Determinism

[phyllo]

fortunately the world's problems are anything but philosophical. social, economic, political, but not philosophical. you could put any philosophical spin you wanted on the world and you'd never know you were wrong. that's the beauty of philosophy. you can't lose when doing it.

for a great majority of people, the fact that there is no god and no universal morality is a tremendous problem.

How can it be a "tremendous problem" if the "world's problems are anything but philosophical"?

If you are correct in the first paragraph, then the only problems are social, economic and political and "universal morality" is irrelevant.

[surreptitious75]

One cannot escape nihilism since death is inevitable and our existence is ultimately of zero consequence
Instead one accepts this and so works within it to give ones own life some meaning while one is still here
Denying reality by creating absolutes which are unfalsiable is most definitely not the way to be doing this

Belonging to a tribe is not necessarily helping either because it will not immunise one against the inevitable
Moral or intellectual superiority counts for absolutely nothing when you are dead and we are all going to die
Better to be an individual and think for yourself because that way there are fewer psychological chains holding you down

Rather than choose a belief system or simply avoid thinking about it until one has to one can seek another approach and this is what I do
I accept the inevitability of death but see it as a positive rather than a negative because it is the end of suffering in all of its many forms
I do not see it as a mere interval to an imaginary Utopia like religion does nor do I wish it was not there because it makes me feel uncomfortable

As with all limitations the solution is not in pretending it does not exist but instead seeking a practical means of circumventing it in some way
Problems get solved using logic and empiricism not metaphysics or ignorance which are entirely unsuitable in dealing with the human condition

When the abyss is staring at you the only thing you should be doing do is staring right back at it with both eyes wide open

[phyllo]

One cannot escape nihilism since death is inevitable and our existence is ultimately of zero consequence

If I beat my cat, then it's not "of zero consequence" to the cat.

Death ain't got nothing to do with it.

[promethean75]

How can it be a "tremendous problem" if the "world's problems are anything but philosophical"?

If you are correct in the first paragraph, then the only problems are social, economic and political and "universal morality" is irrelevant.

these problems converge indirectly and create problems that become philosophical, but did not begin as philosophical. take for example the incremental increase of existential anxiety at the thought of mortality that primitive man would experience when he was taught to concern himself with his own salvation... no longer to be satisfied with the fact that his people would live on after him... and that that was good enough to make his life meaningful and give it purpose. couple this with the very real material conditions of struggle that produce what marx called 'the sigh of the oppressed creature', and you now have an intellectual cluster fuck that would later become one of the weapons of ruling class philosophy.

the 'tremendous problem' here that 'isn't philosophical' is that the same material conditions which produce circumstances in which men are taught to believe that they require salvation - and that they are therefore in an original state of imperfection and/or sinfulness - forces them to bring themselves to the mercy of the state/church to provide for them some relief from the struggle they endure in the drudgery of their material existence. here, what is happening is not yet philosophical, because it isn't derived from theoretical problems, but real, material problems and conflicts.

and here's the rub. if it were obvious all men were bound by the same god and the same morality, there never would have arrived a situation in which god and objective morality would be needed so much to prevent the conditions that cause men to need to believe.

read that again. it's tricky on the first pass.

not until men suffer so much that they have to look for god, is it no longer enough to live a happy, mortal life, satisfied with the fact that the species will continue to exist after they're gone. so what religion did was accidentally compound the problem so much that it was forced to become philosophical; it divided, created ranks, made the individual unnecessarily critical of himself, gave executive power to those exploiters who prospered from the struggling/suffering of others, and so on. all this was only made possible by a very specific kind of material arrangement of the modes of production of a society that created a profound crisis for the majority of its people.

this nonsense remained and was refined further by the scholastics (ruling class lackeys), finally to be fully dismantled by feuerbach, marx and engels in the 19th century. there really is no philosophy behind belief in god (for how can you believe something that you're not entirely clear about, in the first place). rather its an anthropomorphic projection of human nature that alienates man from himself even more than the original alienation he was already experiencing in his class based society. a magnificent intellectual cluster fuck that would become both the disease and the treatment of the oppressed.

and why does it still exist today? because of philosophy.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world...

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

[promethean75]

One cannot escape nihilism since death is inevitable and our existence is ultimately of zero consequence

well yeah, but damn dude... did you have to say it?

i propose a rational hedonism along the lines of spinoza's thinking as something to give us purpose. how can i live that will somehow contribute to greater happiness for people who live after me. i mean what else is there to have as a purpose? and silly little shortsighted shit like nationalism would only work for a few thousand years at most, anyway, so it's got to be something pertaining to Man with a capital M. not 'these' men or 'those' men, but Man, Men (women too. sorry).

of course my detractors are gonna be all 'but that's vulgar materialism and void of spiritual purpose, yada yada.' no. they don't understand. any act of will is given spirit when one is faced with a difficult task. this would be profoundly spiritual precisely because it's so difficult. it's the committment that evokes the spirit, right? i mean whevever someone shouts 'that's the spirit!', what do they mean? they mean 'way to stick it through!'

and believe me, creating the world i have in mind is gonna take some sirius work, and therefore requires some sirius spirit.

meanwhile, i'll remain a stirnerite nihilist and keep watch for those who have eyes to see a little further into the future. but i can't be bothered with the little shit that don't amount to nuthin. i play for big stakes, not nickels and dimes.

rational hedonism. when man merges with machine and sets out across the galaxy to go where no dudes have ever gone before. you get a plan like that together and i'm in. i ain't tryn to sit around here all day arguing about what the word 'absolute' means.

[surreptitious75]

There is no one single way to give your life meaning - whatever works for you is it - whatever that may be
Because it is entirely subjective and so does not require the approval of anyone else unless you want it to

Just try not to let it bother you too much that one day there will be precisely zero evidence that we ever existed
As everything is ultimately temporary from our perspective regardless of what greatness anyone may ever achieve

We are just passing through so make the most of it while you are here and try to slowly let go as you get closer to the inevitable as that really helps too
Once we are all dead and free from suffering ever again all of this existential head scratching will just seem like a complete waste of time and energy

And who wants an imaginary unfalsifiable Utopia when Nature already provides us with the real thing anyway and without any special conditions attached
Now consciousness is great and all that but do you really want to experience it forever when you could just as easily be dead and at peace forever instead

[surreptitious75]

You know I was having an absolutely wonderful time free from all of suffering before my parents decided to create me
And so when I return to that state of non existence / non consciousness once again I know exactly what it will feel like

[Aegean]

Meaning is a term used to refer to how phenomena inter-relate - interconnect.
The world is full of meaning. What most people mean by 'meaning', and so seek it out there, is how they connect and how, or how they should to give their life and tis suffering, the highest outcome.

[Aegean]

It doesn't matter how you define 'absolute', because the way I define it means a singularity, an indivisible, immutable oneness.
This is what is absent, and though you can think it, name it, imagine it, represent it, you cannot show it.

Call it 'Bob' if you prefer. If it refers to what I defined it as then this is what is non-existent.
The Abrahamic one-god, is an anthropomorphic version.
The one, if defined literally as a singularity, is the secular version.

There is only multiplicity.....sometimes conceptualized as a one whole, because only in the mind can it exist as a vague representation.

[surreptitious75]

I think a problem in general is that there will always be a gap between what we perceive and what is actually real
Perceptions can never be a true reflection of reality and sometimes we do not try very hard to actually address this
But also as mind dependent beings we cannot help but make perceptions and so we need to become more self aware
To understand reality is truly independent of our interpretations while still trying to make them as accurate as can be
This is like an ontological catch 22 as those two factors appear mutually incompatible which makes resolution impossible

[Karpel Tunnel]

All humans want to belong. We are a social specie.
But which 'team', if you insist,' is more correct, is what matters, not that you belong to a team.
Which team holds more promise, is more aware....

Of course. I am not saying all teams are the same. I am saying that people use their team belongingness to compensate, for example. As if being on the right team - as they must believe, regardless of the quality of that team's ideas - means one is like the leaders or strongest members of that team. That's where it ends for nearly all. The being on the right team is used in a way as if they had been creative. As if they shared the traits of the ones who actually came up with that team's philosophy.

I used the word team because on the internet it becomes like teams, for ex. critiquing one's own team is seen as betraryal by most of the team. One could use 'group', whatever.

If we focus on what is actually important, it does matter incredibly what team one choses or what group one finds oneself in or which ideas on works with and uses. I am not saying that it doesn't matter. My focus is on what is happening in the teams and how people use this to pretend a number of things. And one can be on a more aware team, even, and be using this to hide from oneself, pretend one has actually done something. Perhaps one was just aligned with the dominant anger of that team, but really do not understand the ideas and certainly are not capable of extending them or improving them, of having a real dialogue intra-team.

Sure, it's bettern not toll be a goth or a stoner in high school, because there is some other group or set of ideas or even one person there who is more aware. But most people just hang on to being a follower, and pretend strength by judging the members of other teams, by identifying with ideas, almost like they created them and certainly as if they understand them. In this belonging and judging they pretend they are something they are not, regardless of group potential quality.

[Aegean]

All humans want to belong. We are a social specie.
But which 'team', if you insist,' is more correct, is what matters, not that you belong to a team.
Which team holds more promise, is more aware....

Of course. I am not saying all teams are the same. I am saying that people use their team belongingness to compensate, for example. As if being on the right team - as they must believe, regardless of the quality of that team's ideas - means one is like the leaders or strongest members of that team. That's where it ends for nearly all. The being on the right team is used in a way as if they had been creative. As if they shared the traits of the ones who actually came up with that team's philosophy.

I used the word team because on the internet it becomes like teams, for ex. critiquing one's own team is seen as betraryal by most of the team. One could use 'group', whatever.

If we focus on what is actually important, it does matter incredibly what team one choses or what group one finds oneself in or which ideas on works with and uses. I am not saying that it doesn't matter. My focus is on what is happening in the teams and how people use this to pretend a number of things. And one can be on a more aware team, even, and be using this to hide from oneself, pretend one has actually done something. Perhaps one was just aligned with the dominant anger of that team, but really do not understand the ideas and certainly are not capable of extending them or improving them, of having a real dialogue intra-team.

Sure, it's bettern not toll be a goth or a stoner in high school, because there is some other group or set of ideas or even one person there who is more aware. But most people just hang on to being a follower, and pretend strength by judging the members of other teams, by identifying with ideas, almost like they created them and certainly as if they understand them. In this belonging and judging they pretend they are something they are not, regardless of group potential quality.

Picking the right side is picking the side of integrity, honesty and accuracy, with immediate benefits.
Picking the side of hypocrisy, pretence, obscurantism, superstition, self-flattery, may have psychological benefits but only within sheltered environments, like the current one.
Idiocy has a cost; delusion has a price, self-aggrandizement has consequences if acted upon.

[iambiguous]

So your argument is based on your interpretation of a Bible story rather than how Christians have historically interpreted it and applied it.

Of course that's my point. There is either a definitive interpretation applicable to all rational human beings or individual interpretations are embodied historically, culturally, and experientially [intersubjectively] out in particular worlds grappled with and grasped from particular points of view rooted in dasein.

Then a thread like this comes along to probe the extent to which any interpretations at all are within our capacity to choose of our own volition.

[phyllo]

There is either a definitive interpretation applicable to all rational human beings or individual interpretations are embodied historically, culturally, and experientially [intersubjectively] out in particular worlds grappled with and grasped from particular points of view rooted in dasein.

No, those are not the only two possibilities. That's a bizarre dichotomy.

Then a thread like this comes along to probe the extent to which any interpretations at all are within our capacity to choose of our own volition.

You haven't probed anything.

If not our capacity, then who's capacity? If not our volition, then who's volition?

Why use the word "our" if it is not our?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Picking the right side is picking the side of integrity, honesty and accuracy, with immediate benefits.
Picking the side of hypocrisy, pretence, obscurantism, superstition, self-flattery, may have psychological benefits but only within sheltered environments, like the current one.
Idiocy has a cost; delusion has a price, self-aggrandizement has consequences if acted upon.

Sure. Positive nouns will always be better than pejorative ones, by definition.

[iambiguous]

So your argument is based on your interpretation of a Bible story rather than how Christians have historically interpreted it and applied it.

There is either a definitive interpretation applicable to all rational human beings or individual interpretations are embodied historically, culturally, and experientially [intersubjectively] out in particular worlds grappled with and grasped from particular points of view rooted in dasein.

No, those are not the only two possibilities. That's a bizarre dichotomy.

Take any story from the Bible. It either occurred as the Bible [the word of God] described it or it did not. And mere mortals have either interpreted it in sync with the will of God or they have not. Now, until a God, the God makes the decision to manifest Himself and settle it once and for all, mere mortals inhabiting very, very different historical and cultural contexts, and having lived very, very different individual lives, are going to interpret the Bible in any number of conflicting ways.

That's just the way it is, right? Not counting the objectivists who insist that only their own interpretations actually count.

But...

...this thread comes along to probe the extent to which any interpretations at all are within our capacity to choose of our own volition.

You haven't probed anything.

If not our capacity, then who's capacity? If not our volition, then who's volition?

No, what I've suggested is that any probe that I have ever come across falls far short of demonstrating definitively either what the Bible stories mean or whether conflicting arguments regarding them are within the reach of autonomous human beings.

Let's try this: Why don't you demonstrate to me what a real probe would encompass in that regard. Yours for example.

If not our capacity, then who's capacity? If not our volition, then who's volition?

Why use the word "our" if it is not our?

Huh?

Until the human species here on Earth knows definitively whether its capacity to use any words at all comes attached to the capacity to have freely chosen other words instead, all any of us can do is to take that intellectual/philosophical leap to one set of assumptions or the other.

Right?

Or, if not, where is the link to the argument linked to the demonstration that does settle it once and for all.

[phyllo]

Take any story from the Bible. It either occurred as the Bible [the word of God] described it or it did not. And mere mortals have either interpreted it in sync with the will of God or they have not. Now, until a God, the God makes the decision to manifest Himself and settle it once and for all, mere mortals inhabiting very, very different historical and cultural contexts, and having lived very, very different individual lives, are going to interpret the Bible in any number of conflicting ways.

There are interpretations of various qualities. It's not a case of a definitive interpretation versus all other interpretations of equal merit. It's not Word of God versus infinite blather.

But you insist on making it black and white.

Huh?

Until the human species here on Earth knows definitively whether its capacity to use any words at all comes attached to the capacity to have freely chosen other words instead, all any of us can do is to take that intellectual/philosophical leap to one set of assumptions or the other.

Right?

Or, if not, where is the link to the argument linked to the demonstration that does settle it once and for all.

This sums up the extent of your probing - repeating this mantra no matter what anyone says.

Again, the same sort of dichotomy - one definitive answer or everyone is leaping to assumptions.

[phyllo]

Let's try this: Why don't you demonstrate to me what a real probe would encompass in that regard. Yours for example.

You have thrown away all the "tools of philosophy", so now you can't evaluate anything and therefore nobody can demonstrate anything to you.

[Aegean]

Picking the right side is picking the side of integrity, honesty and accuracy, with immediate benefits.
Picking the side of hypocrisy, pretence, obscurantism, superstition, self-flattery, may have psychological benefits but only within sheltered environments, like the current one.
Idiocy has a cost; delusion has a price, self-aggrandizement has consequences if acted upon.

Sure. Positive nouns will always be better than pejorative ones, by definition.

Therefore a return to the proper use of language is not about sounding 'positive' or implying great rewards,. nor is it arbitrary.
Proper use of words means returning them to their original utility: mediating connectors between mind and the body, physical tangible, reality; returning words, as much as possible, to their original role as connectors between noumena (abstractions) and phenomena (apparent).

Corrupting, misusing and abusing language can only hide a secret motive - this is the only occult - which is not to reveal but to selectively or completely conceal; not to clarify but to obscure.

[Magnus Anderson]

I think a problem in general is that there will always be a gap between what we perceive and what is actually real

You can eliminate the gap you speak of (the gap between what one thinks is true and what is really true) purely by coincidence. No thinking required. Just throw a dice and if you're lucky enough you may discover what is true. That's why Plato said that knowledge is justified true belief not merely true belief.

The idea that there has always been a gap between what we think and what is and that it will always be there is simply unbelievable; in the general sense, of course.

[iambiguous]

Take any story from the Bible. It either occurred as the Bible [the word of God] described it or it did not. And mere mortals have either interpreted it in sync with the will of God or they have not. Now, until a God, the God makes the decision to manifest Himself and settle it once and for all, mere mortals inhabiting very, very different historical and cultural contexts, and having lived very, very different individual lives, are going to interpret the Bible in any number of conflicting ways.

There are interpretations of various qualities. It's not a case of a definitive interpretation versus all other interpretations of equal merit. It's not Word of God versus infinite blather.

This just mimics our discussion of Communism. There are interpretations of various quality regarding that too. And the manner in which objectivists of you ilk differentiate meritorious assessments from mere blather, is to insist that there are two kinds of people in the world:

1] one of us [who grasp what Communism really is]
2] one of them [who don't]

But you insist on making it black and white

No, that is what the objectivists do. I'm the one suggesting that interpretations in the is/ought world are derived existentially such that a definitive interpretation does not appear able to be pinned down.

You know, assuming any of us at all have any capacity at all to do anything at all of our own free will.

Huh?

Until the human species here on Earth knows definitively whether its capacity to use any words at all comes attached to the capacity to have freely chosen other words instead, all any of us can do is to take that intellectual/philosophical leap to one set of assumptions or the other.

Right?

Or, if not, where is the link to the argument linked to the demonstration that does settle it once and for all.

This sums up the extent of your probing - repeating this mantra no matter what anyone says.

Again, the same sort of dichotomy - one definitive answer or everyone is leaping to assumptions.

That encompasses your rendition of a sophisticated probe?!

In other words, bitching about me again.

I don't throw away the tools of philosophy. I suggest only that, in a universe in which we do have some measure of free will, they are of limited use value and exchange value in regard to assessing particular human behaviors as [morally] either necessarily good or bad.

[phyllo]

This just mimics our discussion of Communism. There are interpretations of various quality regarding that too. And the manner in which objectivists of you ilk differentiate meritorious assessments from mere blather, is to insist that there are two kinds of people in the world:

1] one of us [who grasp what Communism really is]
2] one of them [who don't]

The stereotype of "objectivist. Again.

No, that is what the objectivists do. I'm the one suggesting that interpretations in the is/ought world are derived existentially such that a definitive interpretation does not appear able to be pinned down.

You know, assuming any of us at all have any capacity at all to do anything at all of our own free will.

It remains black and white so long as you don't bring out the shades of grey. And you don't. You don't go into any detail.

That encompasses your rendition of a sophisticated probe?!

In other words, bitching about me again.

To explain why discussions with you don't go anywhere, one has to say what it is that you are doing.

I don't throw away the tools of philosophy.

Then you are not using them.

I suggest only that, in a universe in which we do have some measure of free will, they are of limited use value and exchange value in regard to assessing particular human behaviors as [morally] either necessarily good or bad.

They have value to other people.

[iambiguous]

This just mimics our discussion of Communism. There are interpretations of various quality regarding that too. And the manner in which objectivists of you ilk differentiate meritorious assessments from mere blather, is to insist that there are two kinds of people in the world:

1] one of us [who grasp what Communism really is]
2] one of them [who don't]

The stereotype of "objectivist. Again.

Again, someone either believes that their own assessment of Communism or stories from the Bible reflects the most rational frame of mind, or they don't. That's just a fact.

Instead...

I'm the one suggesting that interpretations in the is/ought world are derived existentially such that a definitive interpretation does not appear able to be pinned down.

You know, assuming any of us at all have any capacity at all to do anything at all of our own free will.

It remains black and white so long as you don't bring out the shades of grey. And you don't. You don't go into any detail.

If noting one's assessment of Communism as the embodiment of "I" being an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads isn't bursting at the seams with the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty...what argument is?

And, in my view, one will never go into enough detail with objectivists of you ilk until they share your own details.

I don't throw away the tools of philosophy.

Then you are not using them.

In other words, if I really were using them, I would think like you do. I get that part, but: when are you going to get it too?

I suggest only that, in a universe in which we do have some measure of free will, they are of limited use value and exchange value in regard to assessing particular human behaviors as [morally] either necessarily good or bad.

They have value to other people.

Then we are back to the components of my own moral philosophy in assessing those values.

[phyllo]

Again, someone either believes that their own assessment of Communism or stories from the Bible reflects the most rational frame of mind, or they don't. That's just a fact.

So it's a "universal truth". Good to know.

If noting one's assessment of Communism as the embodiment of "I" being an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads isn't bursting at the seams with the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty...what argument is?

Words and sentences have the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty.

You're just stating a trivial observation.

Where is the meat?

And, in my view, one will never go into enough detail with objectivists of you ilk until they share your own details.

You don't go into any detail.

In other words, if I really were using them, I would think like you do. I get that part, but: when are you going to get it too?

I don't see you using them at all. And I'm not the only one who has noticed that.

phyllo wrote:
They have value to other people.

Then we are back to the components of my own moral philosophy in assessing those values.

You assessed it and they have no or limited value to you. Others have assessed it and they do have value to them.

It can end there. There is no reason for you to be here insisting that they have no or limited value to anyone.

[iambiguous]

Again, someone either believes that their own assessment of Communism or stories from the Bible reflects the most rational frame of mind, or they don't. That's just a fact.

So it's a "universal truth". Good to know.

If noting one's assessment of Communism as the embodiment of "I" being an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads isn't bursting at the seams with the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty...what argument is?

Words and sentences have the potential for ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty.

You're just stating a trivial observation.

Where is the meat?

And, in my view, one will never go into enough detail with objectivists of you ilk until they share your own details.

You don't go into any detail.

In other words, if I really were using them, I would think like you do. I get that part, but: when are you going to get it too?

I don't see you using them at all. And I'm not the only one who has noticed that.

phyllo wrote:
They have value to other people.

Then we are back to the components of my own moral philosophy in assessing those values.

You assessed it and they have no or limited value to you. Others have assessed it and they do have value to them.

It can end there. There is no reason for you to be here insisting that they have no or limited value to anyone.

Two things.

1] Around and around we go. I suggest that, until either one of us comes upon something new in the other's argument, we just move on. Bottom line: If I appear to you as obtuse as you appear to me, we are entirely wasting each other's time.
2] this is a thread devoted to grappling with determinism. Of which our own exchange of late [compelled or not] barely touches on.