on discussing god and religion

Maybe, but from my point of view, a No God world would seem to revolve around the assumption that existence lacks a teleological component. Any meaning that “I” impart to “my life” can only be based on my own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to knowledge/imformation. All of which is necessarily far removed from an omniscient point of view.

The Hindus have a narrative that you note above. But how is this really not a meaning? It provides something in the way of a guideline for living on this side of the grave. After all, how do those who practice the Hindu faith make that crucial distinction between “the right thing to do” and “the wrong thing to do”? Why one set of behaviors and not another?

And it seems to clearly suggest a life after death.

On the other hand, why their narrative and not one of the others? And how do they go about actually demonstrating the part about reincarnation and Brahma?

This sort of thing does not reflect the manner in which I understand the meaning of nihilism. As long as they can point to an entity – God – said to be “behind” their “fate”, meaning is necessarily subsumed in that. “I” becomes part of a transcending truth. And death is not oblivion.

My vocabulary relating to value judgments on this side of the grave – as they are connected to my fate on the other side of the grave – is no less an existential contraption. Just as in the past the vocabulary I used as a devout Christian was.

Here and now, it seems reasonable to think as I do. Just as in the past it seemed reasonable to think in very, very different ways. But sans God where is the “final vocabulary” that anchors mere mortals to an objective moral and political agenda?

I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “I” am not now privy to it.

Here I go back to what appears [to me] to be common sense:

That there is certainly an enormous gap between what “I” think/believe about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know this.

After all, isn’t that the whole point of inventing the Gods? Gods provide mere mortals with a teleological foundation – a Creator – that can turned to and relied upon to close that gap.

As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, we have little choice but to “use” them to either attain or to sustain particular goals. But why do we choose one set of values here over another? Can these value be understood objectively? In other words, making them obligatory for all those who wish to be thought of as rational human beings? Or, instead, are they embedded/embodied more in the components of my own existential contraption: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.

Nothing here is less clear to me than those who speak of folks said to be spiritual nihilists and then refuse to note how they embody this relating to actual interactions with others out in a particular world.

To me “meta-level” philosophy is just another tool employed by the modern equivalents of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.

Yes, but no one is arguing that your beliefs preclude nihilism, and does not contradict what I said above.

Many, perhaps most do practice some hinduism version that has morals, but this is not necessary. One could hold that the ontology is true, but leaves no room for meaning or morals. In fact, I think that is a pretty human reaction to the hindu ontology. What meaning is there for a self that is considered not real in Hinduism? Now Hindus might say I am missing something, but you can’t tell me that. You cannot tell me that really if Hindu ontology is correct I should think there is meaning and objective morality. Because you are not a Hindu. Further there really is no objective morals in much Hindu metaphysics.

Your belief system suggests a life, most likely, after today. That doesn’t give meaning or rules for human interaction.

That is not relevant to the issue. The issue was whether belief in souls or God precluded nihilism, and they do not.

All belief systems insist that an I is part of transcending truths. To a materialist, your eye is part of natural selection processes leading to organisms that suit their environments until they do not. That truth transcends you, explains you, puts you in a narrative. It does not, however, give you objective morals or meaning. Nor does Calvinism. You’ve also, here, added more meanings to nihilism and I was responding to the ones you listed in the other post. Does this mean that you concede that those facets of what you consider nihilism can apply to people who believe in souls spirits and/or God and that is why you now present new facets or wordings?

  1. so Rorty is only talking about vocabulary in relation to morals? It seemed like a more general set of ideas about language in general.

You clearly did not answer my question. You restated things you have said many times. I specifically asked about that quote from Rorty as applied to your statements which I cited in the context of those quotes. It’s a rude habit to shift to restating your opinions instead of interacting with the response.

And this is precisely the same rudeness.

What the fuck are you talking about. You made statements, I criticized them and asked questions. You did not answer the questions or, in the main, respond to the criticism. You shifted the ground of the debate by introducing new facets of nihilism, without acknowledging the reason you needed to do this. You restated opinions, instead of interacting with what seem to me contradictions between what Rorty wrote and what you have written. I have no idea what you mean by meta level philosophy. When I referred to meta-level, it meant that I was challenging your ideas in general, the assumptions in your post. On the other hand I did go into specific cases to raise the met-level issues, the kind of thing Durant thought was important. I did not do it in relation to Abraham. So apart from the fact that you are appealing to authority as justification for an ad hom aimed at me, it doesn’t even fit. Ironically, you don’t seem to understand that you are constantly raising the same epistemological issue, so of course, in a philosophy forum, or on the fucking street, you are going to encounter discussions of how one knows, at a general level. You repeatedly present your meta-epistemological positions or do you not notice that. You did it here in response to me, in fact instead of responding to points I raised. I found Hinduism precisely nihilistic, though I became convinced that much of the ontology and the use of those words you mentioned were useful and valid. I am quite sure at that point you will want me to demonstrate that it was rational for me to think that. BUT THAT IS NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE. The issue was: can one be nihilistic and use those words: yup. You have no curiosity about that and that is why you shift, as you did in this post, to epistemological issues - how do you demonstrate Brahma, etc.

I still find you lacking in integrity and will return to ignoring you, since you clearly think you have nothing to learn and the only possible actions of anyone reading you are to agree with you or prove objective morals, even though your posts deal with all sorts of issues and a discussion is one where both sides get to evaluate, criticize, question beliefs and arguments.

And seriously, an appeal to authority ad hom? Keep talking to yourself, it’s what you seem to be what you want.

My interest in nihilism is embedded at an intersection – an intersection between what someone thinks it means and how someone embodies that meaning in their interractions with others. Interactions that, in particular, come into conflict over value judgments. Either in a God or a No God world. With God [said to be omniscient/omnipotent] what can it really mean to speak of nihilism at all? With No God what can it really mean to speak of a meaning said to be applicable to all?

Or, rather, in the is/ought world existentially.

Here is my own bottom line though [on this thread]: human interactions require rules of behavior. Why one set of rules and not another? Based on what assessment? Based on what assumptions? How is any particular individual “ontology” – or a Hindu ontology – demonstrated to be the optimal or the only rational manner in which these “rules of behaviors” are to be predicated.

Sooner or latter “general descriptions” such as yours must be situated out in a particular context out in a particular world in which behaviors have come into conflict. Then what? Who is to decide how the conflicts are best resolved? And how is this related to one’s perceived fate on the other side of the grave?

That’s the whole point of this thread.

That’s my point though. With God, meaning and rules are subsumed in an essential, trascending font. With No God meaning and rules are subsumed in existential contraptions rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time in the world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

What is relevant [to me] is the manner in which one understands the meaning of nihilism. And then the meaning of God. And then the extent that one insists that their meaning reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of them. An omniscient/omnipotent God [as most understand Him] precludes nihilism as I understand it.

But I would never argue that my own understanding of it is any less an existential contraption than yours.

Again, my “take” on this here revolves around this:

This is all numbingly abstract though.

What I focus the beam on is why particular individuals choose particular behaviors in particular contexts. How do they rationalize these behaviors in terms of what they construe [here and now] to be the meaning of such things as “freedom” “will” “justice” “moral obligation” “religion and God”.

To what extent are the values of others here not entangled in my own dilemma. A dilemma predicated on the manner in which I construe the components of moral nihilism: dasein, conflicting goods, political economy.

Let’s note a context, a set of behaviors in conflict and situate the meaning that we give to the words above in it.

There are clearly vocabularies that we use in discussing such things as mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical facts, the logical rules of language. How much conflict is there here? When doctors perform abortions as medical procedures there are any number of things they can all agree on objectively. There are quite simply biological truths here that are applicable to all doctors.

But what of ethicists discussing the morality of abortion? What objective truths – philosophical truths – are applicable to all of them?

My understanding of Rorty is no less an existential contraption than his understanding of ironism. Only when these “general descriptions” are implicated in actual conflicted human behaviors can we ever hope to illustrate our “texts” here. So, I repeat myself:

You choose the context, you choose the conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting behaviors and let’s explore all of this more substantively.

Me from a “No God” perspective.

And what would your perspective revolve around?

You speak of things being “closer to reality”. What reality? If the discussion were to revolve around, say, the plight of the “Dreamers” here in America, how then might Rorty’s points be understood?

Again, from my point of view, you seem more intent on yanking this discussion up into what I construe to be basically the clouds of abstraction.

To wit:

Me: What “on earth” does that mean though?!

To wit:

Looks like we’re stuck then. You can find others here to discuss/debate all of the technical issues. How a “serious philosopher” would go about discussing/debating the relationship between Abraham, nihilism and conflicted human value judgments/behaviors.

Good luck with that. I’m far more intent on exposing the technical assessments/assumptions derived from that to actual flesh and blood human interactions predicated on conflicting moral/political narratives that precipitate actual consequences out in the world that we live and interact in socially, politically and economically.

This is bordering on “huffing and puffing”. Making me the issue. You level these charges against me but my chief concern is still the same: bringing your own “epistemology” down to earth and testing it “out in the world” of actual conflicting behaviors.

Instead, you are slipping more and more into a subjunctive reaction that exposes much more about you than about me. Why the sudden outburst of chagrin? Why do you feel it necessary to reconfigure the discussion into an attack on me?

Note to others:

What do you suppose this indicates to us? Why, when push comes to shove, does this seem to expose just how threatened he may well be becoming by the points I raise.

From my perspective, he’s just another Prismatic. He has spent any number of years concocting this elaborate Intellectual Contraption that allows him to present himself as a bona fide Serious Philosopher.

In my view though he falls somewhere between the autodidact and the pedant.

Ever and always intent on keeping philosophy up in the clouds.

Me the “meta-epistemologist”?

Yeah, right.

It’s impossible to separate the argument from the way that you present the argument. “The medium is the message”.

I would say it indicates that he is frustrated because of the way that you conduct yourself in these discussions.

He’s not the only one.

I have never seen you take anything “down to earth” and discuss it. I have never seen you respond to someone who has tried to take some issue “down to earth” with anything but abstract dasein babble and the supposed failure of “the tools of philosophy”.

Up in the clouds or down to earth, you don’t think there is any way to analyze an issue philosophically. Right?

Therefore, your conclusion … everyone is right from his own point of view. #-o Or is that your starting assumption? :evilfun:

How am I expected to respond to this?

The point of this thread is to connect the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side. As this relates to our beliefs regarding God and religion.

Now, when I do that [in what I presume to be a No God world], I am entangled in my dilemma on this side of the grave and presume that oblivion is to be my fate on the other side. That’s the intellectual/existential contraption that “in my head” of late seems most reasonable to me. But I acknowledge right from the start that I have no way in which to demonstrate that all other reasonable men and women should concur.

All I can ask of the faithful here is to focus the beam on their own behaviors from this side of the grave as this pertains to their current moral narrative as that pertains to their a God, the God, my God narrative.

And then to note the role of philosophy when these narratives clash regarding particular behaviors in particular contexts.

Here and now [philosophically] I construe myself to be one of Richard Rorty’s “ironists”.

How about you?

You choose the context, you choose the behaviors, you choose the conflicting goods.

I can assure you that I will take my own frame of mind “down to earth”.

You asked some questions. I provided some answers.

You could discuss those answers.

Instead you go back to “The point of this thread is …”

IOW, ignoring my feedback.

I don’t know what that means “down to earth” or “on the ground” out of the clouds.

How does an “ironist” solve or even begin to approach philosophical problems/questions? Or more generally, how does he approach life’s problems?

Give me an example of what that discussion would look like.

You don’t distinguish between good and bad, better and worse, progress and regress. You don’t accept the usefulness of any philosophical methods or approaches.

That leaves little scope for discussion.

Note just one particular answer that you provided. And then note how the manner in which I reacted to it was not a proper discussion. How in your view did I ignore the particular feedback that you provided.

The only thing that pops into my head now is Communism. And here it appears that your frame of mind revolves around the assumption that to the extent others do not share your own existential reaction to it, they are discussing it improperly.

An ironist suggests that with regard to value judgments there appear to be conflicting goods embedded in conflicting moral narratives able to make reasonable arguments based on a conflicting set of assumptions/premises.

Thus in my “abortion trajectory” above, I note that Mary posed arguments she believed justified her aborting her fetus. While John posed arguments he believed justified bringing it to term.

Then what? How would one go about discussing this “properly”?

And how might God and religion factor into any possible [realistic] resolution?

Here at ILP [over and again] we have any number of moral, political and religious “positions” articulated by liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists, that an ironist might deem resonable. Can philosophers then concoct an argument/assessment that is demonstrated [epistemologically] to be the optimal frame of mind, precipitating the optimal set of behaviors?

Maybe. But I am not now privy to it. Are you?

To wit:

Are you kidding? We come upon them all the time here. For example, something happens in the news. Like, say, Trump’s narrative regarding immigrants from Mexico. The wall. The Dreamers.

My frame of mind here is that both the liberals and the conservatives are able to pose a political agenda that they are able to articulate rationally. They both make points the other side can’t just make go away.

Here for example: immigration.procon.org/

Now, there was once a time in my life when my reaction to issues such as this was as an objectivist. Either in a God or a No God world. My frame of mind then reflected the optimal point of view. Whether as a Christian or a Marxist-Leninist or a Trotskyist or a democratic socialist or a social democrat. There was a right and a wrong way to look at it. And you were either one of us or one of them.

Now, however, I have come to recognize the extent to which my shifting and evolving political prejudices over the years are rooted [existentially: historically, culturally, experientially] in daseins who have come to embody conflicting goods in a “real world” where, ultimately, what counts is either possessing or not possessing the political power to make your own moral agenda, among other things, the “law of the land”.

This is simply preposterous. I merely suggest that in the is/ought world, such distinctions revolve around “existential contraptions” rooted in the components of moral nihilism. Or, rather, in the manner in which “here and now” I have to construe the meaning of that.

All I insist is that for those who object [either in a God or a No God world] we bring the discussion out into the world of clearly recognizable conflicting human interactions we are all likely to be familiar with.

Though, sure, there is always the possibility that we cannot come to agree on what exactly that entails.

FFS
This :

and this :

There is no way to discuss it … it’s general and abstract.

You provide nothing concrete.

Yeah, your abstract “optimal” something. You always go there.

I want you to describe how the discussion might go… “down to earth” and “out of the clouds”. You pick the issue and you write out a dialog.

Person A says : _ (fill in the blank)
Person B says : _
Person A responds : _
.
.
.

I can’t see you doing it. Not without going "general, “abstract”, “up in the clouds”.

Teach us deluded fools how it’s done.

Right. You have your contraptions and others have their contraptions. Never the twain shall meet. What is there to discuss??

What is there to talk about? What is there to talk about for years on end?

What is the content of the discussion? I mean, I just summed it up in one sentence.

Here, take your pick: viewforum.php?f=3

And I would never label those who do not think of moral nihilism in a No God world as I do “deluded fools”.

They have their existential contraption, I have mine.

Only mine doesn’t provide the comfort and and the consolation embedded in the objectivist assumption that those who do refuse to think like them [and mimic their own behaviors] really are deluded fools.

Those are substantive discussions “out of the clouds”???

Those are models of a “down to earth” discussion???

#-o

Sure, some of them are. There are folks all along the political spectrum here making arguments regarding one or another issue that is being discussed and debated in the news.

My point is only to suggest that…

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information
2] they make rational arguments predicated on certain assumptions about human interactions — assumptions embedded in various religious and political and philosophical narratives
3] that out in the “real world” what counts is less what you believe is true and more in having or not having the power to legislate and then enforce particular rules of behavior

It’s just that on this thread these relationships/interactions are said to be judged by God. And that brings immortality and salvation into play.

And, in that case, what could possibly be more crucial than having the capacity to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, my God?

First, of course, there’s the problem with how one reconciles the shame that Adam and Eve are said to have felt with an omniscient God. Nothing that any mere mortal might think or feel or do is not already known by God. So the illusion of human autonomy is merely another manifestation of God.

And if a God, the God actually does exist then any discussion of nihilism among mere mortals is also subsumed in His omniscience. Genes and memes too.

On the other hand, in a No God world, it is certainly the case that biologically men and women come into the world with the capacity to feel shame. But in any particular context what some will feel shame regarding others will take pride in.

So that begs the question: to what extent can philosophers in a No God world assess any particular instances of shame? Is his shame reasonable while her shame is not?

Is there in fact a capacity to note when shame is either necessarily appropriate or inappropriate?

Here however we would have to note particular instances from our own life. Things that we did feel shame regarding. We would have to discuss the reasons why we felt this shame. And then address the arguments of those who, in the same set of circumstances, felt no shame at all.

I’m not going to take the discussions down to that level.

If that’s what you want, then good luck with it.

Then perhaps you should reconsider participating in them yourself.

Sure, the huffers and the puffers, the trolls and the Kids are particularly abundant here. But over the years there have also been any number of more sophisticated and intelligent exchanges.

If less of late.

And, pertaining to those, I’m back to this:

1] their perspectives are often rooted in personal experiences, relationships and access to particular knowledge/information
2] they make rational arguments predicated on certain assumptions about human interactions — assumptions embedded in various religious and political and philosophical narratives
3] that out in the “real world” what counts is less what you believe is true and more in having or not having the power to legislate and then enforce particular rules of behavior

And then [on this thread] the part about God and religion.

Well, that would be a waste of time.

Right.

A guy in his thirties is going to tell me about women.
I’ve been married for almost 30 years and I have two adult daughters.

A guy with no personal experience of communism is going to tell me about communism based on what Marx wrote in a book. Cause what actually happens in real communist regimes is not “real communism” - the real stuff is in the book.
I’ve lived it.

A guy is going to tell me about capitalism.
I’ve had my own business for 30 years and I’ve dealt with businesses big and small the entire time.

A guy is going to tell me about multiculturalism.
I live in the most multicultural city in the world.

But just repeating your mantra “That guy is right based on his personal experiences and access to particular knowledge/information …” :laughing:

Quite the discrepancy, isn’t it.


Marx: Politics as Navigating the Discrepancy Between Power and Ideal

It’s your time then. Since you have participated in discussions there.

Yes, that is precisely my point. All these “guys” live lives that may well be far, far removed from the life that you lived. Very different experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

Why on earth then would anyone expect them to share value judgments regarding these things?

My point on this thread is that with or without God, how might philosophers [or scientists] assess these narratives so as to ascertain the optimal frame of mind?

It’s just that with God, immortality and salvation are at stake. And what could possibly be more crucial here then in pinning down the actual existence of a God, the God?

You tell me.

No, I’m not saying that he is right. I am saying that based on the components I describe in my own understanding of moral nihilism, there does not appear to be a way [sans God] for mere mortals to determine and then to demonstrate what it is alleged [by moral objectivists] that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as right.

Acknowledging in turn that I myself have no capacity to determine and to demonstrate that this too is any less an existential contraption.