West has gone so far with reason. — Jack Cummins

Not sure about that. Is this not a cliche? I would argue the West is largely irrational and emotion driven, like most humanity.

Remember that reason is the foundational support for classical theism (natural theology). Even today if you were to read David Bentley Hart or other serious philosophers and theological thinkers, they would maintain that reason leads you inevitably to god. St Anselm for instance thought that faith was merely a starting point - the deeper understanding of theism was encountered through reason. I think you'll find that many forms of idealism today (Bernardo Kastrup, for instance), appeal strongly to deductive and inductive reasoning.

And here is one of my points: Nothing that Psalm 22 says is incompatible with Rastafari. — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough - Haile Selassie is revered as a messianic figure, often regarded as the second coming of Christ or the incarnation of God (Jah).

On the other hand, I might enjoy thinking or reading about such questions just to see what the creative human imagination can come up with. — Janus

Certainly. I am on the forum for precisely this reason. To me philsophy primarily seems to be a creative way for us to manage anxiety.

For me the only questions that approach "the ultimate concern" are 'how should I live?" and "how should I die", — Janus

Do you really ask this kind of quesion, or does it come up indirectly through interactions with ideas and day to day living?

That's funny. There don't appear to be any limits on interpretation and believers will make things fit and create frantic workarounds to ensure that they can retain specific doctrines and beliefs; Christians, Muslims, Marxists, Republicans all do it.

I have a friend who is a Catholic priest. I prefer his take. He sees the Bible as a series of myths and legends that are antiquity's method for pointing at the transcendent. My favourite quote of his, "Of course it didn't happen.'

If Jesus was a man in addition to being God, why wouldn't it be the case that he has got something to do with material wealth? — Arcane Sandwich

I don't think that works. The God part will provide.

But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us? I was just adding what I was taught and what struck me personally as odd.

Heaps of interpretations for this. The one I was taught was he was quoting from Psalm 22.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?

It's just another element in the stories writers introduced to demonstrate prophecy and continuity with the tradition (Kind David's suffering) but many Christians often believe that the Psalm itself references Jesus.

I find the story where Satan attempts to tempts Jesus stranger than the above.

the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.
Matthew 4:8

If Jesus is God, then what's he going to do with material wealth? Surely even less effective than trying to temp Elon Musk with a dollar bill. I guess one might need to contrive an allegorical interpretation that transcends literalism for this one to work.

Nice. That actually helps me to make sense of the Mishima.

So what could that question even mean, other than whether there is some independently real thing which appears to us as a cow? — Janus

I guess it can only mean something based on language and zoological classification. Which is fine for me. If there is a realm where cowness is found.. who cares?

It is surprising how much interest these kinds of strictly ambiguous and undecidable questions generate. — Janus

I guess it's all just another way to chase after a god surrogate. Ultimate truth being a conduit towards the Ultimate Concern, Tillich and other theist's term for god.

Ok. I guess you'd have to read it to make sense of it.

True beauty is something that attacks, overpowers, robs, and finally destroys. — javi2541997

Can you makes sense of this one for me?

Those quotes sound like Nietzsche.

Having said this, you might be surprised to hear that I’m a big fan of truth as an asymptotic goal of knowledge , and knowledge as a progressive approximation toward an ultimate truth. Furthermore, I associate truth with achieving a knowledge characterized by stability, inferential compatibility, prediction and control, harmoniousness and intimacy. It might seem as though what I have said points to a relativism that eliminates the possibility of achieving these goals of truth, but I believe the universe is highly ordered. Its order is in the nature of an intricate process of self-development rather than in static properties and laws. We become privy to this intricate order by participating in its development through our sciences, technologies and other domains of creativity. — Joshs

Interesting. How is order an intricate process of self-development?

Let me give you an example to see if we can agree with the definitions: A Bulldog is ugly but one can like it. — MoK

Hmm... to me it sounds like you have added the notion of 'like' here to find a way out of subjectivism. How can it be that some people find ostensibly 'ugly' things beautiful? Surely they can't be beautiful, so it must be about 'like' instead.

But what do you make of those who sincerely believe that a bulldog is beautiful, or that a photo of a WW1 scarred battle landscape is beautiful? Are you forced into saying that they are wrong about this? I believe that the ability to apprehend beauty is intrinsic to a person's aesthetic imagination and capabilities. It isn't limited to an object/text/person/etc

The extrinsic features of the rose, its color, shape, or scent are consider beautiful and good because we enjoy it. — GregW

Are considered by some people to be beautiful. I don't think goodness comes into it, no matter how big a rose fan someone may be. My father, for instance, bought a house and removed all the rose bushes that were in flower in the garden. He held that roses were ugly plants and was indifferent to the flowers. I tend to share that indifference. I believe a sunflower is more beautiful to a rose.

it is understood that beings are bound by a state of beginningless ignorance, which bears some resemblance. — Wayfarer

I think that's an interesting idea.

Buddhism basically says that the cause of suffering is not some evil Gnostic demiurge that wants to torture mankind, or an indifferent God who lets the innocent suffer for no reason. No, the cause of suffering can be found within oneself, in the form of the constant desire (trishna, thirst, clinging) - to be or to become, to possess and to retain, to cling to the transitory and ephemeral as if they were lasting and satisfying, when by their very nature, they are not. That of course is a very deep and difficult thing to penetrate, as the desire to be and to become is engrained in us by the entire history of biological existence. — Wayfarer

I think this idea isn't hard to understand. What does one make of a more complex and overt example of suffering wherein an innocent is the victim and desire apparently absent? I'm thinking of a 10 year-old kid in one of Pol Pot's death camps. What might such a Buddhist perspective make of the kid's relationship to their plight?

For instance, I don't believe that one could have a "moral calculus" or ascribe some sort of "goodness points" to things or acts. Yet neither do I think all desirability and choiceworthyness breaks down into completely unrelated categories. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, fine with that.

It's a definition not an argument. How would one demonstrate that cows are "cows" either? For something to be transcendent, it cannot fail to transcend. If "absolute" is to mean "all-encompassing" and we posit both reality and appearances, than by definition the absolute cannot exclude one of the things we've posited.

Perhaps the definition is defective. One can have bad definitions. I don't think it is though — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not entirely sure I'm following this one. That might be on me.

A cow can be demonstrated via a clear zoological example, can't it? A simple correspondence. Transcendence is a qualitative adjectival abstraction that seems closer to poetry.

That is gloriously phrased.

Might beauty not be the product of both subjective and objective factors?
— Tom Storm
They are.

You're suggesting there are only two options here. 1) Intrinsic experience or 2) subjective experiences.
— Tom Storm
No, I am suggesting that the features of our experiences are either intrinsic or extrinsic. — MoK

Yes, but my point is that beauty may be the product of both. It's not an either/or.

Take a painting we agree upon as beautiful. There's the intrinsic - the skill of the artist and the use of subject, composition and colour, etc.

There's also the extrinsic - factors like social influence of critics and/or the painting's prestige; the lighting and presentation in a gallery or on a wall; cultural factors that lead to us being attracted to that particular painter's work or subject matter; personal factors, the painting my be one a parent first showed us and is therefore is imbued with further extrinsic qualities.

The idea of symmetry and health as contributors to human beauty appears rather memorably in an old BBC documentary presented by John Cleese (The Human Face) it presents a reasonably plausible account. I'm not sure it works for landscape as well since beautiful landscapes may well be terrifically dangerous - remote coastlines, deserts, war zones (there are beautiful depictions of ugly things). Extrinsic factors help form a person's aesthetic response and make them receptive (or not) to a subject.

This leads to an infinite regress. — MoK

Personally I don't really have a problem with infinite regress. :wink:

If beauty and ugliness are not intrinsic features of our experience, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. This means that something else, such as the subconscious mind, embeds the impression of beauty or ugliness in our experiences. — MoK

Isn't this false dilemma fallacy? Might beauty not be the product of both subjective and objective factors? You're suggesting there are only two options here. 1) Intrinsic experience or 2) subjective experiences. But there must be a range of other explanations. What about beauty being relational rather than inherent or subjective? Might beauty not arise from the interaction we have with an object? A phenomenological process. Also could beauty (and any general agreement we have about this) not simply be an intersubjective relationship - a contingent product of culture, experience and evolutionary factors?

Personally I think beauty is an umbrella term for many different things. We are attracted and repelled by the world we live in - by ideas, by people, places, animals, colours... we often call things beautiful when we don't know what else to say.

Nonetheless, there are conservative groups out there that do kind acts. For example, Christian—and other religious groups—that are educating children in underdeveloped countries. Look at Catholic missionaries in Papua New Guinea, for instance. I am sure they are both kind and conservative.

I know they are not perfect, but I would not call nasty to a missionary, even if his ideas are conservative. — javi2541997

Missionary work has a history of very unkind and brutal acts. Taking children from their parents (in Australia), forcing religious conversions to Christianity - that kind of thing. My school did missionary work in central Australia in the 1970's and 1980's and I remember the minister saying it would be better if Aboriginal Australians would die out. I recall the Peter Singer quote about charity - Much of what we call charity does not really address the core problems; instead, it often simply makes donors feel better about themselves. Or they are doing it, conditionally, for their idea of God and for the reward.

The idea that conservatives are unkind probably stems from their habitual opposition to protections and welfare services for disadvantaged people (healthcare, housing, etc) and for generally being unsupportive of women's rights and LGBTIQ rights (as we are seeing hints of again in the US under Trumpist politics).

Nicely done. Let's hope the people will soon get to run tours from the glass shark tank.

A supplementary questions comes to mind. Who or what replaces Putin when his time comes? Things could always be worse.

That is because it can be made so obscure and remote from life to be made uninteresting. — Jack Cummins

Not necessarily that. I studied philosophy at University in the 1980's. The head of the philosophy department once said to me, "You are not here to learn, you are here to parrot our ideas and accept our assessments of the important matters." The lectures and tutorials were interesting, but they were leading us to specific conclusions, which I experienced as coercion and took as antithetical to philosophical practice. I'm suspicious of a process whereby students end up as variations of their professors.

I have come across a fair amount of people who began philosophy courses, often not completing them, because they just found that they could not relate to it. — Jack Cummins

Do you think this might be about how the subject is taught and how institutions work, rather than philosophy itself?

Cool, thanks for that. Is it correct to consider B&N to be a sort of Heidegger-lite? I like the essential notion of existentialism; that humans have individual freedom, choice, and responsibility in creating meaning in an indifferent or even 'absurd' universe. It seems intuitively correct, even if there are pitfalls inherent in such intuitive responses. Themes like authenticity and dealing with uncertainty remain with us as central preoccupations.

I'm just surprised to see someone express a continuity between Epicurus and Sartre. — Moliere

Do people still read Sartre and take him seriously? I recall Camus and Sartre being fashionable in Australia just after the war; mixed into a kind of beatnik, socialist sensibility. By the 1980's, people were still reading Camus (perhaps because he is easier to follow) but existentialism became a bit of an embarrassment for a while - if you were an enthusiast, you were seen as a throwback to your parent's generation. Any thoughts from you side of the globe?

Thanks.

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced. — Rob J Kennedy

What are a couple of examples of what philosophy has taught you about life?

... lacks the arrogance of the historically most successful ALP leaders. And I can't decide if that is a negative or a positive. — Banno

:rofl:

But it's dull. — Banno

Yep.

Australians have a natural, inveterate aversion to smart arses not shared by 'mercans. I hope imitating a Trump-like campaign would just increase the disenfranchisement of their middle ground. — Banno

Yes, I think this is right. I hope he tries it and gets an electoral excoriation.

They have been sliding slowly into conservatism for a long while, and the disenfranchised middle class are retaliating through the teal independents. — Banno

Yep.

The issue is, will the Australian population be taken in, in sufficient numbers, for the Liberal Party to gain an absolute majority? — Banno

Doubt it. I can't see a lot of energy getting behind Dutton.

What is your take on Albo?

There is also something about focused, concentrated language in poetry. Personally I have no interest in poetry but I do like music which does for me what others say poetry does for them. And I don't mean lyrics.

They are all present, funny, charming and smart... — Banno

Hmm, not the ones I have met. But it's only been a few. (edited) On reflection you are probably right.

Dutton is I think more like Abbott than Trump. — Banno

I think Dutton lacks the barnstorming showbiz persona to be like Trump. But I am thinking more about extravagant claims and blatant lies, stunts and fear mongering. They all do this, but the magnitude has escalated radically under Trump, who seems to have ascended the Parnassus of bullshit.

One of the other things that pushed me into philosophy was the characters who wrote it — Rob J Kennedy

Some of our remarkable encounters with people are via their books. I have not had that experince with philosophy but I have via essayists and novel writers (Salman Rushdie, Saul Bellow, Gore Vidal).

I'd have to put it down to me being a poet when younger. — Rob J Kennedy

What triggered that interest? Poetry does seem to appeal to many people who are philosophically inclined.

Abbott seems consumed by Jordan Petersonesque ideology and Western Civilization style chauvinism. I met him for work a few years ago and he was present, funny, charming and smart. The opposite of his public persona.

How far do you think Dutton will go emulating Trump-style politics as we head towards the election and how do you think it will play where it matters? Like many, I've generally held that opposition leaders don't win elections, governments lose them.

:up:

I'm not really a graph guy.

What do you mean by that. 100% sure? Or less than 100%? — Arcane Sandwich

WTF? I am never 100% sure of anything and I don't use percentages to qualify any ideas i hold.

Bear in mind Billabong has been a popular brand of sports wear so the name has recognition if nothing else.

Are you sure? — Arcane Sandwich

Fairly sure.

Culturally, does the Billabong have the same "status" as the bush and the outback? — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know what the 'same status' means here. I would imagine most younger people (under 40) do not know what a billabong is and apart from appearing in an old song, it is not a word used much, if ever. Outback may still be used in general conversation, billabong, not so much.

Well, I can't l say I am familiar with Patterson's work so there is that. At the time he was writing, the remote parts of Australia were also called the "Never-Never" and "back o' Bourke." One of the more famous books (turned into a film) was Jeannie Gunn's 1908 novel, "We of the Never-Never" which I read 40 years ago and have forgotten, like most novels I read.

Or was Paterson referring to both, the bush and the outback, as if they composed "the country", as distinct from "the city" as envisioned by Lawson? — Arcane Sandwich

No idea.