I had it described by my professors as this: philosophy is just brotherly argument (not fight, but debate - literal translation of Philos and Soph or Brother-Wisdom).

I guess that's as good as anything else I've ever heard. Of course religion is philosophy, it's just bad philosophy (philofolly).

Religion is essentially a social coping mechanism for our success as a species raising our population density far above tribal survival norms.

In a small group or tribe the elders are socially close enough to new members to play a significant role in their develoment. They can therefore pass on their wisdom and worldview directly to new members even if their parents are less involved than they should be or even from a different tribe.

Once population starts getting past the tribal and nomadic level, however (such as Phonetician, Canaanite, Babylonian, etc...) then the ability to have common memes between disperate segments of the population exceeds the capacity of any elder framework. Elders aren't known for being mobile and before regular postal service they couldn't exactly communicate with each other even if the majority had been literate.

Over time, the more subjective value systems such as politics, economics, patriarchal and/or matriarchal biases and their social resolution through custom, etc... would deviate too far for cooperation. Things some members of a big tribe considered normal others considered a violation of the natural order.

Naturally in an effor to prevent disagreements and bloodshed humanity did what it always does: it made things easier to remember and pass on through narrative. By explaining conceptual morality through stories it was possible to present both the pros and the cons of various solutions to hypothetical dilemmas into the reach of the common members of social systems.

But this naturally evolved mechanism wasn't perfect. When a child is told an incomplete story or when the parent doesn't understand the explanation they can pollute the lesson. In many cases this would have been born out as morality or imposed behavioral expectations (as opposed to choice through ethics and/or wisdom). Over time there were enough moral impositions to require non-violent (or less-violent) ways of determining who was more correct.

Law and religion spawned from the same places and for the same reasons.

It was the Athenian equivalent of law, after all, that convinced Socrates to drink the hemlock as he mocked the Greek subjective application of piety. The lack of formal and unified expectations was, even then, creating a great deal of suffering for humanity.

Modern religion is nothing but the minds of children being filled with the stories of their parents for why things are right and wrong (or exist at all). They're the weight of culture imposed by ignorance instead of the light of philosophy imposed by love.

What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together.

It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach

Not necessarily. I see your point that we could have a big problem if we lack of both religion and philosophy (well, if I am honest with you I would not care if we are lack of religion at all...).
The big issue here are the masses and how easily they can be misunderstood. Religion has always played a good role here, manipulative. Sometimes it even looks like that philosophy and reasoning is only made to "loneliness" citizens or weirds. I mean, all of those who do not accept the imposed rules. Furthermore wisdom, I think philosophy is key to help us to get rid of all of it.

What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach

Sounds like a riff off Jordan B Peterson to me. What's the evidence for this idea?

Philosophy consists in understanding – rationally interpretating – the Real. Religion, on the other hand, has always been a communal (i.e. cultic) system of a-rational control that had given rise to (the need for) philosophizing in ancient India, Persia, China, Egypt, Greece ... just as the modern Nation-State is a territorial administrative-system of ideological control that reduces most of what goes for academic and "counter-cultural" philosophies to syncretic contagions of denialism and woo-woo. The "choice" of Red pill or Blue pill? is the Blue pill – "there is no spoon" and they'd like us to believe "there never was, never will be" (the Real).

this is a false dichotomy. What you have called "communal systems of irrational control" govern all human activities including both science and philosophy. Furthermore, so-called "irrational" processes within the individual human mind (e.g. intuition, imagination, etc.) are likewise indispensable for both.

No "false dichotomy" on my part as I've not made an argument (re: systems of control) with an "either-or" premise. :roll:

By "system of control", Aaron, I mean the (socio-political) 'extrinsic constraints on populations which constitute – regulate – participation in a dominance hierrarchy'. I'm not referring to the (biological) 'intrinsic involuntary processes (e.g. cognitive biases / defects) of individuals or their endeavors' to which you seem to be referring.

I was talking about literally every social chaos algorithm I've ever seen. not one of them retains cohesive structure without a binding variable like religion or philosophy.

Take China as the biggest and most successful atheist nation ever in history. The Party has run into this problem on a massive scale time and again. They have repeatedly had to revamp their failed balance between engineered ignorance and forced indoctrination as religion has re-grown in large population centers without a massive level of heavily indoctrinated citizens in place. The entire Ughar problem is a current case-in-point. They're bussing in hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals deemed acceptably "Chinese" by the state in order to break up the naturally evolving narratives.

Even with that tremendous expense (both direct and indirect as they try to whitewash what they're doing in the UN) they're still not really able to call it successful. The real problem is that in order for an individual to impose self-discipline they must rationalize it and without the cognitive tools to construct a rational narrative that is compatible with the requirements of the state fragmentation is inevitable.

I wasn't familiar and had to look him up. After reading [the wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_Meaning) I quickly realized why.

It seems we have some similarities in personal history and areas of study.

Having really only glanced as his podcast bio and skimmed his wikipedia entry I will say, however, that it seems at first glance that he's far less of an agnostic/atheist than I am and that his track of polymath studies is a lot less broad than mine.

Add computational neuroscience (neuronal network modeling), computer science (neural networks and data science specifically), medical imaging focused on nuclear physics and linguistics into the mix and we'd a LOT closer in background. Also he's a PhD working in theory while I'm an MS working in practice as an engineer and I find that hands-on experience just can't be replicated by any amount of abstract study.

As to your question about what proof is there well you're going to have to get a LOT more specific because as you framed the question the answer is all of history (but in a very broad collection of study). It's not just reading popular vetted texts about history or various famous academics' perspectives but rather taking a broad-spectrum and very deep dive into each science relevant to building a matrix of understanding.

Even a summary at that level would fill multiple pages in order to supply just the biblio links.

With that said, please feel free to dig a bit deeper and ask for evidence or clarification of any specific conclusion.

Keep in mind, however, that at this point merely asking me for "proof" in the way that you did raised red flags that scream beligerent trolling. I'm here for serious discussion (not fighting or even debate). I have no interest in engaging in hostilities with non-believers. I have a very real interest in open-minded discussion with curious people, however, so I guess we'll see which one you prefer to present yourself as?

I'm kindof on the same side with @Aaron R.

When you talk about "the Real" you're talking about something you've personally built up in your own mind into a framework of understanding but since the rest of us aren't mind readers we have no choice but to construct our own definition for that in our own minds that will almost certainly differ from your ideas extensively.

Philosophy is just packaged human wisdom. If I've learned anything in life, it isn't understanding how to say that wherein lies a lifetime of trial but in understanding it.

What are understanding, wisdom, foolishness, intelligence, sapience, etc...

Words travel no further in your brain than what is known as the Broca's region (serialization of thought or output such as painting/drawing/writing and speaking) combined with the Wernicke's region/area (de-serialization of thought or input such as sight and sound translated).

Without extennsive applied study around these subjects any deep discussion will quickly become circular word salad as you find that contradictions (and even cognitive visualization) will result in dissonance and confusion.

Our society and culture blend them continuously which makes them particularly subject to the vagaries of cultural ambiguity. Is it "stupid is as stupid does" or is it "a foolish man despises wisdom and instruction"? Etc... etc....

I sincerely hope I've helped here but I'm honestly not sure that I have. It seems at first (and when I was a younger man I was so certain it was) like it should be simple to tackle this but it's a very very deep and complex subject.

I was talking about literally every social chaos algorithm I've ever seen. not one of them retains cohesive structure without a binding variable like religion or philosophy.

Take China as the biggest and most successful atheist nation ever in history. The Party has run into this problem on a massive scale time and again. They have repeatedly had to revamp their failed balance between engineered ignorance and forced indoctrination as religion has re-grown in large population centers without a massive level of heavily indoctrinated citizens in place. The entire Ughar problem is a current case-in-point. They're bussing in hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals deemed acceptably "Chinese" by the state in order to break up the naturally evolving narratives.

Even with that tremendous expense (both direct and indirect as they try to whitewash what they're doing in the UN) they're still not really able to call it successful. The real problem is that in order for an individual to impose self-discipline they must rationalize it and without the cognitive tools to construct a rational narrative that is compatible with the requirements of the state fragmentation is inevitable.

When modeling social dynamics (the branch of sociology and mathematics that relies on chaos theory) there are multiple deterministic patterns that have to be modeled. People need food, water and basic resources as well as a sufficiently diverse gene pool. Moving past those as population increases one starts to require additional repetitive series and one of those is most easily described as memetics (memetic theory) (the shared common ideas in a clearly defined cultural group). Chomsky made it popular but it's developed quite a bit since he first popularized it. As wikipedia says in the first paragraph: it's essentially information flow.

During development the minds of children face such a massive influx of complex interpersonal and social dynamics that they have no choice but to rely almost complete on guidance to arrange them into a cognitive framework. At first this is, in most cases, entirely one parent. As the child grows in complexity, however, they will begin to delegate some areas to the other parent or anyone else in their life they deem as more authoritative a source about one or another subject.

One can keep going down this rabit hole until one has mapped out a common series of memetic themes that are common across all individuals in one more more large geographically diverse regions (say... western cultural norms).

Thematic supercells: economics, religion, liberty, human rights, sexuality, etc...

Hopefully this is enough to begin with to start to see the big picture of how these models are constructed. Then one simply has to lay out some common sources of those thematic elements (religion, pop culture audio and video, public education, etc...) and then one can target and model each one and run the models.

Personally I'm rather proud of how my models actually pull in their variables for pop culture and regional religious themes from social media. I believe it makes them more accurate but enough bragging.

So, it's also simple to put in a condition where a major one is destroyed without significant changes to another and play the model forward to see what happens.

In every single one when religion is destroyed without replacing it with a state-sponsored religious replacement the social model fractures (breaks down into civil conflict) over 1-3 generations.

Thus: the Chinese are bussing in nationals to replace the Ugar. They have experts with models too.

Religion has exactly the same relation to Philosophy as paste or costume jewelry does to those adornments made of gold, silver, diamonds, rubies, and other rare, wondrously beautiful materials: the first are really cheap and easy to come by and completely False; but you can make a lot of money by convincing fools they are the Real Thing.

The Morals you think to find in your hopelessly normatively tangled, darkly purposed, sinisterly profitable Religious Propaganda are all subordinate to the only essential thing Religion ever requires of its (thankfully monied) Sheep, which is (delightfully unquestioning, from the priest's perspective) Faith.

If an "idea" is just something made up by each of us that's confined to our own minds and none of us are mind-readers, then you haven't conveyed anything accessible to me or anyone else, in effect, spitting-up nothing but babytalk. Implication from your premises. :roll:

As you said, China is a good example that you can run a country without religion in your culture. Even more, they are completely a different culture country. They are not worried or concerned about religion or priests, they only want be the runners of the World both economically and politically.

every single one when religion is destroyed without replacing it with a state-sponsored religious replacement the social model fractures (breaks down into civil conflict) over 1-3 generations.

Thus: the Chinese are bussing in nationals to replace the Ugar. They have experts with models too. — SkyLeach

I am disagree here. I do not se them as a "broke" social civilization. They do not need replace anything because they do not have religion in their culture as much as others. It is known that kids in China are taught by Conficius and Lao-Tse (Tao Te Ching) readings. I want be honest with you...
I think is better for kids being taught with readings from Taoism rather than Bible...
They are a super economic state with so much power in many areas and I do not see them as fail nation just for being atheists.

Even a summary at that level would fill multiple pages in order to supply just the biblio links. — SkyLeach

I wasn't asking for a thesis, just one or two points towards evidence of your observation. :wink:
You might even cite or quote someone else who has done the work. But if you are unable to back up the claim, that's fine.

No "false dichotomy" on my part as I've not made an argument (re: systems of control) with an "either-or" premise. :roll: — 180 Proof

No, I meant it literally. You're proposing a dichotomy where none exists.

By "system of control", Aaron, I mean the (socio-political) 'extrinsic constraints on populations which constitute – regulate – participation in a dominance hierrarchy'. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I know. You really think philosophy and politics are completely orthogonal?

The first step on the road to wisdom is to admit you know nothing from which point you can begin to construct a less corrupted view of the world.

Your belief is so filled with logical flaws and misinformation about human nature and history that it's not philosophy at all. It's just an excuse for holding on to emotional baggage.

Please try to understand I'm not trying to provoke you it's just that your initial sentence had no bearing on anything I said and your next sentence blamed me for your difficulty comprehending it and then you proceeded to speak for "everyone else".

I'm not here to fix psychological problems. I am here to enjoy talking with people who are interested in philosophy. I'm not above clarifying anything if there is a problem but I flatly refuse to be blamed for anyone else's failures in education.

If you thought I was implying China is doing something right then please allow me to correct the misunderstanding. I think China is failing utterly. They don't understand the problem and they're taking all the wrong steps to fix the issue. They know there is a problem but to the misfortune of their people the leadership is completely ignorant of how humanity thinks and are trying to pummel them into doing what the state wants. It's silly and will result in a horrific display of human suffering, failure and death.

I've no idea what you're talking about on either account.

Whatever. :roll:

I've no idea what you're talking about on either account. — 180 Proof

It's amazing that someone who writes all the cryptic claptrap you write can't understand a couple relatively straightforward comments.

Oh well. Have a nice life.

I'm sorry you just don't seem to really know what you're asking for.

I mean... would it help if I pointed to Hagger's Trait Self Control and Self Discipline?

I'm not quoting some article on BuzzFeed here I'm summarizing decades of research and what I said isn't controversial it's just accepted understanding of how human beings develop psychologically to regulate their actions in a social dynamic.

As such there just isn't any such single thing (or couple of things) as what you're asking for (except, of course, for lists of citations by link depth).

Link depth would be shown on Hagger's Google scholar (approaching 5k/year) but that's just an appeal to popularity. You really would have to read a few studies in order to get a feel for how most psychologists describe self discipline/self control.

At any time if there is something you don't understand you're free to ask questions. I'm pretty new here but is that frowned on? Is everyone expected to have all the answers?

It just seems that my first few posts/comments were immediately assaulted by everyone as if they were an affront.

I didn't come here to build a cult. I don't care to sway anyone's opinions. I'm not here to debate anyone.

I'm here for philosophy which is really a very personal thing. It helps a tremendous amount if one can share ideas and have others point out logical flaws and inconsistencies or misinformation because it's very easy to fall into a rut or lie to oneself.

So... that's why I'm here. To talk to other people about philosophy.

Why are you here?

I mean... would it help if I pointed to Hagger's Trait Self Control and Self Discipline?

I'm not quoting some article on BuzzFeed here I'm summarizing decades of research and what I said isn't controversial it's just accepted understanding of how human beings develop psychologically to regulate their actions in a social dynamic.

As such there just isn't any such single thing (or couple of things) as what you're asking for (except, of course, for lists of citations by link depth).

Link depth would be shown on Hagger's Google scholar (approaching 5k/year) but that's just an appeal to popularity. You really would have to read a few studies in order to get a feel for how most psychologists describe self discipline/self control. — SkyLeach

Whoa there, Partner! You don't need to come on so strong. :wink: If you are having trouble expressing yourself succinctly, you can just ask questions of clarification rather than have an information dump. We're all freinds.

You said:

What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach

Now let's just tease this out. It might help if you slowed down. What makes you think this statement - which is jammed packed with choice ideas - is true? What evidence do you have?

I'm surprised you thought that was strong. I was merely trying to explain why your request didn't make any sense to me. It still doesn't.

What makes you think this statement - which is jammed packed with choice ideas - is true?

I don't know what the words I underlined mean. As for my statement, the first half is the summary of the findings of many research papers. What makes me think it's true is the findings of the research, the methodology of the research, and where it has been replicated the reproducibility of the research.

The second statement is a logical extrapolation. If a person cannot justify restraining their own actions based on an ethical consideration of the impact of those actions, then the soceity which is well aware of the cost of those actions is forced to impose external discipline in order to maintain order.

I never thought of that as controversial. It's not like one can have people looting stores and raping strangers and still function as a cohesive state.

The premise is that if a body of people impose discipline on themselves because of their beliefs, no matter the source of those beliefs, then the state can save resources by reducing a policing force. If the body of people is unrestrained the opposite holds true.

Now that makes a bit more sense, thanks. Personally, I think many people (and I know quite a few) live without philosophy or religion with no ill effects, but perhaps you count the quotidian secular beliefs of the early 21st century as a philosophy.

Philosophy isn't only formal philosophy. Cultural norms are philosophy too. A parent teaching their child right and wrong is philosophy. The biggest problem is that parents tend to teach their children in dribs and drabs rather than as a coherent narrative. Parents don't exactly have a multi-year curriculum planned out :-).

(Developmental Psych) - The problem here is that because parents are passing on declarative philosophy (also known as imposed morality) the developing mind of the child must struggle to construct a framework of justification on which to hang the imperative. "I must obey or I will be punished." Like water finding the easiest path, the overwhelming majority will comply with expectations that are consistent and relatively easy to conform to.

What researchers have found, however, is that the overwhelming majority wind up developing some kind of moral economics system where the weight of the majority rules and that even just the perceived majority. (Lots of cool experiments here if you ever want to look them up).

The most succinct way to make the point here without a long post is to say: consider rape in the military. When the moral majority within the perceptual limits of an individual with a weak ethical foundation change, so do they. They didn't have ethics or even morality, they merely had circumstance.

There is actually a massive body of research here since it's bisected by multiple schools (criminal psych, developmental, evolutionary, etc...).

The principle takeaway is this: the reason that shows like The Walking Dead show total collapse of ethics is because the research is very clear (and kinda scary). The overwhelming majority are capable of any crime, no matter how bestial. This is because their entire restraint system is circumstantial.

Religions typically insist on the acceptance of a set of dogmas among its adherents. — Aaron R

That is particularly accentuated by Protestantism with its emphasis on salvation by faith (which is close to, or actually amounts to, fideism, which was not accepted in the Catholic Church). However some forms of religious culture are grounded more in attainment of insight, which is where the philosophical and religious tend to converge somewhat. For example in classical neoplatonism with its emphasis on theurgy, Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism with their meditational practices. In those domains of discourse, the aspirant is supposed to reach a kind of understanding or insight which is emphatically not the same merely taking something on faith (even if faith in some sense is assumed, at least sufficiently for the purpose of reaching those states of realisation.) And such schools have traditionally been highly philosophically elaborated i.e. the Enneads of Plotinus, the commentaries of Sankara and the voluminous and highly technical philosophical commentaries of the various schools of Buddhism.

What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach

That paragraph of yours doesn't really jibe with what precedes it. On the one hand, you're dismissive of religion as 'philosofolly' but then you say that its absence is terrifying. That's a rather paternalistic take on it, is it not?
__

I've been reading an MA thesis on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion. I find Schopenhauer's attitude particularly interesting, because he's usually counted amongst the most ferocious critics of religion. Yet strangely enough his ultimate ends dovetail rather well with religion insofar as it has a metaphysical basis (as distinct from a basis in society, culture or evolutionary biology, which is where most modern analyses will stop.)

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world. — Nicholas Linares, Schopenhauer's Philosophy of Religion and his Critique of German Idealism

Cultural norms are philosophy too. A parent teaching their child right and wrong is philosophy. — SkyLeach

I understand that - it wasn't clear what your perspective was.

They don't understand the problem and they're taking all the wrong steps to fix the issue. They know there is a problem but to the misfortune of their people the leadership is completely ignorant of how humanity thinks — SkyLeach

How can you be that sure to say that? Do you really think China is in a big issue of misunderstanding? I think you are mixing Taiwang and Hong Kong political crisis with their culture.
Check this article out:THE "SIX SCHOOLS" OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY

Do you really think that a country with such philosophical background is making "wrong steps?"

More babytalk. :yawn: