True Theothanatology

[EricPH]

And what is the empathy for? I mean, what is going on there, before you, that inspires empathy?

Sadly, we choose who we show empathy to. The holocaust showed a lack of empathy. Today we seem to lack empathy for the millions of children who die as a result of grinding poverty and preventable disease.

In the 50s and 60s of the last century there was a movement of the so-called God-is-dead theology, also known as theothanatology,

If God is dead, these victims will never have justice.

[Atla]

And what is the empathy for? I mean, what is going on there, before you, that inspires empathy?

Empathy probably evolved with the homo sapiens, originally it wasn't inspired. Inspiration came in later, when people realized that they probably should become more empathetic than the average caveman.

Empathy is an evolved feature where we suffer where others suffer, and are happy when others are happy. So we refrain from hurting them, we aid them. Again I see all kinds of things here in addition to the sheer qualia of pain: us, parts of us that aren't pain but get affected by the pain, them, our ability to guess/experience the state of mind of the other person, our ability to do X, our ability to stop ourselves from actions.

[EricPH]

On reflection, thousands of gods are dead for me, only the Catholic God lives. And as to my atheist friends, they just believe in one less god than I do.

This kind of highlights a hierarchy of empathy. We possibly show more empathy to our family and friends, maybe to the people of our town, tribe, country, religion and football team.

We might show the least empathy to groups we see as the opposition.

Despite the thousands of religions that exist, the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

[thrasymachus]

Atla wrote
Empathy probably evolved with the homo sapiens, originally it wasn't inspired. Inspiration came in later, when people realized that they probably should become more empathetic than the average caveman.

Empathy is an evolved feature where we suffer where others suffer, and are happy when others are happy. So we refrain from hurting them, we aid them. Again I see all kinds of things here in addition to the sheer qualia of pain: us, parts of us that aren't pain but get affected by the pain, them, our ability to guess/experience the state of mind of the other person, our ability to do X, our ability to stop ourselves from actions.

Sounds fine to me. But how pain got there, evolution or otherwise, I would put aside. It is what it is. Like listening to music, say--one ignores the composer, the theory in the moment of indulgence.
So, the prima facie reason for not harming others is quite simple, even though living life isn't simple at all. It hurts, in one way or another. (Why listen to music? It's beautiful, in one way or another.) Is this not the bedrock of a negative ethical obligation?

[Atla]

Sounds fine to me. But how pain got there, evolution or otherwise, I would put aside. It is what it is. Like listening to music, say--one ignores the composer, the theory in the moment of indulgence.
So, the prima facie reason for not harming others is quite simple, even though living life isn't simple at all. It hurts, in one way or another. (Why listen to music? It's beautiful, in one way or another.) Is this not the bedrock of a negative ethical obligation?

It's what we base ethics on (as we should imo). But we aren't "obliged" to do so, nothing is "telling us" to do so.

If music is beautiful, then are we "obliged" to listen to it? If yes then why?

[thrasymachus]

EricPH wrote
Despite the thousands of religions that exist, the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences. You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

I do like the way you think, and I find agreement with a lot that can be said for this. The only thing I want is greater analytical clarity. Religion is an ethical concept, you know, taking everything Jesus, say, said and did, is grounded on a foundational ethical problem with being human, viz , the complaint that we are thrown into a world of suffering. This is a foundational question that science cannot examine; it is "prior" to what science can say. Suffering as such is simply a given. This kind of analysis puts religion and all of its objectionable and confusing story telling where it belongs: at the center of our concerns, minus the incidental historical baggage.

[thrasymachus]

Atla wrote
It's what we base ethics on (as we should imo). But we aren't "obliged" to do so, nothing is "telling us" to do so.

If music is beautiful, then are we "obliged" to listen to it? If yes then why?

That would be the most penetrating question, I would say. What makes this idea of something hurting the basis of ethics? the answer lies in the nature of pain itself, and that is not a justification that can be argued into existence. It is, as a justification, its own presupposition, as they say, simply meaning, the analysis stops there, the terminal point of inquiry. More inquiry follows if you have a notion to look into complex affairs, granted, but the foundation is unassailable.

[Atla]

That would be the most penetrating question, I would say. What makes this idea of something hurting the basis of ethics? the answer lies in the nature of pain itself, and that is not a justification that can be argued into existence. It is, as a justification, its own presupposition, as they say, simply meaning, the analysis stops there, the terminal point of inquiry. More inquiry follows if you have a notion to look into complex affairs, granted, but the foundation is unassailable.

Looks like we clearly got to the point this time. I disagree with the analysis. I'd say that foundation isn't unassailable, instead it's Kantian self-importance.

Okay, pain is a kind of badness in itself, that's a basic given. So it made evolutionary sense to build organisms around such "bad" and "good" qualia, that's how it happened.

But remove the organism, and the pain, the badness is just there in itself. Like yellow is. There is no category difference between pain and yellow. The world has no fundamental ethical givenness. No fundamental injunction, no "telling us".

[thrasymachus]

Atla wrote
Looks like we clearly got to the point this time. I disagree with the analysis. I'd say that foundation isn't unassailable, instead it's Kantian self-importance.

Okay, pain is a kind of badness in itself, that's a basic given. So it made evolutionary sense to build organisms around such "bad" and "good" qualia, that's how it happened.

But remove the organism, and the pain, the badness is just there in itself. Like yellow is. There is no category difference between pain and yellow. The world has no fundamental ethical givenness. No fundamental injunction, no "telling us".

Kant doesn't think like this at all. Just the opposite, really.

Of course, it is your prerogative to think as you please, but most who talk like this end up in a disingenuous position usually grounded in an adamant desire not affirm something even in the vicinity of religion. I genuinely sympathize.
But to me, the facts are the facts: twist my arm to the point of agony, and it is qualitatively different from being shown the color yellow. Do deny this would be disingenuous. Like calling day night, not believable.

[Atla]

Atla wrote
Looks like we clearly got to the point this time. I disagree with the analysis. I'd say that foundation isn't unassailable, instead it's Kantian self-importance.

Okay, pain is a kind of badness in itself, that's a basic given. So it made evolutionary sense to build organisms around such "bad" and "good" qualia, that's how it happened.

But remove the organism, and the pain, the badness is just there in itself. Like yellow is. There is no category difference between pain and yellow. The world has no fundamental ethical givenness. No fundamental injunction, no "telling us".

Kant doesn't think like this at all. Just the opposite, really.

Of course, it is your prerogative to think as you please, but most who talk like this end up in a disingenuous position usually grounded in an adamant desire not affirm something even in the vicinity of religion. I genuinely sympathize.
But to me, the facts are the facts: twist my arm to the point of agony, and it is qualitatively different from being shown the color yellow. Do deny this would be disingenuous. Like calling day night, not believable.

It seems qualitatively different to you, because you're an organism, and you're to a great extent built around the avoidance of pain. It greatly helps organisms survive. But take the organism away, take the context away, and then do the analysis on pain.

[thrasymachus]

Atla wrote
It seems qualitatively different to you, because you're an organism, and you're to a great extent built around the avoidance of pain. It greatly helps organisms survive. But take the organism away, take the context away, and then do the analysis on pain.

to talk about pleasure and pain in theoretical explanatory contexts presupposes the pain itself. You begins with what is there, then move on contextualize it in social theory, psychological theory and so on. But all of these possible contexts presuppose the givenness of the pain.

[Atla]

Atla wrote
It seems qualitatively different to you, because you're an organism, and you're to a great extent built around the avoidance of pain. It greatly helps organisms survive. But take the organism away, take the context away, and then do the analysis on pain.

to talk about pleasure and pain in theoretical explanatory contexts presupposes the pain itself. You begins with what is there, then move on contextualize it in social theory, psychological theory and so on. But all of these possible contexts presuppose the givenness of the pain.

We presuppose the givenness of all quale. Yellow is a given.

[thrasymachus]

Atla wrote
We presuppose the givenness of all quale. Yellow is a given.

Yes, that is true. Though someone like Dennett will argue qualia has no meaning, and this I think true regarding the color yellow.

[Atla]

Atla wrote
We presuppose the givenness of all quale. Yellow is a given.

Yes, that is true. Though someone like Dennett will argue qualia has no meaning, and this I think true regarding the color yellow.

Dennett seems to be saying that all quale are illusions, which may be one of the (if not the) worst philosophical ideas in history.

Quale have no meaning however. Meaning itself is another qualia.

[Pattern-chaser]

Empathy is an evolved feature where we suffer where others suffer, and are happy when others are happy.

So, given that we're a socially-cooperative species, empathy would contribute to our individual survival, by allowing us to better understand our fellow humans, and therefore to better predict what they might do. Someone who can do this surely has an individual (survival) advantage within the family/tribe/etc?