Comments

  • Can existence be validated without sensory
    My personal definition of faith is having a loving and trusting relationship.

    That is why many loose faith because they assume faith is following laws and technicality. Than you have atheist doing rituals who go to Church (but that’s a subject for another time)     — SteveMinjares

    That's a mighty idiosyncratic definition of faith. If you are a Bible believer then (amongst other definitions) it is:

    "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

    Generally faith is how people explain holding a belief when they don't have good reason for it. In the context of theology it isn't the same thing as love and it needs to be said that you can introduce me to the people you listed above. God, it could be said, remains undetectable, absent - at best the subject of cryptic signs or speculations. Or, in the absence of evidence... faith.
  • What is mysticism?
    Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution. — T Clark

    I'm wary of not using particular words just because of the tensions. But I hear you.

    As you may recall, I am not a practitioner of any contemplative traditions or follower of any spiritual practices (for want of a better term). I want to understand better what people are getting out of things like Tao, and if I should care. In the 1980's and 1990's, I spent most of my time in the company of Buddhists, theosophists, mystics, cranks, Gnostics, Jungians and various devotees of I Ching, seances and Gurdjieff movements. Weak and anecdotal, but I never saw anyone benefit from these interests. Since then, while I value the numinous and the ineffable to some extent, I have been unable to shake of a simple minded empiricism and reason based world-view. I am not required or driven to speculative pursuits or to 'go deeper' than the quotidian. But I am usually interested to hear from others, unless the voice is strident and unpleasantly dogmatic.
  • What is mysticism?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Thank you for that very nuanced and insightful response. I struggle with the harsher forms of Zen (and I think I do understand the basis for the approach) and wonder about this notion of having a calling - I think that is a good term. It seems somehow more apropos than to call it a predisposition.

    Do you think that a Westerner holding an Eastern contemplative approach comes with additional cultural challenges to overcome or, in fact, are there some advantages? I used to think that spiritual truth is not restricted or contained by culture - if that makes sense.

    Would there be uncontroversial views on a successful way to make a deeper pathway more 'Western friendly' without diluting or distorting?
  • What is mysticism?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Do you have a view as to why this facility is (for want of a better term) hard to reach? There's a sense from some commentators that there is a hierarchy of sorts at play too, isn't there? Some people being not ready yet? Or perhaps never ready?
  • What is mysticism?
    Every time. S/he is always a beginner it seems. — 180 Proof

    I wonder if there is a price to pay for all that suddenness.
  • What is mysticism?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Yes, I suppose I took sudden to be predicated on a lack of preparation rather than the awareness/experience. Is sudden for the first time, or for the seasoned mystic?
  • What is mysticism?
    “What the hell is water?” — 180 Proof

    Excellent!!
  • Are systems necessary?
    ↪Thinking
    Is a system an organized approach deliberately chosen, or is it something you are thrown into? If it is both, as it must be, then I guess there are so many systems in operation at once that they are unavoidable and who really knows which is helpful? A system may only be helpful to the extent that it minimizes the negative impact of another system. This happens in politics - it happens with addictions. I wonder if all systems are in the end an attempt to solve a problem.
  • What is mysticism?
    Perhaps 'mysticism' is waiting for sudden revelations as a way of life. — 180 Proof

    I don't know why but the word 'sudden' seems slightly off target.
  • What is mysticism?
    It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

    Isn't this fascinating? Kafka... I really like this. This could be from any number of mystical traditions. And maybe for me this is the initial entry point on this subject that resonates most. That sense of no nothing (although that is perhaps too crude).

    Mystery means lots of things. In what way is it confused with mystical? — T Clark

    I think mystery is often used as a synonym for mysticism but for me this suggests it is a puzzle to solve rather than an experiential phenomenon. Wrong path. Also to say it is a mystery is too general and sometimes used as a pejorative to shut down a discussion of mysticism (at least, that's what I've seen) as in 'Don't mystify us with your bullshit!'. And mystery is kind of a low resolution stand in for what people mean by the ineffable. That which cannot be explained but is experienced by others is a mystery to those outside the experience. Sorry, perhaps I lack sufficient precision on this point.
  • What are the most important problems of Spinoza's metaphysics?
    ↪Eugen

    Thank you. I have had the most extraordinary time following this discussion and your questions with their reactions. I had no idea Spinoza with a thing with anyone but my mother and a few random academics scattered across the globe.

    Just a suggestion - Why not reach out to a philosophy department at a university and talk to a Spinoza scholar - if you can find one? A conversation in real time might cut to the chase.

    It seems to me some of your questions are constructed using modern understandings that don't quite fit and may be incompatible with Spinoza. There is an increasing irritation in your tone. Are you feeling frustrated? I am not trying to be a dick, but maybe it will help to reflect on why you are frustrated. Would it help to slow do? What do you think is going on in this discussion between you and the others? Are people refusing to answer you? Or are you making it hard for them to answer?
  • What is mysticism?
    ↪T Clark


    I'd be interested in parsing the difference between mystery and mystical - I think the two become confused.

    It seems fairly clear that those who have mystical experiences don't generally view them as mysterious in the moment - the experience itself brings a type of grounding and certainty - perhaps a sense of oneness or a meaningful connection to higher consciousness. When encountered this is not doubted.

    Talking about, describing it afterwards is the problem.

    Is there any thinking about any notions of good mysticism versus bad mysticism. Can it be graded in any way? Perhaps shallow versus deep?

    What are some of the better descriptions people have provided about the wisdom or insights they encounter through mysticism? Can it be brought back to the quotidian? Or does it remain resolutely first person and ineffable? I am particularly interested in whatever transformative capacities mysticism is said to have for people.

    We should probably distinguish between the experiences people have taking substances and those mystical states gained during contemplative states. Thoughts?
  • What is mysticism?
    People use the word. We ought to be able to agree on what they mean. Or at least they should be able to explain what they mean. — T Clark

    Isn't ineffability one of the hallmarks of mysticism?

    I'm surprised you don't have a ready and cheerful definition fo this. For me Mysticism is an umbrella word for a range of spiritual ideas. I think the Tao Te Ching is an example of a form of mysticism, perhaps in part depending upon how it is approached. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Mysticism has a central focus on knowledge or realisation which can't be stated in ordinary language or apprehended in conventional ways.

    Generally Mysticism takes as a staring point the idea that there is spiritual wisdom or higher consciousness which is inaccessible to ordinary intellectual activity. Access to mystical insights may be approached using various practices: readings, exercises, mediation, substance use, and contemplation. Most religions have a mystic tradition. Like many pursuits, there is hard and soft mysticism. There is probably a common mystical core to most of the world's spiritual traditions.
  • Are people getting more ignorant?
    Given the prominence of Covid in the news over the past year, for 50% of people to say they don't know what symptoms to look for in their own health as indications of whether they have caught the virus is surely alarming. — Tim3003

    How would you establish if this means people are more ignorant today than, say, 35 years ago? I wonder how we would work this out. Anecdotal I know, but the people I knew 35 years ago were certainly no better informed than the people I encounter today, Wisdom...? No idea. What I do see is people are more tribal these days and much quicker to get angry over culture wars issues. This plays a role in what people accept, read, follow, believe.
  • Is the Truth Useful?
    Are truths useful? Truth refers to many kinds of ideas so this is a pretty loose series of questions. I think there are many useful applications for truth. In areas where truth matters - health - for instance, an untruth/deception/omission can kill people. I think where people most crave or project truth - in spirituality, or meaning or the nature of reality - we don't know of anything definitive.

    Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Not sure of your intended meaning here- in some contexts lying is better than truth telling.

    Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? I have no idea. I was interested in epistemology some years ago. I came to the view that it isn't worth pursuing subjects I am not an expert in. In these I have no clear way of discerning truth. Possibly the most useful thing I know of is the ability to write a clear sentence. It doesn't have to be a true one.

    If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? I don't practice philosophy but I try to reflect on choices I make and on what ideas/actions I choose to engage with. In real life I suspect philosophy doesn't matter. It does not appear to be useful in quotidian activities.

    Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth? In some contexts, yes, if the utility of that truth can help conscious creatures to flourish and reduce suffering (I am a piss-poor, simple minded utilitarian).     — FlaccidDoor
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪Wayfarer
    I'm sure that's largely true about the meaning of the faith but not so much God's nature.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪tim wood
    Shall I suppose that at least we agree that talk about g/God is pretty much useless until and unless first there's a meeting of minds on what g/God means, or that is, no wothy discussion unless folks know at least their own minds? — tim wood

    I think that's fair. Unless the idea of God is kept enticingly vague and ambiguous, it would be very hard to get agreement on what it means, even from those people who accept the proposition of theism to be true.
  • The British Understatement
    ↪Jacob-B
    Probably Celtic. Australians do this. Well, we used to. My uncle's house burned down. First thing his friend at work says to him is, 'I hear you had a little barbeque at your place the other day.'

    'He's no Einstein' is a cliche now but I imagine it might have been a Jewish American joke. Jewish humor is full of wonderful downplaying of problems.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    But we currently do not have any observation that confirms their existence. — John Chlebek

    We currently do not have any reliable evidence of intelligent life on other planets. Of course for those who believe in personal experience as good evidence, we have thousands of people who claim to have had experiences of alien abduction and the concomitant probings. :gasp:
  • foundations of morality
    ↪duckrabbit19
    Are you asking the question how do we (best) justify morality?
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪180 Proof
    :100:
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    ↪James Riley
    :100:
  • Atheist Epistemology
    And I wonder, to what degree do you think science makes proclamations about truth amounting the Platonic ideal, or Ultimate Truth? Because in my view, based on every scientific paper I've ever read, is that scientists go out of their way to define the methodological and evidence based limitations of their truth claims. — counterpunch

    You are building on my very point there. Excellent.

    Good science does precisely that and makes no proclamations about capital T Truth. This is a response directed not to scientists but to those theists who constantly accuse science derived atheists of creating another religion out of empiricism or evolution or Darwinism. This is constantly said of Richard Dawkins, for instance. I think it is worth saying because in my debates with Christian apologists over the years they often say (and William Lane Craig says things like this) 'You have faith in science.'
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪Harry Hindu
    How do you know anything except by some sort of observation? How do you know that you know anything? What reasons do you have to believe anything? How do you know that you're being rational as opposed to being irrational? The evidence you provide to answer these questions will all be observable. — Harry Hindu

    Harry this is about epistemology - philosophy has long accepted that knowledge acquired can be divided into that which is a priori (knowledge derived by reason) and that which are a posteriori (knowledge derived by empirical observation). Logical propositions are often a priori, always necessary, and usually analytic. Plenty of information on this important distinction on google.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    If you can show that A causes B, and can apply that principle to create technologies that use A to cause B at the press of a button, reliably and consistently, anytime you want, in what way is it not True (with a capital T) that A causes B? — counterpunch

    When people use the term capital T truth they generally mean Platonic Truth or the Ultimate Truth, not causality.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    Then you have no justification, or reason, to believe that 2+2=4? Or that you have a pain in your foot? So, you're saying you have faith that 2+2=4 an that you have pains in your feet? — Harry Hindu

    He is saying this kind of knowledge is not derived empirically. The justification is otherwise derived. Remember the OP is about empiricism (observation) not justifications arrived at via rationalism or personal experience.
  • A poll on hedonism as an ethical principle
    ↪Pfhorrest
    :up:
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    They thought they were resisting tyranny. Somehow I think they were over-reacting. — James Riley

    I would have thought that if they were resisting actual tyranny they would have been trying to throw Trump out of office. Goes to show that terrible cliché is true. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
  • A poll on hedonism as an ethical principle
    ↪Pfhorrest
    Thank you. It's a lot easier for me to understand when it is put this way.

    I'd suggest a few tweaks to the language because it is a bit unclear. I am unable to understand what below means. Too many ideas running together with double negatives for my brain to decipher.

    he method by which to conduct that will, to form such intentions, to decide what is good or bad, is to initially think whatever you are just inclined to think even if you can’t name a good reason to, and to agree to disagree with anyone who thinks differently (i.e. to live and let live, to respect liberty), until one of you can show reason — grounded in those criteria above — why someone or other’s intention is bad. That still doesn’t conclusively settle what is good, but it narrows in on it gradually. — Pfhorrest

    Maybe this paragraph needs to be in 3 or 4 dot points of itself.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪Wayfarer
    adamantine firmness — Wayfarer

    Seems to be the way of the belief business whatever side you are on. :joke:
  • The pill of immortality
    It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

    Personality. The reverse may be true too. Life is not as enjoyable when there is no risk. The prospect of death intensifies the appreciation of life

    If the pill were to guarantee a sickness free 90 years I might be interested. Immortality, no thanks. It sounds really boring.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪John Chlebek
    "beliefs can only be considered reliable when they are backed, (somehow), by observation."

    Is this observable or it is it a faith statement?     — John Chlebek

    Faith is the excuse you give for believing something without a good reason. When the Christian/Islamic apologist says (and I have had this many times) - "But we all have faith - you have faith that your plane will take off and get you to Honolulu". The answer might be: This is not faith. This is a reasonable expectation based on good evidence that planes, which we can demonstrate exist, fly safely every day. There are pilots with qualifications. There is technology that works and maintenance crew that ensure it does. This does not mean that we have 100% certainty that there won't be a mishap, but there are no certainties in life - except those 'certainties' held by fundamentalists.
  • Atheist Epistemology
    ↪John Chlebek


    I think Banno nails it. Some atheists will argue that methodological naturalism is the most reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge about the world. But science should not make proclamations about truth and is simply the best we have based on the available evidence. Capital T truth being out of human range and perhaps not even possible.
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    ↪ssu
    Agree it is far from simple. And many of our problems today will require more globalization, not less.
  • A poll on hedonism as an ethical principle
    ↪Pfhorrest
    Do you think you would be able to summarize your ethical system in 5 or 6 dot points or a syllogism?
  • Arguments for having Children
    ↪schopenhauer1
    Not much of a philosophical case, but I see you have made your personal stance known. — schopenhauer1

    We've already discussed the issues. I am now at the don't give a fuck point. Nothing wrong with that.
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    ↪fishfry
    Yeah, that's right, Fishfry. I am deluded and don't understand the issues like you do.
  • Arguments for having Children
    ↪schopenhauer1
    I don't give a fuck.
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    The guy is a billionaire. The fact that he took the time and went through the Hell that he did to do the whole presidency thing is telling. Who would bring such a thing on themselves if they didn't care? — synthesis

    For the power, connections, fame. It's the ultimate prize. I doubt he knew what he was getting into for starters. But I don't want to debate DT.
  • Is Totalitarianism or Economic Collapse Coming?
    I wonder if you would care to revise your claim that you don't feel any restrictions on your freedoms. — fishfry

    I am aware of this. I'm not overly concerned.
Home » Tom Storm