The Philosophy Thread

[Zatamon]

But we are not assigning "objective reality" to a person - indeed - it is the reality in the absence of a detector of it.



this falls under the umbrella of subjective, not objective, reality.

Subjective reality is all we are ever going to have if we accept the definition I quoted before. As you correctly stated, we have our senses, we have our brains and the rest is only assumptions and interpretation. We will never be sure of what 'it' actually is.
As I wrote in my Physics book on Truth and Reality: "Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded."

 

[Louanne Learning]

"Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded."

I was always taught that scientists do not use the word "truth" when referring to a theory, but rather that a theory is either supported or rejected based on the evidence to support or refute it.

 

[Zatamon]

I was always taught that scientists do not use the word "truth" when referring to a theory, but rather that a theory is either supported or rejected based on the evidence to support or refute it.

I know, but I have a tendency of calling spades 'spade'. In my writings I always had religion to contend with. Religion insists on using Truth, so I do too.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Religion insists on using Truth, so I do too.

But "truth" is an end point - wraps it all up in a ribbon with a bow - and that's not how science works.

I also wonder if it is contradictory to on the one hand question an objective reality while insisting there is a "truth"?

 

[Zatamon]

But "truth" is an end point - wraps it all up in a ribbon with a bow - and that's not how science works.

I used the word 'truth' to counter the popular use by laymen and religion. I know how science works. In my own definition of 'Truth" (see above) I explained exactly how science works.

I also wonder if it is contradictory to on the one hand question an objective reality while insisting there is a "truth"?

I am not questioning the existence of "objective" reality" outside my mind, only stating that is outside, so open to assumptions and interpretation.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I know how science works.

Then you know that the provisional nature of science precludes absolute truth.

 

[Zatamon]

Then you know that the provisional nature of science precludes absolute truth.

Absolutely true (pun intended).

 

[Louanne Learning]

With science, the best we can say is that it is the "best explanation we have based on the available evidence."

With religion - well that is wholly subjective truth based on belief

 

[Zatamon]

With science, the best we can say is that it is the "best explanation we have based on the available evidence."

With religion - well that is wholly subjective truth based on belief

Belief without supporting evidence is nothing but self-delusion. Some children believe in the Santa Claus. Adults should know better.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Belief without supporting evidence is nothing but self-delusion. Some children believe in the Santa Claus. Adults should know better.

I think, too, there is a very strong community factor at work here, too, so it's more of a mass delusion. And if you don't go along with the delusion, you are out of the group.

 

[Zatamon]

I think, too, there is a very strong community factor at work here, too, so it's more of a mass delusion. And if you don't go along with the delusion, you are out of the group.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Seeing this cartoon this morning:



Reminded me of this one:

 

[Louanne Learning]

In elementary school - I was I think in about grade 2 (about 7 years old) - the teacher drew a large oval shape on the blackboard. "This is your soul," she said. (Yes, I went to a Catholic school.)

Then she used the chalk to make some blotches on the soul. "This is sin on your soul," she said.

Then she used the blackboard eraser to wipe the sins off. "This is what happens when you are forgiven for your sins," she said.

For some reason, that lesson really stuck with me.

But is a soul only used to record sin?

Often, I feel like I do have a soul, especially in my connection with my husband who died. I still feel very connected to him. Clearly, physically, I am not. But what part of me feels so strongly that he is still with me?

WTF is a soul, anyway?

 

[Zatamon]

In elementary school - I was I think in about grade 2 (about 7 years old) - the teacher drew a large oval shape on the blackboard. "This is your soul," she said. (Yes, I went to a Catholic school.)

Then she used the chalk to make some blotches on the soul. "This is sin on your soul," she said.

Then she used the blackboard eraser to wipe the sins off. "This is what happens when you are forgiven for your sins," she said.

For some reason, that lesson really stuck with me.

But is a soul only used to record sin?

Often, I feel like I do have a soul, especially in my connection with my husband who died. I still feel very connected to him. Clearly, physically, I am not. But what part of me feels so strongly that he is still with me?

WTF is a soul, anyway?

My wife of 45 years died 6 weeks ago. I still have long conversations with her in my mind every day. I wrote "in my mind", not "in my soul" - both are just words, referring to our consciousness that science still cannot define. I have a book written by D.F.Swaab, a neuroscientist: "We are our Brains" - very well written, very convincing. The word 'soul' implies life after death, but there is no evidence of such a thing. My take on death was summarized in a short essay I wrote a while ago.

"What intrigues me is that my death will be a unique event in the universe. It has never happened before, and it will only happen once. The fact that billions of human beings have died during history and a lot more will, every day, is not really relevant. My death will still be a unique event. In a way, when I die, the world will die too. My world. The only one that exists for me. The one that started when I was born and will end with me. All the stars will wink out, all the people, cities, buildings, mountains, oceans will be gone too. Cats, dogs, butterflies, squirrels, deer, raccoons, roses, sunflowers all disappear. I was totally convinced about oblivion after surgery. I remember the doctor talking to me and then, in an eye-blink, talking to me again – except that was 3 hours later. I had total oblivion for 3 hours. If that can happen for 3 hours, it can happen for eternity. "

 

[Louanne Learning]

My wife of 45 years died 6 weeks ago.

My condolences. For me, it was like losing the most important part of me. We go on, and we can still find joy, but with a little bit of emptiness that we learn to live with. At least, that has been my experience. I hope you're finding comfort to help with your loss.

I wrote "in my mind", not "in my soul" - both are just words, referring to our consciousness that science still cannot define.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have always been one to say that all of what we experience - our reality, our consciousness - originates by the functioning of our brains. It's a bit of comfort to believe there is something else. But, on the other hand, the connection with my husband seems to transcend mere physical means. I'm open to possibilities.

"What intrigues me is that my death will be a unique event in the universe. It has never happened before, and it will only happen once. The fact that billions of human beings have died during history and a lot more will, every day, is not really relevant. My death will still be a unique event. In a way, when I die, the world will die too. My world. The only one that exists for me. The one that started when I was born and will end with me. All the stars will wink out, all the people, cities, buildings, mountains, oceans will be gone too. Cats, dogs, butterflies, squirrels, deer, raccoons, roses, sunflowers all disappear. I was totally convinced about oblivion after surgery. I remember the doctor talking to me and then, in an eye-blink, talking to me again – except that was 3 hours later. I had total oblivion for 3 hours. If that can happen for 3 hours, it can happen for eternity. "

That's beautifully written, thanks for sharing.

My rational brain tells me the same thing, that once you die, that's it, and it's all over. Nothing supernatural about us.

My human brain tells me I'll be with my husband again.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Is the difference between evil and bad always intent? And then, should we only make moral judgements based on intent?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

"Evil" is a moral judgment in itself, since the word "evil" stems from religion. "Bad" can mean anything, even simply an expired fruit.

Calling someone "evil" rather than "bad" is only possible after having seen proof of evil acts (e.g. a video of a person killing another). Even then, intent is important:

- Person A walking up to Person B and shooting them without provocation is evil.
- Person A shooting Person B in self-defense (e.g. if Person B invades Person A's home) is less so.
- Person A shooting Person B when Person B has invaded Person A's country (i.e. in the heat of battle) is ... debatable.

Strictly speaking, killing is murder, and ought to be punished. But as Paine's "The American Crisis" reminds us: "... if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it ... am I to suffer it?"

 

[Louanne Learning]

- Person A walking up to Person B and shooting them without provocation is evil.
- Person A shooting Person B in self-defense (e.g. if Person B invades Person A's home) is less so.
- Person A shooting Person B when Person B has invaded Person A's country (i.e. in the heat of battle) is ... debatable.

I think it's noteworthy that here you describe "the act" as evil, not the person.

To say that a person is evil, is to use "evil" as a noun - as some bad force that exists in that person.

"Don't let evil in." - As if it is something that exists separately from humanity.

To call a behavior evil, is to use "evil" as an adjective. I think behavior can be evil, but it's not because of something that possesses the person, but by however their mind developed, usually in a dysfunctional way.

"Evil" is not an entity unto itself.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I have just learned of a book representing selections from the speeches and writings of Mahatma Gandhi entitled All Men Are Brothers. (Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words)

You can read the book for free at the link.

In the introduction, Gandhi’s mission is summarized this way:

Gandhi's life was rooted in India's religious tradition with its emphasis on a passionate search for truth, a profound reverence for life, the ideal of nonattachment and the readiness to sacrifice all for the knowledge of God. He lived his whole life in the perpetual quest of truth: 'I live and move and have my being in the pursuit of this goal.'

So – is it true that all men are brothers? (I realize the exclusionary tone of this question. Women count, too.)

So, what is stopping them from acting like brothers? What impedes them? Why does is seem like all are enemies?

Should we just ignore politics and conclude it’s just the closest relationships that count?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

***WARNING: Long-winded ramble. Sorry***

The exclusionary tone of the statement "all men are brothers" is, alas, common to other famous statements, such as:

- Do not trust all men, but trust men of worth; the former course is silly, the latter a mark of prudence. (Democritus)
- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. (Abraham Lincoln)
- All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. (Blaise Pascal)
- And, of course, "All men are created equal".

Perhaps the closest we come to Gandhi's sentiment in Western thought comes from Thomas Pain: "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

The problem inherent in the words "man", "men" and "mankind" was not as apparent before the 20th century as it was after. Then, "mankind" included everyone, without exception or distinction. Remember John Donne: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." If I were to say, for instance: "World peace, if could be achieved, would be a boon to all mankind", no-one could argue that I was being exclusionary.

Putting that to one side: Gandhi did not always believe in the statement that "all men are brothers". In his earlier years, working as a young lawyer in South Africa, Gandhi sought to "prove the superiority" of the 'Indian race' over the African one. He only came to change his mind on this gradually. Gandhi's views on sexuality and gender, and on the caste system, are also deeply controversial and troubling.

However, there is no denying that his polity of nonviolence, peaceful noncooperation, and Sarvodaya (a grassroots movement that applies Buddhist principles to social and economic development) were very powerful.

To answer your questions:

Is it true that all men are brothers? (I realize the exclusionary tone of this question. Women count, too.)

This depends on your view of the world. "All men are brothers" is the essence of Sarvodaya, which is similar to Humanism, a philosophy that I also try to follow. My essential creed is this:

- A trust in the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works, and rejection of the supernatural;
- Making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals;
- The belief that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion and without imposing their beliefs on others.

Personally, I believe in the flight of birds and the sublime geometries and the beauty in everything. I am, in short, a spiritual agnostic: I believe in interconnectedness and universal consciousness without ascribing them to, or prescribing them from, an unknowable deity.

What is stopping them from acting like brothers? What impedes them? Why does is seem like all are enemies?

To come back to Sarvodaya, and the earlier truths of Buddhism:

- Dissatisfaction is an inherent aspect of our material existence — that is the First Noble Truth.
- Desire is the source of dissatisfaction, and is inextricable from it — that is the Second Noble Truth.
- Renunciation of desire will bring an end to one's dissatisfaction — that is the Third Noble Truth.
- The Noble Eightfold Path is the way by which one can renounce desire, end dissatisfaction, and attain enlightenment — that is the Fourth Noble Truth.

To put it more simply:

- Men are dissatisfied with their lives. "I'm bored" or "I'm miserable".
- Men compare their lives with those of others, and desire them. "I wish I had what my neighbour has" becomes "I'm miserable because I don't have what my neighbour has."
- Men do not renounce their desires, even when they should. Rather than "Even though I don't have as much as he does, I am happy" becomes "I should have what my neighbour has. I will go and take it."

... and this is where the system breaks down. Our desire for more, and our disinclination to renounce our desire, leads to conflict and produces enemies.

Should we just ignore politics and conclude it’s just the closest relationships that count?

Ignoring politics will not help; ultimately, politics affects us all (except, of course, people who never read or watch the news).

But I am not advocating political resistance, peaceful or violent. We can start in the workplace and at home by asking "How are you?", listening, and empathizing. This simple act of connection is a powerful tool.

If your work colleague, or a family member, seems distracted or in pain (physical or emotional) -- ask: "Are you OK?", offer them to take a break, take them to the kitchen, share a cup of tea, and talk. This simple act of kindness will bring rewards.

Another simple tip is Dale Carnegie's first principle: "Don't criticize, condemn, or complain." I always found this useful in avoiding negativity and judgment in interactions with others. Complaining is contagious, condemnation is hurtful, and criticism creates resentment and makes people defensive.

Instead:
- Acknowledge and appreciate the good qualities and efforts of others.
- Try to see things from the other person's point of view.
- If there's a problem, work together to find a constructive solution rather than dwelling on blame.

Phew! I'm sorry that was so long. I hope you found some useful things here, and thank you for putting up with my long-winded ramble.