It is, but 'taste' is also where the passion is. I'm fascinated by passion and commitment and why some ideas and not others. — Tom Storm

Right, but people don't fight egregiously over whether Rembrandt was a greater artist than Leonardo or Jackson Pollock is better than Andy Warhol, or T S Eliot better than Wallace Stevens. So, I think it is political ideology which causes much of the conflict between science and religion, even though it's not always, or even often, framed that way. People believe society would be better off if one or other of theism or atheism was predominant. And this brings in the idea of human flourishing, of which kind of life overall is more beautiful: the religious or the secular. Ideologues do not find it enough to merely make the choice for themselves and leave others to their own devices.

I think lots would agree. I have a sister in-law with terminal cancer. There are some friends of hers who have said - don't get treatment, all you need is prayer. This for me is when the supernatural becomes problematic. When it exceeds its speculative limitations and becomes a course of potentially harmful action. — Tom Storm

On the other hand the suffering that can be involved with chemo and radiotherapy may not be worth the trade-off in terms of the little extra life they are capable of offering. If a person is an ardent beleiver they may find great comfort in prayer and be able to come to terms with their impending death in a way that may be impossible while undergoing the rigors of modern oncological therapy.

Again it must be a personal choice, and there are no guarantees either way.

I think this is true but so hard when identity is often based on a community of shared values which often feels or is marginalized. — Tom Storm

I agree; when marginalized communities have little or no voice the problem is compounded. But I would argue that the marginalization often results from those in power having little or no respect for the sovereignty of the individual. Of course the sovereignty of the individual must be balanced against the social responsibility that comes with that sovereignty, which is of course the respect for the sovereignty of other individuals.

A single act of charity or sacrifice can bring tears to the eyes, much like a piece of music. So I think there is something to the idea that morality, even basic manners, has a certain beauty to it.

As Oscar Wilde wrote, “the only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely”. The beautiful is often useless, and theism is in possession of both qualities.

Right, but people don't fight egregiously over whether Rembrandt was a greater artist than Leonardo or Jackson Pollock is better than Andy Warhol, or T S Eliot better than Wallace Stevens. — Janus

Actually they do. Well they did in my world - Melbourne arts scene. There were fights and feuds so bitter over issues like abstract versus figurative, Warhol versus Goya (often framed via Robert Hughes criticism) you wouldn't believe the vehemence. Including fist fights in the pub. And consider the Nazi's and their 1937 exhibition of degenerate art and what this meant for the artist's welfare. And speaking of artist's welfare - ask Shostakovich about what it was like to displease Stalin and the politburo with few dud bars in a symphony. Not producing the right kind of art has been ever bit as problematic around the world as not holding the right belief systems.

But I do take your point.

On the other hand the suffering that can be involved with chemo and radiotherapy may not be worth the trade-off in terms of the little extra life they are capable of offering — Janus

No. They are saying you don't need pain killers or treatment if you have faith. They are cunts.

Of course the sovereignty of the individual must be balanced against the social responsibility that comes with that sovereignty, which is of course the respect for the sovereignty of other individuals. — Janus

Indeed.

A single act of charity or sacrifice can bring tears to the eyes, much like a piece of music. So I think there is something to the idea that morality, even basic manners, has a certain beauty to it. — NOS4A2

Nice. There's a great deal in this idea.

Actually they do. Well they did in my world - Melbourne arts scene. There were fights and feuds so bitter over issues like abstract versus figurative, — Tom Storm

The same kind of thing happened in the Sydney art scene in the late sixties and early seventies. But I see that as tribal politics being enacted by interested parties (the artists themselves who were vying for exposure and recognition) rather than purely fighting over aesthetics for aesthetics sake.

No. They are saying you don't need pain killers or treatment if you have faith. They are cunts. — Tom Storm

Okay, that is an extreme cuntish position. Anyway, she should be left to make up her own mind in my view.

... the gods themselves must conform to human values. — plaque flag

For Homer and Hesiod the gods were willful and capricious. Plato demoted the gods, but I think would would argue that it was not to conform to human values but to the just, the beautiful or noble, and the good. At the same time rather than conform to human values as they were shaped by the poets he sought to reform or transform human values. The Euthyphro is a key text in this regard.

So, if I make a statement like 'I give a high credence level to the basic premise of string theory,' PARTLY because I am attracted to it's aesthetic (or it's beauty). Would I, in your opinion, be as guilty of being 'romantic' about science, in the exact same way that I might accuse a theist of being irrational/romantic/unreasonable, about the credence level they assign to the existence of their god? — universeness

No, not at all. The latter is about an underdetermined, or stop-gap, idea (i.e. cipher) and the former concerns a precise mathematical model of nature with, so far, an unknown truth-value. There are more grounds than just "aesthetic reasoning" to favor e.g. string theory.

Do you agree that some equations are more aesthetically pleasing than others?

Of course. Symmetry and parsimony, for example, are salient indictators of 'beauty', conceptual or otherwise.

If an aesthetic, inspires a person to learn more about a topic, is that an 'aesthetic reasoning,' that we should always guard against?

I don't equate "inspires" with reasoning in any sense. For instance, motives themselves are not beliefs or judgments.

Hitchens saw value in the word numinous as well, whereas I have always associated that word with other rather woo woo words like transcendent.

I prefer terms like sublime or, even better, ecstatic to more woo-like words "numinous" & "transcendent".

Theists often claim a calling which is 'higher than any other calling,' including any call to human science, and I think we should NEVER forget to totally challenge that arrogant, unjustified claim.

The only claim about theism I think is worthy of sustained, principled challenge is to the demonstrably untrue claim that 'theism is true'.

It was Socrates who posed, “Is it good cause the gods like it or do the gods like it because it is good?” A world where suffering and hardship is supposed to be part of the cosmic game but is beyond the understanding of its participants, is not beautiful, perfect, or good. — schopenhauer1

That was a dilemma in the context of the Greek gods, because they might disagree with one another about what is good. It is a false dilemma in the monotheistic context, because the theists can always say that it is good because God loves it and God loves it because it is good.

Suffering and hardship are not merely supposed to be part of the cosmic game they are part of it, as are joy and ease. Whether the world is thought to be beautiful, perfect or good is a matter of perspective, disposition, opinion.

The only claim about theism I think is worthy of sustained, principled challenge is to the demonstrably untrue claim that 'theism is true'. — 180 Proof

I agree the claim that theism is true should be challenged, even dismissed, but not on the grounds that it is demonstrably untrue, but that it is demonstrably not demonstrably true or false, which means it is demonstrably unjustified. On the other hand if someone says that theism seems true to them, then I would leave that alone.

'Neither true nor false', to my mind, also makes a purported truth-claim demonstrably untrue.

My world is a private language? — Tom Storm

Logic underlies both the facts of the world and language. Language represents states of affairs.

Why can't the man simply write clearly? Why the fucking riddles and bloody obtuse prose style? — Tom Storm

It certainly seemed that way to me when I first read him. It took me a lot of time and work to see that there is a clarity to his style.

The motto attached to the Tractatus says in translation:

... and whatever a man knows, whatever is not mere rumbling and roaring that he has heard, can be said in three words.

Of course he says a lot more than three words, but like his work in architecture what he says is without ornament. In the preface he says:

The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

He links what a man knows to what is heard or said. The penultimate statement of the Tractatus is:

He [that is, "anyone who understands me] must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright. (6.54)

What one who understands him gets from the book is a way of seeing in distinction from something said to be known.

Right, you could interpret "neither true nor false" as not not merely not demonstrably true or false but as not capable of being true or false.

It certainly seemed that way to me when I first read him. It took me a lot of time and work to see that there is a clarity to his style. — Fooloso4

Good answer and thank you for being patient.

What one who understands him gets from the book is a way of seeing in distinction from something said to be known. — Fooloso4

Important distinction, transition even.

There's so much homework to do in this philosophy caper... I probable need to focus on a few sections of the Tractatus and see how it sits with me.

I do like the respect for people's suffering. But it can also cause people's suffering. I can hurt people by wrecking their final vocabulary (their spiritual substance, really) in the name of fixing them or waking them up. 'Don't you see that you should not have been born, sir ?'

I don't preach the gospel of ironic atheism, for instance, to people who might not be able to run that program in their lives. Whiskey for me is poison for them. — plaque flag

The problem being that one doesn't affect others (more than being a bit sad at a philosophy) while the other has a major affect (a whole other person and stuff). So I don't know. I don't know. Have you thought of the poison of the other side as well? I mean that side gets 98% of the airtime and all.. and you know with the billions of people that result from it, their side has had major consequences I'd say for forced converting to those ideas (and only one side forced converts). The other says a sad song that people clutch their pearls at... So, just saying.

That was a dilemma in the context of the Greek gods, because they might disagree with one another about what is good. It is a false dilemma in the monotheistic context, because the theists can always say that it is good because God loves it and God loves it because it is good.

Suffering and hardship are not merely supposed to be part of the cosmic game they are part of it, as are joy and ease. Whether the world is thought to be beautiful, perfect or good is a matter of perspective, disposition, opinion. — Janus

But I think it can apply to the monotheistic god. That is to say, what is a god who allows/approves/creates/wants suffering? If that is good to want that, then truly it is beyond human good and evil, and the implication of that is quite interesting. A person who creates a stumbling block to watch people suffer and overcome it (or not), is more than suspicious.

The point is that the theist can say that, in her view, the creation is good, and that God loves it because it is good and it is good because God loves it without contradiction.

From the theistic perspective, that you, a mere mortal, may think the creation is not good is just your (false) opinion and is irrelevant to what is not a logical dilemma or contradiction for the theist. Far greater minds that ours (Leibniz) have thought this is the best of all possible worlds, which is not to say he is right, but just to point out that there is no obvious fact of the matter.

not to conform to human values but to the just, the beautiful or noble, and the good. — Fooloso4

All of these in whose eyes though ?

he sought to reform or transform human values. — Fooloso4

:up:
Bingo!

The problem being that one doesn't affect others (more than being a bit sad at a philosophy) while the other has a major affect (a whole other person and stuff). — schopenhauer1

To me it matters whether or not a movement has a real chance in my decision to spend much energy on it. If I'm not really going to change things, then what am I gaining by persisting in talking about it ? My guess would be an heroic sense of identity. I write this without malice, because I think we're all caught up in this game of self-esteem. Maybe it's in our evolved hardware. We know that your namesake played the flute on climbed on prostitutes. A philosopher need not be a saint. His life may tell a deeper truth than his work. He's a aesthetic man. Nietzsche's ghost took a timemachine back to convert him into a mere poet of the ghastly demonic will to live which he mostly enjoyed incarnating, the musical old goat.

Our fundamental tactic of self-protection, self-control, and self-definition is not spinning webs or building dams, but telling stories, and more particularly connecting and controlling the story we tell others - and ourselves - about who we are.
Dennett

A single act of charity or sacrifice can bring tears to the eyes, much like a piece of music. So I think there is something to the idea that morality, even basic manners, has a certain beauty to it. — NOS4A2

:up:

From the theistic perspective, that you, a mere mortal, may think the creation is not good is just your (false) opinion and is irrelevant to what is not a logical dilemma or contradiction for the theist. Far greater minds that ours (Leibniz) have thought this is the best of all possible worlds, which is not to say he is right, but just to point out that there is no obvious fact of the matter. — Janus

You didn’t pay attention to my argument on my original argument on this. If the same entity wanted Bad things to happen to creatures as part of his divine game, it begs the question as to what morality this entity holds. I also said you can say it’s beyond our mere human notions of good and evil but the implication of this is still strange. A Cthulhu god or demiurge who actively wants or indifferent different to suffering. You don’t need contradiction for that to be odd. It subverts our ideas of goodness making the term irrelevant or worse. Using people to suffer for some plan in any universe seems wrong.

A world where suffering and hardship is supposed to be part of the cosmic game but is beyond the understanding of its participants, is not beautiful, perfect, or good. At best it’s as indifferent and amoral as a Cthulhu. Possibly unable to make much more than a suffering world. At worst, he wants this scenario. Is an entity that uses people thus good because it is godly to want to see people suffer? Even worse is the notion that the world could be worse and we should be thankful our world wasn’t made in an even more suffering version. Everything about it is suspect.

In an inversion of our norm, if humans are the cruelest animal because we know what we do, and do it anyway, how much more so is something infinitely more knowing? Again, if there is one, signs point to a cosmically indifferent Cthulhu perhaps. — schopenhauer1

@Janus

If I'm not really going to change things, then what am I gaining by persisting in talking about it ? — plaque flag

These are just posts on a philosophy forum. Existential therapy. That’s all. Communal recognition. “Do you see this too?!” I’m not merely information but

Our fundamental tactic of self-protection, self-control, and self-definition is not spinning webs or building dams, but telling stories, and more particularly connecting and controlling the story we tell others - and ourselves - about who we are. — plaque flag

That being the case, here we are dissecting the meta-narrative. Impersonal analysis of the tragedy. Hamlet is a tragedy. It may be a story, but to deny this fact is to deny basic facts of what is the case. Suffering is real. People are not just fictive driftwood when they suffer. There is a Subject behind it. The “story” is covering this up and dressing it up. Now we are in fantasy and not what is the case.

I'm partial to the Good Samaritan story. It opened up a broader notion of morality to me when I was a kid. — Tom Storm

This is a crucial landing zone/launch pad imo. Who are the true owners/inheritors of such stories? All humans? No particular human?
This is the concept of YOU helping, when every other potential helper chose to refuse the risk!
The aesthetic of that is very powerful indeed, in MOST human beings. BUT, most of us don't choose to OWN such, either as individuals or as a collective. We ascribe it's source to be 'beyond US.'

How different might the human race be now, IF, when still in the wilds, and we first looked up at the sky at night, we considered what we saw, as what WE are and where WE CAME FROM.
Not something separate from us and better/superior to us, but completely manifest WITHIN US.
The good Samaritan story (so good that you 'automatically' capitalised the word Good Tom) is a product of the deep human psyche. It is such a powerful aesthetic to us, because WE KNOW it is one of the moral standards AT OUR CORE. That's why the theists gained so much ground initially, because the vast majority of our species, recognised the moral standard behind that story, as the manifestation of the core of OUR OWN HUMANISM. Unfortunately too many of us got sidetracked, and assigned our core humanism to BS godism! and we have suffered from that delusion to devastating historical affect, including our initial acceptance of slavery (in the same way as it is biblically accepted,) and the divine rights of kings (in the same way Jesus insists we render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.)

We created the incarnation myth because we feel like gods trapped in crucified dogs. — plaque flag

Think of the aesthetic ugliness of the imagery here. Trapped, horrible death via crucifixion, resident inside low creatures such as dogs (a creature that most of us actually love dearly and many consider a family member). We created gods, yes, but only because we have yet to consider ourselves as worthy of our own existence. That's also why such ridiculous idea's as antinatalism and nihilism get any oxygen at all, imo. Why do some feel like 'gods trapped in crucified dogs?' I think it's because such people are not in communication with their own core HUMANISM (or Samaritan, to project Tom as a kid!).

My world is solipsistic. It is mine alone. It is the world as I see it. As I experience it. — Fooloso4

I fully endorse and 'live within,' the 'my world that IS mine alone,' as you depict it in the above quote BUT it is not solipsistic! There are other worlds/universe's, currently, over 8 billion of them and I can join in common cause with as many of them as possible.

Conversely atheists may claim that a calling to science is higher than a calling to religion, which would be an equally arrogant claim. — Janus

But I witness very important differences in the behaviour and claims of both camps. Scientific endeavour is much more humble and rational than religious endeavour. I have never witnessed a scientist 'preach' a theory or writhe on the floor of a lecture hall in physical rapture about E=MCsquared whilst intermittently speaking in tongues. I have witness such from religion. Scientists accept that science can be wrong. Theists do not accept god can be flawed.
I do accept however that many scientists and many people (me included,) would claim that a call to science may help @Tom Storm's sister in law more than a call to religion.

Over the years, I have often heard people debating god versus no god - and the argument I seem to hear from many theists is that the world is uglier and less enchanted without a god and/or without contemplative practice. The person expressing such a view appears to regard atheism and humanism and the privileging of science over the 'supernatural' as unattractive, mean and an example of bad taste. — Tom Storm

I’ve encountered this attitude many times. To me, it demonstrates just how far some religious people are from reality. Let’s see, God created an eternal torture chamber and, at one time, sent everyone there because of the sin of Adam and Eve. But wait! There is “good news”! God is loving; so he impregnated a woman who wasn’t his wife so their little boy could grow up to be horribly tortured to death. Now, God lets a select few people into heaven – all those that accept his son as their personal savior. No, it’s all those who follow the dictates of the One True Church, the Catholic Church. No, that’s not right either. It’s all those who are baptized by immersion. Hm. It looks like his son didn’t clearly say what is needed to get into heaven. But if you’re a Christian – and you’re lucky enough to be in the right denomination and have the right belief – they you get to go to heaven. Everyone else, hell.

A wonderful world view? I leave the answer to the reader.

There are more grounds than just "aesthetic reasoning" to favor e.g. string theory. — 180 Proof

I agree.

I don't equate "inspires" with reasoning in any sense. For instance, motives themselves are not beliefs or judgments. — 180 Proof

I don't get that. What motivates you to 'reason' something, surely you must have been 'inspired' to?

I prefer terms like sublime or, even better, ecstatic to more woo-like words "numinous" & "transcendent". — 180 Proof

Yeah, as replacement terms, those would also work for me but I wonder if we are missing an important point here. Is it not important for science to claim as much right to 'positively' employ words such as numinous, transcendent, faith, belief, etc, in contextually accurate (but still positive) ways?
Would this be similar to the need for black people to claim the 'n' word insult and render it relatively benign within their own cultural discourse.
Perhaps Scots, should do the same with the less offensive but still quite insulting term 'Jock.'
There are many other more powerful and less powerful examples but do you think that such struggles for 'ownership' of words are important? There is a aesthetic issue here, due to the presumptions such words incite when applied in context.

The only claim about theism I think is worthy of sustained, principled challenge is to the demonstrably untrue claim that 'theism is true'. — 180 Proof

I agree but I think you underestimate the power of a claim of 'follow me, as I absolutely speak for the highest power in the universe.' This is what the biblical Jesus combinatorial character is depicted as claiming. Many people WILL follow that pied piper clarion call, blindly. Should we just accept that, or is it vital to challenge the claim that theism occupies the highest ground and highest aesthetic, that it is possible to imagineer?

Some years ago I participated in a discussion of the Tractatus. I ended up going through a lot of it, making connections. Not quite the annotated work you asked about but it might held give you a better idea of where he is going as he moves through the text.

All of these in whose eyes though ? — plaque flag

And their eyes were opened and they became like one of us.

I fully endorse and 'live within,' the 'my world that IS mine alone,' as you depict it in the above quote BUT it is not solipsistic! — universeness

This is Wittgenstein's term.

There are other worlds/universe's, currently, over 8 billion of them and I can join in common cause with as many of them as possible. — universeness

He came to see this. In the Tractatus he regarded language as transcendental, determined by the logical scaffolding that supported both language and the facts of the world. He later rejected this notion and came to see language as social and about more than facts.

:up: Thanks for the clarifications.

We created gods, yes, but only because we have yet to consider ourselves as worthy of our own existence. ...Why do some feel like 'gods trapped in crucified dogs?' I think it's because such people are not in communication with their own core HUMANISM (or Samaritan, to project Tom as a kid!). — universeness

Consider the sigil of a lion on a shield on the morning of a battle. The glory and immortality of its god is the glory and immortality of the tribe.

Why would one feel trapped ? Shakespeare gave us Hamlet, perhaps still the most aware character ever written, trapped in a petty revenge plot. But I think also of Hobbes' kings who wage war to expand their holdings just to secure those they had already. The project known as humanism is that of us becoming gods. Antinatalism resents us not being there yet, us still being embarrassingly vulnerable. Humanism is willing to put in the work, put bodies on the altar, in the hope of a relative utopia to come ,though I will include ironism as a last late rancid version of humanism.

Suffering is real. People are not just fictive driftwood when they suffer. There is a Subject behind it. The “story” is covering this up and dressing it up. Now we are in fantasy and not what is the case. — schopenhauer1

I agree that there is suffering in the world. I'm of course not trying to silence you. Does the story 'cover up' subconceptual pain ? I'd say that the story is just not that pain itself, and that other stories miss the pleasure in life. To reiterate, I respect the edge and the nerve of antinatalism. It 'questions to the very end.' But, with Nietzsche, I don't stop but perhaps even truly start there.