George Hammond | Who Are We?

Who are we? Good question. But difficult to answer definitively. Still, it is a question that is philosophically fruitful to ask, because the flip side of the question (who aren’t we?) has several clear answers that narrow the search for an answer to the main question.
One example: It might be emotionally hard to accept, but it seems highly unlikely that we are the center of the universe, even though we all experience the totality of our lives through one perspective-our own-which has clearly made it very easy for almost all of us to fall for this illusion.
That is one reason Monday Night Philosophy returns to the Commonwealth Club (this time on a Tuesday) to re-ask these age-old questions, to analyze the most popular of their age-old answers, and to present the logic that points to a different answer to the ancient question: Who are we?
This rational perspective also makes it perfectly understandable why we experience the emotions we do, why we dream, why we’ve told ourselves these stories, how we try to egg ourselves on with them, why we have scared ourselves silly with them, and even how they explain away for us our otherwise embarrassing attraction to cruelty.
Speaker photo courtesy the speaker; Parthenon photo by Topshere Media/Unsplash.
March 5, 2024
👉Join our Email List! www.commonwealthclub.org/email
🎉 BECOME a MEMBER: www.commonwealthclub.org/memb...
The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum 📣, bringing together its 20,000 members for more than 500 annual events on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy.
Founded in 1903 in San Francisco California 🌉, The Commonwealth Club has played host to a diverse and distinctive array of speakers, from Teddy Roosevelt in 1911 to Anthony Fauci in 2020.
In addition to the videos🎥 shared here, the Club reaches millions of listeners through its podcast🎙 and weekly national radio program📻.

[@andysoul8659]

Frictionless, sensible, and absolutely enjoyable. Thank you.

[@georgechammond]

My pleasure, Andy. I am glad you enjoyed it.

[@gbacrila]

Exemplary: A thought provoking, stimulating, carefully detailed presentation of refreshing TRUTH which FEELS benevolent in nature. Thank you much.

[@georgechammond]

I am glad you noticed my benevolent motives ... mixed in there with my philosophical ones.

[@shebaandrew4409]

I am so excited to listen to this. George, you have an amazing ability to distill and teach concepts. Thank you for your contribution. Appreciate you

[@anniehammond274]

I am glad you are enjoying my attempt to add to the cultural conversation ...

[@georgechammond]

Metaphysics gift-wrapped as stand-up comedy ...

[@shebaandrew4409]

Perhaps a standup comedy method could be a hopeful attempt to put new wine into old wine skin. 😊

[@georgechammond]

@@shebaandrew4409 Hopeful attempt indeed. And, to mix metaphors, a spoonful of sugar helps ...

[@shebaandrew4409]

@@georgechammond ...medicine go down. That's a good one. Thank you for bringing an element of fun to a job that must be done.

[@georgechammond]

@@shebaandrew4409 It's my pleasure. So "let George do it".

[@shebaandrew4409]

😂 I will definitely let you know if I can locate another George to do it.

[@LuciFeric137]

Tuned out at "intuitional".

[@georgechammond]

That was a reasonable, probabilistic decision, but perhaps not appropriate in this particular case, because the lecture went into detail about why, however delighted someone is with their personal intuitions about reality, those intuitions do not do the rest of us any good unless reason can demonstrate their reliability in explaining our shared reality. I also went into three intuitional answers, which are believed by millions, but which do not make sense, which are actually counter-productive to our pursuit of happiness, and which are ironically even counter-productive to our pursuit of virtue.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

True intuition is a balance between reason and feeling. If the balance is perfect intuition is correct. This lecturer does not understand this. Vague feelings are not intuition, speculative reason on its own is just that. Truth, knowledge comes only from a perfect balance between reason and feeling. Reason or feeling should not function in isolation but in tandem.

[@georgechammond]

If you define "true intuition" as intuition that is correct (whether the balance between reason and feeling is "perfect" or not), then of course true intuition looks good compared to speculative reasoning. But how do you determine that an intuition is correct? The point in the lecture was that the use of reason became much more popular, starting in ancient Greece, because it could help determine which intuitions were more likely to be correct by testing them against reality and by testing whether they contained internal or external inconsistencies - tests which also are good for determining which intuitions can't possible be true. And even intuitions which prove true for the person who did the intuiting are of little use to others (beyond the enthusiasm generated in others by that person publicly praising his or her intuitions) if they can't be explained rationally. Ancient theories of mind most often place intuition as more fundamental than intellect, reflecting exactly your (@ALavin-en1kr) sentiment of intuition's superiority. But it seems highly likely that "true intuitions" are created by subconscious reasoning, reasoning that is indeed often a balance between reason and feeling. But the ability to explain to others, to share one's observations, depends a lot on how conscious you are of the elements of the intuition, the reasons for it, and so conscious reasoning seems clearly better for that task than subconscious reasoning.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@georgechammond I don’t disagree with what you have expressed above. Women are supposed to be more intuitive than men who are supposed to do better with reason, however true that is. If an intuition is true somehow a person knows it is true. If it is a vague feeling that something might be true of course that can be questioned. The Enlightenment; the Age of Reason, was supposed to be such a big deal but where has it got us. There have undoubtedly been many benefits but many are adrift today not knowing the purpose of life or even if there is a purpose. Intuitions about the nature of reality can occur to a scientist who has devoted time to a problem. There is a eureka moment when the truth dawns. That has happened. Materialists are likely not too intuitive, what is apparent to the five senses is a far as they can see. They are baffled by people who are religious as that depends on intuitive understanding, seeing beyond the five senses, having a sixth sense.

[@georgechammond]

@@ALavin-en1kr The best scientists usually are intuitive in addition to being rational thinkers. And I don't disagree with you about the Age of Reason, either. Many material benefits, not so many spiritual ones. But partially that was a reluctance to intrude on questions usually answered by religion. The ancient Greek philosophers had no such qualms, but were just getting started. In any case, as I conclude hopefully in my lecture, people who prefer the intuitive, the scientific, or the Pythagorean melding of both could easily get along with each other, without claiming a final answer that others must adhere to, if the three unhelpful ideas I discuss (tyrant king, rewards and punishments and the good and evil dichotomy) could be gradually eliminated from the cultural conversation.

[@KenVet]

God does not exist. World would be better off without any religion. imho, ymmv

[@everettyoung6596]

Which would you have a better chance finding, God or Nothing?

[@anniehammond274]

Even if God does not exist, people have been hoping to be subsumed into something "bigger" for all of our recorded history. Similar secular attempts to remake the personalities of all the citizens of a country have also failed, and violently so, so maybe the issue is not religious hopes themselves, but our authoritarian tendencies to force others to conform to our (insupportable) intuitions about how much better life would be if everyone did what we wanted them to do.

[@georgechammond]

There is no chance of finding Nothing, and (depending on the definition of God - let's use the one that God is an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the Universe) there is no chance of finding a logical impossibility. Because knowledge and power are both processes, subject to the continuum of change, and so can never be in a static, unchanging state of "perfection". In addition, the two ideas are internally inconsistent, because one's power would be limited by not being able to make one's knowledge perfect. So I see this as a tie. And that it is highly unlikely that a rational explanation of our shared reality will be either God-based or Nothing-based.

[@everettyoung6596]

@@georgechammond I appreciate the response. Unfortunately I'd develop carpal tunnel syndrome exchanging ideas with you. Hopefully you have a part 2 where you openly entertain counters to your argument. Thanks!

[@everettyoung6596]

@@georgechammond BTW, I'm a big fan! Keep 'em coming!