That's what happens in this forum, when I point out the falsities which are currently abundant in mathematics and physics. People here say, the principles serve their purposes, so unless I have something better to offer, forget about criticizing those conventions. But since the principles serve their purposes, no one is inclined to look for better ones. Therefore it is necessary to first recognize the principles as bad, and destroy the bad principles, thereby providing the necessary conditions for the development of better ones. The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

What does destroying a bad principle look like? I understand skepticism. I get the idea that we live in our time of ideas. But what does destroying a bad principle look like?

As I understand it, the exclusion of other views of the divine characterizes the Pauline version of Christianity.
So, the question of what might be seen as included has the problem of being cast out at the beginning..

I rewatched Ivan the Terrible recently. The language is closer to Putin's than even Stalin's.

With Eisenstein, of course, it is all mixed up with each other.

I think restraint is a part of it. One has so many more options if one can slow down the reactions.
A lot of inventing is about giving oneself more time. A situation seems impossible, and we tread water and combine ideas to see the problem a different way. Patience as a result of urgent demands.

That aspect is a feature in parenting as a model. It goes both ways.

I wonder if the matter of history was the bone of contention in the idea of 'structure.' For instance, one could be skeptical of the progressions Hegel described and not claim the result was a matter of pure chance.

What Chalmer is trying to do as a scientist does not dissolve the use of the "I." Isn't the immediacy of experience a given quality in the discussion?

We have other experiences that serve as evidence in scientific inquiry. For instance, when we try to understand why certain things hurt, it doesn't make the hurt less like hurt to treat it as a result of a process. There is a considerable difference between being able to explain some of a phenomenon and explaining it away.

So, you have never betrayed a friend, kissed the ass of a boss, represented your failures in the best possible light, or deferred blame to another as long as it wasn't you?

Are you not presented with moral dilemmas beyond trying to be polite?

How does that relate to the norms you referred to?

Does that mean you don't fiercely hold what you consider to be correct in your encounters?

I think Foucault's Care of Self works are an important advance toward seeing how the matter of personal well-being played an important part in different classical texts as a preface to the emphasis given to it today.

That being said, I wonder whether the notions of what health is changes in the various ways morality is established.

The Bush neocons broke the application of international law and the usefulness of the U.N. The hubris expressed was that it was only the fist that kept the peace. But it turns out that the "pottery barn" rule of Powell is also not true. Break something enough, it stays broken, no matter who owns it. There is no refund desk. None of that blood increased the size of the 'sphere of influence.'

Now Putin is working the same logic and hopes for a better return. The ever elusive 'facts on the ground moves forward like the mechanical lure in a Greyhound race.

tartarscore - the period between dental cleanings.

It's a crisis, which is fearful, but at the same time you get to experience the universe stripped of false gods, which is exhilarating. — hypericin

That well describes my experience as a parent. A sharp reduction of arrogance. There is still something to keep between generations.

Perhaps you could expand upon that since you put so much emphasis on subjectivity being a 'Christian' thing.

What about my suggestion that thinkers have been struggling with 'consciousness' well before the Middle Ages?

The first thing it suggests to me is that the investigation of what consciousness is did not start with a 'Christian' idea of the subject. Plato talks a lot about what we cannot verify for sure. His confidence that he can rely upon himself to decide is an affirmation of sorts. He may not know much but he affirms that he is someone who could know.

You don't mention Descartes, but it seems like he would be the exemplar of what you object to. He put the personal experience of the 'real' directly against what can be verified. Is that a Christian thing in your understanding?

What to make of the 'know thyself' impetus in Plato? Our existence as evidence of some kind.

Do you not have the experience of being stuck with yourself? Your life and your death are yours alone, no matter who grieves or not after your end. The singularity of your experience is that nobody else will witness it as you do.

Is that not a phenomenon that should be looked into?

I agree that making a neat distinction is impossible. The question I hear Chalmers asking is how does one practice science in this environment. The use of models presumes the presence of beings that function according to their nature. There is value in the distinction, even if it does not unlock the secrets of all creation.

The phenomena must be measurable, and events must be repeated to check models for viability. That such phenomena yield results of this kind is no promise of a clear separation between 'subject and object'.

And if the process of investigating this issue doesn't help separate the two qualities, it won't help us unify them either.

Really, I see the hard problems as a direct critique at Materialism. Materialism proposes that everything is material or abstractions of material. There is no room for "inner aspects" because that itself is not material. The map becomes confused with the territory. Or perhaps, the territory has no room for the specific kind of territory and we are back to square one. — schopenhauer1

Chalmer's work does not insist upon figuring out the limit of the physical but is interested in building models where consciousness is the function of something we are given phenomena to explore. The 'physical' is not a given packet of phenomena.

The problem is 'hard' because of correspondence. The success of scientific methods is that models fit the objects being pursued by restricting what is counted as an event. Our given experience of being conscious beings is an event. Can it be understood in the way other phenomena are understood? Or attempted to be understood?

A good performance of War Requiem:

I have listened to the 10.000 days album several times now. The way bass and percussion move and change together permits the other effects.
The drumming is so certain to itself.

I like the way the rhythm guitar in 'right in two' becomes the melodic line.

That is one tight band. I did not know of it.

There is the question of how having consciousness is an advantage but being able to say how it happens as a process we can recognize through scientific inquiry is another matter. Being able to see it as a result of development does not mean we understand it as such.

I read the problem Chalmers presents as a problem of building models.
Can there be a completely 'objective' model that explains the experience of consciousness? The experience is presented as a phenomena, one of the things that needs to be explained.
From that perspective, evolution is not an explanation.

It's tricky because people think they have best intentions but what of the morality of arrogance to give people a game that is played in real time, lest death to begin with? — schopenhauer1

It would be reasonable for Job to complain about doing a good job of being a person and yet getting a lot of suffering in return. And if he knew it was all because of some bizarre wager upon his response, that, too, would be a fair cause for objection.

The game quality is a form of suffering. That Job can confirm for himself that he is not at fault is outside of the game is important. That doesn't answer your question about justification but is an attempt to talk about the problem.

My High School.
Good times.

If you click on the three horizontal dots to the right of the swoopy reply arrow, you have the option to 'share.' When clicked, an address pops up which can be pasted into your private message and hyperlinked. It isn't as precise as the quote function but lets the reader go to the post where the quote appears.

I will do that to your post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12984/starting-private-conversations-through-text-selection/p1

If you click a 'reply' to the original post and place it as the 'byline' of the quote, the quoted person will be notified.

The first amendment in the U.S. constitution says that people can decide for themselves what to believe. The secular is about having a choice rather than living within a theocracy. In that respect, it is not a declaration of anything other than agreeing to not kill each other on the basis of what we think.

It is an experiment. Some of the results are not encouraging.

Well said. The status quo has been upended. The future is unlikely to be a reset of the previous deals.

Yes, work is necessary. Finding a way to make it worthwhile beyond answering that necessity is a good thing. Don't you experience satisfaction when you overcome a difficult task? Don't you take notice of the relative freedom that becoming skilled imparts?

The idea of living in a world where nothing is required from me sounds like being a zombie.

That aspect of Russia having a European identity is why I wonder about all the other ultra-nationalists in different states. Those different culture wars contest collective security on the basis of identity rather than a Chomsky style critique of empire. Their enemies are within the state.

Maybe it should be given its own room. A Lounge for people who only want to only talk about that.

As a builder, working with materials is learning the best way to perform to make the desired thing. In agriculture, growing is act of nature combined with skilled labor. In both cases understanding and discipline are needed for the successful production of what we need to live. I call it a 'relationship to the cosmos' because part of performing well is a kind of attention.

In Zhuangzi, the skill of the Butcher is found by responding to resistance in a way that finds the most effortless path.

That aspect of work does not address all aspects of having to live by the 'sweat of our brows." The dynamic of wanting to have a say in the outcome of those who one supports and loves is preferable to the passivity of eking out existence with minimum effort. Labor feels punitive if not freely chosen as what is pursued. The response of an individual obviously cannot remove the quality of suffering but there can be a conversation.

Great observation about the life span of psychological models.

Jules Evan's observation that such models are vulnerable to becoming tools for nefarious ends is very interesting.

An interesting feature of Finland being outside of the Article 5 protection is that they can respond to any actual incursion from Russia without it being the NATO fight Putin is slavering for. Once Finland becomes a member, that freedom of movement will have conditions that will restrict Finland from counter attacking as they see fit. Neutrality has its benefits.

In some ways, Russia has been protected by NATO since collective war is always more lugubrious than unilateral action.

I agree that work is difficult and is always related to an acceptance of conditions of what is possible or demanded.

The discipline required to make some things is not only a matter of doing enough for other people. The art demands its own harsh necessity.

Good performance requires a lightness of hand and spirit combined with a resolve to deliver the best result.

This isn't to say that such a personal perspective overrules others. But the reverse is also not true. There is a relationship to the cosmos established when one can actually do stuff that is not there when one cannot.