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

[Stoppelmann]

So, how do you overcome the hurt that has been suffered?

Unfortunately there is no overcome. We try to help, to compensate, to forgive, but all of these things cannot cancel the suffering that has happened. Think of the Holocaust, for example: we can try to do better in the future, but nothing can cancel this tragedy that happened.

I’m sorry, but only if you overcome a problem or a feeling can you successfully deal with and control it. Otherwise, it threatens to overwhelm us. I’m not talking about cancelling, and in your own words, how can we compensate for the loss people have gone through? It is a question of which direction we’re looking in, and only if we can turn to face the future and leave the past behind can we coexist.

How do you base anything if there is no solid base? How do you build without a foundation that is built on something solid?

If we just do what we like, it will soon be said by someone else doing what they like that we are infringing on their freedom.

How do we establish that someone has been done wrong by? Is there no basic agreement on what we can and can’t do, if our goal is to coexist?

If we haven't a solid base, we cannot pretend that it exists just because we need it. This would be like thinking that there must be food, because I am hungry. Or, for example: I need a pair of shoes, therefore this is evidence that there must be a pair of shoes in my room.
So, first we need to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there is not such a solid base that we would like. As a consequence, any solid thing that we try to build is subjective and, as such, we cannot impose it to other people.

From your words, I have to assume that you have never done anything constructive in your life, or if you have, you are blocking the most obvious out. I’m not talking about pretending; I am talking about interactively seeking a basis on which we can agree and which will allow us to build on. If you are unable to do this, you reject the most basic of facts that we are interdependent and coexistence is a cooperative effort.

Your words are quite the opposite of an argument, and they represent an unwillingness to cooperate, and if they represent the views of a generation, humanity is doomed.

This means that, when we want to prevent somebody from doing evil, we cannot base our action on anything objective. What we can do is trying to find agreements and base our actions on these agreements. Anything else can be easily criticized and demolished. We cannot pretend that things haven't been demolished just because we need them or because this makes us uncomfortable. If an earthquake has demolished everything, I don't think it is a good idea to pretend that no demolition has happened just because we don't like it or because the demolition causes problems to us.

Once more, you contradict your own words, so I’m not sure whether you are thinking before writing them. You seem to just want to contradict, but you have nothing to contribute.

[Lagayascienza]

So, how do you overcome the hurt that has been suffered?

Unfortunately there is no overcome. We try to help, to compensate, to forgive, but all of these things cannot cancel the suffering that has happened. Think of the Holocaust, for example: we can try to do better in the future, but nothing can cancel this tragedy that happened.

How do you base anything if there is no solid base? How do you build without a foundation that is built on something solid?
If we just do what we like, it will soon be said by someone else doing what they like that we are infringing on their freedom.
How do we establish that someone has been done wrong by? Is there no basic agreement on what we can and can’t do, if our goal is to coexist?

If we haven't a solid base, we cannot pretend that it exists just because we need it. This would be like thinking that there must be food, because I am hungry. Or, for example: I need a pair of shoes, therefore this is evidence that there must be a pair of shoes in my room.
So, first we need to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there is not such a solid base that we would like. As a consequence, any solid thing that we try to build is subjective and, as such, we cannot impose it to other people.
This means that, when we want to prevent somebody from doing evil, we cannot base our action on anything objective. What we can do is trying to find agreements and base our actions on these agreements. Anything else can be easily criticized and demolished. We cannot pretend that things haven't been demolished just because we need them or because this makes us uncomfortable. If an earthquake has demolished everything, I don't think it is a good idea to pretend that no demolition has happened just because we don't like it or because the demolition causes problems to us.

I think that’s right, Angelo Cannata. The problem with religions is that they try to objectify values which is impossible. And I think this has caused humanity endless trouble. Our values are subjective and the best we can do is try to encourage others to see things in a different light. But if someone believes their values are objective, carved in stone by some god, then they may not be open to reason. This results in religious intolerance and hostility.

We inherited a set of subjective core values that were part of our human psyche long before organized religion was invented. These values fostered cooperation on the savanna which got us through the Pleistocene. Being subjective, these values allowed for a little flexibility in extremis or in novel situations. The modern tendency to objectify values means that we forego this flexibility and so coexistence and tolerance are more difficult.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it not the case that any form of spirituality can often *complement* "the strength of philosophical" investigation? Balanced scepticism is surely beneficial too, but "criticism" is as often counter-productive as it is helpful...?

I agree. I conceive criticism not as just destroying, demolishing. For example, I think that a powerful criticism is when we claim consideration of emotion, the human body, everyday life. In context, I conceive criticism as just simply considering different perspective: when I consider a perspective different from my one, that other perspective becomes automatically a kind of criticism towards my perspective. Perhaps "critique" is more suitable than "criticism" in this case.

But isn't the criticism you describe attacking one perspective, seeking to influence us to reject it, while (maybe!) offering a preferred perspective instead? The point is destructive — criticism seeks to destroy, always an easy thing to do. It's building or making something that is hard...

[Pattern-chaser]

what would a "well-built spirituality" look like. Built by whom? Us? Based on what?"

A well built spirituality is based on what postmodernism has been unable bring forward. After realising that postmodernism has left just demolition, the next step is to think and live in a non-metaphysical way. For example, you can worship God, but not because that God exists metaphysically. You worship that God while acknowledging that you do it just because you like it, you find it good. I understand that this can be felt as something strange, but actually we can realize that any object we see is part of our experience because our mind has organized our experience this way.
This is the problem of metaphysics: when you say that we should follow the principle of justice, you are automatically trying to impose your idea of justice: there is not an objective idea of justice independent from the subjectivity of those who talk about it.

Your conceptions of post-modernism and metaphysics seem strange to me. God does not "exist" metaphysically, or any other way. God's existence is a matter of faith, or choice, as you observe, and nothing to do (in that sense) with metaphysics, or even philosophy. While post-modernism looks like 'realism' to me, refusing to accept as certain ... those things that are not certain.

[Pattern-chaser]

This means that, when we want to prevent somebody from doing evil, we cannot base our action on anything objective.

I think it also means that our own idea of "evil", that we used to judge and condemn the person we describe as such, is not objective, and therefore is as partial as anything else. I.e. without objectivity, we have no reliable way even to detect "evil", do we? [N.B. I am not campaigning on behalf of objectivity, a concept for which I have little use.]

[Stoppelmann]

I think that’s right, Angelo Cannata. The problem with religions is that they try to objectify values which is impossible. And I think this has caused humanity endless trouble. Our values are subjective and the best we can do is try to encourage others to see things in a different light. But if someone believes their values are objective, carved in stone by some god, then they may not be open to reason. This results in religious intolerance and hostility.

We inherited a set of subjective core values that were part of our human psyche long before organized religion was invented. These values fostered cooperation on the savanna which got us through the Pleistocene. Being subjective, these values allowed for a little flexibility in extremis or in novel situations. The modern tendency to objectify values means that we forego this flexibility and so coexistence and tolerance are more difficult.

As someone who believes that all religious traditions are "fingers pointing to the moon" and scriptures should be treated in the same way as most literature, which is an exercise in imagination, I obviously believe that a religion of coexistence would be based on something similar. But the point about language is that it reveals how it is based on physical existence, and if we say we want to build something immaterial, it still relies on a solid foundation, like when we build in the material world. It is just that an immaterial foundation is something agreed upon, and history shows how, when that agreement breaks down, the ideas break down, just as a material structure would fall apart when the foundation fails.

With all the talk about deconstruction, it must be clear that we are losing our footing, and the way the last decade has developed, the lack of cohesion will result in the downfall of our society. The only way that any kind of continuity is possible, which would give us a chance of avoiding great suffering and destruction, is when a replacement foundation is found. At the present, all I see is people believing they need nothing of the kind, as though a society can exist without solid grounding, and enterprises are embarked on without a strategy for failure. A philosophy of Coexistence would try to overcome the dangers that were very present in the past, when idealistic structures were destroyed by stronger cultures, even if they were more primitive.

So, you can, of course, try to find a way through the coming challenges without addressing coexistence, but I think it would be doomed to failure. We already see how imperial powers are reorganising the world stage, and one of their main objectives is the reduction of Western cohesion, which will make it easier to dispose of it.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

What we should be thinking and believing is that life is individuals' quests to truth and beauty, and the holy grail is always receding from us but normally does not permanently disappear.

Belindi, I do completely agree with you, my friend!

We are all distinctly unique individuals, ultimately taking care of our own self. As it is pretty objectively self-evident, no religion or spirituality has ever fitted all humans. We are adults, and therefore, most of all, we are responsible for ourselves, and we have a duty to critically think for ourselves.

The history of Western science is the best positive example we all should learn from. Western science is objective, and therefore,in principle, it is acceptable to all properly educated individuals. Had Western science not been objective, there would not have been such thing as objective technology for all to benefit from.

I'd love to find a religion, or at least a spirituality, that I didn't need faith to believe in. Then I could follow it's tenets (if they are any different to those I currently subscribe to) with a clear intellectual conscience.

Lagayscienza, in light of the above insight of Belindi, only Western science can fulfill your above very intelligent criteria. As far as I was able to understood you better recently, you have already been naturally following your individual atheistic spiritual path to truth for a long time!

And, I have no doubt in my scientific mind, that Western science, given enough time for its natural understandably slow progress, will finally answer all the important questions that we, intelligent humans, have been asking ourselves ever since the dawn of human civilization, when early on, we invented the idea of THE GOD OF THE GAPS in order to simply make ourselves feel better about living in the vast unpredictable Universe.

Sincerely yours,
Jon (an experimental quantum physicist, and no-longer a Buddhist)

P. s.

Enough of this old religion BS, of the laughable Ken Wilbur BS, of the incoherent Kastrup BS, of the naive and childish Phenomenology BS, and of the useless Transcendental Mysticism BS. Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars, because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

[Angelo Cannata]

If we compare this

I am talking about interactively seeking a basis on which we can agree...

with this

What we can do is trying to find agreements and base our actions on these agreements

I must conclude that you have answered my message without reading it.
This conclusion is confirmed by this:

you contradict your own words

where you don’t give any explanation of the contradiction you are talking about.

[Angelo Cannata]

It's building or making something that is hard...

This is what I have done in the section that you have quoted in your next post.

[Angelo Cannata]

God's existence... nothing to do...with...philosophy.

So, how would you define all the philosophical texts that have been written in this world about God?

...post-modernism looks like 'realism' to me, refusing to accept as certain ... those things that are not certain.

???

[Angelo Cannata]

This means that, when we want to prevent somebody from doing evil, we cannot base our action on anything objective.

I think it also means that our own idea of "evil", that we used to judge and condemn the person we describe as such, is not objective, and therefore is as partial as anything else. I.e. without objectivity, we have no reliable way even to detect "evil", do we? [N.B. I am not campaigning on behalf of objectivity, a concept for which I have little use.]

Are you sure you have read the text you quoted?

[Angelo Cannata]

...is when a replacement foundation is found...

What about exposing to criticism the very idea of foundation?

[A Material Girl]

Two days after my mother’s funeral, I read of the continuing violence in the world and felt the deep sorrow that I felt at my mother’s passing. The sadness is related because, for me, humanity is family, and we are all related. Whether we are close or near, we are siblings, and the pain of one or many should affect us all. The most important science in the world should be that of coexistence.

But there isn't a specific scientific discipline called the "science of coexistence," the concept is explored through various fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science, and ecology, as well as through understanding how individuals and communities coexist involves examining social interactions, cultural dynamics, psychological factors, and environmental influences.

In ecology, coexistence theory refers to studying the mechanisms that allow different species to coexist in the same environment. Concepts such as symbiosis, competition and mutualism provide insights into the mechanisms that enable different organisms to live together in balance. This involves studying factors such as resource partitioning, niche differentiation and competition to understand how different species can share the same ecological space without one species excluding others. Anthropologists study the diversity of human cultures and societies. They explore how different communities have historically coexisted, the development of cultural norms that support cooperation, and the impact of cultural differences on interactions.

A similar theory of coexistence in sociology or political science might refer to ideas or frameworks that explore how individuals or diverse groups can live together peacefully. This might involve the study of concepts such as multiculturalism, tolerance and the role of institutions in promoting social harmony. Sociologists study the patterns of social relations and interactions within societies. This includes examining how different groups live together, the structures that facilitate or hinder this, and the impact of social norms on cooperation.

Psychologists study the behaviour of individuals and groups, including the factors that promote or inhibit cooperation. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind empathy, trust, and conflict resolution is crucial to studying coexistence. Political scientists analyse the structures and processes of governance that facilitate coexistence at local, national and international levels. This includes the study of diplomacy, conflict resolution and the role of institutions in promoting peaceful coexistence. A similar coexistence theory might relate to strategies or principles that promote peaceful interaction between nations in international relations. This could include diplomatic approaches, conflict resolution techniques and global cooperation models.

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

It seems to me that their widely divergent dogmas are all, naturally, in competition with one another.

I feel that it would be very nice for all of us here to agree on an objective scientific basis of our friendly and happy coexistence. All it would take is simple common sense, I think.

[Stoppelmann]

...is when a replacement foundation is found...

What about exposing to criticism the very idea of foundation?

Several aspects are foundational to human life, encompassing biological and psychological dimensions.

Our biological essentials are obvious: Oxygen, water, and nutrition (a balanced intake of nutrients, including carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals). A sustainable and healthy environment is a fundamental aspect which includes access to clean air, water, and a stable ecosystem. Physical well-being is a critical component and access to healthcare services is necessary for maintaining good health and addressing medical needs.

But we also require shelter, which covers many things, such as a safe environment, including freedom from fear, violence, and emotional harm. Shelter also extends to a sense of community and social support. Humans thrive with a network of relationships, support systems, and a sense of belonging and basic human rights, freedom, and equality. Living in a politically stable and just society is foundational for human life. Political systems that ensure fairness, justice, and the rule of law contribute to well-being.

A stable economic environment, which gives people access to resources, is crucial for meeting basic needs and achieving a sense of security. We can also include the intellectual and educational aspects of life. Access to knowledge, learning opportunities, the ability to grow intellectually, the preservation and expression of cultural identity, and the ability to explore and fulfil one's spiritual or existential needs. The opportunity for personal growth, self-discovery, and pursuing one's passions and interests, including emotional expression in art and various forms of creativity.

Do you think that this would be possible without the foundational needs being fulfilled? We know there has been an imbalance in power structures in the past, and very slowly, we are seeing how the disadvantaged are claiming their own, which may disadvantage former colonial powers with natural resources in other people’s hands. The aspect of coexistence requires us to cooperate and share. Otherwise, we will descend into conflict worse than the competitive state we are already in.

One aspect of coexistence is mutual respect for each other, and for most of civilisation, this has depended upon how we see each other. A common feature of moral judgement has been the criticism of self-indulgence, egoistic behaviour, and other forms of disrespect. The advice to overcome this can be summed up in the proverbial “walking in another’s moccasins” or empathy for the situation of others. Transformative was the time when trade was developing, and there was a necessity to discover the needs of others to trade. This also included achieving moral acceptance between culturally diverse groups. These things are foundational, so what is there to criticise?

[Angelo Cannata]

These things are foundational, so what is there to criticise?

Everything you mentioned is foundational from specific points of view. You have made your list by using your brain, your culture, your mentality, your perspective. As a consequence, everything you listed is foundational in your perspective. Nothing is foundational independently from perspectives, because it is impossible to talk about anything without being automatically conditioned by our perspectives. If you think that what you said is independent from perspectives, you are automatically trying to impose your perspective to other people. This is what turns people into dictators despite their good intentions. I know that your intentions are good, it's not your fault, it is a result produced by this way of reasoning, against your good and sincere intentions.
Once we realize that anything we conceive as foundational is actually dependent on our perspective, it is easy to see that the very concept of "foundational" is itself a limited concept, depending on perspectives.