How to make peace with might makes right?

[Belindi]

'Out of the strong comes forth sweetness' reference to the story about Samson, was on the syrup tins which were prominent in my mother's kitchen when I was a child, so I had time and opportunity to admire the sentiment.

To put it another way, if you are weak you are not going to be able to help anyone else. If there is no potential strength there can be no potential good.

Might in itself does not make right, but strength is a necessary precondition for good.

[baker]

/.../

Thank you for your post. I need more time to prepare a reply.

[baker]

If something is, then why wouldn't it be precisely because it ought to be?

If it were precisely the same, what would be the point in having the extra word?

A trivial linguistic refutation of "this is the best of all possible worlds"? Hm.
"We have the word "ought", therefore, this is not the best of all possible worlds, because in the best of all possible worlds, everything is as it ought to be, and the word "ought" has no referent in the best of all possible worlds; or, everything is its referent." (Not sure about this.)

Now, whether it means more than that or not is a matter of some controversy, but it expresses approval or disapproval at least. One does not typically say that something is "good" or as it ought to be unless one approves of it. Likewise, when someone says that something is bad or that it is not as it ought to be, that someone disapproves of it.

A principle that religions are skilled at subverting. Religions are the major source of the idea of objective reality, objective morality. They are also the main player in denying people their experience and their value system, as in, "You might think that this is good, but in reality, it's not".

If ethical subjectivism is true, then where do religions get their notions of objectivity from?
And notions of objectivity are relevant, because they have so much power over people.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933

Thank you, this is a lenghty and demanding read, I'm not done yet.

The primary motive to go with ethical subjectivism is the fact that no one has demonstrated that there is anything more to ethics than that.

The primary motive that someone might go with the more complicated version at the link above is that it explains the "universality" of ethical judgements.

But can one really choose one's meta-ethical outlook?

The problem with moral realism is that no one has found these objective features of the world and objectively identified them. But it is probably the most popular view of ethics, at least historically.

Yes, and the idea of objective morality is a powerful one for controlling people.

I introduced the stoics in an effort to answer the question of how to deal with the fact that the world is not as it ought to be. So I was interested in the practical side of their advice. I did not intend to endorse their world view. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point.

Thanks.

But the moral sense of ought would not apply to the world outside of people's actions and attitudes toward the world, according to the stoics.

Would a stoic utter a sentence like, "Tom was wrong to [do x]"?

But regardless of that, their practical advice still is practical. It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change.

The things I am upset about are, for example, not being able to figure out "how things really are", not having certainty in metaphysical matters. This is what keeps me up at night.
I'm not upset about who the president is or about global warming, nor about my neighbor doing illegal things that affect me, and such.
I don't quite get how the "It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change" applies for me.

[baker]

But regardless of that, their practical advice still is practical. It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change.

The things I am upset about are, for example, not being able to figure out "how things really are", not having certainty in metaphysical matters. This is what keeps me up at night.
I'm not upset about who the president is or about global warming, nor about my neighbor doing illegal things that affect me, and such.
I don't quite get how the "It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change" applies for me.

If I could put my foot down and say, for example, "So and so should be president! Global warming should not happen! My teeth should not decay! That dog should not bite me!", then I'd be a happy camper. But I can't. Instead, I wonder about what it says about the nature of the universe that in it there are, for example, dogs that bite people, or me, specifically, what moral implications this has, and given those, how should I behave.

[Jack D Ripper]

If it were precisely the same, what would be the point in having the extra word?

A trivial linguistic refutation of "this is the best of all possible worlds"? Hm.

No. I am saying the meaning of the term is different. That is not the same as attempting to refute the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.

If your claim is that this is the best of all possible worlds, it would have been good for you to start with that, to be clear what it is that you are claiming.

I would then refer you to Candide by Voltaire, or, more likely, not bother arguing with you and let others discuss the matter with you. If you want a lot of responses to you, start a new thread with the title "This is the best of all possible worlds" and make that claim in your opening post.

"We have the word "ought", therefore, this is not the best of all possible worlds, because in the best of all possible worlds, everything is as it ought to be, and the word "ought" has no referent in the best of all possible worlds; or, everything is its referent." (Not sure about this.)

Now, whether it means more than that or not is a matter of some controversy, but it expresses approval or disapproval at least. One does not typically say that something is "good" or as it ought to be unless one approves of it. Likewise, when someone says that something is bad or that it is not as it ought to be, that someone disapproves of it.

A principle that religions are skilled at subverting. Religions are the major source of the idea of objective reality, objective morality.

I don't think that is accurate at all. People get their ideas of morality from fairly primitive parts of the brain. Many animals have a sense of morality:

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-u ... -dont.html

So you are looking in the wrong place for what is going on with people, about the foundations of what morality is.

They are also the main player in denying people their experience and their value system, as in, "You might think that this is good, but in reality, it's not".

If ethical subjectivism is true, then where do religions get their notions of objectivity from?
And notions of objectivity are relevant, because they have so much power over people.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933

Thank you, this is a lenghty and demanding read, I'm not done yet.

The primary motive to go with ethical subjectivism is the fact that no one has demonstrated that there is anything more to ethics than that.

The primary motive that someone might go with the more complicated version at the link above is that it explains the "universality" of ethical judgements.

But can one really choose one's meta-ethical outlook?

I would not describe it as "choosing". What thoughtful people do is think about it and they end up believing what seems most reasonable to them. What thoughtless people do is just believe whatever it is they already believe. Most likely, whatever they were indoctrinated to believe as children.

The problem with moral realism is that no one has found these objective features of the world and objectively identified them. But it is probably the most popular view of ethics, at least historically.

Yes, and the idea of objective morality is a powerful one for controlling people.

I introduced the stoics in an effort to answer the question of how to deal with the fact that the world is not as it ought to be. So I was interested in the practical side of their advice. I did not intend to endorse their world view. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point.

Thanks.

But the moral sense of ought would not apply to the world outside of people's actions and attitudes toward the world, according to the stoics.

Would a stoic utter a sentence like, "Tom was wrong to [do x]"?

Yes. But if you were upset about what Tom did, you would be wrong to be upset about what Tom did, because what Tom does is beyond your control.

But regardless of that, their practical advice still is practical. It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change.

The things I am upset about are, for example, not being able to figure out "how things really are", not having certainty in metaphysical matters. This is what keeps me up at night.

Then you are really worried over nothing.

Consider, for example, the idea that you are just a brain in a vat. If you are unfamiliar with that idea:

https://iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

Some people worry about whether they are brains in a vat or if their lives are "really real". The thing is, it makes absolutely no difference. If you are a brain in a vat, you still don't want to stick your "hand" into a "fire" until it "burns off" because it will hurt and it will have future consequences for you, that will be indistinguishable from how it would be in the real world if you stuck your real hand into a real fire until it really burns off. It makes absolutely no difference in your life which story someone believes, and consequently, it is a silly thing to worry about. The only difference is the story one tells about what is going on, not any difference in choices or actions that one takes. The story does not matter. People will laugh at you if you tell the story that you are a brain in a vat instead of the story that you are really real. That is true whether you are a brain in a vat or your life is really real.

Generally speaking, metaphysics is irrelevant. To pretty much everything. If you want to read more of my thoughts on that, you might want to read this other thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16950

The originator of that thread appears to have some interests in common with you.

I'm not upset about who the president is or about global warming, nor about my neighbor doing illegal things that affect me, and such.
I don't quite get how the "It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change" applies for me.

It applies to you because you are upset about something that is beyond your control. If you cannot figure something out, then figuring out that thing (whatever it is) is beyond your control.

Of course, if you can figure something out, then figuring it out is not beyond your control. But in that case, your description is wrong.

What you can do is try to figure things out. But don't expect to be able to figure out everything.

[baker]

If your claim is that this is the best of all possible worlds, it would have been good for you to start with that, to be clear what it is that you are claiming.

I don't believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, but I am afraid that it might be.

Generally speaking, metaphysics is irrelevant.

!!
It wasn't when I was growing up. I have always been in awe of people who professed metaphysical certainty. Like in school when my Catholic classmates professed to know which religion is the right one, what true knowledge of God is, and so on: I was in absolute awe. I felt so helpless in comparison with them, because I had no such certainties. And the others would make fun of me and even beat me.
Now that we're discussing this, it seems, in hindsight, it was their bullying that cemented those metaphysical claims as relevant in my mind.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16950
The originator of that thread appears to have some interests in common with you.

Well, philosophical inquiry might not lead to truth, but discussing things in a philosophical manner could help expunge some demons from one's mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleep ... roject.jpg

[Pattern-chaser]

The things I am upset about are, for example, not being able to figure out "how things really are", not having certainty in metaphysical matters. This is what keeps me up at night.

[...]

I don't quite get how the "It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change" applies for me.

You haven't been here for all that long, so apologies if I have this wrong. You seem to favour a worldview that revolves around logic, science, Objectivism and Analytic philosophy. This is a perspective that nurtures the idea that all is, or can be, certain. That all can be known, and that which is unknown today will become known tomorrow or the next day.... Oddly, as this resembles an 'objective' viewpoint, it is a fantasy. Even within the circle of relevance of science, Godel and Heisenberg have demonstrated (i.e. proven) that some things cannot be known. Not now; not ever. There are many other, more debatable, examples (e.g. whether we are brains-in-vats...).

So your insomnia is not curable. We are mere humans, and there are some things we cannot do, some that we cannot know, and some that we cannot understand. This is the real world, as seen from a human perspective. Uncertainty is part of our lives, and will always be. This is what is. The things we cannot do, know or understand are the things you think we ought to be able to do, know or understand. But your wishes are pipedreams; fantasies. Sorry, that's how life is, for you and for all of us. So we all need to accept it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have always been in awe of people who professed metaphysical certainty.

Hmm. Do you still think this, or do you now think these people are mistaken? You haven't mentioned exactly what metaphysical things they were so certain about, but most of these things are uncertain in the first place. They can be discussed, and interesting ideas considered, but they can't often be proven. Many metaphysical things are like that.

[Jack D Ripper]

If your claim is that this is the best of all possible worlds, it would have been good for you to start with that, to be clear what it is that you are claiming.

I don't believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, but I am afraid that it might be.

The idea that this is the best of all possible worlds is so moronic that pretty much no one consistently holds that position. Even idiots are typically smart enough to not hold to the position at all times.

If this were the best of all possible worlds, then it would not make any difference what you did. The reason being, whatever you did must be for the best; otherwise, this would not be the best of all possible worlds.

It would mean, for example, that Jeffery Dahmer (this is real; do a search for him) serial raping and serial murdering, involving necrophilia and cannibalism, of boys and men, is part of the best possible world, and would mean that he literally could not possibly have made a better choice that would improve the world over what it is. Because if he could have possibly done even one thing better to improve the world, then this would not be the best of all possible worlds.

It would mean that Hitler having millions killed and having his SS torture people is part of the best possible world, and that he could not have made even one choice differently that would possibly make the world a better place, because if that were possible, then this could not be the best of all possible worlds.

The choices that have been made must ALL have been for the best, as, otherwise, the world could be better, which would mean that this is not the best of all possible worlds.

So, again, if this were the best of all possible worlds, then it would not make any difference what you did. The reason being, whatever you did must be for the best; otherwise, this would not be the best of all possible worlds.

If this were the best of all possible worlds, then, literally, nothing matters.

Generally speaking, metaphysics is irrelevant.

!!
It wasn't when I was growing up. I have always been in awe of people who professed metaphysical certainty. Like in school when my Catholic classmates professed to know which religion is the right one, what true knowledge of God is, and so on: I was in absolute awe. I felt so helpless in comparison with them, because I had no such certainties. And the others would make fun of me and even beat me.
Now that we're discussing this, it seems, in hindsight, it was their bullying that cemented those metaphysical claims as relevant in my mind.

You are confusing beliefs about metaphysics with metaphysics. People can do stupid things because they have stupid beliefs about metaphysics, but it is not the metaphysics that is the problem.

For example, with the brain in a vat idea, if some moron believed he was a brain in a vat, and every other person was really just part of a computer program and not a real person, he may treat those other people differently than he would if he thought they were real. Notice, what makes the difference is not whether or not he really is a brain in a vat; what makes the difference are his stupid beliefs about the matter and how he reacts to those beliefs.

Of course, if he were a smart brain in a vat, he would treat those "other people" just the same as if they were real other people, because they will react to him like real people do, such that they would be likely to do things he would not like if he were to treat them as less than people.


Also, someone feeling certain about something does not make that something true. We can know that absolutely because some people feel absolutely certain that their religion is true, while other people feel absolutely certain that their different religion (that contradicts the other religion) is absolutely true. A feeling of certainty is just a feeling, not knowledge.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16950
The originator of that thread appears to have some interests in common with you.

Well, philosophical inquiry might not lead to truth, but discussing things in a philosophical manner could help expunge some demons from one's mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleep ... roject.jpg

Sure. And just because it does not in most cases does not mean that it never does. I think, insofar as I can make out what your approach is, that you are, broadly speaking, going about it in the right way. However, you should be more careful in how you state things, as you often are involved in misunderstandings. I realize that English is not your native language, but rather oddly, you write not like one would expect for that, but as if you were a native speaker who was very peculiar with perverse ideas. As it is not the usual problem with a nonnative speaker, it is difficult to give advice on how to correct the issue, beyond saying that you should try to be as exact as possible in your statements (at least when trying to discuss philosophy), being careful to state exactly what you mean and not something slightly different.

But this is getting away from the point in directing you to that thread. I think some of the concerns you have might be addressed in that thread, though it is difficult for me to know what, exactly, it is that you are looking for.

[baker]

So your insomnia is not curable. We are mere humans, and there are some things we cannot do, some that we cannot know, and some that we cannot understand. This is the real world, as seen from a human perspective. Uncertainty is part of our lives, and will always be. This is what is. The things we cannot do, know or understand are the things you think we ought to be able to do, know or understand. But your wishes are pipedreams; fantasies. Sorry, that's how life is, for you and for all of us. So we all need to accept it.

While the certain maul you.

Most people I have known in life have been dead certain about all kinds of things, from metaphysical ones to practical ones. Quick to judge, quick to point fingers, quick to accuse. Like they have it all figured out. And then taking action based on that certainty, action that is often to the detriment of some others, including me.

Have you never envied them that certainty?

I have always been in awe of people who professed metaphysical certainty.

Hmm. Do you still think this, or do you now think these people are mistaken?

At 2 AM, certainly. But sometimes during the day as well.

You haven't mentioned exactly what metaphysical things they were so certain about, but most of these things are uncertain in the first place. They can be discussed, and interesting ideas considered, but they can't often be proven. Many metaphysical things are like that.

Metaphysical things like:
-- Does God exist?
-- Which religion is the right one?
-- What is the meaning of life?
-- How do I know what is real?
-- How do I know what is true?
and so on.

[baker]

The idea that this is the best of all possible worlds is so moronic that pretty much no one consistently holds that position. Even idiots are typically smart enough to not hold to the position at all times.

I've always been puzzled by "Candide". I can't quite figure out whether it is satire, or whether it is a discourse one is supposed to present for the sake of keeping up appearances (because the world is a dangerous place, too dangerous to say straightforwardly what the dangers are).

So, again, if this were the best of all possible worlds, then it would not make any difference what you did. The reason being, whatever you did must be for the best; otherwise, this would not be the best of all possible worlds.

If this were the best of all possible worlds, then, literally, nothing matters.

But Leibniz didn't think this idea was satire, did he?

You are confusing beliefs about metaphysics with metaphysics. People can do stupid things because they have stupid beliefs about metaphysics, but it is not the metaphysics that is the problem.

For example, with the brain in a vat idea, if some moron believed he was a brain in a vat, and every other person was really just part of a computer program and not a real person, he may treat those other people differently than he would if he thought they were real. Notice, what makes the difference is not whether or not he really is a brain in a vat; what makes the difference are his stupid beliefs about the matter and how he reacts to those beliefs.

Of course, if he were a smart brain in a vat, he would treat those "other people" just the same as if they were real other people, because they will react to him like real people do, such that they would be likely to do things he would not like if he were to treat them as less than people.

This is so for the case of the BIV scenario, which is inert, in the sense that it makes no difference whether a person believes it or not.
But this is not the case with many other metaphysical doctrines. For example, if you believe that God is on your side, then there's no limit to what you will allow yourself to do.

Also, someone feeling certain about something does not make that something true. We can know that absolutely because some people feel absolutely certain that their religion is true, while other people feel absolutely certain that their different religion (that contradicts the other religion) is absolutely true. A feeling of certainty is just a feeling, not knowledge.

Sure. But coping with being on the receiving end of other people's certainty, while not having anything to counter it, is quite a different matter.

Sure. And just because it does not in most cases does not mean that it never does. I think, insofar as I can make out what your approach is, that you are, broadly speaking, going about it in the right way. However, you should be more careful in how you state things, as you often are involved in misunderstandings. I realize that English is not your native language, but rather oddly, you write not like one would expect for that, but as if you were a native speaker who was very peculiar with perverse ideas. As it is not the usual problem with a nonnative speaker, it is difficult to give advice on how to correct the issue, beyond saying that you should try to be as exact as possible in your statements (at least when trying to discuss philosophy), being careful to state exactly what you mean and not something slightly different.

But this is getting away from the point in directing you to that thread. I think some of the concerns you have might be addressed in that thread, though it is difficult for me to know what, exactly, it is that you are looking for.

Thank you, and I apologize.
If I could state the problem clearly, if I could hold a stance (whatever that stance might be), then there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

What do you think happens when a small child is exposed to the standard problems of religion and philosophy, in a bullying situation? I still remember how it started in first grade, in the summer (it had to be around the time when my Catholic classmates received First Communion). They would accuse me of horrible things -- I didn't understand the accusation, but I gathered from their tone of voice and from the expressions on their faces that it was about something bad. Then later, as they were proselytizing me at school. "How can't you see that God exists? How can you be so wilfully blind and evil?" I took their words at face value, as if we were talking about the existence of tables and chairs, you and me, and not something that is in an entirely different category of things and persons. I had no philosophical apparatus.

In hindsight, I think they just had the luxury to take those religious claims for granted, to have certainty about them. And that this certainty was based on them being members of the RCC, being accepted and valued there. A luxury I didn't have. Back then, I thought that certainty was to be reached by some kind of empirical enquiry (the way one ordinarily thinks about reaching certainty), and that this is what my classmates had done in order to come to the certainty they had. In hindsight, I don't think they did that. But I have spent so many years thinking precisely that! That their empirical powers were better than mine, that they were more intelligent, that they could see "how things really are", while I was defective (and destined for eternal damnation). In hindsight, I think their epistemic (!) advantage over me was that they were born and raised as members of the RCC, while I was born and raised in their immediate proximity, but not as a member. I was an outsider on the inside.

I think this explains my sometimes confused expression. I am not sure how to mend this, but I've been looking for ways to do so.
Again, I apologize, and thank you for your patience.

[baker]

But this is getting away from the point in directing you to that thread. I think some of the concerns you have might be addressed in that thread, though it is difficult for me to know what, exactly, it is that you are looking for.

There are so many topics at this forum that catch my attention!

[Pattern-chaser]

So your insomnia is not curable. We are mere humans, and there are some things we cannot do, some that we cannot know, and some that we cannot understand. This is the real world, as seen from a human perspective. Uncertainty is part of our lives, and will always be. This is what is. The things we cannot do, know or understand are the things you think we ought to be able to do, know or understand. But your wishes are pipedreams; fantasies. Sorry, that's how life is, for you and for all of us. So we all need to accept it.

While the certain maul you.

Most people I have known in life have been dead certain about all kinds of things, from metaphysical ones to practical ones. Quick to judge, quick to point fingers, quick to accuse. Like they have it all figured out. And then taking action based on that certainty, action that is often to the detriment of some others, including me.

Have you never envied them that certainty?

We're addressing two issues here, aren't we? One is philosophical, concerning the things we can be certain about, and the things we can't be certain about; whether certainty is justified. The other is bullying, and the dogmatic certainty of the bigot. The former is worth discussing, I think. The latter is wrong, but otherwise unworthy of consideration.

You haven't mentioned exactly what metaphysical things they were so certain about, but most of these things are uncertain in the first place. They can be discussed, and interesting ideas considered, but they can't often be proven. Many metaphysical things are like that.

Metaphysical things like:
-- Does God exist?
-- Which religion is the right one?
-- What is the meaning of life?
-- How do I know what is real?
-- How do I know what is true?
and so on.

Exactly so. None of the above have certain answers, although I believe them to be worthy of consideration and study nonetheless.

[baker]

We're addressing two issues here, aren't we? One is philosophical, concerning the things we can be certain about, and the things we can't be certain about; whether certainty is justified. The other is bullying, and the dogmatic certainty of the bigot. The former is worth discussing, I think.

The latter is wrong, but otherwise unworthy of consideration.

I have tried to think this way for a long time, along with so many other people. They'd tell me that "religion is just fairy tales" and that I should "just let it go".

Based on my own experience, though, I believe that the effect of religious bullying is real, with real consequences. Religious bullying is a mindf*** like nothing else and can mess one up like nothing else. Precisely because it is aimed to demolish the bullied person from the inside and completely, and it has the doctrinal apparatus to do so. It can utterly dehumanize and demoralize. An ordinary bully cannot come up with a coherent reason as to why the bullied person is worthless and should not exist, but a religious bully can.
Denying or ignoring the power of religious bullying just makes it more powerful.

[Pattern-chaser]

We're addressing two issues here, aren't we? One is philosophical, concerning the things we can be certain about, and the things we can't be certain about; whether certainty is justified. The other is bullying, and the dogmatic certainty of the bigot. The former is worth discussing, I think.

The latter is wrong, but otherwise unworthy of consideration.

I have tried to think this way for a long time, along with so many other people. They'd tell me that "religion is just fairy tales" and that I should "just let it go".

For myself, I would remark that religion is not a "fairy tale", even though there is no evidence to demonstrate its truth. Religion is yours if you want it, and yours to ignore, if that is your wish. It is important to a great number of people, and plays a significant role in their lives. For that reason alone, it is not a "fairy tale", IMO.

Based on my own experience, though, I believe that the effect of religious bullying is real, with real consequences. Religious bullying is a mindf*** like nothing else and can mess one up like nothing else. Precisely because it is aimed to demolish the bullied person from the inside and completely, and it has the doctrinal apparatus to do so. It can utterly dehumanize and demoralize. An ordinary bully cannot come up with a coherent reason as to why the bullied person is worthless and should not exist, but a religious bully can.
Denying or ignoring the power of religious bullying just makes it more powerful.

Sadly I think you are blinded by the form of bullying you have experienced. All bullying is the same. And all bullying is capable of the damage you describe. There are no special bullies, or special circumstances where bullying is more effective. All bullies assert that their victims are unworthy of anything and everything; it's part of the process. This doesn't make their assertions true, of course, but that's not their point or purpose. They are intended only to hurt. ... At this point I should reveal the magic trick that makes bullying stop, but (if there is such a thing) I don't know its secret. Perhaps someone else has more helpful advice to offer?