Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

[LuckyR]

It is important to think whether religion can be completely rational. Rationality may be a way of exploring ideas but may be that day to day rational thinking, especially in times of crisis is difficult. I have known people who are not religious at all turn to prayer. That may be connected to uncertainty about how the cosmos works and the sources of help. Some may involve magical thinking and some may be about a genuine sense that there is more to reality, and the question of faith.

If a particular behavior is universal across humanity, then it is most likely part of our biological preprogramming. The alternative to rituals and prayer seems to consist in trying to cope with mental illness by means of therapy and psychotropic medication.

Unhappiness seems to be highly autosuggestive. If someone does not believe that he can be happy, then he almost surely cannot. In that sense, the inability to believe, is damaging in itself. Lack of motivation in life itself is rapidly spreading with the growth of atheism. In a sense, atheism is its own punishment. Imagine that an antelope refuses to run for the lion because it feels depressed? In a sufficiently Darwinian environment, the problem would rapidly solve itself. There simply are no depressed antelopes in nature. There would be no atheist people either. Atheism only exists because humanity makes it easy for the problem to keep festering.

Ha ha, funny one! The options are: cloud fairy or psych drugs. I think you missed a gigantic middle ground.

[heracleitos]

Ha ha, funny one! The options are: cloud fairy or psych drugs. I think you missed a gigantic middle ground.

In that case, we should be able to observe hundreds of millions of people in that gigantic middle ground. Where can we find these people?

Seriously, faith is binary. Either you have it, or else you don't.

It's like being pregnant. There are no hundreds of millions of women in that gigantic middle ground of being neither pregnant, nor not pregnant.

[Pattern-chaser]

Seriously, faith is binary. Either you have it, or else you don't.

...unless this is propaganda by the faithful, for the faithful? Binary thinking has its uses, and it has served us well back into our history, but is a complex topic like faith really a simple binary issue? Faith is belief, essentially. There are things I believe, things I don't believe, things of which I am unaware, and most of all, things of which I am unsure, neither believing nor disbelieving. Faith is complex, maybe far too complex to be considered in a binary light?

[Pattern-chaser]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

I'm going to offer an ideology for consideration as an answer to this question: Capitalism. In brief, Capitalism is dangerous because it encourages over-consumption and unconstrained growth (like a cancer). Its ideas are toxic because of humans, and human nature. [I refer here to those humans who embrace or adopt Capitalism, of course.]

[Sy Borg]

It is important to think whether religion can be completely rational. Rationality may be a way of exploring ideas but may be that day to day rational thinking, especially in times of crisis is difficult. I have known people who are not religious at all turn to prayer. That may be connected to uncertainty about how the cosmos works and the sources of help. Some may involve magical thinking and some may be about a genuine sense that there is more to reality, and the question of faith.

If a particular behavior is universal across humanity, then it is most likely part of our biological preprogramming. The alternative to rituals and prayer seems to consist in trying to cope with mental illness by means of therapy and psychotropic medication.

Unhappiness seems to be highly autosuggestive. If someone does not believe that he can be happy, then he almost surely cannot. In that sense, the inability to believe, is damaging in itself. Lack of motivation in life itself is rapidly spreading with the growth of atheism. In a sense, atheism is its own punishment. Imagine that an antelope refuses to run for the lion because it feels depressed? In a sufficiently Darwinian environment, the problem would rapidly solve itself. There simply are no depressed antelopes in nature. There would be no atheist people either. Atheism only exists because humanity makes it easy for the problem to keep festering.

Ha ha, funny one! The options are: cloud fairy or psych drugs. I think you missed a gigantic middle ground.

Once again, a failure of empathy. He does not seem to realise that other people are sentient, rather he treats them as mindless political objects.

The obvious alternatives to rituals and prayer are art and relationships. Those who start with a conclusion and then spend their lives devising post-hoc rationalisations for that faith will inevitably reveal the inevitable cognitive dissonances with obviously ungrounded ideas.

[heracleitos]

Once again, a failure of empathy. He does not seem to realise that other people are sentient, rather he treats them as mindless political objects.

The situation is more like with a surgeon who keeps hacking at the patient's body with his scalpel and other sharp objects. This man gets paid handsomely for ruthlessly making deep, bleeding cuts into people's flesh. So, why would we be surprised that he keeps doing exactly that? By the way, if you don't pay him enough, he won't even do it. In that case, he will tell you to go and cut yourself!

[Sy Borg]

That's humanity as a whole. Yes, humans are flawed. Nice to have that sorted.

If I was following your script I would celebrate with an LSD tab. Instead, I will make a cup of tea. So much for your phoney dichotomies.

[LuckyR]

Ha ha, funny one! The options are: cloud fairy or psych drugs. I think you missed a gigantic middle ground.

In that case, we should be able to observe hundreds of millions of people in that gigantic middle ground. Where can we find these people?

Seriously, faith is binary. Either you have it, or else you don't.

It's like being pregnant. There are no hundreds of millions of women in that gigantic middle ground of being neither pregnant, nor not pregnant.

Well, since the incidence of mental illness (and thus the need for psych meds) is essentially identical between the religious and atheists, the "hundreds of millions" would be: the religious eligible for psych meds (just shy of a billion) plus atheists on no meds (about half a billion). So approximately 1.5 billion.

[LuckyR]

It is important to think whether religion can be completely rational. Rationality may be a way of exploring ideas but may be that day to day rational thinking, especially in times of crisis is difficult. I have known people who are not religious at all turn to prayer. That may be connected to uncertainty about how the cosmos works and the sources of help. Some may involve magical thinking and some may be about a genuine sense that there is more to reality, and the question of faith.

If a particular behavior is universal across humanity, then it is most likely part of our biological preprogramming. The alternative to rituals and prayer seems to consist in trying to cope with mental illness by means of therapy and psychotropic medication.

Unhappiness seems to be highly autosuggestive. If someone does not believe that he can be happy, then he almost surely cannot. In that sense, the inability to believe, is damaging in itself. Lack of motivation in life itself is rapidly spreading with the growth of atheism. In a sense, atheism is its own punishment. Imagine that an antelope refuses to run for the lion because it feels depressed? In a sufficiently Darwinian environment, the problem would rapidly solve itself. There simply are no depressed antelopes in nature. There would be no atheist people either. Atheism only exists because humanity makes it easy for the problem to keep festering.

Ha ha, funny one! The options are: cloud fairy or psych drugs. I think you missed a gigantic middle ground.

Once again, a failure of empathy. He does not seem to realise that other people are sentient, rather he treats them as mindless political objects.

The obvious alternatives to rituals and prayer are art and relationships. Those who start with a conclusion and then spend their lives devising post-hoc rationalisations for that faith will inevitably reveal the inevitable cognitive dissonances with obviously ungrounded ideas.

Really it's a question of can't or won't. The latter implies youth, the former... well you know the answer.

[stevie]

Philosophy, to a large extent is bound up with human thinking.

It's the brains capacities being led astray by themselves which causes philosophical thinking. Utterly useless. While the brain's capacities as such are useful in terms of survival.

[JackDaydream]

Philosophy, to a large extent is bound up with human thinking.

It's the brains capacities being led astray by themselves which causes philosophical thinking. Utterly useless. While the brain's capacities as such are useful in terms of survival.

Do you regard philosophical thinking as distinct from all other forms of thinking, including that about practical and commonsense thought? What makes human beings distinct from other sentient beings is introspective and rational ways of understanding. So, in a way if you think that philosophy is 'useless' you may be seeing the human condition in a pessimistic way.

You speak of this in relation to survival but what is the purpose of survival in itself. It is possible to see the purpose of survival as being the processes of consciousness and, where it leads, to be the underlying process of evolution itself.

[JackDaydream]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

I'm going to offer an ideology for consideration as an answer to this question: Capitalism. In brief, Capitalism is dangerous because it encourages over-consumption and unconstrained growth (like a cancer). Its ideas are toxic because of humans, and human nature. [I refer here to those humans who embrace or adopt Capitalism, of course.]

I am glad that you have raised the issue of capitalism as potentially dangerous because it may be more common for people to argue that socialism is dangerous. Capitalism embodies the emphasis on materialistic gain and is bound up with the idea of economic growth. Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand' is part of it and this may explain how the West has ended up in the way it is at the present, with its ecological crisis.

The whole dilemma around capitalism vs socialism is about freedom to flourish materially, in competitive market economics. This is challenged by the principle of socialism which would involve restrictions. However, it depends how far this goes and who decides. So, while capitalism is dangerous how can the need and greed be disentangled? It may seem that this is a ridiculous question but some would say that many of the items which we take for granted are unnecessary. We live in a shopping culture, even if it is becoming more online, and is still based on capitalism and Western materialistic consumption values.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

I'm going to offer an ideology for consideration as an answer to this question: Capitalism. In brief, Capitalism is dangerous because it encourages over-consumption and unconstrained growth (like a cancer). Its ideas are toxic because of humans, and human nature.

I am glad that you have raised the issue of capitalism as potentially dangerous because it may be more common for people to argue that socialism is dangerous. Capitalism embodies the emphasis on materialistic gain and is bound up with the idea of economic growth. Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand' is part of it and this may explain how the West has ended up in the way it is at the present, with its ecological crisis.

Yes, the primary aim of Capitalism is the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. This requires profit, and profit in turn requires consumption, which is the cause of our ecological crisis. To maximise profit, Capitalists must encourage consumption beyond what we all need.

The whole dilemma around capitalism vs socialism is about freedom to flourish materially, in competitive market economics. This is challenged by the principle of socialism which would involve restrictions. However, it depends how far this goes and who decides. So, while capitalism is dangerous how can the need and greed be disentangled? It may seem that this is a ridiculous question but some would say that many of the items which we take for granted are unnecessary. We live in a shopping culture, even if it is becoming more online, and is still based on capitalism and Western materialistic consumption values.

Yes. Need and greed meet somewhere in the middle, as so many things do. The decision to encourage unconstrained consumption leads directly to our eco-crisis. Needless consumption is where we cross that middle line, and stray into dangerous territory. There are those who claim to be addicted to shopping, and fashion (of all types and kinds) encourage them. We need to change our mindset. A lot. And that is the problem we must solve before we can even start to make things better. We need to see unnecessary consumption as being equivalent to those things we deem the most unacceptable: murder, rape, child-abuse ... and consumption. All of these things harm us all, and consumption is the most dangerous of all: I refer here to the severity of the consequences of consumption.

[JackDaydream]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

I'm going to offer an ideology for consideration as an answer to this question: Capitalism. In brief, Capitalism is dangerous because it encourages over-consumption and unconstrained growth (like a cancer). Its ideas are toxic because of humans, and human nature.

I am glad that you have raised the issue of capitalism as potentially dangerous because it may be more common for people to argue that socialism is dangerous. Capitalism embodies the emphasis on materialistic gain and is bound up with the idea of economic growth. Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand' is part of it and this may explain how the West has ended up in the way it is at the present, with its ecological crisis.

Yes, the primary aim of Capitalism is the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. This requires profit, and profit in turn requires consumption, which is the cause of our ecological crisis. To maximise profit, Capitalists must encourage consumption beyond what we all need.

The whole dilemma around capitalism vs socialism is about freedom to flourish materially, in competitive market economics. This is challenged by the principle of socialism which would involve restrictions. However, it depends how far this goes and who decides. So, while capitalism is dangerous how can the need and greed be disentangled? It may seem that this is a ridiculous question but some would say that many of the items which we take for granted are unnecessary. We live in a shopping culture, even if it is becoming more online, and is still based on capitalism and Western materialistic consumption values.

Yes. Need and greed meet somewhere in the middle, as so many things do. The decision to encourage unconstrained consumption leads directly to our eco-crisis. Needless consumption is where we cross that middle line, and stray into dangerous territory. There are those who claim to be addicted to shopping, and fashion (of all types and kinds) encourage them. We need to change our mindset. A lot. And that is the problem we must solve before we can even start to make things better. We need to see unnecessary consumption as being equivalent to those things we deem the most unacceptable: murder, rape, child-abuse ... and consumption. All of these things harm us all, and consumption is the most dangerous of all: I refer here to the severity of the consequences of consumption.

It may take a lot of learning and working out priorities. While less money can be hard it may bring about a greater amount of minimalism. When I was working, as a way of coping with stress I used to spend so much money on CDs as if I was stocking a music shop, looking for all the latest bands and trends. And, I did not consider myself as a materialist because I didn't buy cars or property. But I wasted a lot of money on frivolous items and I also have friends who feel that they have wasted so much on clothes and furniture.

It may take the harsh lessons in order for human beings to distinguish between need and greed, especially the personal experiences of need. It may be easy to avoid thinking about others who are suffering, although it can be a wake up to meet others who are destitute. Seeing others struggle can bring compassion but it is possible to have moral blindspots where the others seem remote.

Part of the problem is also the throwaway culture, which involves items not made to last. Even the use of digital items are meant to reduce paper consumption but it sometimes means that both digital and paper are used. I am not sure that I have less papers as a result of digital technology. Also, the digital items often need replacing. I had a tablet as well as a phone but the tablet went wrong as it seemed it had a bit of a knock.

In the present time of capitalism minimalism seems desirable. However, the worrying thing is that instead of this, there may simply be a greater division between the rich and the poor, with more greed and more need.

[heracleitos]

Yes, the primary aim of Capitalism is the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. This requires profit, and profit in turn requires consumption, which is the cause of our ecological crisis. To maximise profit, Capitalists must encourage consumption beyond what we all need.

It is the fiat banking (bankstering) system that causes the problem of excessive consumption.

Those who consume interest will stand ˹on Judgment Day˺ like those driven to madness by Satan’s touch. That is because they say, “Trade is no different than interest.” But Allah has permitted trading and forbidden interest. Whoever refrains—after having received warning from their Lord—may keep their previous gains, and their case is left to Allah. As for those who persist, it is they who will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.

The requirement of eternal growth is not caused by capitalism ("trading"). It is caused by the fact that economic growth must outpace the interest rate charged by the fiat banksters. The system must keep growing and growing, causing excessive and needless consumption, just to keep the fiat banksters in business.