Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there a spiritual tradition that fundamentally promotes coexistence, or are they all in competition with each other?

Don't some Eastern philosophy/religions come close to this? Taoism guides us in the direction of the Tao, from which only (I think) enbrained creatures can deviate, but they can choose to follow the Tao, the Path, and Taoism recommends that they (we) do. Is that anywhere close to what you're asking?

Taoism is a particularly important philosophy perspective as well as contemplative way of seeing. I find Fritjof Capra's work particularly important. This includes his 'Tao of Physics' and 'The Turning Point', which looks at thinking in science, including social science, systemically. He embraces the new physics of Einstein and quantum physics for understanding reality and the nature of interconnectedness.

Yes, 'The Tao of Physics' has long graced my bookshelf!

[Lagayascienza]

Is he the guy that thinks got is a photon?

[Sy Borg]

Based on my readings, no major religion deals with coexistence, but certain individual practitioners of all religions promote coexistence. Peacefulness seems to me more a personality trait than a cultural one, although societies are clearly not all equally peaceful.

I would describe many western societies' approaches to coexistence to be chaotic. That is, the drive towards coexistence is somewhat neutralised by the drive for security.

I tend to agree, though I would put it the other way round. I think many/most religions preach an acceptable approach, which its human followers often fail to adhere to...?

Most religious leaders and adherents take a "yay team!" approach to their religion. It's only the unusually mature and wise who can see past team loyalty. Gandhi is an example.

[Donald666]

The profound connection between personal grief and global sorrow is a poignant reminder of our shared humanity. The exploration of the "science of coexistence" across various disciplines, from ecology to sociology, underlines the importance of understanding and nurturing the bonds that connect us all, making it a crucial endeavor for a harmonious world.

[Good_Egg]

In the end, it's all about them and us, no matter how it might seem to be framed. It's not about religion, or nationalism, or politics, it's about our 'natural' tendency toward selfishness, and having/getting more than 'they' do. Sad but true, I think. So I tend to agree with your implication, that we need to be raised with some sort of conditioning that will moderate our less desirable tendencies...?

Amazing.

On a thread in which we hold up the ideal of peaceful coexistence - between neighbours in a village, between tribes, between species sharing the planet.

You somehow manage to turn it round into a demand for social conditioning to make your neighbours into the sort of people you think they should be.

Maybe peaceful co-existence means accepting people as they are ?

You'd be quick enough to criticize the zealots of formal religions who seek to save the world from sin and strife, and usher in a golden age of peace, by aggressively converting everyone to Islam (or evangelical Christianity, or whatever) .

Where's the self-aware recognition that whatever conditioning we devise will be the same thing ? A pre-condition for peaceful co-existence. That we're happy to fight for and punish the uncooperative for....

[Stoppelmann]

In the end, it's all about them and us, no matter how it might seem to be framed. It's not about religion, or nationalism, or politics, it's about our 'natural' tendency toward selfishness, and having/getting more than 'they' do. Sad but true, I think. So I tend to agree with your implication, that we need to be raised with some sort of conditioning that will moderate our less desirable tendencies...?

Amazing.

On a thread in which we hold up the ideal of peaceful coexistence - between neighbours in a village, between tribes, between species sharing the planet.

You somehow manage to turn it round into a demand for social conditioning to make your neighbours into the sort of people you think they should be.

Maybe peaceful co-existence means accepting people as they are ?

You'd be quick enough to criticize the zealots of formal religions who seek to save the world from sin and strife, and usher in a golden age of peace, by aggressively converting everyone to Islam (or evangelical Christianity, or whatever) .

Where's the self-aware recognition that whatever conditioning we devise will be the same thing ? A pre-condition for peaceful co-existence. That we're happy to fight for and punish the uncooperative for....

Unfortunately, you are accusing pattern_Chaser of what you are doing. He agreed with me that some kind of conditioning during upbringing is needed to prevent the normal selfish, us/them attitudes, that make coexistence difficult. I am a perfect example, growing up in the 1960s when racism was rampant, I befriended a black guy from Jamaica, which my mother positively encouraged. Maybe it isn't conditioning as you would understand it, but having lived abroad, my mother also encouraged mixing with indigenous people, which obviously had an influence. That is what we are talking about.

This can also be extended to philosophies, religions, and political views if we bring children up respecting the fact that most people have a particular outlook. Perennial Wisdom could unite us better than religious reductionism, and teach us respect for all cultures.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the end, it's all about them and us, no matter how it might seem to be framed. It's not about religion, or nationalism, or politics, it's about our 'natural' tendency toward selfishness, and having/getting more than 'they' do. Sad but true, I think. So I tend to agree with your implication, that we need to be raised with some sort of conditioning that will moderate our less desirable tendencies...?

Amazing.

On a thread in which we hold up the ideal of peaceful coexistence - between neighbours in a village, between tribes, between species sharing the planet.

You somehow manage to turn it round into a demand for social conditioning to make your neighbours into the sort of people you think they should be.

Maybe peaceful co-existence means accepting people as they are ?

You'd be quick enough to criticize the zealots of formal religions who seek to save the world from sin and strife, and usher in a golden age of peace, by aggressively converting everyone to Islam (or evangelical Christianity, or whatever) .

Where's the self-aware recognition that whatever conditioning we devise will be the same thing ? A pre-condition for peaceful co-existence. That we're happy to fight for and punish the uncooperative for....

Oh, I didn't expect that.

A brief reminder: this is what I was replying to:

I guess the bottom line is that humanity is aggressive and prone to violence unless it lives by teaching that nips that proclivity in the bud.

I put "conditioning" into italics to emphasise that it also carries negative meanings. But I did so thinking that it was generally understood and accepted that we educate our children as we raise them. And if what we teach them is positive — i.e. something we approve of, or agree with — then we call it "education", or something like it. And if it is something we disagree with, we call it "conditioning" or even "brainwashing".

I didn't mean to imply some sort of authoritarian-communist approach, where people are forcibly reprogrammed, or sent to gulags, but only to wonder if we (collectively) need to encourage the more positive ways in which people can behave toward one another, as we raise our children.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself properly clear.

[Sy Borg]

The profound connection between personal grief and global sorrow is a poignant reminder of our shared humanity. The exploration of the "science of coexistence" across various disciplines, from ecology to sociology, underlines the importance of understanding and nurturing the bonds that connect us all, making it a crucial endeavor for a harmonious world.

These are just some reminders. After all, we don't grieve unless we love, and loving is a natural and unifying and grief. For instance, the love of music brings people of all kinds together, or devotion to a deity, for that matter. Likewise, love and sorrow can separate us, for instance tit-for-tat wars where each is intent on avenging their losses.

Meanwhile, love of culture also has its limitations, with various -isms being applied by the prejudiced. Separation can happen as easily as connection.

For me, my sense of co-existence is being a part of this amazing planet, like everyone else. That's not entirely unlike spirituality, in that I have great regard for something much larger than me. The life it has produced has developed thus far (which is incredible) despite some catastrophic extinction events, and another is in train as we "speak". The planet clearly has few problems with "breaking eggs to make an omelette" so to speak, but the outcomes are remarkable.

[Good_Egg]

I did so thinking that it was generally understood and accepted that we educate our children as we raise them. And if what we teach them is positive — i.e. something we approve of, or agree with — then we call it "education", or something like it. And if it is something we disagree with, we call it "conditioning" or even "brainwashing".

Brief digression into philosophy of education, since it's come up.

People do indeed use words with positive emotional resonance for things they approve of, and vice versa.

Seems to me that part of the role of philosophy is to get beneath that, to understand in ways that goes deeper than applying emotionally-driven labels.

Those who work in the adult education sector distinguish three different aims of a learning-event or course of study, teaching Attitudes, or teaching Skills, or teaching Knowledge. (Acronym ASK - they're into that sort of memory-aid). With that as a starting-point I'd suggest that

"Education" is about teaching/learning knowledge and thinking-skills. Which develops the mind, and is a good thing.
"Training" is about acquiring or imparting skills in general. So some overlap with education. But is more morally ambiguous. It is good to have worthwhile skills. But when we become proficient in something we do it without thinking. So the potential Dark Side of training is training to do without thinking that which we ought to think about. "Conditioning" is this sort of training - causing people to act without thought, deliberately bypassing the conscious and training the subconscious mind.
"Indoctrination" is teaching doctrine as truth. It's going beyond neutrally imparting knowledge of what a (typically religious or political) doctrine is and allowing people to judge it on its merits. It's actively seeking to secure an attitude of acceptance of the truth of the doctrine by exerting some form of pressure.

I didn't mean to imply some sort of authoritarian-communist approach, where people are forcibly reprogrammed, or sent to gulags, but only to wonder if we (collectively) need to encourage the more positive ways in which people can behave toward one another, as we raise our children.

Arguably the big political divide in our culture is about the relative merits of competition and co-operation. Most of us believe in a mixed economy with a role for both. But the two sides would choose a different mix.

So yes, talking about conditioning people to be co-operative sounds like leftist political indoctrination.

I'd suggest that in a relationship of mutuality, where the teacher treats the learner as a person like themselves (who happens to be less far along the path of development of their faculties), rather than as a thing to be used as a means to the teacher's own political ends, we as teachers should teach the skills of co-operation and the knowledge of the benefits of co-operation and of a moral framework for decision-making. For the learner to deploy as they see fit. Rather than conditioning the responses we want to satisfy our own desires.

Recognising that this is an ideal, and the temptation to say "Do it my way because I say so because I have the power here" is ever-present.

In short, I see a real difference between education and conditioning. They're not just approving and disapproving labels for the same thing. They have positive and negative emotional overtones because there is a real positive and negative moral aspect to the difference.

And you said "conditioning". But if you tell me so, I'm happy to accept that you meant to say "education".

[Pattern-chaser]

Arguably the big political divide in our culture is about the relative merits of competition and co-operation. Most of us believe in a mixed economy with a role for both. But the two sides would choose a different mix.

But the whole point of what you just said, in my eyes, is that there aren't "two sides", but a spectrum, as there is in so many areas. Yes, we all disagree as to exactly where the line should be drawn*, but our differences and preferences are widely distributed, to the point where I don't think we can continue to meaningfully-identify distinct groups.



* — actually, there is no "line", but only a large and diffuse grey area lying between the extremes. Again, as is so often the case.

I'd suggest that in a relationship of mutuality, where the teacher treats the learner as a person like themselves (who happens to be less far along the path of development of their faculties), rather than as a thing to be used as a means to the teacher's own political ends, we as teachers should teach the skills of co-operation and the knowledge of the benefits of co-operation and of a moral framework for decision-making. For the learner to deploy as they see fit. Rather than conditioning the responses we want to satisfy our own desires.

If a teacher does not also learn from their students, the process is ... incomplete?

[Stoppelmann]

And you said "conditioning". But if you tell me so, I'm happy to accept that you meant to say "education".

Conditioning often implies a more behavioural or psychological approach to shaping a child's responses and attitudes and is probably what parents can influence better early on. It involves creating a structured environment that consistently reinforces desired behaviours and discourages undesirable ones. If a child isn’t socialised by the age of four, education can be difficult. Reinforcing certain behaviours through repetition, rewards, or consequences is often the only method parents have.

Conditioning specifically towards promoting coexistence might involve instilling specific behaviours that promote harmony, tolerance, and cooperation. This could be done through positive reinforcement for behaviours that contribute to coexistence and negative consequences for behaviours that hinder it.

Education, on the other hand, involves the imparting of knowledge, values, and critical thinking skills, which a child must be able to comprehend to learn. Without behavioural conditioning, the development of a child's understanding and awareness is impaired. Education includes formal learning in schools, as well as informal learning through experiences, discussions, and exposure to diverse perspectives. Education focuses on providing information, fostering intellectual growth, and encouraging independent thinking. It aims to equip children with the knowledge and skills needed to make informed decisions and navigate the complexities of the world.

In an ideal scenario, a combination of both—positive conditioning and comprehensive education—can contribute to a child's development as a responsible and respectful member of society.

[Good_Egg]

If a child isn’t socialised by the age of four, education can be difficult. Reinforcing certain behaviours through repetition, rewards, or consequences is often the only method parents have.

Fair enough - conditioning may be necessary to bring the developing human to the point where they can be educated.

Maybe nothing wrong with conditioning, done with that intent and motivation. ? Can we wish that every parent will succeed in that ?

The question I'd ask you is whether there are, in your view of the world, political issues on which people may legitimately differ.

Maybe recognition of such issues is what separates the "moderates" in any movement from the extremists & fundamentalists ?

If you think making political choices is part of (adult) human life, then trying to deny people genuine choice by conditioning them early on to favour, automatically without thought, whatever political option you favour, is a form of abuse.

It's one of the temptations of power.

On the more general point, I'm thinking that the thread started off on the wrong foot by treating co-existence as an unqualified good. The question should be which errors and evils we should aim to peacefully co-exist with, and which we should aim to eradicate.

And if you put all opposing political views into the category of errors we should try to eradicate, maybe that's a definition of extremism ?

[Stoppelmann]

If a child isn’t socialised by the age of four, education can be difficult. Reinforcing certain behaviours through repetition, rewards, or consequences is often the only method parents have.

Fair enough - conditioning may be necessary to bring the developing human to the point where they can be educated.

Maybe nothing wrong with conditioning, done with that intent and motivation. ? Can we wish that every parent will succeed in that ?

It seems to have worked with many people, but in Germany has been breaking down in specific areas. The rise in the number of children that are difficult to educate with the present system has various factors. First, there is a lack of maturity in the pupil’s parents, who themselves have had an inadequate upbringing or come from other cultural backgrounds. Second, there are those children whose socialisation hasn’t worked out and who tend to build either power structures or minority groups within schools. Third, there is a lack of immediate relevance of subjects for pupils, which leaves them asking why they must learn something.

The question I'd ask you is whether there are, in your view of the world, political issues on which people may legitimately differ.

Maybe recognition of such issues is what separates the "moderates" in any movement from the extremists & fundamentalists ?

For me, the prime question is whether people want to coexist. Only if the answer is yes can we discuss how we’ll achieve this and have differing opinions, and there we have the moderates. If the answer is no, then that in itself prevents all further discussion and limits possibilities to a binary choice. Whether it is political, religious, or cultural differences, it is down to the first question, whether we want to coexist. If we do not want others to coexist with us, then we have a militant and extremist position.

If you think making political choices is part of (adult) human life, then trying to deny people genuine choice by conditioning them early on to favour, automatically without thought, whatever political option you favour, is a form of abuse.

It's one of the temptations of power.

Assuming that early conditioning is abuse is one of the failures of left ideology, which assumes that without guidance, children will be better off. It is also the reason for societal breakdown into narcissism. Extreme individualism means I am the only one that matters, which will be our downfall because such a position will soon find opposition, and if it comes from people with the same attitude, it is a fight for survival. Once again, there is no coexistence, which can only flourish in an ordered society in which all who know what they are talking about have a voice. We care for children or those who have cognitive deficits, but we don’t let them rule the world, even if they stamp their feet.

On the more general point, I'm thinking that the thread started off on the wrong foot by treating co-existence as an unqualified good. The question should be which errors and evils we should aim to peacefully co-exist with, and which we should aim to eradicate.

And if you put all opposing political views into the category of errors we should try to eradicate, maybe that's a definition of extremism ?

I have often been in debates where the group agrees on a desired outcome, and someone then questions that, painting the devil on the wall and coming up with extreme terminology, such as “extremism,” which is defined by that one person referring to the group. It is the tail wagging the dog and the downfall of all enterprises. We’ve seen it in many situations recently, such as everybody agreeing to provide women with safe spaces, sports competitions, and room for their specific and often biological needs. And then some guy who “feels” he’s a woman calls out, what about me! The needs of minorities must be addressed individually without disturbing the agreed-upon outcome for women.

If we agree to coexist, we start discussing coexistence requirements. One of the requirements would be to gain a consensus on what could disturb such a coexistence, just as others would ask what promotes coexistence. The only thing that is predefined is the meaning of the word coexistence, but the resulting path to that goal grows out of a process. But if a minority wanted a clause that allowed a certain behaviour that the group had agreed would disturb coexistence, then that person is trying to harm the whole process to benefit a minority position that has already been defined as a disturbance. Coexistence must be the outcome, and the group must work for that.

What is required is the ongoing effort to find the best solution, not a dogmatically adhered-to ideology, and consequently, structures that assist this discussion. It may mean a lack of integration, which was often the goal of all political blocs in the past, but the goal is coexistence, not assimilation.

[Good_Egg]

It may mean a lack of integration, which was often the goal of all political blocs in the past, but the goal is coexistence, not assimilation.

That seems to me a very relevant insight.

Assimilation is becoming "one of us", a full member of some type of community. Co-existence is something like voluntary sharing of a community space with others who are not full members of that community.

Noting as an aside that assimilation covers not only the welcomed outsiders changing to become like existing members of the community. But may also involve the community redefining itself so as to include those formerly excluded.

So for example, if you live in a village which is a Christian community, and a house in the village is bought by Muslims, you might observe in your neighbours a range of reactions:
A) hostility - responding to a sense of being deliberately attacked or invaded
B) rejection - not wishing them ill but wishing them gone, as peacefully as possible
C) co-existence or tolerance - being content that they stay alongside - they do their thing and we do ours
D) desire for conversion - they're welcome, but have to convert, to change to fit in
E) acceptance without condition - redefining the idea of what the community is so as to include. Becoming a community which self-identifies as something broader and shallower (perhaps "godly" - making their religion and our religion part of some shared group characteristic).

Combine that with the idea that we humans tend to be part of several different groups, some overlapping, some subsets of others, with different levels of attachment and strength of community in each.

Then it's not clear that co-existence is self-evidently a good-in-itself that we should all strive for. Rather it's an appropriate response in some circumstances, that we should be able to deploy from our behavioural toolkit.

But if you want this thread to be about how co-existence can be made to happen, given that it is a Good Thing that we all want, then I'll shut up and withdraw and let you get on with it. In the spirit of C) above...

After quietly pointing out that your premise is false....

[Pattern-chaser]

...
And if you put all opposing political views into the category of errors we should try to eradicate, maybe that's a definition of extremism ?

Now that's an interesting thought...