“Age has no reality except in the physical world. The essence of a human being is resistant to the passage of time. Our inner lives are eternal, which is to say that our spirits remain as youthful and vigorous as when we were in full bloom. Think of love as a state of grace, not the means to anything, but the alpha and omega. An end in itself.”

- Gabriel García Márquez, Love in the Time of Cholera (via quotespile)

MOVING TO FRONT FOR LAST TIME, ORIGINALLY POSTED SEPT 21--THERE CONTINUES TO BE TIMELY UPDATES AND INTERESTING LINKS AND COMMENTARY ON THE EVOLVING SITUATION Start with this: Russia on Tuesday paved the way for the formal annexation of swathes of...

“A grain of gold will gild a great surface, but not so much as a grain of wisdom.”
- Henry David Thoreau, “Life Without Principle”

The North American Korean Philosophical Association is excited to issue a call for papers.  The topic/themes are open. Please feel free to propose your own topic or panel. Please send an abstract of about 250-300 words for your presentation. Panel submissions (including “Author-Meets-Critics” sessions) should include the topic, panelists and their affiliations, a summary of […]

The Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture is happy to announce the publication of Issue 38. This issue includes a Scholar’s Corner section by Eric Schwitzgebel, “Does the Heart Revolt at Evil? The Case of Racial Atrocities,” a set of six essays on a wide range of topics in Confucian philosophy and political theory, featuring […]

Philosopher Donald Davidson once wrote that conceptual schemes are deemed to be “ways of organizing experience”; as well as “systems of categories that give form to the data of sensation”. What’s more, “they are points of view from which individuals, cultures, or periods survey the passing scene”. From this line of reasoning (which Davidson himself rejected), we pass on to such things as “linguistic relativity” (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) and, perhaps (!), Kuhnian paradigms and Wittgensteinian language games.

Let’s start off with Donald Davidson’s take on what conceptual schemes are supposed to be. Davidson wrote the following:

“Conceptual schemes, we are told, are ways of organizing experience; they are systems of categories that give form to the data of sensation; they are points of view from which individuals, cultures, or periods survey the passing scene.”

This passage can be found in Davidson’s paper ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’. That paper at least partly inspired the following essay.

Donald Davidson (1917–2003)

Davidson (who died in 2003) was primarily responding to the thesis that different “individuals, cultures, or periods” have different conceptual schemes. What’s more, these schemes are said to be at odds — or even in conflict — with each other.

The position that Davidson was at least partially arguing against is what’s called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. (It’s worth stressing here that Davidson certainly wasn’t doing anthropology, history or political commentary.) The following is one definition of that hypothesis:

“The simplest Sapir-Whorf hypothesis definition is a theory of language that suggests that the language a person speaks determines or influences how they think. According to Sapir-Whorf, a person’s native language has a major impact on how they see the world.”

This means that Davidson’s clause “we are told” (in the opening passage) gave his game away…

That game being his rejection of the very idea of a conceptual scheme.

Davidson’s position was that there is only one conceptual scheme.

This basically means that, in a strong sense, there are no conceptual schemes at all… Or at least there are no conceptual schemes as such things came to seen by certain philosophers — and, indeed, by various social scientists.

Crudely speaking, this particular take on conceptual schemes (i.e., the one which Davidson had a problem with) partially mirrors Thomas Kuhn’s notion of a scientific paradigm and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notion of a language game. However, if anything, a conceptual scheme has been deemed to be much deeper and far broader than a (scientific or otherwise) paradigm or a language game. Indeed it can even be argued that paradigms and language games must themselves belong to (or be embedded within) broader conceptual schemes.

All that said, I won’t be commenting on Davidson’s paper or even on anything specific within it. The main reason for that is that Davidson had a particularly epistemological take on this issue. (See the note at the end of this essay.)

We can start here with the American philosopher Thomas Nagel.

Nagel advanced the view that we can divorce ourselves from our conceptual schemes and even from our concepts. (It must be stressed here that the position which Nagel advanced is quite unlike Davidson’s.)

Thomas Nagel, Thomson Clarke and Steven Stitch

In his book The Last Word (1997), Thomas Nagel argued that the “obsession with language” and conceptual schemes has “contributed to the devastation of reason”. He went on to argue that if philosophers and laypersons stress the importance of language and conceptual schemes generally (which are, after all, contingent), then they’re in effect stressing the contingencies of psychology and culture too. And it’s this approach, Nagel concluded, which “leads to relativism”.

All this raises the following two questions:

(1) How many (broadly speaking) differences are required to create a separate conceptual scheme?

(2) How many differences are required to make two different conceptual schemes mutually incompatible or even incommensurable?

If a distinction were to be made between two different conceptual schemes, then the boundary between them may well be vague. So how deep must conceptual variance go before something is christened a conceptual scheme? Would it necessarily mean that a new conceptual scheme would — or could — never (metaphorically) look out at other (possibly rival or competing) conceptual schemes in order to judge (or simply evaluate) them?

Clearly, simple differences in beliefs can’t themselves constitute different conceptual schemes. If that were the case, then we’d all belong to different conceptual schemes. In fact each individual would have his or her own conceptual scheme.

So perhaps it’s when concepts and/or beliefs begin to link up together and have mutual implications and entailments that the question of different conceptual schemes arises.

Take the following technical distinction which was made by the American philosopher Steven Stitch (1943-) in his paper ‘The Problem of Cognitive Diversity’. He wrote:

“[T]he Yoruba do not have a distinction corresponding to our distinction between knowledge and (mere) true belief.”

In this essay’s context, this raises the question as to whether or not having (or accepting) the distinction between knowledge and true belief itself entails, implies or generates other concepts which, in turn, partly help form a distinctive conceptual scheme. (Of course we can also ask if this is just a philosophical distinction that not even all members of “our own” culture — whatever we take that to be — share.)

Firstly, a belief in true belief or knowledge isn’t itself really a single belief. It’s a belief made up of other beliefs.

Again, the main question is whether or not we can stand outside our conceptual scheme (or conceptual schemes) and evaluate other conceptual schemes (or other cultures and historical periods).

Perhaps the American philosopher Thompson Clarke (1928–2012), for one, believed that we can. In his paper ‘The Legacy of Scepticism’, he wrote:

“Each concept or the conceptual scheme must be divorceable intact from our practices, from whatever constituted the essential nature of the plain. […] [O]bservers who usually by means of our senses, ascertain, when possible, whether items fulfil the conditions legislated by concepts.”

So did Thompson Clarke himself step outside his own conceptual scheme into other conceptual schemes in order to evaluate them? Alternatively, did he adopt a God’s-eye view (or “view from nowhere”) of what he called “the plain”?

There is a hint in the above passage that Clarke believed that he could become free of both concepts and conceptual schemes when he asked “whether [sensory] items fulfil the conditions legislated by concepts”. Thus, these sensory items (contrary to the note on Davidson at the end of this essay) seem to come first — at least in this instance. In any case, Clarke was certainly committed to the world’s “essential” nature when he wrote about “the essential nature of the plain”.

Some readers may now ask what “truth in all discourses” (if not in all conceptual schemes) actually is. It may also be asked if truth can be external to all conceptual schemes.

Truth in All Conceptual Schemes

What if a member of each conceptual scheme has his/her own version (or versions) of the nature of truth? And what if each member of such conceptual schemes also has his/her own truths?

Wouldn’t this create difficulties in communication… or worse?

That said, if different conceptual schemes can accept or believe (discounting different languages) the same claims (for example, that 2 + 2 = 4 or that Napoleon was an Emperor of France), then why can’t they agree on other more esoteric, recondite or controversial things too? Indeed it could be the case that from the fact that different conceptual schemes accept the non-contentious, then they may then (mutually) accept the contentious too.

Think here of how easy it is to agree on the weather, “established facts”, etc., and yet how hard it sometimes is to agree on politics, morality, art, music, etc.

More particularly, if different conceptual schemes can discuss and even agree on the weather, when Hitler died or what is the largest body in the Solar System, then perhaps they can also discuss and agree upon more contentious issues…

Or are there language games about the weather, historical facts and astronomy too?

Let’s get back to truths (or indeed facts) which are external to conceptual schemes.

If a conceptual scheme is chosen (rather than, say, born into) by an adult individual, then it must be so for reasons which are external to that conceptual scheme. Similarly, an individual may reject his — or a — conceptual scheme for reasons external to that conceptual scheme.

Now let’s (perhaps) be a little naïve here. Take these three simple logical examples and statements:

(1) A = A (in all conceptual schemes)

(2) A = B = C ⊃ A = C (in all conceptual schemes)

(3) P ⊃ Q
P
∴ Q

(in all conceptual schemes)

Similarly, does the schema (if not the actual content)

The sentence “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white.

hold in only one conceptual scheme?

More factually and empirically.

If everyone — or almost everyone — believes that Napoleon was an Emperor of France, then they must also believe many other things which can be — or are — derived from (or dependent upon) such a belief. For example, that France exists. That France did indeed have an Emperor. That there was a time when France didn’t have an Emperor. (This last belief isn’t logically derived from the initial belief.) And if we all believe that Napoleon was an Emperor of France, then surely we may then also mutually believe that there were specific reasons as to why he became such a leader. So perhaps there can be agreement on those reasons too.

Those simple bits of logic above were intended to show that the contentious can be derived from the uncontentious. This itself may shows that if conceptual schemes share the uncontentious, then there’s nothing to stop them — in principle — from sharing the contentious too.

All this, in turn, casts doubt on the incommensurability (see also Kuhnian incommensurability) and untranslatability theses when applied — specifically — to conceptual schemes. And, if that’s the case, then perhaps the idea of different — or even rival — conceptual schemes is flawed.

That said, none of the above need imply that there’s a possibility of escaping from all conceptual schemes into Thomas Nagel’s or Thomson Clarke’s wilderness of Nowhere — the view from where we can see the world As It Truly Is

*********************

Note: Donald Davidson’s Own Take

It’s worth stressing here that Donald Davidson’s own position (which is quite unlike anything advanced in the essay above) was grounded on purely epistemological and philosophy-of-mind considerations, not on denying (or, for that matter, stressing) anthropological, historical and/or cultural differences.

That grounding can be found in the following passage (from the paper ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’), in which Davidson wrote:

“The relation between a sensation and a belief cannot be logical. Since sensations are not beliefs or other propositional attitudes. What then is the relation? The answer is, I think, obvious: the relation is causal. Sensations cause some beliefs and in this sense are the basis or ground of those beliefs. But a causal explanation of belief does not show how or why the belief is justified.”

Another passage (from the same paper) is even more apposite in this context. Davidson continued:

“Accordingly, I suggest that we give up the idea that meaning or knowledge is grounded on something that counts as an ultimate source of evidence. No doubt meaning and knowledge depend on experience, and experience ultimately on sensation. But this is the ‘depend’ of causality, not of evidence or justification.”

Basically, then, if this distinction between (as it were) pure and given “experiences” (or “sensations”) and later beliefs is rejected (as Davidson did), then the idea of conceptual schemes being free to (metaphorically) make sense (in multiple different ways) of those pure and given sensations is much harder to defend.

Cheating in chess. A teenager beats the world champion; cryptic tweets and a chess-world meltdown ensue 

Buckminster Fuller, bursting with ideas, displayed a remarkable talent for design, novelty, and losing money 

There is no lack of formulas for how to open a story. But great short stories elude well-worn schemes 

“The aim of art, the aim of a life can only be to increase the sum of freedom and responsibility to be found in every man and in the world. It cannot, under any circumstances, be to reduce or suppress that freedom, even temporarily.”
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death

Ryan talks to economist and author Russ Roberts about his new book Wild Problems: A Guide to the Decisions That Define Us, the tension between being ambitious and being a good person, strategies for reducing the fear and the loss of control that inevitably come when a wild problem requires a leap in the dark, and more.

Russ Roberts is the President of Shalem College in Jerusalem and the John and Jean De Nault Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Russ is interested and invested in making complicated ideas understandable. He is the founder and host of the award-winning weekly podcast EconTalk—hour-long conversations with interesting thinkers. His two rap videos on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and F.A. Hayek, created with filmmaker John Papola, have had more than twelve million views on YouTube, have been subtitled in eleven languages, and are used in high school and college classrooms around the world.

?Pre-order Ryan Holiday's new book "Discipline Is Destiny" and get exclusive bonuses at https://dailystoic.com/preorder 

✉️  Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

? Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Introducing Episode 1 of the new Podcast for Social Research subseries (Pop) Cultural Marxism, in which Ajay and Isi (and special guests!) will be exploring the "fantastic form" of pop-cultural commodities—from film and television to toys and games to objects of every conceivable consumer variety. In the premier episode, they turn their attention to the genre of fantasy, and in particular to the recent prequels to The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones. Listen in as they discuss, among other things, Amazon aesthetics, "the liberal imagination," beautiful failures, faux and real political realism, gif-able moments, Tolkien for neofascists, mimetic regression, billion-dollar budgets, and potential affinities between fantasy and socialist thought.

Can advertising’s immense power to change behaviour be used for good? In this brand new podcast, produced by Intelligence Squared, Myra Nussbaum, President and Chief Creative Officer at Havas Chicago and Dan Lucey, Chief Creative Officer at Havas New York, talk to the people who are harnessing the power of advertising to help people and the planet.

This week, Dan and Myra were joined by Sam Shepherd and Ashely Geisheker from Leo Burnett in Chicago. Last year, Sam and Ashley were part of the team behind The Lost Class, a campaign to raise awareness about the members of the high school class of 2021 who were killed by guns. The film was produced by Leo Burnett in support of Change the Ref’s campaign to introduce universal background checks for gun sales. Among many other awards, it was nominated for an Emmy.

Sam Shepherd is Executive Vice President and Executive Creative Director at Leo Burnett Chicago. He has received a host of top industry honours including Titanium Cannes Lions, D&AD Black pencils and Agency of the Year. He has worked with world class brands from HBO and BMW to Absolut Vodka and Oreo. Passionate about many social causes, his pro bono work for the charity Water is Life aims to raise life-saving donations and awareness for access to clean water in countries such as Kenya, Haiti and India.

Ashley Geisheker is Executive Vice President and Head of Production at Leo Burnett Chicago. She leads all aspects of the creative agency’s production capabilities and has steered ambitious productions for brands including Bank of America, Samsung and Wingstop. Her clients and work have been recognised by major industry awards including Cannes Lions, The One Show and the Effies.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do we know the things we know? The fact is that most of our knowledge comes down to trust - particularly trust in institutions and experts. But in a world where misinformation has become a lucrative industry, how is it possible to trust wisely?

Today is an episode of TSP Rewind, commercial free versions of past podcast episodes. Today’s episode was originally Episode-2096- Decision Making with Logic and Reason and first aired on Oct. 10th, 2017. The following are the original show notes from … Continue reading →

Vylana and I have been on a quest to unlock the full potential of our sexual expression. On this unabashedly vulnerable podcast, we talk about everything. The truth is that most of us, including Vylana and I had exiled certain aspects of our sexuality. But in doing so, we deny ourselves the birthright to fully engage with life and connect to the divine. In this special bonus episode, we offer an opportunity to explore the inner workings of our intimate relationship. Be sure to check out the release of Vylana’s new single “Out Of Exile”, which explores her own  autobiographical journey to reclaim her sexual sovereignty.

Connect with Vylana 

Instagram | https://bit.ly/2PrQs0Z

Spotify | https://spoti.fi/33qaS2q

YuTube | https://www.youtube.com/c/Vylana

Connect with Aubrey

Website | https://www.aubreymarcus.com/

Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/aubreymarcus/

Twitter | https://twitter.com/aubreymarcus

Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/AubreyMarcus/

YouTube | https://bit.ly/2DLctpk

Check out  Own The Day Own Your Life by Aubrey Marcus|  https://bit.ly/2t6x4hu

Subscribe to the Aubrey Marcus Newsletter:

https://www.aubreymarcus.com/pages/email

Subscribe to the Aubrey Marcus Podcast:

iTunes | https://apple.co/2lMZRCn

Spotify | https://spoti.fi/2EaELZO

Stitcher | https://bit.ly/2G8ccJt

IHeartRadio | https://ihr.fm/3CiV4x3

Google Podcasts | https://bit.ly/3nzCJEh

Android | https://bit.ly/2OQeBQg

This video compares the Hegel of Zizek to the Hegel of Adorno, by considering Adorno’s theory of nonidentity to Zizek’s theory of the gap or parallax. And in an effort to make these abstractions from critical theory concrete and fun, in order to make these theories simple enough for idiots like myself to understand, I turn to the absurdist science fiction film “Everything, Everywhere, All At Once” to provide some illustrations.
Support Us On Patreon
https://patreon.com/dietsoap

The HBS hosts consider the possibility of sentient artificial intelligence with Dr. Regina Rini.

The debate about the possibility of emergent AI sentience has staunch defenders both for an against, many more people shrugging their shoulders in the middle, with many, diverse, and non-interchangeable lexicons being used to discuss this phenomenon. Today, we’re going to try to untangle those discursive webs a little bit with Dr. Rini, not so much to settle the question “Is AI sentience possible?” but rather “should we be concerned about sentient AI?” and, perhaps more importantly, what should our concern look like?

Full episode notes at this link:
http://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/episode-73-artificial-personhood

-------------------
If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe, submit a rating/review, and follow us on Twitter @hotelbarpodcast.

You can also help keep this podcast going by supporting us financially at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions. 

We are impressed by people who do incredible things–whether it’s creating some great work of art or pulling off some impossible athletic feat, bringing about social change or building an enormous organization. How did they do it? Where did that come from? Sometimes to excuse our own failures, we tell ourselves it was genius or genetics, inspiration rather than perspiration.

? Ryan Holiday's new book "Discipline Is Destiny" is available for pre-order now! We’ve put together a bunch of cool preorder bonuses—among them is a signed and numbered page from the original manuscript of the book. You can learn more about those and how to receive them over at Dailystoic.com/preorder.

 ✉️ Want Stoic wisdom delivered to your inbox daily? Sign up for the FREE Daily Stoic email at https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

? Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook 

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How do we know the things we know? The fact is that most of our knowledge comes down to trust - particularly trust in institutions and experts. But in a world where misinformation has become a lucrative industry, how is it possible to trust wisely?

reading the book of nature which tends to favour pleasure over pain.
Thus the pursuit of a happy life full of pleasure ought to be our main aim, simply as that is what nature seems to be telling us.

Rapists and paedophiles would probably agree with you. Many pleasures impinge on the pleasure and happiness of others.

Statistics: Posted by EricPH — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:46 pm

There is a difference between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of the Christianity through history.

I wish someone had told Paul, the false apostle, the apostate from the law, to please shut up, before it would be too late:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law", Galatians 3:10-14

That is incredibly nonsensical.

About the crucifixion episode he says:

Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, Galatians 3:13

In his epistles, Paul goes on, and on, about how there should be no law:

You are not under law but under grace, Romans 6:14

They should have burned Paul at the stake. Could someone go back and please do it? I would be most grateful!

I have struggled with the ideas of Paul, in his various writings, and his significance in the formation of early Christianity. So much of Christian belief comes down to his writings and my understanding is that his writings were the only ones which are likely to have been by the name of the author. He was younger, but it is an interesting story because Paul began as someone who was so opposed to Christ until he was struck down in a conversion experience, that is if the story is genuine. However, the account of Paul is one involving a complete turn around in his outlook. The reason why Paul's influence is viewed negatively by many, including myself, is that there is so much emphasis on sin and, also, a strong emphasis on perfection as a goal, often in conjunction with puritanical goals.

Nevertheless, I do like to look at various perspectives and came across an unusual one in a book, 'Paul's New Moment: Continental Philosophy and the Future of Christian Theology', by John Milbank, Slavoj Zizek and Creston Davis(2010). These authors do look at the assumptions which Paul makes, especially how his approach is linked to the belief in Jesus's resurrection and that of everyone in the future. However, the line of thinking in the book is an unusual one because it traces some interest in Paul's writings in the continent amongst atheist and agnostic philosophers. This is that Paul's ideas are seen as a contrast to Western liberalism, as a starting point for the value of loving and caring for others as a foundation for ethics. Of course, the emphasis on loving one's neighbour was also the central message of Jesus and many other spiritual leaders. But, in the book the authors connect the traditional of theology with some emergence of ideas within European theology..l

Statistics: Posted by JackDaydream — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:44 pm

+/- = +/- remember.

Awareness completely covers Unawareness and Unawareness is unable to overcome it.

Statistics: Posted by Joshua10 — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:43 pm

Full logic allows you to continue in your ignorance if you wish.

Statistics: Posted by Joshua10 — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:21 pm

It may be a matter of context. Some ideas will be inspiring to some and misleading for others, eg. when a star says, 'You can do anything you set your mind to'. Some ideas that work in societies with vast populations will be harmful to those with smaller populations, akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer eg. authoritarianism.

It may be that ideas evolve in connection with needs as Oliver Sacks described as "cultural climate change'. One aspect which I have thought about is how ideas about life after death may have certain values. In particular, I have come across many people who were contemplating suicide and the fear of what may be on the other side of death was a protective factor which stopped them from killing themselves..

Of course, that is not to say that belief in life after death is one which is always positive. It may have been interconnected with the idea of hope of another life rather than this lifetime in the here and now. This negative aspect was one which I saw as problematic and influential when I have been puzzling over the issue of life after death..

In addition, one negative way in which life after death comes in is that some extremist terrorists believe that the act of killing enemies and oneself in terrorist acts will mean that they go straight to heaven.

Statistics: Posted by JackDaydream — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:18 pm

I do not engage in strawman arguments.Atheistic science adopts incorrect logic and continues producing nonsense scientific theories.

It is not possible to come up with a united scientific theory that explains it all with half logic.

Statistics: Posted by Joshua10 — Sat Oct 01, 2022 6:12 pm

My position is totally clear.

Natures science is based upon full logic philosophy and not half logic philosophy.

The science behind full logic philosophy makes perfect sense across scientific disciplines and utilises known forces in nature.

Atheistic science is based upon half logic and that is the reason atheistic science has only been able to dream up a half incorrect theory based upon a mythical force to try and explain it all

Statistics: Posted by Joshua10 — Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:50 pm

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

In the context of this topic, would you say that a religious or a political ideology is a "philosophy"? I'm not trying a derail, along the lines of 'if you don't define your terms, I refuse to participate!' I'm just not sure if (for example) Christianity or Capitalism are suitable subjects here?

The overlap between religion and politics with philosophy is complicated because some thinkers combined these. For example, Augustine and Aquinas drew on Greek philosophy and Kantian thinking is a mixture of the two. It may be that the various disciplines were combined more in the past and specialisation has lead to them diverging so much. It could be that philosophy is the one which looks to the various disciplines, including religion, politics, science and the humanities because it is the one which focuses on ideas in particular.

Statistics: Posted by JackDaydream — Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:46 pm

Huh? Nihilism is a frequently discussed philosophical viewpoint here. All that's required for someone without a life's meaning to legitimately criticize "those who think... that we were created to dominate the world," is to say we weren't created, therefore there is no meaning. That's the alternative. As opposed to: "No we weren't," which is philosophically meaningless.

I see that you are consistent with your idea about the need to provide an alternative point of view. But this method makes criticism even weaker than it is, because any alternative point of view is easily exposed to criticism.
In your answer, for example, the alternative point of view that you suggested is “we weren’t created”. This is very exposed to criticism: how do you know that we weren’t created?
I think that a better criticism shouldn’t care about providing an alternative perspective. A stronger criticism against those who hypothetically say “we were created to dominate the world” is, in my opinion, this one: how do you know that we were created to dominate the world? This criticism can be attacked as well, but, at least, it seems to me stronger than criticism based on providing an alternative point of view.

Statistics: Posted by Angelo Cannata — Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:42 pm

I am not asking about ideas which you dislike, although beliefs and philosophies are viewed subjectively as well as in a more analytical way. The specific focus which I am considering is about the consequences of applying philosophy to life. It is partly linked to the way in which ideas may become ideologies. It is also about the moral responsibilities connected to knowledge.

The following quote by Max Stirner, a philosopher of egoism is worth thinking about:
'Do I write out of love to men. No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from the seed of thought_ I would nevertheless scatter it.'
Stirner' s viewpoint is stark in the way that it does not involve any concern on the ripple effects of ideas.'

It can be asked about how Nietzsche's ideas were used to support Nazism. It is unlikely that he meant his philosophy to be interpreted in such a way. There is a difference between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of the Christianity through history. Also, Marx developed his political critique but it can be asked to what extent were the forms of socialism were what he intended or foresaw occurring in response to his writings?

Philosophy is about understanding, but is it about 'truth' at all costs? Are some ideas dangerous intrinsically and, how important is it to think about the potential applications pragmatically and ethically in personal, social and political life?

There was a time when it was more common to observe one's surroundings, the interactions of individuals and groups, ponder these and come up with a Philosophy. Now it is more common to have a goal, then shop amongst Philosophies until you find one that supports what you want to promote (typically for your personal benefit), then broadcast that Philosophy in order to gain power and wealth.

The internet is probably making ideas become like a marketplace, especially in the time of pluralism. It is important to think about how people may choose a philosophy on the basis of its benefits for them, especially psychological ones. Many people may not be aware of how they may do this, because it may be done subconsciously. I prefer to be conscious of my own choices of beliefs and philosophies rather than being in denial. Perhaps, the examination of one's own motives may lead to a greater consciousness of discrepancies in ideas held as a starting point for deeper reflection on values and knowledge with greater clarity of gaps in personal understanding of why ideas work and why.

Statistics: Posted by JackDaydream — Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:39 pm