You misinterpret me. — schopenhauer1

I didn't even interpret you.

First off, I am proposing an even more extreme version in the Schopenhauer brand of asceticism. I am claiming that in his version, even the Middle Way of the (Buddhist- Theravadans or otherwise), is not enough. Rather, that in his conception, whereby Will is extricabley tied up on physical existence, I see no way that the ascetic is physiologically still alive after their "grace" of salvation (spiritual redemption into non-being). It seems in his way, even the monk is not going to get there.

Schopenhauer didn't believe in rebirth and didn't see the problem with it, did he?



See here on the Buddhist idea of the cause of suffering and how to end it:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_92.html

And here an excerpt of the relevant text from the above link with easier to read formatting:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12050/page/p1

This isn't about reaching people, it's about dismantling an ideology or behavior /.../ — Christoffer

How do you propose to "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" without reaching people?

You can write a book where you "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" all you want, but if people don't read your book or don't heed it, how have you accomplished anything?

To be fair, the most common view for almost anything is "balance". I'm actually bucking that advise with what you may call "black-and-white" thinking. It's extreme and unsettling (when we usually think in terms of common advise terms like Golden Mean-type / Taoist koan "balance" or modern self-help stock strategies) for sure, not necessarily wrong. — schopenhauer1

The "middle way" is probably one of the most misunderstood terms when referring to Buddhism. For old-school Theravadans, the "middle way" actually means living a monk's life -- with eating only one meal a day, wearing only robes, not engaging in sex, and all the other rules of a monk's life.

For those Buddhists, death alone doesn't solve anything (regardless whether it's by starvation or gunshot wound). It's rebirth that needs to be ended, in order to end suffering.

Even the calculative aspect of selection you speak of already sets the stage prior to the engagement. — schopenhauer1

Only for someone with a too fragile ego.

The politically correct madness has reached the point where we aren't supposed to distinguish between a sociopath and a person with a strong character.

@Wayfarer
"Yeah! Hate wins! Lies, division and dishonesty carry the day. Don't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Baker?"

It's not Trump's fault that you're a maladapted idealist.
Brouhaha!

That is to say, the best some might be able to do is limit engagements, not completely eliminate them. — schopenhauer1

But there is better than merely limiting engagements (while thinking eliminating engagements altogether would be best): to prioritize them according to one's values in life.

In modern politcally correct culture, it's not acceptable to be ruthlessly selective in whom one associates with and for what purpose. And yet anyone who has ever achieved anything great has been doing just that: being ruthlessly selective in whom one associates with and for what purpose.

That being said, I claim that the best course of action in almost all cases as a human to comport with the best life, is to live a life of withdrawal. — schopenhauer1

And yet it appears to be possible to come up with such a set of values and goals, and thus priorities, accompanied by sufficient pride, that the vicissitudes of life are a minimal problem or source of suffering. This way, one is still engaged with the world (and not minimally), and yet doesn't suffer. Pride and priorities.


It's telling that people generally prefer to think in black and white, all or nothing terms, rather than reconceptualizing the situation entirely.

So, at the moment, I'm thinking self transcendence is an ego-stroking mind game. — ucarr

Or a way to control the weak and gullible into submission and generosity.

"You should transcend yourself ang give me your hard earned money so that I can live comfortably" is basically the message of all those religious/spiritual people who teach that one should transcend oneself.

I think withdrawal being counterintuitive is similar to other counterintuitive things. You might not see on the surface that withdrawing leads to greater happiness.. You become content with yourself and you will see the tremendous amounts of strife in interactions. As with withdrawing from a drug, at first it seems to be quite the opposite, until one becomes simply content. — schopenhauer1

Sure, withdrawing is fine and "leads to greater happiness" as long as someone else is paying your bills (such as in the case of Buddhist monks), or at least as long as your job is comfortable enough and you can earn money with relative ease.

But if such is not the case, one has to stay in the rat race, and be a rat, or be defeated.

Let's see how long it will take for the gullible voters to realize that Trump doesn't give a shit about them. — Christoffer

I doubt many Trump voters actually count on Trump doing anything for them. Because the worldview of these people is typically rugged individualism. I surmise they see Trump as a role model, as a type of person they themselves aspire to be. They don't see him as a father figure or someone who will help them, they despise such figures.

That just erodes truth more into the post-truth environment that makes people unable to know what is true and facts. We've already seen what catering to populist rhetoric to counter populists is doing to society... giving birth to more populists.

Fighting fire with fire needs to stop. There has to be a movement that rejects post-truth ideologies. — Christoffer

Philosophers should know better than to try to reach people through arguments.

Most people respond to (perceived) status, not to arguments. Respect for power is paramount.

(This is true even in academia. Just imagine a student majoring in philosophy daring to disagree on a claim made by her professor in a lecture. This amounts to risking failing the exam.)

The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them everything they want. So the side that gives them what they want is the side that is going to win. — Michael

I don't think this is what is actually going on, at least it's not the complete picture (although I find it highly pertinent to explore why some people think this way).

Rather, I find most people operate by the priciples of socioeconomic hierarchy. That is, they listen only to those they consider higher than themselves. Most people are not convinced by arguments, but by the other person's status (as they interpret it).

Saying, for example, "Who do you think you are that you think you're even allowed to talk to me, when I make ten times as much as you do??!!" sums up this principle very well.

It's a pragmatic cognitive heuristic that safeguards a person's internal consistency in terms of the thusly selected input from others that they allow into their lives.

I've been holding my breath for 4 years to tell you, I told you so!!!!

I would also take with the grain of salt the above graphs that I represented of what the actually tell us. — ssu

The actually relevant questions should be something like,
When people read, what are they actually reading?
Should reading a play by Shakespeare count the same as reading a modern Scandinavian thriller?

In the computer learning scenario you describe above, people read things mostly just once and have to work with that,
— baker
Why? Once you've downloaded something, it's available all the time. You can go back to it, or parts of it, as often as you need to. — Vera Mont

Like I said, I'm talking about the computer learning scenario described in the OP. Those electronic didactic texts are not permanently available. If they are of the question and answer type, you need to start the session all over if you want to reread something. Depending on the program, of course. The idea of digital learning is that a person is supposed to read a text once, answer questions based on it, thus learn what is required, and then never look at the text again.

The idea that has permeated the public school system for the last hundred years or so (depending on the country) was that all children should get the same basic education. Which meant that all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background, should read Homer and Shakespeare etc., study history in detail, mathematics to considerable intricacy etc., ie. the classical educational canon.
— baker
I haven't seen much of that. Usually, the complexity and sophistication of the material is graded: basic levels of every subject in the early grades; heavier subject matter and more choice in the later ones. It's actually okay for the plebes to read Shakespeare - that's the audience he was writing for.

Look at the part of my previous post you're quoting here that I bolded.

See, such are the effects of reading stuff from screens. People easily miss out on what is right in front of them.

From the perspective of a secure attachment to a religious view, nihilism will seem deplorable, but not experienced as any kind of direct or indirect threat to oneself.
— baker

Sure. But you can still be critical of it from a philosophical perspective. — Wayfarer

Said Tom Storm:

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning. Perhaps it's because I've had practice? I've been a nihilist for close to 50 years. Of course, as meaning making creatures, we can't help but find or make meaning wherever we go. Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits. — Tom Storm

How do you counter? Especially on his point on "survival deficit"?

Trouble is, you don't know what you will do next. That's the case, even if what you do is already determined.

So the question remains, what will you do?

Fatalism and nihilism are of no help here. — Banno

In certain contexts, they can have a psychologically soothing effect, releasing brain capacity, thus lending to action.



Katsumoto : You believe a man can change his destiny?
Algren : I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.

However, what is no longer attached to this usefulness is why Pythagoras cared about math. — schopenhauer1

Rather, a plebeian answer to it is taken for granted. As in, "He wanted to figure out the numbers so that he could control his surroundings."

It's like those facile plebeian explanations to the effect of, "Ancient peoples invented deities in order to explain the workings of the world and the things they feared".

I just want to quote this, because it fits right here as well:

There's an interesting article from a few years back, Quantum Mysticism - Gone but not Forgotten (and published in phys.org, not some new-age website) which points out that the pioneers of quantum mechanics - Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr and Pauli, among others - were deeply cultured and philosophical thinkers (product of a classical European education, one might presume). But after the War, the research dollars and focus switched to the US, driven mainly by investments from the military-industrial complex, which is why the pragmatic approach of 'shut up and calculate' won out over 'I wonder what that means'. — Wayfarer

And my question here is the following: what are the longer term impact of people when we literally take the physical books out of the hands of students? — ssu

I think the scenario actually resembles oral culture the most.

In the computer learning scenario you describe above, people read things mostly just once and have to work with that, however much or however little they remember or misremember. Which is the same thing that happens in oral culture -- one has one chance to hear something and has to make the most of it.

Of course, the amount of study matter that can effectively be studied that way is not much, for most people. So the computer learning scenario enforces competition between people: those who can handle a lot of new information at once vs. those who can't. This competition has always existed, but the physically written word form has allowed many slower people to catch up and keep up. In an oral culture or a culture functionally the same as oral culture, these slower people will fall behind.

What happens to our society when we don't read as many books as we used to? — ssu

Society becomes less romantic.

Then when you don't have any necessity to read books, you simply won't read them. You will just read articles, newspapers, magazines. — ssu

Which isn't necessarily bad. This trend is a trend that counteracts the plebeification of education and culture.

The idea that has permeated the public school system for the last hundred years or so (depending on the country) was that all children should get the same basic education. Which meant that all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background, should read Homer and Shakespeare etc., study history in detail, mathematics to considerable intricacy etc., ie. the classical educational canon. This has led to the plebeification of education and culture 1. in that the classical canon has to be dumbed down in order to make it teachable even to students who have no basis for such learning in their socioeconomic background, and no prospect for using such learning ever in their lives either; and 2. in that the socioeconomic class of people who traditionally had no access to this canon (and who never contributed to it) now got it for free.

Computerization is reversing this. The upper classes who want their children to receive a classical education will make sure they do so. For the rest, it should remain the luxury it has always been.

Which actually segues back to the theme of nihilism. As far as we're concerned today, life begins at birth and ends at death. And considering the vastness of space and time, it is a mere blip. But that's all there is, and all there can be, as there is nothing on the other side of death, save decomposition, as everything material will always decompose. — Wayfarer

I think this isn't actually a problem. It can become a problem if one's default is a, let's call that "traumatic attachment to a religious view". Emphasis on "traumatic".

Because whether nihilism will seem depressing or not depends on one's vantage point. If one comes from the position of a tense, anxious, insecure attachment to a religious view, then nihilism will seem like a threat. From the perspective of a secure attachment to a religious view, nihilism will seem deplorable, but not experienced as any kind of direct or indirect threat to oneself.

If this means what I think it means, it seems awfully mean spirited. Are you mocking someone for dieing? — flannel jesus

Why? Whence this emotion?
He said he was a robot.

I worked for many years closely with people practicing in the Catholic Church. If you want an example of depressives, try there. Of all the folk I've known, these were amongst the most miserable I've ever seen. — Tom Storm

Sure. Roman Catholicism has one of the most, if not the most strict dogma with eternal, irrepairable consequences. Per said dogma, a person is capable of forsaking God even on their deathbed, with their last breath, even after a life of piety, and thus enter eternal damnation, eternal suffering. I've known people who converted from Roman Catholicism to some school of Protestantism because they found it too unbearable to constantly live in a state of not knowing whether they are/will be saved or not.
It's hard not to be miserable if one knowns Roman Catholic dogma. Supposedly this misery can be mitigated with sufficient humility ...

I think it you already tend to look at life negatively, this might be your conclusion. For me, as a nihilist, I find the idea that there is no transcendent meaning rather joyous and exciting and one full of possibilities. I am unencumbered by dogma and doctrine and need not concern myself with following any preordained path.

The question is how you have arrived at this nihilism.

Most of my days are filled with joy despite my position that life is inherently without meaning. Perhaps it's because I've had practice? I've been a nihilist for close to 50 years. Of course, as meaning making creatures, we can't help but find or make meaning wherever we go.

Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits. — Tom Storm

Braggart.

Camus insists on seeing Sisyphus happy. Is this something approaching my position? Am I, perhaps, an absurdist too? — Tom Storm

So far, I don't see reason to think so. I think you were just really fortunate not to have had your spirit crushed early on. From what you've said so far, I surmise you can't take credit for being a happy nihilist.



Not to focus on you in particular, but we could use you as a case study in how happy nihilists come about.

Which is interesting because, if there is a considerable correlation between a person's specific state of mind and a school of philosophical thought that they lean toward, perhaps other philosophies reflect other mindstates? — Benj96

Certainly.
However, there appears to be a crucial difference between professional philosophers and philosophical amateurs.

Professional philosophers can juggle their theories all day long, and then set them aside and go have a beer as if nothing happened.

Philosophical amateurs are not capable of such detachment; what they (try to) think about philosophically really gets to them. They bet their life on those theories.

It seems that professional philosophers generally arrive at their theories by a process of rigorous thought. In contrast, amateurs start off with a certain feeling, emotion, or general attitude toward life which they then try to put into words.

If there isn't, please post what sort of option I should have included to match what you think. — flannel jesus

The theory of evolution has token value; its relevance is in declaring it in order to gain social approval.

So, if that's what you're saying is 'ideologically-driven', then I agree, but I don't agree it is characteristic of science as such. — Wayfarer

Can one do science without scientism?

Vicarious atonment is an immoral doctrine and is central to Christianity. No one can do your repentence for you. — Gregory

The real problem for all Christianities is the whole eternal damnation business -- "If you don't get it right this time around and don't pick the right Christian denomination, you'll burn forever."

It's not clear why the Supreme Being would bring about such a creation a significant portion of which will suffer forever, while he watches on, apparently happily, as they failed to pick the right religion.

Catholics must believe the doctrine /.../ because it's a dogma. — BillMcEnaney

A frequently underappreciated point, yet crucial to holding that God is more than merely a product of one's imagination.

One is supposed to believe in God through divine revelation, ie. from the top down, with God revealing himself, and then a particular person coming in contact with that revelation via disciplic succession (that goes back directly to God himself).

Not from the bottom up, the way philosophers and Protestants do it, where a particular person comes up with various "reasons for believing in God".

Meh, enlightened people are a dime a dozen these days.

Silence has power. — unenlightened

Only if one already has power.
Who cares if I'm silent?

Given Boethius' definition of happiness, I was thinking that the machine would produce a rigorous training environment for the development of the virtues, since it is attaining these virtues that makes one happy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Virtues, in order to have a chance of making one happy, would also need to be attained the right way -- through blood, sweat, and tears. And this cannot be done in a machine.

It's also why fairy tales (roughly an equivalent of an "experience machine") have only a limited use for teaching people virtue: fairy tales can give people ideas of virtue, but until a person actually puts them into practice in relevant real life situations, they won't have the desired effect. One cannot wish oneself happy, but one might work oneself happy.

Present three sentences from scientific texts of your choosing that contain the word "we" and talk about mankind in general and I'll explain it on your examples.

Are you talking about the influence of positivism on science? — Joshs

It's earlier than positivism, you can see it with the ancient Greeks already. That characteristic brand of normativisim -- "It's like this and no other way".

Not all approaches in science are positivistic. There are postmodern sciences, for instance.

What/whom do you have in mind?
Surely postmodernists can go beyond the positivism that the OP likes to criticize.

But there's something else, that I'd like to get at with your quoting Thompson several times by now --

"In Buddhism, we have a case study showing that when groundlessness is embraced and followed through to its ultimate conclusions, the outcome is an unconditional sense of intrinsic goodness that manifests itself in the world as spontaneous compassion.”

You say, "But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence."

To which I replied earlier that what Thompson is stating as fact is actually Mahayana/Vajrayana doctrine; it's not even universally Buddhist (he should have named his book "Why I am not a Mahayani/Vajrayani/modernist Buddhist", because this is all that he says he isn't, as far as Buddhism goes).

I'm baffled that anyone would even try to understand specific terms from a particular Buddhist discourse in an atomistic, context-independent manner.

Would it even be possible for someone outside of Mahayana/Vajrayana to "embrace groundlessness" and "follow it through to its ultimate conclusions"? At best, such a person would have to work with whatever they think those terms mean, and the outcome would be who knows what (possibly a mental breakdown, as is not that rarely the case for "spiritual practitioners").

How does it hurt you politically to think of people as individuals?

I'm not disagreeing, but we have to get by somehow. We can't just give in to silence and let the others rule as they please.

Possibly because you don't see any meaningful difference between I-statements and you-statements.

Im not asking you for what you think their motivations are, I'm asking you what has led you to believe they are doing that. — flannel jesus

The language they use; namely, you-statements; and we-statements (which are veiled you-statements).

Pick up any scientific piece of writing, and insofar it makes claims in the form of "we humans", as if the generalizations the writer makes apply to all people.

Obviously, the texts in the hard sciences will have less of that. But those in the humanities, neuroscience, neurobiology will have plenty.

And why do you think scientists are telling you what you think so frequently? — flannel jesus

Because they want to have control over people.
It's a standard mode of operation for people anyway; scientists have just elevated it to a whole new level, much like religion/spirituality.

Disagreeing with scientists potentially comes with a cost.
— baker
Do you think that's unjust in some way? What specific examples of this unjustness have you experienced?

Well, you can always dismiss my experience on the grounds of them being a statistically irrelevant sample.
All in all, I think it makes for a waste of time to utter words without actually communicating.
You can see the downside of this mode of non-communication in medicine (as an applied science) when doctors don't listen to people describing their symptoms and instead jumping to conclusions, followed by wrong medical treatment, side-effects, wasted time, money, and missed opportunities for healing.

When scientists say "we think X", why are you interpreting that into "You think X, because you think what we tell you you think"? — flannel jesus

Where do you get that from??

I'm talking about the use of you-language, you-messages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message

“You are such a slob. You just expect me to clean up after you.”
“You are always working. Work is more important to you than your family.”
“You are so frivolous. You just think money grows on trees.”
“You always leave your mess lying everywhere.”
“You don’t care about me or my feelings.”
“You didn’t text me like you said you would.”
“You embarrassed me at dinner the other night, like you always do.”
“You never tell me how you’re feeling.”

The speaker of such statements doesn't say, in first person singular, what he thinks, feels, intends, wants, but makes claims about the other person, esp. about their inner life.

People usually use you-language. It's a form of non-communication (while uttering words), a way of talking at the person or past the person, not to them.

Surely you can just accept that scientists think X, and you disagree - scientists in general don't imagine nobody disagrees with them.

Disagreeing with scientists potentially comes with a cost. Like the cost of disagreeing with a doctor, teacher, psychotherapist, boss, anyone who uses science in an argument against you in any way.