Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:40 pm

Do you mean there is no objective evil? I ask because there is certainly subjective evil.

That is your thumb on the pulse of it. Biology/organism/individual is the measure and the meaning of all things.

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:57 pm

That is your thumb on the pulse of it. Biology/organism/individual is the measure and the meaning of all things.

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

Well, that's one possibility. Another is that our subjective consciousness is determined (or at least influenced) by the world. Among the many influences is culture -- language, social mores, etc., etc. Does our subjective consciousness determine the world? Or does the world determine our subjective consciousness? Does it matter? Or is the distinction trivial?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 9:28 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

Well, that's one possibility. Another is that our subjective consciousness is determined (or at least influenced) by the world. Among the many influences is culture -- language, social mores, etc., etc. Does our subjective consciousness determine the world? Or does the world determine our subjective consciousness? Does it matter? Or is the distinction trivial?

Alexiev,

Interesting slant, but of course, consciousness arose from the inanimate world through patterns of conditions in process/chemistry. Let's leave its origins alone for the time being. Yes, consciousness depends on the world as an object for its fuel; take away the object and consciousness ceases to be, take away the conscious subject and the object ceases to be. Subjective consciousness determines the meaning of the world; the world in and of itself is meaningless. Subject and object can never truly be divided; people trying to understand the relationship sometimes speak as if it is possible to consider them separate, but no, together they are reality as we know it subjectively. No, the distinction is not trivial; it is necessary to understand ourselves and the world. A statement I remember from reading Schopenhauer, "Subject and Object, stand or fall together."

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 10:15 pm

Interesting slant, but of course, consciousness arose from the inanimate world through patterns of conditions in process/chemistry. Let's leave its origins alone for the time being. Yes, consciousness depends on the world as an object for its fuel; take away the object and consciousness ceases to be, take away the conscious subject and the object ceases to be. Subjective consciousness determines the meaning of the world; the world in and of itself is meaningless. Subject and object can never truly be divided; people trying to understand the relationship sometimes speak as if it is possible to consider them separate, but no, together they are reality as we know it subjectively. No, the distinction is not trivial; it is necessary to understand ourselves and the world. A statement I remember from reading Schopenhauer, "Subject and Object, stand or fall together."

I admit I haven't read most of your posts on this subject. However, "nature vs. nurture" is an insoluble problem. IN fact, our (subjective) relationship with the world is mediated by our nurture -- especially by language. We remember what we've seen when we put it into words. We often remember the story, not the sensual event. We may even see the world differently depending on the structure and grammar of our language. Of course reality continues to be "subjective' (in your terms). But the subjective nature of it is not strictly "biological". Our consciousness involves an intricate coexistence of biology and cultural influences (as well as other environmental influences). MY question: how is your suggestion that subject and object can never be truly divided important? What difference does it make to anyone?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 2:36 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 10:15 pm

Interesting slant, but of course, consciousness arose from the inanimate world through patterns of conditions in process/chemistry. Let's leave its origins alone for the time being. Yes, consciousness depends on the world as an object for its fuel; take away the object and consciousness ceases to be, take away the conscious subject and the object ceases to be. Subjective consciousness determines the meaning of the world; the world in and of itself is meaningless. Subject and object can never truly be divided; people trying to understand the relationship sometimes speak as if it is possible to consider them separate, but no, together they are reality as we know it subjectively. No, the distinction is not trivial; it is necessary to understand ourselves and the world. A statement I remember from reading Schopenhauer, "Subject and Object, stand or fall together."

I admit I haven't read most of your posts on this subject. However, "nature vs. nurture" is an insoluble problem. IN fact, our (subjective) relationship with the world is mediated by our nurture -- especially by language. We remember what we've seen when we put it into words. We often remember the story, not the sensual event. We may even see the world differently depending on the structure and grammar of our language. Of course reality continues to be "subjective' (in your terms). But the subjective nature of it is not strictly "biological". Our consciousness involves an intricate coexistence of biology and cultural influences (as well as other environmental influences). MY question: how is your suggestion that subject and object can never be truly divided important? What difference does it make to anyone?

The importance of the fact that subject and object can never be divided is in understanding your relationship with the world. Nature and Nurture, you are quite right in your above statements, and I am going to address that in a new topic I am going to post in the next day or two. In the meantime, the world is rudely intruding on me.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:57 pm

That is your thumb on the pulse of it. Biology/organism/individual is the measure and the meaning of all things.

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

I agree. We never can be 100% objective despite our brave efforts. The greatest advantage we gain from our subjectivity is our ability to use our creating imaginations, something that large language AI models lack.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 2:14 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

I agree. We never can be 100% objective despite our brave efforts. The greatest advantage we gain from our subjectivity is our ability to use our creative imaginations, something that large language AI models lack.

We do not experience what is objective as it is in and of itself; we experience how what is out there affects the state of our biology/body. Those effects are our experiences. From your statement above, I think you are inferring objectivity in the sense of keeping an emotional distance to some degree from the drama of outer circumstances. Imagination is what creates the futures of societies and their technologies. We perceive the world subjectively as a simulated reality and derive from that experience subjective meanings upon which we attribute those meanings to our vision of reality, an apparent reality. Cause and reaction create a circle, and this circle is the means by which we belong to the whole. The whole we are seeing is not the real whole, but our version of it; this is what it is to be a reactionary subjective creature and part of something larger than ourselves.

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

The Bible tells us that God himself passed judgement on his creation. According to Genesis 1:31, he “saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Marking his own homework, he concluded that it was perfect.

Then the part where all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...either are or are not able to concur regarding the existence of [and then the description of] this Christian God. Even in regard to the Bible itself there are Christians all up and down the political spectrum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

The excuse that this would have remained the case had it not been for the Original Sin of the first humans does not work: given that man is God’s creation, it is not clear that the responsibility for things going awry can be distanced from God. It also seems unfair to extend the punishment visited on humanity to non-human sentient creatures.

Of course, for any number of men and women eager to sustain their own moral commandments all the way to the grave, comes the part where that is rewarded with immortality and salvation. And what part of God's "mysterious ways" does that not justify Original Sin? And anything that happens to all the other animals is clearly justified by something written somewhere in the Bible.

It seems therefore that those who want to reconcile the fact of suffering – which seems fated to accompany the emergence of conscious physical beings – with the notion of an omnibenevolent God, may not be entirely reassured by the idea of a God of limited power.

Okay, but given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, millions still manage to make that leap of faith. Or, figuring they've got nothing to lose, make that wager. I'd do it myself if I could figure out how.

"It seems therefore that those who want to reconcile the fact of suffering – which seems fated to accompany the emergence of conscious physical beings – with the notion of an omnibenevolent God, may not be entirely reassured by the idea of a God of limited power."

If you look at the religious right, they already give God limited power by thinking he makes souls of various values and not all perfect.

They think LGBTQ+ souls are God created and not nature or nurture. They deny nature her due.

Be you LGBTQ+ or not, it is the luck of the draw that decides what you are. Except where God intentionally creates you to be LGBTQ+ and hated by your own right wing parents and their imperfect God.

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

Why...should we believe that a God who is prevented by the laws of nature he has himself created from making that nature free of appalling suffering, or who sees the pain of the evolutionary process as an acceptable price to pay for the emergence of beings with free will, will be able to secure his favourites a decent after-life?

You bet your life? And, really, for any number of mere mortals around the globe that will always be what it comes down to. With God [most of them] you have access to moral commandments on this side of the grave. Nothing fractured and fragmented about the Ten Commandments, right? And then the point of all that...acquiring immortality and salvation on the other side for all of eternity.

And you don't have to actually demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God. Instead, you take a "leap of faith". Like Kierkegaard. Though some leaps [or wagers] appear to be considerably more sophisticated than others.

While it may seem plausible that, as Goff says, “a loving God would want to preserve our conscious lives after death and would want to move us towards a better world”, it is equally plausible, on the basis of his performance in this world, that this will beyond his limited powers.

Of course, this prompted those like Harold Kushner to argue precisely this in regard to the God of Abraham. A Divine rendition of "it's beyond My control". On the other hand, when you go down that path, you can't help but wonder what else might be beyond His control. Immortality? Salvation?

And then, historically, the part those who worshipped one God came to view those who worshipped a different God [or no God at all] as infidels. Deserving of one or another inquisition, crusade, jihad, final solution.

The supreme irony here being that these horrific conflicts can even revolve around the same God. And you know what I mean.

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

Goff’s claim that life after death and a cosmic purpose are ‘a reasonable hope’ does not therefore stand up.

Tell that to the approximately 2.6 billion Christians around the globe. Those folks either convinced by others or by themselves that a God, the God, their God is the one and the only truly divine path to moral commandments, immortality and salvation. Trying to grapple with God and religion philosophically is just not going to appeal to many of them. They have faith in God. That comforts and consoles them. Really comforts and consoles them.    

God’s performance in this world does not give me confidence as to the quality of the next one.

Again, though, with so much at stake, it's not the quality of the next one that counts so much as the fact that it doesn't all end in oblivion. 

After all, we cannot imagine that, in creating the world as we know it, he wasn’t trying hard enough or was deciding not to exercise the powers that would be necessary to create an afterlife – an afterlife, incidentally, not available to someone like me, whose gaps in understanding do not seem to be shaped to accommodate a god.

And around and around and around we all go speculating about life and death. In particular, the part where we grapple with connecting the dots between them. For some, of course, the gaps here will be considerably longer than for others.  

A limited God who has the power to create a universe, but who is unable to protect its most innocent inhabitants from suffering that’s ended only by death, cannot be relied upon to deliver on the promise of an eternal life of unalloyed joy.

Unless, of course, in ways that no "mere mortal" can possibly grasp, He does work in mysterious ways.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 9:28 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 5:46 pm

"Measures" and "meanings" are cultural constructs. We can't "measure" the distance between two points except by referring to "miles" or "inches" or "kilometers". "Meaning" suggests using language to describe something.

IN fact our biological selves were shaped by supernatural (or at least super-biological forces. Once language began developing, the frontal lobes of human brains became enlarged, presumably because of the advantages the successful manipulation of language provided.

NO "meanings" or "measures" exist without culture.

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

Well, that's one possibility. Another is that our subjective consciousness is determined (or at least influenced) by the world. Among the many influences is culture -- language, social mores, etc., etc. Does our subjective consciousness determine the world? Or does the world determine our subjective consciousness? Does it matter? Or is the distinction trivial?

Idealism is more sceptical than materialism. More sceptical implies idealism is more credible than materialism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 23, 2025 9:00 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 9:28 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 8:31 pm

Nothing in your world exists without your subjective consciousness. There is no other source of meaning or measure in the world.

Well, that's one possibility. Another is that our subjective consciousness is determined (or at least influenced) by the world. Among the many influences is culture -- language, social mores, etc., etc. Does our subjective consciousness determine the world? Or does the world determine our subjective consciousness? Does it matter? Or is the distinction trivial?

Idealism is more sceptical than materialism. More sceptical implies idealism is more credible than materialism.

The distinction between ultimate reality and that of apparent reality certainly needs to be understood in the quest for greater knowledge of ourselves. Apparent reality, our everyday reality is a biological readout of aspects of ultimate reality; it is the biological interpretation and projection of the energies affecting our biological natures, which give us our interpretive experiences. The distinction is not trivial between ultimate reality and that of our interpretation of it as our everyday reality. One is not experiencing an actuality; one is experiencing one's alter body as experience. These are mind-body reactions that both inform us and are the means of being part of a greater whole. Belinda is correct. At this stage of humanity's knowledge, idealism is certainly more credible than materialism. Along with this understanding should come the awareness that there is no such thing as independent existence, and we, like the rest of the creatures of Earth, are reactive by nature, for the one thing a creature cannot do, not for a moment, is to NOT react to its environment.