I think it is more that hope can be used by people to avoid having to accept something.

Plenty of people lean on hope and positivity as ways to absolve themselves from putting effort into resolving the problems they face.

Just as the crises which Bollnow refers to can't be fabricated, hope isn't something which can be faked. Meanwhile, grace, by its very nature, results from behaving intentionally.

I think grace is a better frame of mind for people who are in a crisis to aim for.

Hope implies desire which implies suffering.

[deleted]

Ah I didn't mean it at all as the definition of uniqueness, but I think what I said is closer in intent according to what the above commenter wanted to ask.

Most people seem fairly happy with their local situation, less so with our disfunctional federal government. Change is needed, but is extremely difficult to implement.

Appreciate it. If you notice though it's an old article from last year. Been sitting on it. I write a lot on medium

Just some guy who livestream political and philosophical discussions and debates online. I think last week they had someone on who talk about the same things you started with on your article. (Faith or religious existence from us) I think tho they can to a different conclusion that as humans expand their knowledge and evolve that we will replace or become god. So finishing the article answers my question thanks tho good read.

I appreciate your comment. I will take it into consideration. I didn't really notice the typos or grammatical errors. For the rambly style it's kind of deliberate. I want it to feel kind of conversational. I know a lot of people don't like it but it's what I enjoy reading so it's what I enjoy writing.

For the rest I will think about it

I don't know who that is

Your thinking of similarity not uniqueness. Uniqueness means one of a kind, so it's binary.

With all due respect this article is quite poorly written. There's a number of grammatical errors and typos which make it difficult to follow, and it's very "rambly" in its discourse.

I'd invite you to consider something very simple - is it better to have faith in something or to be convinced of it? The former could be considered a subset of the latter. Faith is blindly believing in something without necessarily being thoroughly convinced by it. In my opinion, this is a weaker position than rigorous scientific evidence or even intuition. Faith is not the same as intuition - it relies on surrendering to another perspective completely without any reservations, and has led to a great deal of evil for humanity at large (the Catholic Church has been a source of some of this evil).

Are you the person who was on Destiny’s stream?

Hope is easy to maintain what is difficult is shedding away pessimism

But then it goes back to what the other commenter said about the environment inducing thoughts

What we learn from others is mimetic. One definition of culture is simply how people adjust to fit their environments. So being “painted” is really imitating what we feel other people are doing right.

I feel very much like a vessel of memes and behaviors I adopted from other people who figured things out. Unfortunately I have a lot of junk wiring from society indoctrinating me in bullshit I can deconstruct with reason, but then you forget and drift back toward convention

So true. Even positivity come under attack from negativity. Hope requires much energy to create, maintain and gove it to others. Negativity that kills it only requires a destructive mind, of which there are many loud variants.

Fuck hope.

“...if you think determinism is true, you’re in an inherently self-defeating position.” Well, no. Determinists have lots of reasons that aren't necessarily 'self defeating'.

I began working through ways in which the logic of the argument fails, but gave up, not because the argument is a good one, but because untangling the many assumptions and sketchy moves and definitions here would take too long.

I suspect the fundamental problem with this is in the attempt to discuss something about lived human experience using rules of logic, which have their limits, and which are the product of a particular kind of thought in a particular historical and philosophical context. That leaves a lot of life out.

I'm not sure I remember this right, but was it not Kant who suggested that we can't tell if we have free will or not, but that the best course of action is to act as though we do (?)

It's easy to make broad assertions about peoples and time periods from whom you have no written records.

It shouldn't be so easy, and yet it is.

Hope is always under assault, though. If someone were to self-actualize with hope, it would be another yet another new struggle to maintain it.

Well, the more we think we are embedded in others. Perhaps. Some feel the self is already an illusion, so there is that. In any event, we aren't actually "embedded" in anything. It's a figure of speech. We do not have any adequate language to describe what "happens" to us. Yet here we are. Discussing our well-being.

Which is why this reddit is mainly speculative philosophy, not philosophy per se. Actually, speculative is incorrect. Not much speculation in the philosophical sense. So even better might be "r/ philosophy and self-help."

Mods: think about it.

​

I seldom see posts here doing critiques of these first-level reflective operations and their alleged conclusions.

We have no idea who or what we are. But we think we must, or should, or do. And as to other people, you will have to prove they are real, and in what manner, before I entertain *philosophically* the notion I am "embedded" in them.

It could be, "other people" is the greatest McGuffin ever invented. We simply can't know. We are in the system, not outside of it. That's a fact. Helps to start with it.

Premise 3 is false.

If person can choose A he can equally choose B or C or D etc. However the person only does one. The rest are all fantasy.

Determinism demands an outcome, and humans are the function. A becomes B with[out] you.

Sabine Hossenfelder's video on free will discusses this much more succinctly, with an ontological framework that has some basis in the metaphysical.

Huemer fails to address human perception's role in deciding the epistemology of this argument.

That's funny - my wife has a PhD in anthropology, she's been a hard core Jung scholar for like 10 years, teaches yoga, etc. I'm a photographer who came up playing years in bar bands. But we sit around the fire with bottles of wine and talk about this stuff a lot. Match made in heaven! (I gotta say though, a yoga teacher who is not a vegetarian - also known as a "unicorn"!)

People are like onions- made of only layers, no center