I would be glad if you could direct any other critiques towards the post, and not independent of it. — PartialFanatic

Alas, what you think is relevant is not always what I, or others, think. You'll have to learn to live with it. I went back and looked at my posts in this thread and don't see anything egregious. If you think I'm being disruptive, contact the moderators.

What I want to propose is that there are two different ways of doing philosophy. There are those who do philosophy through discourse. These folk set the scene, offer a perspective, frame a world, and explain how things are. Their tools are exposition and eulogistics. Their aim is completeness and coherence, and the broader the topics they encompass the better. Then there are those who dissect. These folk take things apart, worry at the joints, asks what grounds the system. Their tool is nitpicking and detail. Their aim is truth and clarity, they delight in the minutia. — Banno

For me, philosophy grows out of the attitude attributed to Socrates - The unexamined life is not worth living. This way of seeing things has been growing in me over the past six months or so, although it is consistent with things I've been writing on the forum since I joined. Again, for me, philosophy isn't about the nature of reality, it's about how the human mind, and my mind in particular, sees reality, creates it, examines it. About the structure of thought and experience. About how the mind works looking at it from the inside. About the processes of reason and other ways of knowing. About self-awareness. About one of the tools, I would say the most important tool, used to make Socrates' examination - introspection. Finally, this way of thinking about philosophy sees it as a practice; like meditation, prayer, or Tai Chi, as opposed to a subject for study.

My question I guess - Is this phenomenology? That's an ology that has always confused me. Beyond that, is this a third way of seeing philosophy beyond the two you have identified above? One thing it's clear to me is that it is not is psychology, cognitive science, or any science.

The discourse sets up a perspective, a world, a game, an activity, whatever we call it. The dissection pulls it apart, exposing its assumptions, underpinnings and other entrails. Perhaps you can't have one without the other, however a theory that explains any eventuality ends up explaining nothing, and for a theory to be useful it has to rule some things out. — Banno

You wrote something similar in another thread recently. I responded - you're just talking about metaphysics. And you agreed with me. You and I were both amazed you and I agreed on something.

This system blends mysticism, idealism, quantum theory, and hierarchical metaphysics into a unified doctrine — Dogbert

Is this a system you’ve developed yourself, or is it associated with some doctrine, philosophy, or religion?

Best we leave it at that.

that is per the defining characteristic of the premise: having trust in our rationality. — PartialFanatic

We trust our rationality because it works, not always but often.

Oh okay. I mean, you have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of the article. I did not author that premise, and it is what I am using to refute a sub-argument of it. — PartialFanatic

I wasn’t aware that your OP was specifically in response to an article written by someone else. I guess I missed something.

Don't gaslight me into thinking that the world outside is doing perfectly ok, and it's just me who's suffering in this synthetic world. — Martijn

If you’re going to participate in the forum, you’d better get used to people disagreeing with you.

Welcome to the forum.

There is a great disagreement between the naturalist(-materialist)-atheists and theists about free will. The naturalist would go to lengths to argue for the evolutionary chain and deny free-will as life is caused deterministically. The materialist would deny any immaterial consciousness and lead again to the denial of free-will, in support of determinism. — PartialFanatic

I don't think this is true. As far as I can tell, worrying about whether or not we have free will is something only philosophers really think about, whatever their metaphysics. It's not that big an issue for most of us.

We have a chain of evolutions directed towards a purpose. A single purpose because of which we are rational. Without this purposeful directing of our reason, we would not have a reasonable mind. — PartialFanatic

I don't see evolution as having a purpose or goal. I guess you could say it has a direction - toward greater complexity - but that's only because it started as the simplest organisms possible. It's a natural process that includes many random factors. The only criteria for an organism is that it has to survive to reproduce. Strong mentality, including rationality, is just one successful evolutionary strategy. The only ones who see humans as some sort of peak of evolution are humans.

Put simply: free-will is only real if we have both the option to be rational and to be irrational. If we are rational because we were purposefully directed, then we simply could not have had the capacity to be irrational. Following this, one may concede to the argument that we do in fact have the capacity to be irrational despite being directed towards rationality. — PartialFanatic

Most human activity is neither rational nor irrational, it's non-rational.

If we are rational, we must know the clear distinction between right and wrong. — PartialFanatic

I don't think this is true. There are fully rational people who think abortion is acceptable and other fully rational people who disagree.

Although I do still believe there is inherent suffering on Earth, the amount each human suffers on a day-to-day basis is different based on an innumerable amount of factors, most of which are beyond our control. — Martijn

Again I'll say - pain, either physical or psychological, is not the same as suffering, at least not in the context of how we're discussing it.

Staying alive is work. A living organism that does nothing will wither and die eventually. We all need energy, nourishment, and rest. Try to stop sleeping and see where it leads you, or starve yourself intentionally, and you will die. I am talking at the deepest, fundamental level at which life works in our universe. It's a rebellion against entropy, which is fascinating and beautiful in my opinion, but also harsh. — Martijn

Yes, work is necessary, but work is also not suffering.

Every day, millions (if not billions) of living organisms are killed to nourish others (mostly humans), — Martijn

Yes, billions, maybe trillions, of organisms every day, and most definitely not going to nourish humans. That doesn't seem relevant to me.

Those who experience suffering first-hand, especially at a young age, typically awaken much earlier to this harsh truth. If your life is all pleasant, easy, and fair, then life seems like paradise. Until your parents pass away, or your best friend silently leaves you, or your partner cheats on you, and then you don't know what to do, because your worldview was shattered. — Martijn

My life is not a paradise, but from what you've written it's much less difficult than yours has been. I say this as an objective fact, not a complaint - I have suffered and that suffering has almost nothing to do with physical pain, the pain of losing those that I love, or fear of death. It's suffering I've brought on myself. I think I know what Buddha meant when he said it is caused by desire. I am much more familiar with Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and he says something similar. It's the truth, but it's not a particularly harsh truth.

This is also why creating a genuinely fair, just, and meaningful world is so important. Humans are intelligent, cooperative, adaptive, and creative enough to create a world that is in accordance to our needs, where we genuinely care for each other, we don't discriminate, we don't condone violence or racism, and so on...

...Why don't we create a world where we are free again: free to love, to be ourselves and to be different, free to create meaningful and beautiful art, and free to explore the wilds again. Why can't we return to our legacy..... — Martijn

I don't think this perfect world you describe is possible. That's why focusing on inner strength and peace is so important. What makes you say we were ever free to do the wonderful things you describe? In what era was the legacy you describe exist?

But we now live in a competitive free-for-all, and it's been absolutely disasterous to our spirit. It is not normal that millions of people suffer from mental illness, or physical health issues like obesity, or the immense loneliness that so many feel, or the disconnect and agitation between the sexes. — Martijn

The world doesn't feel like a competitive free-for-all to me. I recognize I've led a fortunate life, but, as I've noted, most of the maladies you describe represent sickness of the individual spirit.

Pain is not suffering but i'd classify it as some part of it. If you injure yourself physically, don't you suffer physically aswell? Pain can be a broad concept but I was mostly referring to literal or physical pain, like injuring yourself in a literal sense. — Martijn

As I've noted, that's not how I experience it, and I'm not the only one.

deluding ourselves that life is always fair and nice. — Martijn

I don't know anyone who thinks the world is always fair and nice. Certainly I don't.

Today, I would like to discuss a concept prominent within philosophy and religion: the nature of suffering. I'd like to share my view on this concept and would love to hear different perspectives, where others may agree or disagree, or point out my blind spots. — Martijn

My first response to your post is that what you have described is your experience of suffering, not everyone's, although, clearly, a lot of the experiences you describe are common to most of us.

There seem to be three layers of suffering: inherent, literal, and mental. I shall delve into each of these in this post, to explain what I mean by these 'layers.' — Martijn

My understanding, based on personal experience and reading philosophy, psychology, history, fiction, and poetry is that we are all responsible for our own suffering. Maybe that means all suffering is what you call "mental." I am no student of Buddhism, but I think the Four Noble Truths can provide important insights - 1) For most of us, suffering is unavoidable, 2) The cause of suffering is desire, 3) There is a way to overcome desire and thus suffering, and 4) Buddhists have specific disciplines and following them can lead to an end to desire.

Based on my own experience, Truths One and Two are pretty straightforward and are accessible to self-awareness. Truth Three is the hard part. I have been struggling with it, desiring it, for most of my life. Truth Four describes a path which is not mine.

Life is fleeting and often a struggle for most animals and other life forms. Survival means struggling, competition can be brutal, we all grow older, weaker, and more fragile over time, and death is inevitable. — Martijn

Is it true that all life is a violent, competitive struggle? I think that's a naive way of looking at it. Sure, animals get eaten, people get sick and die. But much of life is also cooperative. The older I get, the less and less death feels like a bad thing. I'm in no hurry, but I wouldn't want to live forever.

Literal suffering mainly refers to pain or external events that literally harm you. — Martijn

Pain is not the same thing as suffering, at least not in the context we are discussing.

Unlike the other two forms of suffering, mental suffering is fully within one's control. — Martijn

Earlier in this post I said we are responsible for our own suffering. That being said, suffering is not "fully within one's control" except for a tiny fraction of humanity. Certainly not for me.

Here in the West, we don't teach this to our children, as we instead teach others to not bully, or to rely on authority figures to solve problems. In truth, this enables weakness and a victimhood complex, and it leads to disastrous consequences like suicidal ideation in teenagers. — Martijn

Are you saying we shouldn't protect vulnerable people from violence? That certainly doesn't make sense to me.

Many people have children due to their biological imperative, which is all too reasonable, yet we seldom question the deeper motives. Do people desire to have children to leave behind a legacy, or create purpose? — Martijn

At bottom, I think people have children because it is what we are built to do. It's part of our biological and social nature. That doesn't mean one can't decide not to. Again, speaking from personal experience, thoughts of legacy or fulfillment did not enter into it when my wife and I decided to have children. If there was any conscious desire beyond a fundamental human one, it was to give a gift to our families and society because we were grateful for those that came before who allowed us to have our lives.

I don't know much about you, but I think you've probably had a much more difficult life than I have. I don't deny your personal experience, but it's not how all of us feel.

Projection!

That's smart ass for you started it! — karl stone

It was just a statement of fact. No judgment involved. I’m not claiming to be any better.

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? I don't expect you to answer, but maybe one of your followers can tell me! — karl stone

You’re kind of a bully.

I should have said that. — Fire Ologist

Since we now know about @frank’s friends, your answer is probably better

How would you go about determining who understood you? — frank

They’re your friends, why don’t you ask them.

No, no thumbs up. Its not a good thing. Disagree with me! Show me were I'm wrong! — Banno

I was going to make a smart alec report in that same general vein, but I thought I would give us both a victory instead.

Frankly I'm not sure we have a point of disagreement. — Banno

Is Damasio's idea an hypothesis, as your quote says, or a fact, as you claim? — Banno

My use of words was unclear. What I meant to say was that what Damasio claims is subject to judgment as true or false as opposed to metaphysical statements that have no truth value.

Is Damasio's idea an hypothesis, as your quote says, or a fact, as you claim? — Banno

I used the wrong words. I meant it is subject to being judged as true or false.

Well, yeah, but . . . at the level of the Tao, of course all the boundaries and categories are arbitrary. — J

It was probably a mistake for me to bring up the Tao in this thread. It sometimes, often, throws a monkey wrench in the machinery of discussions, but I have a hard time helping myself. I recognize that's not much of an excuse.

No, the boundaries are not arbitrary at all. Setting up distinctions and boundaries is something humans do.

I'm suggesting that rational processes and emotions could be discriminated either as actual physical events, or as "two sides of one coin"-type events, with only conceptual discrimination. — J

You've identified two unrelated possible solutions to this question 1) rational processes and emotions are physical events and 2) they are two sides of one coin.

If 1) is the right answer, I'll repeat what I just responded to @Banno.

Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role.

If the position I attributed to Damasio in previous posts is correct, they can't be discriminated at all, at least not when they function as mental processes.

As for 2), isn't this just another way of saying what I did with different words?

I don't think jumping to the Tao level is much of an answer, since it would settle any question whatsoever about discrimination, and we're wanting something more specific. — J

I can find quotes from the Tao Te Ching and Chang Tzu that address this issue, but they would likely confuse things more and I've already gotten in enough trouble. Any distinction, not matter how specific, is made, as I said, by humans.

In explaining everything, the Tao explains nothing. There's still the work to do; we still carry water, gather wood. — Banno

Sure. The Tao Te Ching is metaphysics, not science. Metaphysics doesn't explain anything. Good metaphysics gives us hints about where to look for answers. By your logic, materialism, idealism, realism, anti-realism, and all the other isms also explain nothing.

That's why this:
Everything in our minds is a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states.
— T Clark
contributes nothing. — Banno

No. As I noted above, Taoism is metaphysics. The way our minds work is science. I'll repeat part of the quote I used in an earlier post in this thread:

Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role.

If you think this incorrect, fine. It's still a statement of fact. Science. If it is true, it provides a pretty good answer to your question.

Are beliefs emotions? Of course not. That doesn't even mean anything.

I wouldn't normally have done and which I now mildly regret. — Jamal

If I remember correctly, @Wayfarer once suggested you put a time limit on how long someone could edit a post. I didn’t like the idea because I like to go back to my six-year-old posts and fix the grammar and spelling.

So even the eternal Tao is not the eternal Tao. — Jamal

You betcha.

Yes, moderators, I agree with the others that it’s a really bad idea to delete member’s posts en masse whether or not they have requested it. Once something is posted here it no longer belongs to the poster, it belongs to all of us. As others have noted, it irreparably damages other people’s contributions to the threads involved. Beyond that there have been wonderful, fascinating, moving, brilliant posts here on the forum over the years I wouldn’t want to see erased.

Please don’t make it a policy that this can be done in the future.

A possible middle ground might be that there are no "entities" called reason and emotion, and that we can separate them only conceptually, not physically. — J

But that’s the way it works. We humans create entities with fixed boundaries while the world moves around like a swirl. Much of the thinking we do is going back and reworking some of those boundaries.

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

There's no conceptual work to do here? — Banno

I’m not sure what you mean by “conceptual work.” If you mean I think all of the aspects of the question being studied by Damasio and others have been addressed, that’s certainly not true.

But what of the issues raised in ↪Hanover and ↪Banno? — Banno

You and he are talking about completely different aspects of emotion and reason than I am. From where I stand, the issues I was discussing are much more fundamental. I looked at the abstract of the article you linked.

sushi
Everything in our minds is a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states.
— T Clark
As ↪J says, how do we know? Let's aim not to make pronouncements but to map out the territory - what part of — Banno

This is from a review of a book from 2007 by Antonio Damasio, a well known neuroscientist. It’s from Vanderbilt University, but I can’t find a specific source or an author for it.

In his book, Descartes’ Error Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Antonio Damasio discusses the connection between feelings, reason and the body. His hypothesis is that the three are completely interconnected and that it is impossible to discuss the functions of one without realizing that the other two play a role. This is an important idea as for centuries, scientists considered the body to be a separate entity from the brain.

So the answer to your question about how we know about the interaction of emotion and thinking is that it is a subject of studyby neuroscientist. and psychologists.

In response we could point to the same dog at a young age, a prime age, and an old age, noting differences in speed. We might point to differences in speed within the same litter or breed. We might point to differences between breeds (size, breeding purpose, etc.). We could easily infer that given the way that speed varies over an individual dog's life and between dogs of the same breed, therefore speed will also vary between breeds.

This is obvious, but I want to say that scientificity is not a great deal less obvious. — Leontiskos

Are you saying that scientificity is as easy to define and measure as speed? Isn’t that really the question on the table here? You and I disagree. I think scientificity is a very, very great deal less obvious.

It seems to me that, given your substantial notion of science, pluralism among the sciences will not hold. — Leontiskos

I don't agree.

do we agree that the field of molecular physics fulfilled your criteria better in the 20th century than in the 19th century? — Leontiskos

No. We know more now than we did then. We have better technologies for investigation. I don't know enough about the practice of of molecular biology in the 19th century to know if the level of rigor met all the standards I've laid out.

It's just the idea that that difference between 19th and 20th century molecular physics is also possible between different contemporaneous sciences, and in all likelihood inevitable. Scientificity ebbs and flows within fields and between fields. — Leontiskos

I don't buy this. Psychology is less precise than physics. That's inevitable. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, this has been partly ameliorated by adding more "hard" science to the study of psychology, e.g. cognitive science.

I have been trying to raise the elephant in the room: Does "scientific" mean anything at all? (Or else "more scientific" and "less scientific"?) Does "pseudoscientific" mean anything at all? Is there any strategy for learning that is not scientific? — Leontiskos

Let's go back to this for a second. You've identified more scientific, less scientific, and pseudoscientific. You don't seem to have left any room for badly performed science. Is that less scientific or only lower quality. Haute cuisine is good cooking while my macaroni and cheese made with Velveeta is bad cooking, but they're both cooking.

Yeah, please, don't nitpick it apart! — karl stone

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful enmity.

I have been trying to raise the elephant in the room: Does "scientific" mean anything at all? (Or else "more scientific" and "less scientific"?) Does "pseudoscientific" mean anything at all? — Leontiskos

"Scientific" means something like this - Following a formal set of procedures to study phenomena. Those procedures, vastly simplified here, should include the following:

• Initial observations
• Establishment of a conceptual model of the phenomena based on those observations
• Identifying a particular aspect of the model to evaluate
• Developing a procedure to allow that evaluation. The procedure should include documentation; quality control and assurance; a description of the procedures, materials, and equipment to be used; a description of how the data collected will be reduced, validated, and reported.
• Implementation of the experimental procedure
• Data reduction, validation, and reporting
• External review
• Revision of conceptual model based on results
• Repeat process.

Of course this is a cartoon and it's only my first swing, so please don't try to nitpick it apart. It's the overall approach I'm interested in describing.

Unless we want to say that science has an end which has nothing to do with determining what is "ontologically" true? — Leontiskos

I might want to say that, I’m not really sure. I’m not sure when you say it you mean the same thing I do when I say it. Whatever, I guess I’m lost. I don’t see how this relates to the question you and I are discussing.

I recall Steven Pinker stating that we justify beliefs using reason, but we form them based on our affective relationships with the world. — Tom Storm

I sort of agree with this, although rather than affective, I would say intuitive. Of course, intuition is a thorough mixture of thinking and feeling.

Miriam Schleifer McCormick has made some interesting suggestions, the substance being that we would do well to treat beliefs as an emotion.

The idea sits in a nuanced understanding of emotions as a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states…

…I’m interested in the idea of a blended state, where a belief is seen as consisting of both cognition and feelings. — Banno

Everything in our minds is a blending of cognitive and non-cognitive states.

My assumption was that this meant there simply is no truth (or falsehood) as to positions about what really exists. For example, historical anti-realism. The position: "the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776" would be a position about what exist(s/ed), right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've stated it explicitly several times in this thread. I don't think my understanding of truth is all that different from mainstream ones. It's a question of scope. I just don't think truth is fundamental. It is not the most important question philosophy asks. As I've said, it is a tool we use to help figure out what action we should take next.

I'll be honest, I don't think I can fathom a psychology where this question isn't going to virtually always be massively informed by what someone thinks is true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

An example. You brought up wu wei, what some translate as acting without acting, without intention. As I understand it, wu wei results directly not from "hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more." That means action grows spontaneously from our intrinsic virtuosities, our true nature without the intervention of conscious thought.

doesn't "effective" here just mean "producing the result we currently desire?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, it means producing the most appropriate action however that is defined. Not what I want, but what is best.

Right, but what do you mean by "there are no true ontological positions?" Maybe I have misunderstood. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think I've misled you. That statement is not central to my argument. I'm not even sure it makes sense. It's just what came to mind when I was responding to Tom Storm. It's speculative and I guess outrageous, but I think it's worth looking into. I don't expect most people, and certainly not you, to agree. I don't mean that as criticism. You and I have very different approaches to philosophy. I like and respect yours, but it is alien to how I think.

People have always been pragmatic, engaged in bracketing, put more fundamental questions aside to focus on more pressing concerns, etc. I think the shift I am referring to is much more distinct, i.e. the claim that truth itself is "pragmatism all the way down." That "true = what gets me what I currently want." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have three problems with this 1) As I see it, "what do I do next" is the fundamental question. 2) Again, pragmatism for me isn't about truth. 3) I said "the fundamental issue is not truth, but rather what action should I take next" not "true = what gets me what I currently want."

they do not think techne (arts for achieving ends) exhausts the human capacity for knowledge. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Something else I didn't say.

Like other great thinkers of the Axial Age, these thinkers are skeptical of doctrines and the capacity of language to convey truth. But I do think this is quite a bit different from something along the lines of: "there is no Tao," and so "by Tao, we just mean what is in accordance with what we think works." I do not understand from these thinkers that there is truly no way to be more or less in line with nature—that wu wei can be consistent with whatever we currently think is beneficial. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My pragmatism and my attraction to Taoism come from the same place. The writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are absolutely pragmatic. They don't talk about truth much. It's not a fundamental aspect of their doctrine. "Wu wei" and "Te," are central concepts. This from Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities [Te]. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

That's how wu wei works - you hearken to yourself then act without acting. There is no truth acting as a middleman.

Ok, but are they truly effective or ineffective? I think the ontological question is going to worm its way back in with more complex cases. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, saying something is effective requires we specify what it is effective in doing and what the standards of effectiveness are. Will acting in accordance with our intrinsic virtuosities automatically lead to acting effectively? Good question, by which I mean I don't have an answer. Yet.

A question that rears its head when we define truth in terms of usefulness is: "but is anything truly useful?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't say we should define truth in terms of usefulness. I don't remember bringing usefulness into this discussion at all. I said truth is a tool we use to help us decide how we should act.

without a clear notion of truth — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think you and I can probably bash out a mutually satisfactory notion of truth. My thoughts in that regard are not all that unconventional. It's just that I don't think truth is a fundamental question.

without a clear notion of truth, I don't get how one questions this sort of political influence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the idea of truth can interfere with addressing the differences between ideologies. As I noted, what questions are asked is at least as important as the truth of the answers arrived at.

"no true ontological positions, only methodological ones," seems to posit methods without goals or ends. — Leontiskos

I don't think that's true. You've inferred something I didn't imply.

But disciplines and arts have ends; goals. There are no methods without ends and goals. — Leontiskos

Agreed. Given that, I guess I don’t see what you were trying to say in your previous post when you wrote “…once we understand the meaning and also etymology of "method," we find that the idea doesn't make much sense.”

I would say that once we understand the meaning and also etymology of "method," we find that the idea doesn't make much sense — Leontiskos

When I was talking about method, I meant something consistent with this definition: Method - a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art.

I meant to say earlier, I quite like this idea. — Srap Tasmaner

I like it too, it's catchy. I'll think about it more but I'm not confident it will be a fruitful path to follow.