:up:

Money makes democracy and money ultimately undermines it. — frank

Agree.

In the end, my position is that there will never be a true from of democracy as long as The People (master) is missing and so failing to put the servant (government) in its proper place, and that starts from the hard work of every individual on their (all-directions) development. — TheMadMan

I think you're essentially saying things I've heard fairly often over the past 40 years or so. There's truth in this. Why aren't here any great leaders today? Because there aren't great voters. Gore Vidal used to run as similar argument about it being voters rather than politicians letting the country down. He had a great line - Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half

The problem is more complicated. There is no 'The People' as such there are just people - cacophonous, diverse, polarized people. Clearly they are not united in what they want from a society and seem willing to go into battle to defend their views. How does one build agreement from such a messed up, confused, uneducated, disengaged, superstitious cohort? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does seem to be a key obstacle.

It strikes me as a hyper-empiricist epistemological system where only through either direct observation or through a closely regulated non-fictional literalism (where only basic facts are shared) can knowledge be gained. The suggestion that there is this bright line between fiction and non-fiction really doesn't hold true, because the line between fiction and non-fiction grows more blurred the more interpretive or explanatory it becomes. — Hanover

This may well be the case. Just looking for a good account of fiction as a repository of 'truth'. Throughout this I've been mulling over that Camus' quote about fiction being the lie through which we tell the truth.

As in my To Kill a Mockingbird example, it holds the truth of the destructiveness of racism. Does it not? We speak in hypotheticals all the time in order to make a point, none of which are actually true. Such is the substance of all thought experiments. — Hanover

Yes, that fits reasonably well. I'll go with this for now. Thanks.

From wiki -
The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that seeks to change cultural attitudes and norms around sexuality, promoting the recognition of sexuality (in the countless forms of expression) as a natural and healthy part of the human experience and emphasizing the importance of personal sovereignty, safer sex practices, and consensual sex (free from violence or coercion). It covers every aspect of sexual identity including gender expression, orientation, relationship to the body (body-positivity, nudity, choice), relationship-style choice, and reproductive rights.

It's pretty clear that certain cultures are comfortable with some forms of sex and frown upon, restrict and punish a whole bunch others.

This isn't what I wanted the post to be about though — Hallucinogen

Sorry.

If my premises are natural, then God is natural. If God is supernatural, then the very definitions he's insisting on that natural premises exclude supernatural conclusions is wrong. — Hallucinogen

Can you explain this clearer? Your premises involve supernatural entities for which there is no demonstration. Your interlocutor seems to be saying that there is no way for us to identify anything supernatural, hence a need for methodological naturalism.

I think this discussion between you and your interlocutor uses very imprecise language, and a lack of specialist knowledge which makes the discussion a messy one.

Mathematics is a descriptive language invented by people that turns out to be very good at describing the world. There is no more a metaphysical relationship between math and physics than there is between the English language and the reality it describes or a map and the terrain it depicts. — T Clark

Mathematical descriptions are capable of describing the world because they have an ontological status in the world; ie the world is mathematical in itself. — Hallucinogen

This is not my subject but I think TC is correct. Maths is created by people, not discovered. There are of course several significant thinkers who hold to mathematical Platonism (Roger Penrose being one) but I suspect this view is waining.

There's an entire thread debating the subject of the origin of math.

Incidentally calling anything a law is vexed - it implies a lawgiver even before any actual thinking is done. The laws of logic (which allow for math) are also called the logical absolutes or foundations of reason. Claiming that only a god can be the guarantor of these is functionally no different to saying they were created by alien intelligence or that a magic man made them.

I am not aware that a demonstration has been made to tie math to some kind of magic being. Or a demonstration that proves math can only originate outside of human thought. Although for some folk it may be a reasonable inference. The best we can say is that the status of math is complex and open and subject to reification.

Sounds like you're trying to make a transcendental argument for the existence of god. Are you preparing for some presuppositional apologetics? Cornelius Van Til took this formulation from Kant.

I think I agree with that. For me that means that an emphasis on truth distracts us from the aspects of life and awareness that really matter. — T Clark

Indeed. But I'm spooked now... we may be entering the contested world of the ineffable again from a different angle. :razz:

I assume what I sometimes get from fiction is similar to what you get from music you love. Maybe you wouldn't call that learning something new either, and I think I'd agree. — T Clark

Good points. I've had many enjoyable and transformative experiences reading fiction (I'm fond of 19th century novels) and these books are aesthetic experiences and, sure, they often seem to hold some wisdom about human nature and our emotional lives, but...

Do you "learn anything new" from your life experiences in general? Sure, but it's not usually knowledge that can be expressed in propositions. — T Clark

Indeed. I am conscious that my awareness is constantly being shaped by things I am exposed to (music, life, books) but I don't know what this amounts to. Not sure that it relates to truth in any form I recognize.

sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' — 180 Proof

Wow, that's a great term. What do you have in mind here? The embodied cognition crowd?

You're just making claims about how learning occurs. Are you making a claim about how you specifically learn here or how everyone does? — Hanover

Actually, I'm not making claims, I'm posing questions based on how I recall my experiences. You'll note I didn't say fiction does not teach us anything, I said I can't think of anything fiction has taught me.

how does thar defeat your initial objection that fiction didn't hold truth? — Hanover

Not sure I was making an objection. I was asking a question. I am wondering what kinds of truth fiction holds. I am still unclear.

I think you're going to great lengths to sustain a dubious claim about the information provided through fiction. — Hanover

Great lengths? Good heavens, I thought we were just having a conversation about one small aspect of how fiction works on the back of 'philosophy being fiction.'

If the world is imbued with meaning, no matter where you look, meaning well beyond the literal recitation of the facts can be found. — Hanover

Agree.

And greater truths can derived from reality, as in the sort of truth and the prundity of meaning you may receive from experiencing a great success, failure, attending a funeral, a wedding, a childbirth, or seeing a sunrise. — Hanover

I'm not sure I would commit to calling such experiences truths as such. What they are, I can't say. Profound experiences?

I guess where I was heading is that I can't think of anything new I have learned by reading fiction. Generally fiction seems to provide something which either resonates or doesn't. Good fiction reminds me of what I already know but may struggle to express. So I wonder if philosophy is more likely to provide the reader with something that seems entirely new? Maybe it's just me.

Thanks. Is dramatising an issue what makes fiction successful in telling truths?

Yes, but for you what is the specific truth it holds?

To the point though, philosophy strives to achieve truth, which can be revealed in all sorts of ways, not excluding through openly fictional writings. — Hanover

What kind of truth do we encounter in fiction - do you have an example?

I'm fine with it. It's fairly apparent that people sometimes ask incoherent questions and often the question we think we want answered rests on assumptions which need to be questioned. Pointing this out and helping to reformulate a question can be done respectfully and can be a useful contribution.

I hope to create some thought-provoking videos on philosophical and social concepts — tomatohorse

That's fine, but do you have expertise to make this enterprise useful? There's already a quagmire of self-appointed experts and monomaniacs out there inflicting their pet theories and mediocre half-arsed metaphysics on the world, making it harder than ever to find useful information amidst the avalanches of dross, sophistry and madness. :wink:

That's a great answer and made me laugh a lot.

I came here to see what I may have missed in not privileging philosophy. And I am mostly interested in what others believe and why.

Is the guy that maintains my pool from alpha centauri?

Thank you. I've flitted about on the periphery of this approach once or twice. It's very interesting material.

Phenomenologically-informed enactivist psychology preserves the emphasis on affectively-based values in organizing and situating cognitive appraisals and beliefs. But it avoids the biological essentialism of inherited affect modules and programs. — Joshs

This is challenging conceptual space. Essentialism is attractive to so many thinkers.

A very romantic account.

I guess then creativity may be found everywhere - in business, politics, health.. in every day life. Could it be that just in being human and making choices we are engaged in a creative process?

To what extent is creativity valued or undervalued in the twentieth first century? — Jack Cummins

What counts as creativity?

A scientist, an artist, a citizen is not like a child who needs papa methodology and mama rationality to give him security and direction; he can take care of himself, for he is the inventor not only of laws, theories, pictures, plays, forms of music, ways of dealing with his fellow man, institutions but also of entire world views, he is the inventor of entire forms of life.”

― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society

It is popular these days in psychological ( Haidt) and anthropological circles to posit that cultural values and ethical norms originate in inherited evolutionarily adaptive affective preferences , such as disgust. — Joshs

The way you phrased this ('It is popular these days...') suggests you take issue with the view. I have no dog in this fight but is there a better account?

Is it useful to view human behavior this way? — Mikie

Not sure. What do we do with this view and how can it help?

For the pessimists - love Leonard's voice and singular poetic sensibility. This song always makes me smile.

Richard Strauss - Metamorphosen (1945)

Composed in the final weeks of the war, when the composer's world was crumbling around him. If the theme sounds vaguely familiar, listen carefully: about 3/4 of the way in, and then again at the very conclusion of the piece the source of the theme is revealed. — SophistiCat

Me too. I love it. Mine is a von Karajan recording. I heard it first in 1985 and used to drive through winding mountain roads to our country place with it on.

Also:

As always it all depends on your founding presuppositions. — Janus

Yes. Same as serial killing. Some of us think it's a bad thing. :razz:

I think we might agree on one thing, though; and that is that "God did it" is not any better. from the point of view of advancing physical theory than "it just happened"; but I don't think many would claim that 'God did it' is a physical theory. — Janus

As an atheist I generally proffer 'I don't know' when people ask about consciousness or abiogenesis or the origin of the universe. Atheism doesn't hinge on explanations, just on whether theism convinces or not. I think our tentative scientific accounts of such matters offer better inferences but neither science or god are done explaining the tough questions. God seems a particularly fragile and tendentious explanation primarily because theism itself remains obscure, and as far as I can tell, incoherent.

What do you mean? I don't thlnk "want" has anything to do with this. — 180 Proof

:up:

I think Hitchens was a patchy debater. He had terrific presence, a sonorous voice and was skilled at rhetoric - but re-watching some of his debates, it's clear he has a series of often glib anti-religious talking points and regularly fails to directly address the arguments of the other side. This is most apparent in his debate with William Lane Craig. Now physicist Sean Carroll utterly obliterated Craig in a debate that I often watch as a cheer me up. Craig is a smug cocksucker.

I was a pessimistic child. For no particular reason I assumed everything would always go badly in the world and that becoming an adult was a pointless exercise. From about 8 years of age I didn't want what was being sold to us by mainstream culture - religion, marriage, a suburban house, consumerism, a deathly dull job. Thankfully I discovered radical politics and made a circle of friends who also bemoaned mainstream aesthetics and aspirations and was able to see value in things previously unknown.

Thanks. I confess to finding elements of the position seductive but I fear its consequences. I think I enjoy Spanish Key the most on that particular album. Great driving music at 2am. :wink:

I know you find postmodernism's approach problematic, but what is your response to this argument:

appeal IS a central element of what we call truth, especially in the sciences. An important value in choosing one theory over another is aesthetic appeal. The facts have no coherence outside of their relation to our pragmatic goals and purposes. We convince ourselves that we conform our empirical models to the cold, hard facts of the world, but those cold , hard facts are constantly shaped and reshaped by our evolving concerns, expectations and practices. The same goes
for our gods. — Joshs

Do you see this reasoning as having any utility?

When Joshs talks of 'our pragmatic goals and purposes' presumably this could refer to an understanding of humans as sharing a 'common world' and having to make choices about better or worse ways of behaving towards each other and our environment. In this respect, I see theism as ultimately not being helpful in the ways you have already identified.

Do you mean a lot of people think certainty is a god, or that a lot of people think that other people who claim to be certain of something are actually professing a religion? — Vera Mont

I was referring to people's needs for 'absolute certainty' whether they are secular or religious. At one end is scientism and at the other end religious fundamentalism.

What do you make of @joshs argument:

appeal IS a central element of what we call truth, especially in the sciences. An important value in choosing one theory over another is aesthetic appeal. The facts have no coherence outside of their relation to our pragmatic goals and purposes. We convince ourselves that we conform our empirical models to the cold, hard facts of the world, but those cold , hard facts are constantly shaped and reshaped by our evolving concerns, expectations and practices. The same goes
for our gods. — Joshs

The idea that facts have no coherence outside of their relation to our pragmatic goals and purposes is probably accurate, but there is a lot to unpack in 'goals and purposes' and in how humans might live together in a shared world (as much as this is even possible).

If religion X says we need blow up the planet to fulfill prophecy, what do those who find objective facts problematic do with this?

Prove that because religion comes in many forms it is not reliable as truth. — Gregory

We're not even talking about the same thing, Greg. Sorry man, I did my best. We can maybe talk about something else another time. Take care.

Ah, but appeal IS a central element of what we call truth, especially in the sciences. An important value in choosing one theory over another is aesthetic appeal. The facts have no coherence outside of their relation to our pragmatic goals and purposes. We convince ourselves that we conform our empirical models to the cold, hard facts of the world, but those cold , hard facts are constantly shaped and reshaped by our evolving concerns, expectations and practices. The same goes
for our gods. — Joshs

Sounds a little like Richard Rorty.

I share some of these impulses/thoughts too, but I think this may be just a bit too 'extreme' for my worldview. I am still tied to reason since I can't imagine a way out of it and still have functioning humans. But I recognize the limitations of reason. Maybe this is the subject for a different thread.

( I’m speaking both of religion and the view of science as ‘truths that dont care about our feelings’. God and objective realism are tied together, not opposites — Joshs

Yes I see this and this is in Nietzsche too. Something like, 'if you believe in grammar you're still a theist.'

I don't have an intrinsic problem with god and realism being tried together. Humans organize lives by reasons and values (regardless of their foundational value) some of these seem pragmatically better than others. I would rather have a germ base theory of disease than, say, one of demonic possession - you can get better, lasting outcomes with the first it seem to me. If preserving life is your goal.

Any 'not to difficult' paper or essay on this subject?

You're really trying to justify ignoring spirituality because you it can't be put in a category? You cant grow much with only rationality. Faith is a calling and a higher logic. Everyone is influenced by it in their souls through society. Some hate it — Gregory

Goodness, you're arguing about something entirely different.

Perhaps if I go over it it once more - we'll leave the thorny topic of religion/spirituality and look at what you did here.

From your side you would have to say romance is not definable so there is no point sharing stories about your first kiss with a friend — Gregory

So at no point did I say we can't share stories. My point is precisely because there are so many potential stories to share, we should avoid painting ourselves into a corner about what constitutes romance. I can say for me it is about 'exhilaration.' But I can't say, 'the whole point of romance is exhilaration.' Some subjects take myriad forms and warrant a suspicion of globalizing statements and essentialisms.

f you take the Bible literally you've missed its message — Gregory

Agree.

Spiritual conflict is part of religion — Gregory

Should I add this to your other globalizing statement about religion below?

It's part of growing, which is the whole point of religion — Gregory

From your side you would have to say romance is not definable so there is no point sharing stories about your first kiss with a friend — Gregory

Not sure how this got into your argument since it neither addresses my point, or follows the discourse.

I would say romance is not a subject we can paint into a corner with hard and fast statements like the ones you've made.