Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Home » Forums » The Loveland Arms – pub chat » Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Tags:

Author
Topic
#5468

We seem to have lost the old Thought Provoking (TM) mind expansion thread, so here’s a replacement.
.
Astrology:
.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/06/i-was-an-astrologer-how-it-works-psychics
.
Before you scoff, there are some interesting insights in the article that you don’t have to be a believer to appreciate. Here’s a couple of extracts that made me wonder:
.

I’d understood organised religion to be something between an embarrassment and an evil. Yet as Aids did its dreadful work – this was the 1990s – I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying. Christian volunteers checked on derelict men with vomit down their clothes. I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

.

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.

.

Some repeat customers claimed I’d made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer’s memory would add new elements. I got to test this theory after a friend raved about a reading she’d had, full of astonishingly accurate predictions. She had a tape of the session, so I asked her to play it.

The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single one. My friend’s imagination had done all the work.

.
And my favourite:
.

I can still make the odd forecast, though. Here’s one: the venture capital pouring into astrology apps will create a fortune telling system that works, because humans are predictable. As people follow the advice, the apps’ predictive powers will increase, creating an ever-tighter electronic leash. But they’ll be hugely popular – because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

Viewing 100 replies - 901 through 1,000 (of 1,187 total)
Author
Replies
  • #90562

    “There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions.” Well, that’s essentially how I feel about life – full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it’s all over much too quickly.”

    ― Woody Allen, Annie Hall

    Every person is too complicated for there to be a simple or universal meaning to life. Often, the major problem is summed up as since nothing is permanent then there can be no meaning. The context seems unrealistic to me. Since there is no possibility of eternity of anything and everything will be destroyed and forgotten eventually, then no meaning can be found. Well, death, destruction and ultimate loss certainly is eternal so maybe there is a meaning to be found in that for every individual.

    “Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man’s lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one’s self.”

    ― Max Stirner

    “I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

    – Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus

    Sisyphus is an interesting character in Greek myth. Everyone remembers his punishment of rolling a stone up a hill only to have it eternally fall back to earth where he must start again. What is not as well remembered is why he was punished. Sisyphus cheated death at least twice. The first time, he tricked Thanatos – essentially the god of death (not the God of the Dead which was Pluto’s role as lord of the Under-Earth) – into chaining himself up. So, for a time, no one could die and finally Ares had to come down and free Thanatos as he was tired of all the battles where soldiers hacked each other to pieces but would not die. After that Thanatos always came up with excuses to avoid going near Sisyphus until Zeus himself had to command Sisyphus to submit to death. The Greek hero agreed, but before he left to go to the underworld, he told his wife not to perform the funeral rites. So, once in the realm of Hades, he complained to the lord there that his family had not properly buried him. Hades told him to go back and make sure they performed the rites. Sisyphus went back and just stayed alive until he lived to old age.

    So, the question is whether his punishment is actually a punishment. Normally, the people in the land of the dead drink from the river Lethe and forget who they were and that they were ever alive. However, Sisyphus will always remember himself and essentially he will be eternal and always have a purpose while the gods think they are punishing him.

    To each his own.

  • #90576

    What gives life meaning? What is the reason for existing?

    “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”

    5 users thanked author for this post.
  • #90581

    Often, the major problem is summed up as since nothing is permanent then there can be no meaning.

    How so? That strikes me as a non sequitur. Something being finite in time doesn’t seem to imply that thing can’t have meaning. It’s a bit like saying a movie is not worth watching because it ends eventually.

  • #90585

    Yeah, I don’t know how it became so important in religion and philosophy. Obviously the Greeks and Romans didn’t believe in a rewarding afterlife and even their gods weren’t eternal. Impermanence is central to Eastern philosophy and religion as well.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90605

    Experience in itself is valuable. Even if it is impermanent. Or maybe the impermance can make it more valuable, even.

  • #90639

    The determining factor is often context. It goes back to how Wittgenstein pointed out that if you are playing a game of chess and someone came along and pointed to the knight and asked what it is, then you would simply point out how it moves in the game and can capture or threaten other pieces.

    However, if they took the knight off the board and asked what it is, there would be no meaningful context. The knight only means anything in the context of the game.

    In the same way, talking about the meaning of life or the world or existence is essentially nonsensical. Setting the context as everything is no different than having no context at all. There is no perspective that can contextualize the entire universe and everything in it. Honestly, there is no context that can be securely applied to a town or a family or any collection of people as each person is entirely too different from each other no matter how close they are. Any attempt eventually and often quickly dissolves into absurdity which somewhat characterizes the development of western philosophy from Plato to Heidegger.

    So, let’s say a person’s life has a definite meaning – or that they have found meaning in their life. It would really be entirely incommunicable to anyone else because it only has meaning in the context of their existence or experience of existence. It would be like telling someone your dream and expecting them to feel the same way you do about the dream.

    Even then, let’s say a person has found that meaning to his life whatever it might be, and then they fail at it. What does it matter? Is it really the meaning of your life if you can fail at it? What would prevent you from simply choosing a different meaning of life that you can’t fail to achieve.

    The meaning of life is about as important as New Year’s resolutions so just pick the easiest one and forget about it.

  • #90652

    I think on a practical level life can have meaning by doing something good, like helping someone, creating something or overcoming some hurdle. Human life in itself may be absurd but we can make it a bit more bearable for each other, that can be meaningful.

  • #90667

    That’s a good one. Go with that.

    though, honestly, how much time do you spend doing any of that? You running a soup kitchen or something?

    how meaningful is it when it only accounts for 1% of your time?

  • #90668

    Experience in itself is valuable. Even if it is impermanent. Or maybe the impermance can make it more valuable, even.

    I know that is true on an abstract level. Hell, even on an emotional one.

    However, I do still struggle with the fact of death. It is hard for me to not have that exact perspective, that the total non-existence that comes with death in my mind will obliterate any meaning my life had before.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90675

    though, honestly, how much time do you spend doing any of that? You running a soup kitchen or something?

    Well I do volunteer stuff at a nursing home over here. It’s not like a full time job but it stops me feeling absolutely useless. I have a lot of respect for the nurses there who do the hard stuff, I just do the fun stuff with the folks there.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #90688

    That’s admirable. Good for you.

    I like helping people too, but mainly one person – – me. Actually, almost exclusively, in fact. I say if everyone helped themselves, no one would need any help.

    Still, there are a lot of barriers to people’s freedom so it would be good to get those out of the way.

    However, as a meaning to life, it’s a pretty good one. With all the needs of making a living, surviving and paying your way, it doesn’t leave much time for helping others, but I’m always with myself so it’s 100% meaningful time spent. ;)

  • #90704

    I like helping people too, but mainly one person – – me. Actually, almost exclusively, in fact. I say if everyone helped themselves, no one would need any help.

    Well I agree our main responsibility is to ourselves, but we all need some help sometimes don’t we? We need help from our parents, family, the community…we are just not self sustaining.

  • #90713

    I’d say cooperation is more accurate than help. We’re a cooperative species and greater cooperation can prevent a lot of problems that lead people to need outright assistance.

    unfortunately, we’re also pretty competitive but I think we’re naturally more cooperative. It really takes deeply ingrained institutions like governments and churches to get us fighting amongst ourselves.

    Honestly, people usually need help because someone did or didn’t do something right – usually in the government.

    That’s the primary anarchist argument. We can govern ourselves individually much better than a small group of people can govern everybody. And if we’re all children of God then what makes Jesus so special?

  • #90715

    It really takes deeply ingrained institutions like governments and churches to get us fighting amongst ourselves.

    I am not sure. I read a book a while back that made the argument that primitive societies were mostly peaceful, that war started to be a thing only when agriculture started (the Rousseau view). But a while after that I read criticism about that view, saying primitive societies could be very warlike and even genocidal (The Hobbs view, I think).

     

    So I don’t know what it is. Maybe the only thing we can be sure about is that people aren’t entirely good nor entirely evil.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90723

    I like helping people too, but mainly one person – – me. Actually, almost exclusively, in fact. I say if everyone helped themselves, no one would need any help.

    That view doesn’t allow for anyone to get into any trouble that is beyond them. It doesn’t allow for people to fall really badly ill phyiscally or mentally. It doesn’t allow for despair, addiction or emotional isolation. It doesn’t allow for age, weakness and death.

    But I agree that people are naturally cooperative and tend towards helping each other anyway. However, I think that governments can at least be a positive factor, as well, when it comes to this, whereas the capitalist system… not as much.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90725

    I like helping people too, but mainly one person – – me. Actually, almost exclusively, in fact.

    Award for the most american thing anyone has ever said goes to… This dude who lives in… I don’t know, California, probably.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #90732

    That view doesn’t allow for anyone to get into any trouble that is beyond them. It doesn’t allow for people to fall really badly ill phyiscally or mentally. It doesn’t allow for despair, addiction or emotional isolation. It doesn’t allow for age, weakness and death.

    Right – don’t allow any of that, I say. Who wants it?!

    Besides, if I had to deal with any of that, I’d go to a professional. Not some random helpful person like Arjan. If it’s beyond me, it’s definitely beyond him.

    Award for the most American thing anyone has ever said goes to… This dude who lives in… I don’t know, California, probably.

    Even though I don’t believe America is a real thing, it is telling that “Self Reliance” is probably the most widely read American essay and in some ways is the beginning of American literature. On the other hand, Melville’s Moby Dick was written as a criticism of Emerson and Transcendentalism.

     

  • #90743

    Besides, if I had to deal with any of that, I’d go to a professional. Not some random helpful person like Arjan. If it’s beyond me, it’s definitely beyond him.

    Right, but then the professional helps you, only in exchange for money. ;) Like a doctor helps you. A plumber helps you. They expect some money for what they do, but everybody needs money.

     

    And people who don’t have that money are still entitled to necessary help.

     

     

  • #90744

    That’s the primary anarchist argument. We can govern ourselves individually much better than a small group of people can govern everybody.

    Is that the Chomsky type of anarchy or the Murray Rothbard type of anarchy? I thought the left wing, Chomsky/Kropotkin type of anarchists (like @lorcan_nagle) were big on mutual aid. Not really individualists, more collectivists.

     

    Anarcho-capitalists or ancaps are very different (not sure wether it is identical with American style libertarianism, but I think that is the same ideological corner. )

  • #90752

    Award for the most american thing anyone has ever said goes to…

    Are we perceived as that much more selfish than other countries? be honest. I am curious and not thin skinned. but don’t just slam us.

     

     

     

    p.s. I don’t agree with Johnny except for the fact that helping others makes me feel better. I also work at a charity so helping people is kinda our business model.

  • #90763

    I certainly don’t see Americans as “selfish”. Every American I ever met was generous and kind.

     

    There are a lot of dumb stereotypes about Americans. While I think there are some weird and idiotic American cultural currents, American culture (and its people)  are also great in many ways,

     

     

  • #90801

    Are we perceived as that much more selfish than other countries? be honest. I am curious and not thin skinned. but don’t just slam us.

    I took it to mean Americans are extremely focused on self-reliance. The extreme idea of “the best thing you can do for other people is to have your own shit together.”

    Americans are obviously no more generally selfish or greedy than other countries or worker productivity wouldn’t be rising every year while wages have stagnated for past forty years. We could probably be a little more greedy in that regard.

    Right, but then the professional helps you, only in exchange for money. ;) Like a doctor helps you. A plumber helps you. They expect some money for what they do, but everybody needs money.

    Hey. you get what you pay for.

    Seriously, though, most significant problems that require real help need professionals to provide it. We need people with an interest in acquiring the skills and knowledge and then they need to be rewarded for it.

  • #90810

    We need people with an interest in acquiring the skills and knowledge and then they need to be rewarded for it.

    Yes I agree…also people who do the unpleasant but necessary jobs, like nurses or people who work in sewers etc should be well compensated.

     

    The salaries nurses get here in the Netherlands are shamefully low. The US is much better in that regard.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90818

    The salaries nurses get here in the Netherlands are shamefully low. The US is much better in that regard.

    That is strange. Maybe you have an idea what accounts for it. I would think the demand for nurses there would be the same as anywhere else. Maybe they don’t have a union or some sort of collective bargaining power.

    Around here, the working conditions are not attractive for caregivers so in the sector of elderly care, it is hard to find people to take those jobs and even then it is not like they pay very well. It is impossible to force people to go into jobs or fields that they don’t want so many of the incentives focused on that go nowhere. There is a shortage of truckers in the United States when the demand is only rising, but there is no ready solution because the main problem is that not a lot of people want to be truckers.

  • #90823

    I really have no idea. Nurses here make on average about 3000 euros a month and it’s much lower for those just staring out. You start out with about 2000, and experienced nurses can make around 4,000. Also caregivers in nursing homes often make less than nurses in hospitals. Some sites I looked up state nurses in the US make about $ 75,000 a year.

  • #90824

    I really have no idea. Nurses here make on average about 3000 euros a month and it’s much lower for those just staring out. You start out with about 2000, and experienced nurses can make around 4,000. Also caregivers in nursing homes often make less than nurses in hospitals. Some sites I looked up state nurses in the US make about $ 75,000 a year.

    Yeah, but wages in general in the United States will be higher since we have to pay for every damn thing. $75,000 a year is just livable in San Francisco or New York, for example, and if you’re a nurse, you got to put an incredible amount of student loan debt on top of that. Not that great in most of California’s cities, in fact.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90826

    I really have no idea. Nurses here make on average about 3000 euros a month and it’s much lower for those just staring out. You start out with about 2000, and experienced nurses can make around 4,000. Also caregivers in nursing homes often make less than nurses in hospitals. Some sites I looked up state nurses in the US make about $ 75,000 a year.

    Yeah, but wages in general in the United States will be higher since we have to pay for every damn thing. $75,000 a year is just livable in San Francisco or New York, for example, and if you’re a nurse, you got to put an incredible amount of student loan debt on top of that. Not that great in most of California’s cities, in fact.

    Fair enough, I think big cities in the US are probably more expensive than those here.

     

    It depends a bit. Like Amsterdam is very expensive for some things like housing, unless you have been on the waiting list for public housing for a long time in which case it is more affordable. On the free market a little apartment is Amsterdam will cost upwards from 1200 euros a month. Of course healthcare is cheaper here (but not free, I have to pay 150 a month.)

     

    Ideally there should be a system in place where everyone can get cheap public housing that’s still attractive. Set up big projects by ambitious architects and artists to build it. And I want a return to art nouveau. Or something in the same spirit, where houses became full of exuberant art.

     

    Really even a few simple ornaments can already make housing better.

     

  • #90858

    Ideally there should be a system in place where everyone can get cheap public housing that’s still attractive. Set up big projects by ambitious architects and artists to build it. And I want a return to art nouveau. Or something in the same spirit, where houses became full of exuberant art.

    Well, you can if you can afford it, right?

    I do recall a lot of housing projects started with great architects and artists designing them but they didn’t have an idea what the poor working class people and immigrants that would be living there wanted or really needed. On the other hand, there were also city planners like Robert Moses that wanted to literally ingrain segregation between poor and middle class, white and black in the structure of the city. So, be wary of giving government the power to determine where people live and what they live in.

    Sure, it is an attractive idea to support cheap public housing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be in Amsterdam, for example. Even if you support the idea that people are entitled to basic needs like clothing, food, shelter, smartphones and streaming video services and should not be exploited exorbitantly to obtain them, it doesn’t mean they are entitled to get them wherever they’d like to live. They might have to find a place in Leidschendam or Breda.

    It’s the problem in the United States. We have a serious housing crisis in California cities, but there are two sides to that in that you could also say the city simply can’t support the population here. The reason people are moving to cities though is that the rural areas are in a depression. So rather than building housing that the city can’t support, make the places people are leaving better places to live.

    However, that means holding those places more accountable, but if the people who have problems there simply move out, then there is no incentive for the municipalities and towns and villages to change anything.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #90871

    It’s the problem in the United States. We have a serious housing crisis in California cities, but there are two sides to that in that you could also say the city simply can’t support the population here. The reason people are moving to cities though is that the rural areas are in a depression. So rather than building housing that the city can’t support, make the places people are leaving better places to live. However, that means holding those places more accountable, but if the people who have problems there simply move out, then there is no incentive for the municipalities and towns and villages to change anything.

     

    Yeah that is different from how things work in the Netherlands. We don’t have a lot of space so we can’t afford to let rural areas crash and make everybody move to the big cities. Some larger countries in Europe have this same problem though, there are ghost towns in rural areas in France and Italy. Although you could question if the Netherlands has real rural areas, you are always within commuter distance of a larger town or city. This also means the prices aren’t that much lower in our “rural” areas, a lot of commuters live there.

     

    The town where I live, Alphen aan den Rijn, is – partially anyway –  a typical commuter city for Amsterdam and The Hague. It’s also a place a lot of working class Haguenese moved to when housing prices in their neighborhoods in The Hague got too high. And it’s a place where people from the rural villages in the vicinity move to, typically because these villages don’t offer a lot of affordable housing (this applies to me, I was born and raised in a smaller village). It means you get an interesting mix of people. You get all the different people from the weird little protestant or catholic little villages in the region, the folks who moved from Amsterdam or The Hague, immigrants etc.)

  • #90939

    Are we perceived as that much more selfish than other countries? be honest. I am curious and not thin skinned. but don’t just slam us.

    Well, the US has less of a social system than many other countries, and the view that people who are destitute deserve to be is probably more common. It’s the flip side of the American Dream. If everybody can make it, you only have yourself to blame if you don’t. Like Jonny says, self-reliance and bootstraps and all that.

    This also results in the US actually having more social stratification and less equality than many Western European countries.

  • #90956

    This also results in the US actually having more social stratification and less equality than many Western European countries.

    Again, though, it depends where you look. The US has 350 million people and the EU has 450 million. So, what is the proper comparison? You can’t just pick the best European nations while including all the poorest states in the US in the comparison. The US is still spending $2 trillion on Social Security and Medicare while there is an additional $740 billion in social services. That doesn’t seem like a small amount compared to any other countries.

  • #90969

    It’s a very complicated picture in the US. I think there are three levels on which welfare programs work, federal, state and local. If you try to look up how much people can actually get in welfare you get very different numbers depending on where you look. You get a cavalcade of numbers, and you won’t be any the wiser how much money families on welfare or retired people actually get. Apparently on a federal level alone there are 80 (!) different overlapping welfare spending programs. It seems an unholy mess.

     

    If you look at these numbers from wikipedia, the US is pretty generous when it comes to social spending.

     

    List of countries by social welfare spending – Wikipedia

  • #90995

    I sometimes think we’re schizophrenic creatures who are on one hand gluttonous, greedy, sex crazed, and aggressive, and on the other hand profess to like peace, humility, gentleness, meakness, etc. Sort of an “animalistic” side to our personalities and a side that strives for “higher goals”, is pious/religious, and wants to live in harmony with the rest of creation. I’ve had my problems with the former.

     

    In a way, when you look at history and politics and warfare, perhaps the goal of history is to overcome that aggressive side to us, that toxic masculinity, kill/defeat/rape/conquer rule everything mindset.

     

    Fascist memes often have a lot to do with sexual urges, black people stealing white girls, and also gluttony, having access to high quality foods: one of the most popular memes on 4chan is “you will eat the bugs”, based on a weird conspiracy that Jews want the goyim to eat lower quality foods like insects, while they can have all the best food. It’s very animalistic: like a Darwinistic struggle for procreation and resources.

     

    I think I’ve been very naive in the past regarding the threat of fascism in our current age.

  • #91288

    Again, though, it depends where you look. The US has 350 million people and the EU has 450 million. So, what is the proper comparison? You can’t just pick the best European nations while including all the poorest states in the US in the comparison.

    Well, it arguably makes most sense to compare Western nation who are more or less on the same level of wealth. The number of people living there doesn’t really matter, this can be seen as a per capita comparison. There are a great number of factors contributing to this, but inequality in the US is higher than in most comparable countries, which the GINI shows. The same goes for measurements of social inequality.

    And of course that’s ironic, because the US was the first country in the modern world to strive for equality while the others were happy to be monarchies. And the root, funnily enough, is probably the same one, too: the American Dream.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #91378

    It is weird that the US spends so much on social spending yet doesn’t have a decent safety net.

  • #91424

    You can’t just pick the best European nations while including all the poorest states in the US in the comparison.

    You can’t compare the EU directly either though because it does no pooling of revenue. It is trade and regulation treaty and not a nation. So it has no treasury in the same way that collects and distributes tax money.

    There’s a very watered down version of that in some projects that are allocated to low income regions but in the main tax raised in Germany stays in Germany and doesn’t get paid out to Romania or Poland. To try and make that like for like comparison the US would have to have only state level taxation.

  • #91583

    There’s this saying “nobody owes you anything.” I think that’s really bullshit. When you come into this world you are owed love by your parents, food, help from the community, etc. People aren’t autarkic.

     

    It works from both sides. One the one hand you are expected to take care of yourself as much as possible, but on the other the community has to take care so that everybody has life’s essentials.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #91624

    food, help from the community,

    There are a great deal of people in the US who resent this aspect and love to see it go away..  “nobody owes you anything” is popular in America.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #91685

    What is the ‘call of the void’?

    Have you ever stood on a balcony, leaned over the edge and unexpectedly thought, “If I wanted to, I could just jump?” Or perhaps you’ve been at a cliff’s edge, with the intention of doing nothing more than enjoying the view and fleetingly considered how easy it would be to simply step over the edge. This sudden, often unanticipated thought is usually nothing to be worried about, but it certainly warrants exploration.

    This feeling — which tends to be brief, entirely out of character and often involves thoughts of leaping from a high place or driving headfirst into an oncoming vehicle — is more widespread than you might think. In fact, it’s so common, the French have a term for it: l’appel du vide. In English, this translates to “the call of the void.”

    But even though many individuals — over half of people, two small studies suggest — have reportedly experienced the call of the void, it hasn’t been studied widely. So, what do scientists know about the call of the void, which is also known as “the high place phenomenon”? And what has research revealed about it?

    The first significant study on the phenomenon, published in 2012 in the Journal of Affective Disorders, surveyed 431 undergraduate students, and found that just over half of those who had never had suicidal thoughts had experienced aspects of the phenomenon at least once, whereas over 75% of lifetime suicide ideators, or people who have suicidal thoughts or ideas, reported experiencing the urge to jump from the window of a tall building or from a bridge. (The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 800-273-8255.)

    The study showcased, for the first time, that there was not an exclusive link between suicidal ideation and experiencing sudden, unanticipated thoughts related to placing oneself in imminent danger. In effect, the study determined that there was a clear difference between an individual imagining the possibility of leaping from a high place and wanting to act on it.

    Prior to undertaking the study, the researchers hypothesized that the call of the void could be a ‘misinterpreted safety signal,’ with those experiencing it potentially misreading the brain encouraging them to move away from danger — and the results seem to support this theory.

    Moreover, individuals with higher self-reported anxiety levels were more likely to have felt the call than those with lower self-reported levels of anxiety. As a result, the study’s lead researcher, Jennifer Hames, who did the research as a clinical psychologist at Florida State University and is now an assistant clinical professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame, concluded that, somewhat paradoxically, the call of the void could well be a person’s subconscious attempting to encourage a greater appreciation of what it feels like to be alive, as opposed to wanting to lure someone to their demise. Indeed, the study seems to indicate that the call of the void could indicate that someone has a higher than average degree of sensitivity when it comes to experiencing and interpreting internal cues.

    A more recent study, published in 2020 in the journal BMC Psychiatry, also investigated whether the call of the void was more prevalent in people with suicidal ideation than those with no suicidal ideation, as some people who reported feeling the call of the void were concerned it could signal something more troubling about their mental state.

    “In our outpatient clinic, people repeatedly presented themselves with the question of whether they were suicidal,” study lead researcher Tobias Teismann, a faculty member in the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany, told Live Science in an email. “On the one hand, they were very attached to life, but on the other, they often felt the impulse to jump down somewhere or steer their car into oncoming traffic. I know the phenomenon myself, having felt it in my early 20s, so I knew studying it would be fascinating and clinically relevant.”

    Teismann recruited 276 adults who filled in an online questionnaire, as well as 94 participants who were experiencing a “clinically-relevant fear of flying,” meaning they had sought medical or psychological assistance in an attempt to overcome their phobia. Teismann looked at both groups to investigate “the prevalence of the phenomenon across both samples,” he said.

    The study found that those who had experienced suicidal thoughts were also likely to have felt the call of the void than those without suicidal ideation, but Teismann doesn’t believe this reveals a link between experiencing the call and wanting to harm oneself. “The phenomenon is more often reported by people who react to body signals rather anxiously,” he explained. In other words, people who experience shaking, light dizziness and/or muscle twitches are more likely to recall experiencing the phenomenon.

    “It seems to be something known to many people regardless of suicidality and anxiety,” Teismann said. “As such, it is normal, and not a sign of psychopathology.”

    Put another way, people shouldn’t necessarily “interpret such experiences as an expression of a hidden death wish,” the researchers wrote in the 2020 study.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #91763

    There are a great deal of people in the US who resent this aspect and love to see it go away..  “nobody owes you anything” is popular in America.

    I’d like to see an opinion poll on that…how many Americans agree with statements like “nobody owes you anything” or “we should never rely on help from our community”. I wonder if it’s really that high. It seems a libertarian (ancap) position and libertarians are a joke in politics.

  • #92524

    Oh, it’s very much the Republican position, isn’t it? You mustn’t have a safety net because people will only be productive and do good work and stuff if they’re terrified of starving to death if they don’t.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #92526

    I doubt all Republicans subscribe to that. Could be but I’m not sure. Weirdly enough it was Clinton who really gutted the welfare system in the US I think.

     

    Also US actually spends more as a percentage of its GDP on social spending than say, the Netherlands does. So if someone says they want to reform the welfare system because it doesn’t do a good job for the money it spends they’re absolutely right. They could do a pretty good UBI for all adults in the country with the money they spend right now.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93420

    Also US actually spends more as a percentage of its GDP on social spending than say, the Netherlands does.

    I don’t know where you get that number, I took a look and it seems significantly lower in comparison. Take a look at this OECD document here:
    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/soc_glance-2016-19-en.pdf?expires=1654358804&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=545BDA31279B1F179EC9842E7FA7FB2F

    (Second table.)

    The table 5.10 is especially interesting, as it shows that most of the spending we’re talking about here goes to pensions and healthcare – healthcare being famously expensive in the US even though it is a system in which it has really bad results for the population. It shows that the US spends far less than the Netherless on “other social services” and on “Income support to the working age population” (which I assume means welfare) – like, a fourth of the Netherlands, from the looks of it?

    I doubt all Republicans subscribe to that. Could be but I’m not sure.

    It’s a well-documented position of the GOP, and one they constantly use in elections. There are hundreds of quotes from GOP politicians about this. The Republican belief is that if welfare is too good, those freeloaders will just vacation for their whole lives and avoid working. This isn’t just recently, either, it’s in the fundaments of the party.

    Weirdly enough it was Clinton who really gutted the welfare system in the US I think.

    Well, it was Schröder who did that in Germany (and probably Blair in the UK?), so it’d only make sense.

  • #93421

    I don’t know where you get that number,

     

    I got it from wiki:

     

    List of countries by social welfare spending

  • #93483

    Eh whatever, I dunno. Increasingly I believe everything in politics is idiotic and inherently absurd. There are two political parties here I can still somewhat stomach, who I may vote for. The rest is just goddamn evil.

     

    The same for our current culture. Seriously, everything seems fucked up. I think most of the narratives going around are just false and manipulative.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93520

    The same for our current culture. Seriously, everything seems fucked up. I think most of the narratives going around are just false and manipulative.

    Try to watch less news. Avoid the news for two weeks unless it is a person physically telling you the news in your presence.

    You’ll probably feel a lot better.

    Though ideally it is meant to inform – and some publications do – on the whole the news is interested in the extraordinary rather than the mundane. Most of us lead ordinary lives – though personally, I think every person is so complicated that the terms ordinary and extraordinary have no subjective relevance. The ordinary for each of us would be terrifying and extraordinary to anyone else if they suddenly found themselves in our situations or we in theirs.

    But, the extraordinary nature of the news often tries to take specific instances and force us to believe they apply generally and then specifically to our own lives. I mean, as interesting as the Depp-Heard defamation trial has been. you’d really have to shoehorn any relevance it has toward any other relationship or society at large. It’s news because it deals with a rare, exceptional circumstance. It’s not about common elements of common relationships. That’s not news – we live it every day. So you don’t learn about it in the news or TV shows or movies (or any self-help books about it, honestly).

    And it is bad news that has the greatest appeal for our attentions. So. whether or not the news you’re watching has an actual bias toward any specific or interested perspective of the world – liberal or conservative, puritan or libertine – the message will be that “things are bad, and you’re a bad person if you don’t think that things are bad.”

    However, if I stop watching all the bad things on the news and focus on my immediately life… well, it is not horrible.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #93528

    I got it from wiki:

    Cheers, it same like the factor here is that the numbers of the OECD comparison I showed are a few years old and Dutch social spending dropped massive – from 22% of the GDP to 16% – between 2016 and 2019. Huh. I do think that the other points about how the money is spent that I made hold up though.

    Eh whatever, I dunno. Increasingly I believe everything in politics is idiotic and inherently absurd. There are two political parties here I can still somewhat stomach, who I may vote for. The rest is just goddamn evil.

    It is very frustrating. Especially considering we only have a rather narrow window of time to avert catastrophic consequences of our current global economic system.

    The same for our current culture. Seriously, everything seems fucked up. I think most of the narratives going around are just false and manipulative.

    I’ve been listening to Behind the Bastards – a podcast about the worst people in history – a lot, and I find a sort of consolation in the fact that it’s always been that way. Our current time probably isn’t worse than any other in recent history where the narratives that manipulate public opinion are considered, and possibly better than a lot of them.

    None of which sounds very optimistic, I have to admit, but… well, if you’re looking for actual good sense and the will to achieve meaningful change in policits, you may want to look at the smaller parties and activist groups. There’s a lot of good people trying to do good things who are looking for support. I kind of like what Diem25 is doing, a European political movement/party that was founded by Yannis Varoufakis (amongst others) and counts Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Zizek and Naomi Klein amongst its advisors.

  • #93534

    The same for our current culture. Seriously, everything seems fucked up. I think most of the narratives going around are just false and manipulative.

    Try to watch less news. Avoid the news for two weeks unless it is a person physically telling you the news in your presence.

    You’ll probably feel a lot better.

    Though ideally it is meant to inform – and some publications do – on the whole the news is interested in the extraordinary rather than the mundane. Most of us lead ordinary lives – though personally, I think every person is so complicated that the terms ordinary and extraordinary have no subjective relevance. The ordinary for each of us would be terrifying and extraordinary to anyone else if they suddenly found themselves in our situations or we in theirs.

    But, the extraordinary nature of the news often tries to take specific instances and force us to believe they apply generally and then specifically to our own lives. I mean, as interesting as the Depp-Heard defamation trial has been. you’d really have to shoehorn any relevance it has toward any other relationship or society at large. It’s news because it deals with a rare, exceptional circumstance. It’s not about common elements of common relationships. That’s not news – we live it every day. So you don’t learn about it in the news or TV shows or movies (or any self-help books about it, honestly).

    And it is bad news that has the greatest appeal for our attentions. So. whether or not the news you’re watching has an actual bias toward any specific or interested perspective of the world – liberal or conservative, puritan or libertine – the message will be that “things are bad, and you’re a bad person if you don’t think that things are bad.”

    However, if I stop watching all the bad things on the news and focus on my immediately life… well, it is not horrible.

    I rewatched Network (1976) last week for the umpteenth time. That movie gets realer and realer every time I watch it.

    Network really encapsulates what has happened: News has become entertainment. News divisions were always money losers for the networks. When it was decided that news needed to be profitable, that’s when it really started going downhill. Back in the day, the nightly newscast was usually a dry affair. Anchors and reporters simply reporting the news with very little emotion. Nowadays, you can practically hear the emotions in those reporting news. It has become sensationalistic, almost tabloid like. Network shows like Dateline and 20/20, which used to produce investigative stories, are now true crime tales, puff pieces, and celebrity specials. On cable, it’s talking heads offering opinions on current events. While bias has always existed in the news, it used to be kept to minimum. Now, bias is worn as a badge of honor.

    I tend to keep up with the news by looking at push notices on my phone. Depending on the story, I may then click on it to learn more. It really helps to mitigate getting upset and angry.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #93576

    Try to watch less news.

    Yeah that’s what I do. I mostly ignore the news these days. Still I can’t totally isolate myself from it.

     

    I wouldn’t say it really depresses me, it’s more a feeling of “I don’t give a fuck about that anymore”. Not that I don’t care about people, I do, I just think politics and the current culture we live in is inherently bad. So if people are hurt by it, I agree the best thing to do is turn away from it. Confucius’s answer to bad times was just live a good, quiet life and be an example for others.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #93585

    You’ll probably feel a lot better.

    Fewer.

  • #93656

    A Small Talent For War wrote:
    You’ll probably feel a lot better.
    Try to watch less news.
    Fewer.

    FIFY

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93828

    I wouldn’t say it really depresses me, it’s more a feeling of “I don’t give a fuck about that anymore”. Not that I don’t care about people, I do, I just think politics and the current culture we live in is inherently bad. So if people are hurt by it, I agree the best thing to do is turn away from it. Confucius’s answer to bad times was just live a good, quiet life and be an example for others.

    I’m re-reading (and listening to on audio book) Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and on the whole it expresses that a philosophy can’t really be separated from the perspective of the philosopher. Hobbes’ Leviathan can’t be separated from the setting of the execution of Charles I and the rise of Cromwell. Plato’s work is informed by the reign of the Thirty Tyrants and Socrates involvement in that.

    So, a pessimist philosophy like Schopenhauer’s is more likely an expression of the philosopher’s own inclination rather than a neutral observation. The world is indifferent to every person’s individual existence or the existence of any peoples, and the philosopher’s confrontation with that is often as much an expression of their feelings as any intellectual examination. So, if a person is a pessimist like me, they will be drawn to philosophies that come from this point of view.

    However, from a view of usefulness, Russell tends to think that philosophies where happiness is important are generally more productive than those where happiness is either unimportant (like Hobbes) or to be despised (like Nietzsche). The latter tend toward dogmatism and often fail because they seek to destroy or punish rather than support and encourage. For all its insights into social crises, Marxism often failed in actual practice because its proponents, once they came into power, became more concerned with punishing the bourgeoisie or brutally stamping out “counter-revolutionaries” and “reactionaries” rather than improving the lives of the proletariat they claimed to serve. Similarly, faith in self-interest and capital hasn’t really led to greater prosperity as really the mostly accidental improvements in technology, food production and medicine are more hindered by that ideology than promoted.

    Ideologies rarely care if people are happy.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93833

    I’m re-reading (and listening to on audio book) Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and on the whole it expresses that a philosophy can’t really be separated from the perspective of the philosopher.

    Yeah, well he would say that.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #93856

    (and probably Blair in the UK?),

    He’s guilty of a few right leaning things, the Iraq war and privatising some things and tuition fees. Not on welfare though, his and Brown’s record there is pretty good, and they left with a better health service and lower poverty rates (which has been reversed and driven into a tailspin by the Tories).

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93868

    So, a pessimist philosophy like Schopenhauer’s is more likely an expression of the philosopher’s own inclination rather than a neutral observation. The world is indifferent to every person’s individual existence or the existence of any peoples, and the philosopher’s confrontation with that is often as much an expression of their feelings as any intellectual examination. So, if a person is a pessimist like me, they will be drawn to philosophies that come from this point of view.

    I think I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist, life is pretty fantastic overall, there are just a few sour cunts trying to fuck things up. I think you can privately rebel against the people trying to make things miserable by ignoring whatever they say, mocking them, and making your life as good as you can. Have a cookie. Sit in the sun.

     

    Politics is just a shitshow. It’s almost a kakistocracy. It’s like people drowning goats to appease the flood Gods.

     

    Admittedly all things tend towars extinction, I mean whatever we do, eventually life on Earth is going to be impossible when the sun goes out. But life on Earth is not all there is, I mean who is to say consciousness won’t be reborn as a divine being in another dimension? I’m not ruling out anything.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #93877

    So, a pessimist philosophy like Schopenhauer’s is more likely an expression of the philosopher’s own inclination rather than a neutral observation. The world is indifferent to every person’s individual existence or the existence of any peoples, and the philosopher’s confrontation with that is often as much an expression of their feelings as any intellectual examination. So, if a person is a pessimist like me, they will be drawn to philosophies that come from this point of view.

    I think I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist, life is pretty fantastic overall, there are just a few sour cunts trying to fuck things up. I think you can privately rebel against the people trying to make things miserable by ignoring whatever they say, mocking them, and making your life as good as you can. Have a cookie. Sit in the sun.

     

    Politics is just a shitshow. It’s almost a kakistocracy. It’s like people drowning goats to appease the flood Gods.

     

    Admittedly all things tend towars extinction, I mean whatever we do, eventually life on Earth is going to be impossible when the sun goes out. But life on Earth is not all there is, I mean who is to say consciousness won’t be reborn as a divine being in another dimension? I’m not ruling out anything.

    I was told this at a very young age:

    The most important thing to remember about life is that nobody gets out alive.

    I can be very jaded, cynical, and pragmatic but at my core, I’m an optimist.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #93899

    Pessimism is the way to go. You’re never disappointed, but occasionally, you are pleasantly surprised things did not turn out as badly as expected.

    I mean who is to say consciousness won’t be reborn as a divine being in another dimension? I’m not ruling out anything.

    Suppose that is actually what’s going on. Imagine that there is a “God” that created the universe we are living in, but that deity is actually the reincarnation of your neighbor down the road, “Creepy” Carol Van Owen. He dies at some time in the future and is reincarnated at the beginning of time as the supreme being in our universe. Wouldn’t that just be a nightmare?

    Or worse, imagine if you die at some point in the future – y’know, in a couple weeks or so – and then suddenly find yourself with infinite power and knowledge but you are essentially still yourself. It would be a disaster.

     

    A disaster for everybody else – but awesome for me! ;)

     

    Honestly I think I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist, but I tened to catastophize. When something happens my brain goes into overdrive and comes up with all these extreme doom scenarios that might happen. It is probably an evolutionary mechanism but it can mess with your personal happiness. I have to stop myself from doing that.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #94218

    Something I read that stuck with me is from Lama Yeshe’s Introduction to Tantra. (which I think is a pretty good introduction to Buddhism in general.) We’re not just mechanistic creatures, automatons, or “clumps of cells”. I think that is a lie we’re told to feel bad about ourselves. We’re incredible, wondrous beings, gods really, and Buddhas, all of us. There’s something magical, something sacred about sentient beings. That’s something to be optimistic about!

    This is at the core of Vajrayana Buddhism, which uses rituals and meditations to become one with gods and Buddhas. But I think you find traces of it in Christianity too, with “being created in God’s image” and “the Kingdom of God being within you”.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #94220

    Something I read that stuck with me is from Lama Yeshe’s Introduction to Tantra. (which I think is a pretty good introduction to Buddhism in general.) We’re not just mechanistic creatures, automatons, or “clumps of cells”. I think that is a lie we’re told to feel bad about ourselves. We’re incredible, wondrous beings, gods really, and Buddhas, all of us. There’s something magical, something sacred about sentient beings. That’s something to be optimistic about! This is at the core of Vajrayana Buddhism, which uses rituals and meditations to become one with gods and Buddhas. But I think you find traces of it in Christianity too, with “being created in God’s image” and “the Kingdom of God being within you”.

    Still, it does set up a bicameral or dual dichotomy as a kind of metaphysics. A confusion that I think a lot of Buddhist teachers and teaching gets to the heart in its earlier or more orthodox forms. Basically, the unjustified prejudice that, due to their temporality, matter and material processes are somehow lesser than the spiritual or supernatural or mental “mystical energy” — and that “energy” is what you “really” are, while the base matter of who you are, even the particulars of your individual personality (ego) is just a temporal and unimportant expression of this potentially unlimited supernal entity (soul, spirit, atman).

    While I think – possibly more seen in chan or zen schools or maybe better expressed in the various Indian ascetic traditions – there is a more synthetic ideal at the heart in that even if we are “mechanistic creatures, automatons, or ‘clumps of cells,'” the fact that we obviously “know” (for no explicable purpose or reason) that that is what we are is an incredible conundrum and paradox. Whether or not free will exists, it is extremely strange that we have the idea of free will and live with the illusion of it even if it does not exist.

    I think a metaphor for the ultimate aim of much ascetic practice is the realization of this absurdity. To realize or manifest in our behavior the realization that we are essentially storytellers or actors telling or acting out a story for an audience that does not exist. That we are only playing to ourselves…

    When really we should spend more time playing with ourselves. :-)

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94226

    Honestly I think I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist, but I tened to catastophize. When something happens my brain goes into overdrive and comes up with all these extreme doom scenarios that might happen. It is probably an evolutionary mechanism but it can mess with your personal happiness. I have to stop myself from doing that.

    Or… and this may be controversial — what if instead of resisting it, you decide to be “happy” not “in spite” of it, but “by means” of it?

    That is possibly at the core of my hatred of the “self-help” or what has been re-branded as the “motivational” industry in that they offer the idea that if you continually work on changing yourself, then you will eventually be happy. However, I suspect, that if a person who can afford to buy their books, videos, or membership in their church is not already happy with what they have got, then they will never be happy with what they get.

    Listen, catastrophism can be carried too far, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. The rabbit that runs from the fox which is not there may seem to be a coward, but – sometimes – the fox is there, and that is the rabbit that survives.

    Also, if you expect the worst, then you usually are pleasantly surprised far more often than those that expect the best.

    That life is worth living is the most necessary of assumptions, and were it not assumed, the most impossible of conclusions. – G. Santayana

    (while keeping in mind “Faith in the supernatural is a desperate wager made by man at the lowest ebb of his fortunes” … also Santayana.)

  • #94242

    We’re not just mechanistic creatures, automatons, or “clumps of cells”. I think that is a lie we’re told to feel bad about ourselves. We’re incredible, wondrous beings, gods really, and Buddhas, all of us.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #94246

    Basically, the unjustified prejudice that, due to their temporality, matter and material processes are somehow lesser than the spiritual or supernatural or mental “mystical energy” — and that “energy” is what you “really” are,

    Not necessarily. Look it’s just a bit of speculation of course and I don’t know how anything of this works. But you could see the spiritual as a natural part of this universe, not really “something different”. Like in a pantheistic model. Maybe it’s a natural property of matter to be able the harbour consciousness.

    (Vajrayana is in a way pantheistic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi-Buddha)

    We are clumps of cells of course, from a certainn point of view, but cells themselves are kinda miraculous.

    Whether or not free will exists, it is extremely strange that we have the idea of free will and live with the illusion of it even if it does not exist.

    Yeah, you could say that in order for free will to exist, we have to be “created in god’s image” in a way.

  • #94426

    When really we should spend more time playing with ourselves.

    Faith in the supernatural is a desperate wager made by man at the lowest ebb of his fortunes”

    To each their own, but, imo, faith in the supernatural(i.e. God, higher power, the Big Guy) is a basic tenet in my life.  And, accordingly, makes that statement uber depressing. Atheism may work for you but if you believe in that statement, you are not a true atheist. Apply the existence of god to this statement

    Do believe in God or do not believe in God, there is no trying not to believe.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Rocket.
  • #94486

    Well I had an encounter with Jesus Christ so I’m pretty sure he’s real. ;)

     

    I think overall you can say there’s a lot wrong with organized religion, but I do like “religious speculation”, or community efforts without the authoritarian structure in religion. I’m interested in Buddhism, but if you look at the place which was traditionally possibly the most strictly Buddhist, Tibet, there was a lot wrong with the way religious authority functioned. For instance, to be inititated into some practices you had to swear obedience to the guru.

     

    I hate that, and I also have a lot of dislike for the way protestant culture influenced my home country. There are still places here where to be skeptical of the religion means you are shunned. Christians here are about 50 % protestant and 50 % Catholic and the Catholics have fewer problems with this type of radicalism.

  • #94535

    To each their own, but, imo, faith in the supernatural(i.e. God, higher power, the Big Guy) is a basic tenet in my life.  And, accordingly, makes that statement uber depressing. Atheism may work for you but if you believe in that statement, you are not a true atheist. Apply the existence of god to this statement

    It’s one of the points Santayana was making though. He was a Catholic, but NOT a Christian. His point was that to believe that religion was composed of anything other than symbols – to take any of it literally  – was senseless, but he thought that what it symbolized, though not literally real in any sense, was still important.

    However, it would have to be an assumption – a tenet – as there would be no logical argument that would convince anyone from a neutral position of the existence of anything supernatural. If a person was absolutely unaware of the concept of a deity or the supernatural, there would be no approach that could rationally prove its existence to them.

    Like with the idea that life is worth living. If someone did not in some way assume that life is or could possibly be “worth it,” there really are no arguments to convincingly prove to them that it is valuable that would not be filled with flaws. Like Schopenhauer famously wrote:

    “Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.

    “I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt… It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.”

    Santayana was acquainted with and a contemporary (slightly older) of people like Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was also a Catholic though not one to believe in the supernatural. He was more influenced by Tolstoy’s point of view on religion which threw out everything mystical or miraculous, so I think he was probably religious in the same sense in not believing in a literal supreme being or afterlife of any real kind, but more as a way to express important things that are not rational or could be put in any direct language – like music does. He defied the tendency for philosophers to try to form scientific systems as ‘philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way science does.’

    His point was that most of the important part of the experience of existence and of life cannot be handled in this way and often cannot even be formulated in rational language.

    ‘We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.’

     

  • #94546

    He was a Catholic, but NOT a Christian.

    I don’t believe this is possible. The Catholic Church, possibly more than any other, has a strictly codified set of things a Catholic must believe. Not being a Christian would break just about every one of those doctrines, making you by definition not a Catholic.

     

  • #94556

    The Catholic Church, possibly more than any other, has a strictly codified set of things a Catholic must believe.

    They may say you have to believe it, but what if you don’t? Are they going to excommunicate you?

     

    I think in actual practice the Catholic church is a “big tent” institute where many diverse opinions exist side by side. Like in the Netherlands 92 % of Catholics are OK with gay marriage.

     

    Catholics’ views of gay marriage around the world | Pew Research Center

     

    edit: however saying you’re a Catholic but not a Christian is taking it a bit far

  • #94561

    I don’t believe this is possible. The Catholic Church, possibly more than any other, has a strictly codified set of things a Catholic must believe. Not being a Christian would break just about every one of those doctrines, making you by definition not a Catholic.

    However, also central to the Catholic church is that people are wicked. Being a Catholic doesn’t make anyone a better person, but it provides a path of salvation from facing the consequences of the evil deeds that they will inevitably commit over and over throughout their life. Even with the last rites, a person has to confess their sins, so obviously, the church expects a person to continue sinning and doing bad things all the way up to their last breath.

    To be more precise, the Church has a very codified set of things that a person must say they believe and rituals that must be performed as well as some actions that must be taken – like tithes. However, just looking at the lives of the highest representatives of the church from Bishops to Cardinals to Popes, the Church doesn’t care if a person really believes or not as long as they say they do and follow the rules. And even then, they only really need to say they do in specific contexts. Santayana obviously wasn’t hiding his beliefs, but at the same time, that didn’t cause many problems for the church or other Catholics.

    It’s similar to the “belief” in Santa Claus. When a child believes in Santa Claus, they aren’t stupid. They simply haven’t had enough experience to understand how impossible the literal existence of Santa actually is. Then, when they get older, they realize the truth, but they say they believe because they’ll get an extra Santa present. Then, even when they get older and admit to the adults that they know Santa doesn’t exist, they still say they do around little kids because it is fun for the kids.

    That’s the simplified version of the Church – and a lot of religions – and honestly, using the same reasoning as the Church, Santa could exist. If a priest in mass literally becomes Christ and the bread wafer and wine literally become Jesus’ flesh and blood (a little gross), then when American parents place the Santa present under the tree on Christmas Eve, they could literally be Santa Claus in that moment and that present, no matter where it was purchased, literally transforms into a perfect copy that was made by elves at a workshop in the North Pole.

    So if a person really believes in transubstantiation, they have no basis not to believe in Santa Claus, too.

    Still, that in itself is not as relevant or interesting as the question whether Santayana did actually believe in God in the correct way. Or Tolstoy for that matter who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church for denying that there was anything supernatural or miraculous or divine about Jesus Christ. Tolstoy was a Christian, though, because he believed Jesus’ life in the gospels provided the correct guide for living a humane life and didn’t need magic to sell it. The magic in fact obscured the value of the teaching. Tolstoy pretty much thought that if being a Christian did not make you a better person in this life, then why bother being a Christian?

    Since Santayana believed that God, Christ, the Virgin Mary and Saints were all symbols and not literally real, then he is not really lying when he behaved and performed the rituals as a Catholic though was not religious. Honestly, that was a much more honest and productive approach as the Church itself has always been  more about the spectacle – the symbolism – than the content.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94577

    So if a person really believes in transubstantiation, they have no basis not to believe in Santa Claus, too.

    SANTA’S NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94598

    I wouldn’t say the church is not about content but spectacle, that seems overly cynical. There is plenty of content, but the obvious signs we see from the outside are often just the spectacle. The fancy clothes and churches protestants complain about when they talk about catholics.

     

    It also seems a misrepresentation to say the church is not about making better people, if that is what you’re really saying. The church has the confessional as a sacrament, but that doesn’t mean “lmao do whatever you want, it’s OK as long as you confess your sins.” Contrition is part of the process.

     

    There’s also a point where spectacle, symbolism and meaning or content come together. In the Gothic churches for instance ritual and beauty brings you closer to God.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94608

    In Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, human beings are not improvable. We are all and will always be lifelong wicked sinners. Even Saints are sinners but their notable quality is their devotion to God and the Church. Many Protestant denominations believe in predestination so your character is set before birth.

    The church encourages but doesn’t expect good behavior. It expects loyalty and obedience. You won’t get excommunicated for committing evil acts but for defying the authority of the church and its doctrine.

  • #94621

    That seems to go against basic stuff from the gospel though. Like the story of the adulteress. Jesus foregave her, but he also said “sin no more.” So I think Jesus believed in self improvement. And the sacrament of penance (the confessional) is definitely in a way also self improvement. The act of penance brings about reparation of the relationship with God, and it comes with contrition and the resolution not the commit that sin anymore.

     

    Also there is a duty in the Catholic church to do “works”, good stuff basically. So there is definitely self improvement in resolving to do good things.

     

    People aren’t saved by their own virtue alone, they do need a little help from Jesus for that, but to think the Catholic church says people can’t improve themselves, that seems a misrepresentation.

     

    Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation? | Catholic Answers

  • #94625

    I’m going by the practical actions of the church. It’s like the way totalitarian regimes claim they are democratic because everyone has the right to vote even though there is only one party to vote for. Or how corporate executives that control billions of dollars can claim that they only have an income of $100,000 or so through various tax dodges. Or, more apt, how bishops, cardinals and popes take a vow of poverty but live in luxuries that would put Roman Emperors to shame.

    The Church doesn’t want people to be bad or makes people bad. That’s just not the objective. It’s about saving the souls of people who, theologically, are destined to be mostly bad. Though I have to admit that that outlook certainly isn’t encouraging of good behavior, but it is pretty realistic.

    and a surprising number of people that think the church itself should be good or that Christians should be good have found themselves declared heretics, killed by the church or their sanctioned earthly authorities over the centuries or have broken from the church to form their own churches which in turn eventually do the same.

    The Anglicans break from the Roman Catholic, then Puritans break from Anglicans and then different Puritan groups break from those Puritans – each time trying to be better Christians and ending up as worse people.

    Though it seems reasonable to expect a person’s religious principles should have some relationship to one’s ethical or humane behavior, in practice, they don’t seem related at all. A devout pious person is just as likely to be a self-centered heel as a complete materialist is to be an altruistic and loving person.

  • #94707

    Though it seems reasonable to expect a person’s religious principles should have some relationship to one’s ethical or humane behavior, in practice, they don’t seem related at all. A devout pious person is just as likely to be a self-centered heel as a complete materialist is to be an altruistic and loving person.

    I wonder if that is true. I mean, of course we all know plenty of anecdotal examples, but are there any proper studies of these things?

    For example, I would really like to know if people raised in the Christian – and especially the Catholic – faith (and staying in those churches) are more likely to be in the authoritarian spectrum when it comes to their politics. It’d make sense because the belief in hierarchy and in the idea that you should do what is asked of you by those more powerful than you is trained into them from the get-go.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #94711

    For example, I would really like to know if people raised in the Christian – and especially the Catholic – faith (and staying in those churches) are more likely to be in the authoritarian spectrum when it comes to their politics. It’d make sense because the belief in hierarchy and in the idea that you should do what is asked of you by those more powerful than you is trained into them from the get-go.

    How would you study it that would be free of bias?

    Just from the fascist movements of the 30’s though. The opposition to the Nazi party could be found in many Catholic individuals as likely as it was in secular (not very likely obviously in general). Both groups were as equally likely to support or join the Nazi party as they were to oppose it.

    And naturally, though socialist atheists opposed the Nazi’s, they would support the totalitarian communists. In America, the opposition to slavery was led by religious figures while the justification of slavery was led by religious figures.

  • #94777

    How would you study it that would be free of bias?

    Proper large-scale sociologist studies are aware of the pitfalls of bias and take according measures. But that’s what I meant, you’d need a proper academic study of this, not random musings and observations.

    Just from the fascist movements of the 30’s though. The opposition to the Nazi party could be found in many Catholic individuals as likely as it was in secular (not very likely obviously in general). Both groups were as equally likely to support or join the Nazi party as they were to oppose it.

    Again, how do you arrive at the idea of “equally”? Do you have any numbers to back that up? Who studied this and where I can I see the research? Also, the nazis were decidedly anti-Catholic, so that’s a factor, of course. I was more thinking along the lines of how people see authority in general, not fascist ideology.

  • #94808

    I wonder to what extent people leaving the church has to do with their own independent mind and how much it has to do with the weakening of the church and materialism and science taking over as the dominant force.

     

    If you would research people’s inclinations to believe in hierarchy and authoritarianim, it is interesting to see what would signal such beliefs. For instance would agreeing with the statement “People need to believe what their pastor tells them” be more indicative of authotarian beliefs than “people need to believe what the media tells them” or “people need to trust science”?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94822

    I wonder to what extent people leaving the church has to do with their own independent mind and how much it has to do with the weakening of the church and materialism and science taking over as the dominant force.

    Honestly, I think people don’t “leave the church” in any positive sense, but more they simply drift away from it. After school, so many people end up leaving the towns or cities where they were raised and going to church so even if they intended to start at a new church, just setting up a new life tends to get in the way. “Their” church simply isn’t there for them anymore.

    Most of the people I know here that still go to church are either those who found God later in life or those who never left and retained all the relationships from their childhood here.

    Also, church services are so boring compared to other activities these days. Honestly, it seems like even traditional weddings and funeral services are increasingly going out of style and occurring outside churches or chapels as well.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94834

    Also, church services are so boring compared to other activities these days

    And churches are ugly as sin these days. They need to build them like they used to. There’s nothing like a beautiful Gothic cathedral. They should use old churches as cultural centres, with books you can read, things you can learn about, art exhibitions, concerts, etc. or just a place to sit, relax and meditate.

    The Hooglandse kerk in Leiden does this, they have lots of exhibitions and other activities. It is an old Gothic church that was taken over by the calvinists who removed all the decoration and painted all the walls white which gives it kind of a zen vibe. I guess it would be better if they kept all the decorations, but it is relaxing.

     

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #94837

    If you would research people’s inclinations to believe in hierarchy and authoritarianim, it is interesting to see what would signal such beliefs. For instance would agreeing with the statement “People need to believe what their pastor tells them” be more indicative of authotarian beliefs than “people need to believe what the media tells them” or “people need to trust science”?

    Nah, I think it’d be interesting to know whether people are more or less likely to doubt what authorities tell them, no matter which authority. I mean, a few hundred years ago, we were all living in systems in which we were told that the authorities were always right (having been placed there by God). These days, in democracies, we are encouraged to question governments’ decisions and think about different ways of doing things. None of this goes for churches. Just wondering if this has a general effect on how people view the world.

  • #94843

    Well apparently there has been lots of research into it:

     

    Religion and authoritarianism – Wikipedia

     

    It seems there is a big division between a psychological view of authoritarianism and a sociological view. So is believing in authority and hierarchies a mental thing or is it something caused by the environment.

     

     

    These days, in democracies, we are encouraged to question governments’ decisions and think about different ways of doing things

    I am not sure that is actually true. To an extent perhaps. But the government can still crack down on dissidents and it does frequently, also in Westen democracies. Though less so than in for example China. Of course you don’t want an impotent government that can’t deal with threats either, it’s a careful balance you have to strike. I think the Netherlands is probably a better place in this regard than many others.

  • #94888

    Well apparently there has been lots of research into it:

    Awesome, cheers! Look like by and large, the results are what I would’ve expected, too.

    I am not sure that is actually true. To an extent perhaps. But the government can still crack down on dissidents and it does frequently, also in Westen democracies. Though less so than in for example China. Of course you don’t want an impotent government that can’t deal with threats either, it’s a careful balance you have to strike. I think the Netherlands is probably a better place in this regard than many others.

    Yeah, obviously there’s degrees and also a tendency of actual governments to really dislike their decisions being questioned, but I meant all of this in comparison to know, the kind of monarchies we had two hundred years ago in Europe.

  • #94917

    It’s interesting though. Authoritarianism is kind of a subjective word, and there are of course degrees of it. However I think most people are susceptible to it. Certainly in the Soviet Union or nazi Germany there weren’t many free thinking dissenters.

     

    If you look at the whole vaccine thing, you could make the point the most independently minded, least authoritarian people were those refusing the vaccine, accepting all negative consequences for their social life and job status. Of course you could also argue they were the stupidest. Maybe susceptibility to authoritarianism comes down to being afraid of the punishment for disobeying. You could also argue people who support something like Islamic jihadism are anti-authoritarian because they aren’t afraid to disobey the authorities, however if they were in charge they would be authoritarians themselves. Maybe to some extent everybody believes in some type of hierarchy or authority. Or almost everybody.

     

    Also, there are probably not a lot of people who would describe themselves as obedient followers of authority (or NPCs as the kids say). I would bet most people would describe themselves as independent, free thinking free souls.

     

    We have a politician, Thierry Baudet, who describes himself as a free, independent spirit, fighting against the “party cartel” which he accuses of controlling everything with an iron grip. However he is a Putin puppet, and I bet if he were in charge of the Netherlands a lot of his opponents would end up in jail. He actually called for a tribunal to try those who were in charge of the corona response, and in one recent podcast he said he doesn’t believe in ideas changing things, he believes bullets change things. I just think at the moment there are a lot of authoritarian ideas in the air, that are in conflict with each other because they all want to be on top. It’s tough to think of how one can be “truly independent”.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #95083

    Religion and authoritarianism – Wikipedia   It seems there is a big division between a psychological view of authoritarianism and a sociological view. So is believing in authority and hierarchies a mental thing or is it something caused by the environment.

    Also, there is no strong distinction between religion and church membership at least in this study the (admittedly innately unreliable) wikipedia article cites. What Links Religion and Authoritarianism? – JSTOR Daily

    The relationship between religiousness and authoritarianism has been a topic of study in the political, psychological, and social sciences at least as far back as the 1950s. Scholars Paul Wink, Michele Dillon and Adrienne Prettyman write that “a large body of research indicates that church involvement is predictive of an authoritarian attitude constellation, characterized by deference to ‘law and order,’ social conventionality, and intolerance of out-groups.” Gary K. Leak and Brandy A. Randall note that decades of study has shown “when religion is conceptualized in unitary terms, such as church attendance or affiliation, religion often goes hand in hand” with “intolerance, prejudice, authoritarians, and dogmatism.”

    These authors agree, however, that the link between religion and authoritarianism isn’t inevitable. It really depends on the kind of religion.

    However, that is ridiculously simplistic. It doesn’t indicate that religious people tend toward authoritarian perspectives, and a more reasonable explanation would be that people who tend toward authoritarian perspectives would tend to join churches with strong heirarchies if they are religious. Just as people who are not religious, but have authoritarian tendencies would tend to vote for more restrictive policies or become more authoritarian leaders.

    People with authoritarian tendencies would tend to join or remain in authoritarian institutions, irrespective if they actually personally believed in the tenets of the institution, while people generally opposed to authoritarian would either join less hierarchical institutions or, more likely, not join any. However, if those more liberal people did join those institutions or remain in them rather than leaving them, the institutions should become less authoritarian.

  • #95129

    When life is good, it’s not quite so good that it’s worth the times life is bad.

    I live with a moral obligation to kill myself.

    Unlucky for me I’m as immoral as they come.

  • #95132

    Honestly, I think people don’t “leave the church” in any positive sense, but more they simply drift away from it.

    I’d say that’s my experience and that of most people I know. The drift more likely than a big decision to never attend.

    As to the buildings, in Victorian times there was a big religious revival in Wales and every single village has non-c0nformist chapels that look similar to the one in the pictures below. There are thousands of them and many are now being attended by less than 5 parishioners aged over 70 ( my mother is one of them).

    It’s very hard to know what to do with all these vacant buildings caused by a secular shift as they aren’t a very convenient shape. Some are converted to apartments but they have awkward features like windows that span 2 floors. There are half a dozen within 2 miles of my old house that are currently unused. The one my mother and her 4 friends attend is a modern 1970s build that was relocated due to as shopping centre development. It has found side uses as a community hub and food bank because its single story open layout is much more amenable to multiple use.


    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95161

    That looks alright. We have some real eyesore churches over here. This one was torn down here in my hometown a few weeks ago.

     

    The best looking church here in Alphen is also the oldest, this one is from the 17th century.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #95164

    It’s a general rule-of-thumb (not universal, but common) that an ugly church in England will probably be Catholic.

    There’s a historical reason: because Catholicism was outlawed here for so long, all the old stone gothic and neo-classical buildings are CofE chuches. By the time new Catholic churches were allowed to be built (probably around the late 19th century and into the 20th century), the prevalent building styles meant that Catholic churches were ugly, modern, utilitarian, brickwork boxes.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95198

    The Catholic Cathedral in Liverpool is nicknamed ‘Paddy’s wigwam’ because of its shape.

    An interesting fact is that the Protestant Cathedral is at the other end of the same street. Considering the history of sectarianism in England the street is rather aptly named Hope Street.

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95202

    I like Liverpool cathedral. Also, Westminster is a beautiful example of a modern Catholic building:

     

    and also responsible for one of my favourite bits of reporting:

    Its neo-Byzantine style led it to being confused with a mosque in 2014 by the UKIP South Thanet Twitter account.

    The controversy arose after the BBC held a poll outside the Cathedral asking whether people felt Nigel Farage had what it took to be prime minister. The Twitter account complained that the BBC was being biased by taking the poll outside a mosque. Except, it isn’t a mosque. Silly UKIP tweeter.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by DavidM.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95206

    It’s a general rule-of-thumb (not universal, but common) that an ugly church in England will probably be Catholic.

    There’s a historical reason: because Catholicism was outlawed here for so long, all the old stone gothic and neo-classical buildings are CofE chuches. By the time new Catholic churches were allowed to be built (probably around the late 19th century and into the 20th century), the prevalent building styles meant that Catholic churches were ugly, modern, utilitarian, brickwork boxes.

    In the South of the Netherlands some old churches were given back to the Catholics when they regained their rights in the Napoleon era. That part of the country always remained majority Catholic.

     

    The Saint John’s cathedral of Den Bosch is probably the most beautiful church in the Netherlands and it’s owned by the Catholics:

     

     

     

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #95208

    Yeah that ‘mosque’ story was very funny. Admittedly the domes are very close to a lot of Islamic architecture but to see them you’d also have to see the rather large picture of Jesus above the door.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95210

    Well I can see how you might mistake that for a picture of Mohammed.

     

     

    …if you had the education of the average UKIP member.

  • #95215

    Ah yes the mosques famed for their pictures of Mohammed.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95217

    I’m starting a petition to ban Muslims from displaying pictures of Mohammed. It’s just not British!

     

    5 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95259

    I’m starting a petition to ban Muslims from displaying pictures of Mohammed. It’s just not British!

     

    You’re ready for government work, clearly. And as luck would have it a few positions just opened up.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95854

    Interesting that these numbers are so different for different countries. I wonder if this might be similar with other psychiatric drugs like sedatives and antipsychotics.

     

  • #95863

    I don’t believe that the United states has twice the average number of depressed people. I think the United States has a multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry with an obvious interest in finding excuses for more people to pay for their products.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95867

    I don’t believe that the United states has twice the average number of depressed people. I think the United States has a multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry with an obvious interest in finding excuses for more people to pay for their products.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #95873

    Does that explain all these differences? The pharmaceutical industry operates worldwide and for instance Canada and Iceland score very high while they have public healthcare.

Viewing 100 replies - 901 through 1,000 (of 1,187 total)

This topic is temporarily locked.

Skip to toolbar