You might take it that far, but it can be far more concrete. Consider picking out a school for your kid or buying a car. You want a school/car that is truly good, not one that merely appears to be good, or one which is said to be good by others. Likewise, if you have back pain, you want a treatment that will truly fix it, not just one that appears good or is said to be good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, although I might say this is a contingent form of good as it would be 'truly good' for a specific purpose - my back - and such an efficacious approach may not work on other's backs or even mine, a year later. So the good is relative to a set of circumstances.

But I get what you are saying.

The desire for what is truly good is what takes us beyond appearances (generally the purview of the appetites) and "what others say" (generally the purview of the "spirited part of the soul," particularly our concern with honor, status, reputation, etc.). It's the desire for what is really true and truly good that consistently motivates us to move beyond current belief and desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But wouldn't the search for such good generally always be a good which is fit for practical purpose founded in experiential practices, rather than a platonic notion of good?

t's also reason that allows for us to have coherent "second order volitions," i.e., the desire to have or not to have other desires. E.g., "I wish I didn't want to x..." It is what allows us to ask "I have a strong desire for x, but is x truly desirable?" Or "I am enraged with Y and have a strong desire to vent my wrath, and to restore my honor, but is this truly good?" The target of these questions lies outside current desire and belief. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I can see this.

Might it not also be argued that reason itself is a part of human practice and shaped by history and culture, so when viewed from this perspective, reason cannot take us entirely "beyond" our current contexts. In other words it can't really take us to the 'truly' part of truly good... Thoughts?

In the modern tradition, reason is often deflated into mere calculation. So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, as a person of the current time and place I do tend to regard reason as a tool or calculating mechanism. It helps us to solve problems - which may just be expressing a low-rent form of pragmatism (my specialty). And defending the use of reason raises problems of self-referential circularity.

It also seems to me that reason can be blunt and often abstracted and that the matters of importance, such as aesthetics, values and belonging are beyond reason and are more like sense making via affective responses. And yes, we all know the risks inherent in this. I guess reasoning can help us develop balance and perspective. It also seems to be that idealizing reason can swiftly lead us to scientism or fascism or any number of isms.

I guess this all goes to your point

So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is because reason is, in an important sense, transcendent, which is precisely what allows it to take us beyond current belief, habit, desire, etc. in search of what is truly good and really true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What do you mean by reason being transcendent?

Do you mean by this that reason provides a universal framework, which transcends our personal and cultural beliefs, and therefore is able to facilitate a dialogue about what is "truly good" or "really true" ? Or do you mean that reason may function as a conduit for us to access a 'divine' realm? Do you see reason as having limitations?

Guess I am thinking about this, so well summarized by @Wayfarer in another thread.

I’ve become very interested in (although not very knowledgeable about) the idea of the ‘divine intellect’ in Aristotle and Platonism generally. The basic thrust is that the power of reason is what distinguishes the human from other animals - hence man as the ‘rational animal’. It preserves the tripartite distinction in Plato's diaogues of the rational element of the soul as being the highest part. @wayfarer

Yes, hypothetically I acknowledge I am a very poor reader. — T Clark

I’m a poor reader too. I had a period of 25 years where I read a great deal. These days I lack curiosity.

In December I did read Erotic Vagrancy: Everything About Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor by Roger Lewis, described as a epic poem about vulgarity and old school fame culture. I was fascinated by Burton for a while and read everything on him. Lewis' book is an unorthodox, shamelessly personal, highly literate and quite bitchy biographical account of the doomed couple. It's not the book he thinks he wrote. We know this because he keeps telling us about his intentions. He says he doesn't want to judge the dysfunctional duo, but he can't help evaluating choices, actions and behaviors. The book is fun but lacks coherence and is somewhat repetitive. Lewis leaves us with a familiar albeit vividly realized lesson: fame can fuck you up.

Not only is it a personal reaction to which definition of the word "sublime" one accepts, but even if accepting one particular definition of the "sublime", it remains a personal reaction to one's experiences of the "sublime" as defined. — RussellA

Yes, and what I'm saying is I have not had that reaction. By any definition I've seen. :wink:

I feel like one could argue that both, in a way, could be transcendental, but also not. Not sure what you'd think of this separation of beauty into a subjectively and a more objectively based and shaped beauty and the thought of it being a transcendental. — Prometheus2

I definitely think one can argue this and many philosophers appear to do so (Roger Scruton seemed to be a particular enthusiast) - the transcendentals being truth, goodness and beauty.

While I don't argue that transcendentals do not exist, I don't believe the case has been made that they do exist. How would we demonstrate them? My own bias is that the idea of the divine (which can mean a plethora of things) has also not been demonstrated.

In the meantime, I see no reason to consider beauty to be more than a contingent factor of culture and experince. Certainly there is intersubjective agreement on the subject. Hardly surprising that cultures/communities share views on beauty. This all seems rich enough to me.

When a good aesthetic becomes a great aesthetic then it becomes sublime.

The aesthetic, being a certain combination of balance within variety of form can apply to all disciplines, whether painting, dance, music, architecture, as well as the design of cars. — RussellA

I don't really subscribe to this idea of the sublime (awe and wonder?). I'm not sure if I have experienced this.

I see things which have impact - and I greatly enjoy them (if that's the right verb). This is about as far as I'd go.

I may well quiver with pleasure when I see the facade of a particularly extravagant art deco building lit by moonlight, but my companion may look at the same edifice, shrug and say 'whatever'. The experince is not transcendental. It's a personal reaction.

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does. — Hanover

No, I meant that you are one of the minority members here who believes he can identify a true morality.

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society — Hanover

Like you above, I wasn't clear how to read you. Thanks for clarifying.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. — Hanover

Not really. I was wondering if you were a conservative. I imagine some conservatives are Democrat too. Your comments were a bit puzzling to me, that's all. I misread your metaphor for absolute certainty which seemed at odds with your general approach (such as I have understood it).

As for me, I don't believe I have a set of coherent beliefs. I just act on intuition. I guess mostly I am a typical product of time and place - atheistic, secular, and inclined towards relativism.

I am curious what others think and why. Especially those who are certain.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." — Hanover

Noted. I wasn't aware it was being used much these days. I was reaching for a word along the lines of 'mild' and demure slipped out.

The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. — Hanover

Yes, which is a familiar trope doing the rounds and a bit Jordan Petersonesque. I'm not sure I agree, as stated. My memory before Fox News, identity policies and social media (which seems to be the putative causes of this) is that society was fragmented and alienated already. A lot of this can also sound like, 'Society was a lot better when women and minorities knew their place.'

I am still curious as to what you count as barbarian, even if the word is hyperbole.

That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong. — Hanover

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)?

My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. — Hanover

Nice to see Chesterton's Fence getting an outing.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism?

I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one. — Hanover

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. — Hanover

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished?

isn't the objective much the same - to bring about some set of beliefs that are at least a bit more functional? — Banno

I think so. Easier said than done, given psychiatric services here often no longer choose to treat complex people, so their psychosis becomes so foundational to them that even basic communication is often impossible.

to bring about some set of beliefs that are at least a bit more functional? — Banno

But this phrase might well describe the function of philosophy for me. It isn't so much a search for truth or a quest for self-knowledge, it is rather a hope that I might bring some more useful frameworks and capacities to my thinking.

Have you found philosophy useful?

No problem. We’re all just trying to figure things out.

What more is said by "It is objectively true that you are reading this screen"? — Banno

Agree. People seem to want to identify the really real. It’s surely a kind of god surrogate.

Objective reality, in some sense, would be different from subjective reality.
— Arcane Sandwich

Can you say how?

But also, you now have two realities. Contrast that with the view that there is at most one reality. Which do you prefer? — Banno

Yes. This may be boring but I think the issue is I have known many people with psychosis whose reality differs. And less dramatically, people with vastly different values and presuppositions appear to inhabit a different reality to mine. Their world is unrecognisable to me. There may be one reality but how does this help us in practice to make assessments of such experiential differences?

No, objective reality is just colourless atoms and molecules together with energy interacting. Not my reality at all. — Questioner

That's one way of looking at it.

Our experiences are our reality. — Questioner

That's another.

I think it's objectively true that I am typing this answer. Whatever ontological/metaphysical matters exist to bring this about are possibly irrelevant. You can always unpack any idea and assumptions further and this process may well be endless. Perhaps reality is just an infinite regress of contingencies.

So far this sounds like a fairly commonplace observation. When I've heard this argument proposed, generally people talk about selves rather than identities, but it is the same phenomenon. What about this do you find intriguing?

No offense, but I feel like the treatise has several already, Alchemy being the main one. — MrLiminal

I'd say you need a better example than alchemy - which is not relevant today. If this problem still exists then you shouldn't have a problem finding good current examples to demonstrate your point in action.

And I'm coming at this as a hard-skeptic/atheist perspective, I just feel like scientific inquiry should also extend to religious claims. — MrLiminal

What does that really mean? Do you think that science hasn't investigated religious claims? What would this look like today?

If I mix two things together, and consider the result science but someone else considers it a function of the unknowable divine, who is to say who is wrong? — MrLiminal

Isn't one answer generally going to be demonstrable and more useful than the other. Example? Let's take thunder. Is it the rumbling wheels of Thors chariot? Or is it the rapid expansion of air surrounding a lightning bolt? How helpful is it to believe in metaphysical chariots?

I'm coming at this as a hard-skeptic/atheist perspective, — MrLiminal

Are you, perhaps, an atheist who comes from a religious background?

My argument is that religion, science and art are all frameworks for explaining reality that use different processes and vocabulary, but are ultimately concerned with parsing truth and meaning out of the chaos of reality. What one practitioner considers practical magic would be explainable science to someone else, but they are both *talking about the same process* just from different frames of reference. — MrLiminal

Most atheists would probably argue that one set of claims is closer to being true and can be of use to us and the other set of claims is not true and leads us into false beliefs and (often) harm. Now I grant you that most religious beliefs are probably benign. But religious ideas do cause harm. Ask those effected by the Taliban or many of those who watched Trump gain massive support from evangelicals. :wink:

In recent decades, media, including movies, series, and magazines, have driven unattainable archetypes of masculinity and femininity. — Benkei

Hasn't this been the case for at least a century? The primary difference being how those 'archetypes' are distributed to target audiences?

We live in a world increasingly defined by individualism, where traditional societal units such as family, community, and religion have significantly weakened. This vacuum leaves people seeking identity and validation in narrower, more fragmented categories: gender, sexuality, political affiliation, or other micro-identities. While individualism seduces us with promises of freedom and self-definition, it often breeds insecurity in a world stripped of clear anchors. — Benkei

I don't know about vacuums. Isn't another way to frame this that there are just a lot more possibilities and more ways to be mainstream today? I doubt that community or family or religion are much weaker today than they were 40-50 years ago. They've been in transition a long, long time. If anything, back in the late 70's we thought religion would be gone from society by now and, if anything, it seems to be having a revival.

Community and family? Traditional forms may well have atrophied but other forms have developed - same sex parent families, for instance. I see a lot of additional inclusion in the country I live in - input from First Nations people, lived experience informing social policy in the areas of migrant communities, homelessness, mental illness, etc. There seem to be as many improvements as disappointments.

:up:

What reason do you have for assuming that we can ever know the ultimate truth about reality? — RussellA

Yes. But I wonder also whether the quest to identify the 'really real' might not just be a secular replacement for god.

It is a commonplace, legitimate, and useful metaphysical position that an objective reality doesn't exist. From that point of view, there is no ultimate truth about reality. — T Clark

I have sympathy for this frame. The notion of reality is a human construct and seems to be tied to our sense making capacities. While I agree that there are realities about certain matters - temperature, facts, dates, places, the fact that I am typing - these are all contingent. Once we try find the ultimate reality above and beyond the contingent, we are probably just chasing our tails.

Does every generation finally get to the point where they don't recognize the world anymore? — frank

I would think so. I remember my grandmother saying that culture no longer made sense to her—she was a fundamentalist Christian born in the 1890s. The moon landing and the hippie movement shook her reality. In the 1980s, my father made a similar observation during the time of glasnost. Now, I find myself telling young colleagues that I no longer have a clear understanding of where I stand on culture or politics, and I hope they can make sense of it all. I suspect this feeling of disconnection is one of the defining phenomena of modernity.

I guess my ultimate frustration is that sometimes it seems like science and religion are essentially talking about the same thing/process, but then get hung up on the specific details. — MrLiminal

It would really help if you gave a recent example and stepped it through.

You mention getting 'hung up on details'. The devil is in the details. Isn't it the case that often what is most important is not the problem we are trying to solve, but the way we approach it? Method and approach are everything. For instance, I watched someone die of cancer because they believed that prayer and god would heal them. They refused to accept medical treatment.

And that said, I am not convinced that religion and science are talking about the same thing. You would need to provide examples. I have a close friend who is a Catholic Priest, in his view religion is about higher consciousness and connection to the transcendent, while science is to get work done in the physical world. He sees both as critical but separate. Perhaps along the lines of the Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA), introduced by Stephen Jay Gould.

In combination with the song I had on, I was somehow deeply moved by this seemingly simple, urban view before me.

"Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment. — Prometheus2

Sounds like you had an emotional reaction. I have felt that way about peeling paint on a mental fence when lit by a setting sun. Does it mean anything more than the experience you had?

The significant question about beauty is whether it is a transcendental or not - does it reflect fundamental properties of being, e.g., truth, goodness and beauty? Do they reflect in some way a divine reality? Do you think beauty is something that transcends contingent human experience and says something deeper about reality?



I prefer that Picasso to many more sentimental paintings others might readily call beautiful. I struggle with the notion of art as beauty. I generally think the best art has vitality and a visceral impact. Beauty (as I see it) generally seems soft and cloying.

What frustrates me is the way science and religion so often approach similar truths but refuse to work together because of their ideological differences. — MrLiminal

Is this the core of your argument? What is the nature of your frustration here? Just because two approaches attend to the same matters does not mean that they need to be integrated. Fascism and democratic socialism might consider the question of immigration (or for that matter, government). Does this mean they can or should work together?

Why not take us through a specific example in more detail so we can understand how you see this working in practice. Dot points might be best.

Some random reactions. Atheism only refers to a disbelief in one thing. Gods. Some atheists believe in ghosts, astrology or even Bigfoot. Additionally, an atheist need not say there is no god. Many atheists, like me, simply look upon god as a concept that doesn't seem coherent or useful. Arguments are moot. Whether one believes in god may function more like sexual orientation - you can't help what you are attracted to. Although many of us use post hoc arguments to justify our position and in a world which often privileges faith, atheists can find they need to defend their disbelief.

to a person who has “experienced” a ghost, they have experienced magic. And because I also cannot explain it, I can only assume that my only somewhat informed explanation is correct, when it may in fact not be. — MrLiminal

Not necessarily. Some people see unexplained phenomenon and do not come to any conclusions about what they saw. The 'ghost' part is a post hoc label we don't need to use. This is the most interesting thing about supernatural claims. Are they nothing more than linguistic crutches (a sketchy heuristic) for phenomena we can't yet explain, rooted in our fear of admitting uncertainty?

From what I understand most religions tend to have, as a central tenet, a figure (or figures) that exist outside of the laws of the world we live in ie. God creating the world supernaturally, an angel speaking through a donkey, etc. This, by scientific standards, is simply not logical — Outlander

I think many people have in mind a cartoon version of god - the bearded sky wizard who magically creates stuff. But if you consider more sophisticated theology, such as that of Paul Tillich, then god is not a person, but the ground of being. God transcends the subject-object divide and is the foundation of all experience. God doesn't magically create the world we live in, God is the ultimate reality that makes all being possible. This sounds mystical and ambiguous and is much less easy to understand and, perhaps, harder to dismiss than the cartoon god. And can easily mesh with some of the speculative quantum physics mysticism that has excited so many science nerds.

Ok. It's just that the words 'personal transformation' sound a bit more serious than just amusing oneself.

but I do believe in the possibility of personal transformation, as in altered states of consciousness — Janus

Perhaps an aside, but I am curious. To what end? What is the point of the personal transformation you are thinking of - where does it lead?

Then you're obviously conversant with the data, which (as far as my contribution to this thread is concerned) can be summed up thusly: — LuckyR

No, the data is not generally relevant to the practice of suicide intervention. It's also understood that the data on suicide isn't accurate. Deaths by suicide are often misclassified and underreported.

It's true that for many people suicidal ideation appears to be situational and may be crudely described as temporary. But most people I've seen in this space seem to have persistent triggers over a given year for many years. In other words, the temporary is recurrent. Birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, etc are regular triggers for some.

But even where suicidality is temporary, this doesn't generally assist the person experiencing the emotional pain. The reality is that at the time people feel a chronic emptiness and/or hopelessness. To tell someone that this is temporary and they will feel better later may be experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant. People sometimes try to use this approach in counselling and the results are somewhat haphazard.

It reminds me a bit of Gnosticism. Gnostics had secret knowledge only the initiated can understand fully. — schopenhauer1

Yes. However it seems to me this principle seems to operate in almost any arcane 'knowledge' area, whether it's Platonists, Scientologists or QAnon.

Is there just one example of good evidence amongst the thousands of claims and tall tales that the UFO brigade have generated? I notice you haven't gone down the Bob Lazar rabbit hole as yet. :wink:

:up:

But some people think the disclosure will prove all the skeptics wrong. It'll happen soon by X date, with X person. — schopenhauer1

Yes, to me it has the same rhythms as the second coming. The alien rapture is nigh - we can read all the signs….

If it's harmless, let them have it. — schopenhauer1

If. I guess there’s the potential that such beliefs may lead to harmful practices, like those of cults and religions. For now it seems the the greatest harm is fleecing people at conferences and via merchandise.

As to grinding, chronic issues, those become the "norm" over time and don't independently tip the scales to "not worth living". — LuckyR

I have spent 35 years working with people who have experiences of complex trauma and abuse, some were tortured in prisons overseas, some were, as children, sexually abused by care givers in horrific ways. Many people who undergo such things never recover, their brains seem to be rewired by the trauma. The high levels of substance misuse and suicide for this cohort are indicative. The assumption to date is that in some cases counselling or medication can assist recovery. But recovery eludes many people who wrestle with trauma for years and some, understandably, give up.

Clinical depression is notorious for it's roller-coaster trajectory of ups and downs, that is how you're feeling is likely temporary. — LuckyR

I have read two suicide notes in the past ten years from people who used precisely your term, e.g., 'I can't cope with the roller coaster ride any more.' It's hardly temporary if it's a continuous cycle. The experience of this is exhausting and every time you seem to be feeling better, you are conscious that just around the corner is another crash.

I think Steven Greenstreet pretty much hit the nail that there is a group of UFO aficionados who essentially cross-reference each other. I don't think all of them are necessarily lying, but rather embellishing or falsely attributing unknowingly. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the correct assessment. I followed Greenstreet fairly closely a few years ago when I was bored.

I think the UFO/alien folks are looking for meaning beyond the mundane. It also gives a sort of hope- that something bigger than humans is out there and that their beliefs would be vindicated all along. — schopenhauer1

Agree. There's a religious element to this wherein people see a kind of transcendence from everyday humanity, a way of re-enchanting the world via a kind of techno-spiritual movement. And I've noticed that once committed to this thinking, it is almost impossible to shake people, even with evidence. It becomes a faith-based system that is impervious to outsiders, who are either 'idiots' or part of the system's duplicity.

Hence my observation that the argument against suicide is: it's a permanent solution to a TEMPORARY problem. — LuckyR

Not always. Don't forget people who have degenerative illnesses who would prefer to die than continue to experience suffering. Also people who have experienced traumatic events (prolonged sexual abuse, etc). The memories and pain - the PTSD may never go away either. Suicide may feel like the only method to gain permanent relief.

:up: Bad syntax on my part - I meant often amongst those who contemplate suicide. Of course we'll never know how many alleged 'accidental' deaths - crashes, accidents, overdoses, etc, are attributable to suicide, or how many people have suicidal thoughts at points in life without taking action. 13.2 million Americans are thought to have suicidal thoughts in a given year and it is the leading cause of death amongst young people aged 15 to 29, so it is not uncommon.

Thanks. That makes sense.

I think it's often the case that people find that there are fewer reasons for living than there are reasons for dying. Sometimes those people choose suicide. It's a common enough phenomenon and there might be many reasons for it. It's been interesting to read people's responses to your OP. What are the least helpful answers here?

For fun's sake, let's say it's all true. The government has aliens and alien technology and have for years. If they were to disclose this, what would be the best way to do this understanding social psychology? — schopenhauer1

The issue for me is the term "the Government" what does that really mean? Does this suggest a single, monolithic, united and coherent group who has consistently acted in unison to maintain such a secret? Or are we saying a secret body which keeps secrets - attached to government, but not really part of governing? The mind boggles.

To me it is like the term 'they'. It's always 'they' who lie to us or do bad things to us. 'They' don't want us to know the truth. 'They' are making money out of it. 'They' are responsibly for disinformation, etc, etc.

That said, this would a massive story if true and I would imagine there would be a risk of unrestrained anger, panic and scapegoating. Not sure there would be a good or entirely safe way to reveal this.

Nicely put. I remember Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about what it might be like for an advanced alien to talk to us. It might be a lot like when we talk to a chimp.

You've heard of Fermi's Paradox? "If intelligent life is plentiful in the universe, then where is everybody? We should have been visited." — BC

Never thought that one a particularly useful paradox. If aliens have sufficiently advanced technology to get here from Christ knows how many light years away, and defy laws of physics as we know them, then I would also conclude they might have capacity to visit without us being aware of their presence. The big surprise really would be huge silver saucers in the sky - more likely to be the Russians. :razz:

Sure but I was referring to government officials not people in general.

Cool. I may make some more useful comments under that pervious explanation later.

So in a way, you can make a matrix like this:

The institutional distributor of information matters for the public (Is the info coming from a "legitimate" institution like government agencies, or is it coming from your Uncle Joe).

Sources matter for the information gatherers: (Is the info coming from "legitimate" credible witnesses and accounts, or from bad actors?

Evidence matters for information gatherers and the public (Is the info first hand accounts, are they recorded, do we have any physical artifacts? Have they been analyzed for material compos ition, biologics, and comparative design? — schopenhauer1

Sure - there's many ways to do a risk matrix.

I imagine that the main concern (if true) would be are they the product of a foreign power or a homegrown terrorist? One can ignore one or two eye witnesses but not so easily a plethora of accounts. I wouldn't think aliens is the first idea people go to, unless they already happen to think aliens are a given.

UAP does not entail aliens; the concern is that a foreign government might be using technology beyond ours. — Relativist

Yep.