To me that makes him interesting. — Tom Storm

Not so much, for me on his offerings regarding rationality and its relationship to effective communication between humans.

He is also extremely well read and serious about his philosophy. — Tom Storm

I accept that, but that does not prevent him from being wrong about the importance of rationality in communication between humans in the real world.

My own view is that if something seems odd or new to me, it's worth looking into. — Tom Storm

Sure, but it depends on what the claim is. I think flat earthers and antinatalists are very odd indeed, but I will 'look into' antinatalism far more than the utter nonsense from flat earthers. I have given my reasons why I disagree with Joshs regarding the role of rationality in improving human communication.
Btw, I am not suggesting that joshs viewpoints on rationality are as 'fringe' as antinatalism or a flat Earth, I was merely trying to exemplify my general approach.

I think you are being unfair. — Tom Storm

Ok, I respect your opinion but I don't share it on this occasion.

:up: I suppose it all depends upon why we are on this site. I came to experience ideas that were different to mine and might sometimes poke and prod those ideas based on my own ramshackle presuppositions. I'm not here to find answers, or confirm my own, I'm here, hopefully, to enlarge my worldview, in recognition that I've not privileged philosophy in my life. The unfamiliar, the counterintuitive, the irrational, the strange, the inaccessible fascinate me.

:grin: Well, I certainly hear about ideas that are quite different from mine, on this site.
I wish to see if my own viewpoints stand up to the scrutiny of well informed philosophy and philosophers as well as those with a more scientific background.
I share some of your interests and reasons for contributing to this site.
I like threads like this, as the OP allowed me to challenge the general posture of pessimists, nihilists and doomsters. It's important to me to offer alternatives postures to those.
I in no way, intended to disrespect the efforts @Joshs has made to establish his knowledge of philosophy, which is far in advance of mine, based on the information on his profile.
I just disagree with him regarding the role of rationality in achieving progressive communication between humans and how vital it is that we all make more effort to find global common cause and reasons to unite as one species, occupying this one little pale blue dot of a planet.
The sooner we do, the sooner we can start to become a significant extraterrestrial species.

Why do these realisations lead to melancholy or escapism? — Skalidris

Because they are incomplete, partial.

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature?

Because it's not so clear what "human nature" actually is.

Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality?

There is one. It's called "philosophy".

Why do we keep these intuitive concepts that we can’t even define and that are a poor reflection of reality?

Laziness; or, more likely, being too busy with day-to-day survival.

We have so many insights about human nature but yet we keep on using concepts that give us a completely unrealistic view of humans, and cause Weltschmerz whenever we try to learn more.

Because Weltschmerz doesn't hurt nearly enough.

The sooner we do, the sooner we can start to become a significant extraterrestrial species. — universeness

... in order to escape our problems, since we can't solve them! Lol.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

Having high expectations isn't necessarily painful. It is painful if it comes from a position of weakness, of loss, of dependence. If it comes from a position of entitlement or strength, then having high expectations is not painful.

Lot's of resources in the solar system that could help us and there does not seem to be much use for it at present. We could bring new meaning and purpose to objects in the solar system that seem to have no purpose or value at present. Do you think humans have no extraterrestrial place? Do you have reasons that you hold strongly, regarding why we should not explore and develop and spread beyond this planet?

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding.
— wonderer1

Having high expectations isn't necessarily painful. It is painful if it comes from a position of weakness, of loss, of dependence. If it comes from a position of entitlement or strength, then having high expectations is not painful. — baker

I don't know how your response is supposed to relate to what I said.

Do you consider "grandiose understanding" synonymous with "high expectations"? I sure don't. I didn't say anything about "painful" either. You are jumping to conclusions.

Do you think that religious indoctrination doesn't result in many people believing a false account of human nature?

I think @baker prefers to visit a thread, announce viewpoints and then visit other threads. Answering questions they probably find inconvenient does not seem to be the style they prefer. Unless you have had more fruitful exchanges with them than I.

You don't say.

I see.

I don't know how your response is supposed to relate to what I said. — wonderer1

It ties with the OP.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

What is the purpose of having "a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding of human nature"?

Per the OP, it's to avoid Weltschmerz (among other things, I presume), ie. to avoid (a certain type of) pain.

Do you think that religious indoctrination doesn't result in many people believing a false account of human nature?

Perhaps an overly negative one, yes. Religions typically take a dim view of humans.

But then again, "human nature" should perhaps be thought of as every bit as bad as religions typically say it is.

Reality is distressing for those who expect fantasy. For those familiar with reality, reality is "normal", "average" and/or expected. Get a grip.

:grin: Well at least, what I posted got them to try to answer your questions.

Perhaps they found mine too difficult for them.

Several of your quick answers to my questions from the OP imply that a "perfect" knowledge is possible, and desirable. And that anything that doesn't reach that perfection causes pain. Is that really what you think?

In sciences, we constantly test our hypothesis to see how well it matches reality. And since we keep on doing that, it becomes closer and closer to reality, and we're willing to replace old theories with new ones that are a better match. But with psychology, they don't touch intuitive concepts that are deeply rooted in the society, like love. They do a top down approach, and don't touch the top. It's the same with philosophy: they discuss all the problems there might be with a term like "selfish" but don't do anything about it, its aim isn't to replace terms like that but observe them. It's as if we were only making hypothesis in sciences and never coming up with a method to test them...

So inherently, people learning psychology or philosophy will be disappointed that the intuitive terms are so misleading.

Several of your quick answers to my questions from the OP imply that a "perfect" knowledge is possible, and desirable. And that anything that doesn't reach that perfection causes pain. Is that really what you think? — Skalidris

Your OP is implying that.
You started a thread about Weltschmerz. It seems you were saying that people feel Weltschmerz when they have unrealistic, idealistic ideas about human nature, and I and several posters have read it that way.

Reality is distressing for those who expect fantasy. For those familiar with reality, reality is "normal", "average" and/or expected. Get a grip. — LuckyR

Really? You can easily get a grip on being robbed, raped, betrayed by your boss, husband, your house being burnt down and you being falsely accused of arson with the intention to collect insurance money and imprisoned? Things like this are "average", "normal" to you, and you have a grip on them?

No one has a problem-free reality. Similarly no one has a lock on tragedy, everyone has had to deal with something. I never used the word "easily", reality isn't easy, that's my whole point. Reality is what it is. And yes, having problems is "average" and "normal". Not having any problems is a fantasy.

Why do these realisations lead to melancholy or escapism? Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature? Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality? — Skalidris

We know that it is possible to live in peace, to care for one another and enjoy life. And yet we know that we do not do it. I don't see how this knowledge can not lead to melancholy or escapism. We are destroying the planet and ourselves for nothing. Hurrah???

I expect the extinction of human life, or at least 90% thereof this century. It makes me sad. do you think there is some non-escapist way I can find it not sad? I don't even want to not find it sad. surely the very least I can do is to end my life in tears.