think there used to be more people who did the latter precisely because the former, the fast food philosophy on YouTube wasn't available.

And don't get me wrong, I like a good video myself and I have not priviledged deep reading of philosophy in my own life. I also think there are issues in reading book after book and not getting to adequately know a thinker too. I'm not saying it is wrong, it just seems unlikely to profit the promiscuous reader. And our subsequent discussions of philosophy are often displays of Dunning-Kruger despite and perhaps because of an increased awareness of terms and names.

Society debates philosophy now more than ever, and people think philosophically now more than ever. It's just that philosophy as a standalone subject, especially as in reading books written in difficult to read language, is so woefully outclassed as a product by alternative means to discuss "philosophy". Aren't you just asking why centuries-old books are being outclassed as products by podcasts, videos, television, news media, politics, economics, movies, music and any other field which discuss with varying degrees of complexity and depth philosophical subjects? Have I misinterpreted OP or is this a valid response? — Judaka

I know this is to Jack, but I wanted to make a comment too. I agree largely with this. But for me the issue is more about the rigorous understanding of some philosophy, as opposed to simply promiscuous consumption of videos, etc, that lead no where in particular. The result may be more sophisticated small talk, but not much else. People know a smattering about a lot, but not a lot about anything.

I sometime think that consuming ideas is a bit like the way people approach travel. They go see the famous places - to take a picture and have something to brag about, 'been thereism'. But the experience is swift, shallow and involves looking without really seeing. In the same way with thinkers people can name some philosophers and a produce quote or two, but is this substantive? It seems to be more like namedropping.

Has anyone actually addressed the ethics? — Banno

No. This is an interesting discussion and confirms that tribalism is almost unassailable.

I would have thought that working together to prevent the spread of a virus via masks and vaccination would mean that people will die in far fewer numbers.

The significant barriers to this are clearly the positions people hold on government and freedom and what counts as evidence.

If I were a nonphysicalist, I would say, "this is exactly what I'm talking about. The so-called physical world can't be ignored unless you want to end up in a hospital or worse, a grave. However, this doesn't constitute an argument. At best it's a scare tactic — TheMadFool

It's actually a pretty good argument... hard to ignore facts like that.

Yes, now they would. This is one of the main things that taught them that. — Wayfarer

Yep. But I guess that's what science is meant to do - models change with the data.

Science aspires to see the world ‘as it truly is’, absent of and and all observers. But it can’t do that, because even the units of measurement that science uses are fixed in terms of the human perspective. — Wayfarer

I suspect that many scientists would prefer to say that science aspires to see the world as closely as human observation allows.

It would be like a person who spends faer entire life in, say, Paris and forms the belief that Paris = The universe. — TheMadFool

Not a great example. Even if one only lives in Paris, easy to find and definitive proof exists for anyone to check that there are other places, a whole world. And, by the way, have you ever met a Parisian? They do think this. :joke:

Is this forum woke and politically correct? No. It seems too chaotic and random to me - a mix of crackpots, monomaniacs, educated, autodidacts and political warriors of diverse camps. There doesn't appear to be consistent or monolithic approach.

Politics and history helps one understand the current state of the world, why things are how they are, how they got here, how they function, and so on. That's as worthwhile as studying physics or chemistry, in my view. Perhaps more so. — Xtrix

This is sometimes true, and may largely depend on the inferences you make from the history you accept. I studied history once. But it need not be compulsory and I have no need for it these days. Was it Tolstoy who said, 'History would be an excellent thing if it were only true."

it's basically a kind of hobbyism — Xtrix

Exactly.

I think they call it utilitarianism. — praxis

It resembles utilitarianism but it is not the same. Nuances.

:up: Think of it as a happy collaboration.

No I meant Harris' ongoing discussion about wellbeing as the foundation for morality. He also uses human flourishing.

Sam Harris is a stoic? — praxis

He's a millionaire celebrity influencer, isn't he?

No one mentioned anything about being diminished. Yet I would argue it's still worth knowing something about, given their power. In the same was as knowing something about Standard Oil in the early 20th century would have been worthwhile. — Xtrix

I hear you. I was being flip. Sorry. I was not saying anyone else had mentioned 'diminished' I introduced this as a personal reflection on missing bits of knowledge. I am skeptical that knowing history or politics is of much use, unless you are in a direct position to influence or make substantive changes.

t's not about being the best at anything, it's about well-being. — praxis

Isn't this completely lacking specificity? 'Wellbeing' is one of those dreadful marketing words, suitable for bookshop shelving. What constitutes 'wellbeing' and please no Sam Harris... :wink:

Most people I know think that philosophy is from the past or is rather obscure — Jack Cummins

Well that may be because much philosophy is from the past and is rather obscure.

Try getting even a well educated citizen to take an interest in Spinoza or Wittgenstein. What is in it for them? I certainly sympathize with this view. There's sometimes a flicker of interest in Nietzsche, but only because his gaudy prose is like a Marvel movie special effect.

I think there is a limited interest in philosophy because it isn't especially relevant. Sure, people like ideas and snatch them in desultory manner - like a magpie picking shiny things. But few people have an appetite for building a coherent belief system based on rigorous study. I certainly don't.

And also I see no real evidence that people are overly interested in science. It's just a word used as a synonym for 'credible' for the most part.

And sure, we can point to best selling popular accounts of science and philosophy as partial evidence that some people are interested in the subjects. But take Stephen Hawking's famous 1980's tome A Brief History of Time. What was the joke? It was the best seller nobody read.

I don't think there is a division between science and philosophy in many people's mind -they are both recondite subjects of limited appeal.

When I see diagrams like this I have to ask: 1) Who determines what one's ideal self is? (I have no substantive sense of my ideal self)) and 2) Who determines what the extent of the overlap might be?

If self-actualization is a goal - what if your best self is as an efficient serial killer?

:up:

Agreed. That's why I posted about the desert, and letting others manage my money for me. Does that make me ignorant, in having never heard of the financial BlackRock? Maybe so, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. — James Riley

Never heard of it and I don't think this diminishes me. There are lots of things I don't care to know about.

P1. If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position.

P2. All (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty.

C. Therefore, the subset of humans who value intellectual honesty must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't entirely disagree, however it would not be unreasonable to say that certain propositions are easier to be agnostic about - the nature of the claim being less unlikely or fraught. Not all proposition are weighted evenly. Would this same logic strictly apply to any claim that can be made?

Replace agnosticism with agnostic atheism. — Judaka

Yep. Pretty much what I said.

Atheist - lacks a belief in god, generally because no convincing reason has been presented to support the proposition. This addresses a person's belief.

One can be an agnostic regarding any knowledge of God, but remain an atheist in terms of belief. Knowledge is fraught. We cannot know for certain that there is not a teapot orbiting Mars.

Interesting. Does your argument also support agnosticism in regards to Russell's teapot?

I generally take the view that a responsible atheist is atheist in regards to belief and agnostic in terms of knowledge. You can't choose what you believe, and even where knowledge of god is technically uncertain, in practical terms you are likely to maintain disbelief.

:up:

I find this fascinating. Given the critical role of language and definitions in ordinary discourse, I am not surprised that the context and usage of words can play such a critical role in managing apparent contradictions and ambiguities in narratives involving metaphysics.

Can you recommend an easy to understand essay or paper exploring the process you used above? I tried reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations but it is beyond me.

What you display is what I call liberalism and privilege. — baker

What you choose to call anything has no bearing on whether it is correct. But I suspect, given your responses, that your worldview is based on a pervasive cynicism and virtually all narratives you apprehend will involve abuses of power and status. I'm not sure this makes a dialogue possible. If I were a psychologist, I might have more ideas and more patience. :smile:

You're a romantic...

I nearly died watching a Marvel superhero film once. The soft-core, quasi-fascist iconography and we-solve-all-problems-with-a-big-fight were too much for me.

As far as faith goes, I think that it has to be able to withstand the test of rationality. — Jack Cummins

Unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of faith, I think that faith by definition can't be justified except as a first person experience. In Christian terms faith is most often understood as Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

When someone reaches for faith to explain why they believe in God it is likely because they don't a good reason. It is the 'special feeling' that X is real and, unfortunately, is equally felt by followers of many religions/sects which cancel each other out.

Yes, a well-aimed, large enough stone can end my life but so what? I'm also stoked when I read Sherlock Holmes. :chin: — TheMadFool

Hmm. Not really a 'so what' though, is it? When was the last time a Sherlock Holmes tale ended a person's life. :joke:

In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' - it acknowledges that it is not an either/or reality. — Amity

Indeed. Theism or belief in a spiritual reality does not bring with it ipso facto superior virtues or capacities. Among the people I've known who seem to live life most deeply, with a sense of the numinous and a strong connection to nature and other people, have tended to be atheists. The more banal and materialistically inclined have generally been theists. It's almost as if for some people, making a decision to 'side with God', means not needing to think or connect meaningfully again.

If someone literally knew everything you could ever ask would people feel defeated and worthless in their presence and resent the fact that there’s no longer a need to explore discuss or discover anything or would we cherish them as the source of all answers — Benj96

Would we even recognise such as person as omniscient; would they not seem mad or malevolent to us? What ethical perspectives and behaviours would omniscience bring with it?

Like most people, I discriminate carefully between the project that attempts to understand reality (which is fraught and speculative) versus living in the 'real world' (which has unavoidable outcomes). I have no choice but to imagine that I inhabit a physical world.

Sure, reality may consist of waves with discrete blobs of energy floating upon it... But at an important level this is insignificant to a life lived. I need to watch the traffic when I cross the road. I need to take medication when I am sick. I need to behave as though physicalism is true. I can't get out of this and to a great extent it doesn't really matter if there is, let's say, a Platonic realm. The case for contemplative practices or mystical insights to transcend (even in a modest way) our corporeal experience don't seem compelling.

It also seems to me that spiritual pursuits so often are a form of abstracted status seeking - all that talk of 'higher level' things - accessible only to special states or special people. It's like crass materialism has been sublimated into a type of crass higher consciousness virtue signalling.

Your lack of considering the role of socio-economic status in interpersonal relationships, formal and informal, is typical for "liberals" ...

off on your obsession with status
— Tom Storm

No. It just means that you are among the privileged who don't have to concern themselves with the implications of socio-economic status (and who can, instead, enjoy the fruits thereof).
Yay, lucky you! — baker

All nonsense and projection. Not a Liberal or privileged - and this mild name calling doesn't address the point.

That makes no sense and once again you are off on your obsession with status. You are not addressing the point and are returning again to hierarchies. Not interested.

And of course they do not all have the same status. Far from it.

Look at the DSM. What can you infer: What mentality produced such definitions of mental ailments and the proposed treatments for them? — baker

That's psychiatry and not all that many psychologists would take the DSM too literally - it has a very American/hard clinical and diagnostic bias. That said DSM also has some valuable material in it.

It looks like you're talking about some kind of voluntary and private practice system of psychotherapy, where the patient (!) still has some say. And not about the public mental health care system. — baker

I'm talking good psychology - public and private. Maybe where you are things are different. Psychology, like all professions, is impacted upon by the culture in which it is located.

Like most professions there are good and bad. There may even be more shit ones than good ones. But that doesn't warrant slamming all of them.

Did you notice? Every study on emotions - philosophy, psychology, you name it - is either entirely about eliminating them or reigning them in. Isn't it time someone tried something different? — TheMadFool

Don't think that's true for good psychology. Eliminating emotions or reigning them in isn't the idea - it is developing an awareness of why overwhelming emotional reactions are happening and being better able to understand yourself and those reactions. Insight. Not all that different from the goal of philosophy.

I also think that psychological interventions that prevent violence, suicide and misery are greatly beneficial and no trivial achievement.

From my own experience - no science to support this - the emotion/thought process is a bit of a cycle with no clear defining moment as to which comes first. — Amity

Yes. The general idea is we develop emotional habits that are informed by thoughts. An initial impulse may well be a lighting quick, unreflective reaction. But the person who weeps openly whenever the word 'father' is mentioned, or who thinks of self-harm or suicide when they are criticised by a spouse definitely has thoughts informing their emotions. Significant unhappiness and unwelcome emotion in people is also produced by rumination and 'festering'.