What Do You BELIEVE?

In this episode, I discuss the idea that the worldview people and societies at large hold is held together by foundations that orients those who believe it to behave in similar ways. I discuss the ramifications of this revelation if the idea indeed happens to be true.
Check out my previous videos here:
- I'M BACK : shorturl.at/aAOT6
- ANCIENT ALIENS?? : shorturl.at/uDEK0
#philosophy #meaning #ethics

[@supernova8523]

Okay thinking of systems of beliefs as a so called “tree” is extremely insightful and has left me with a lot to think about.

[@bparr6968]

Excellent first video, im looking forward to seeing where this goes

[@vincenthills5024]

WHAT, 24 VIEWS ?? Here before algorithm picks up on this

[@Xandros_Official]

Hugely appreciate the enthusiasm! :)

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Very illuminating! I've been thinking we need something like a 'meta-religious' framework for essentially this reason. It seems like mankind is rapidly disintegrating into many 'simulcra', and there has to be some kind of metaphysical revival, and a movement which will unify these disparate dimensions of our phenomenology/psychology. Some kind of unifying logic must emerge out of this post-enlightenment era that we seem to be entering.

[@Xandros_Official]

Thank you! And yes, exactly. For some background, back when the "New Atheist" trend was in full swing, I was quite enthusiastically in favour of the rational direction I saw emerging in society. While I still believe in the absolute necessity of rationality for modern human civilization, I also now see that - though the New Atheists were very effective in showing the holes in religious dogma, they made little effort to erect anything in religion's place. Religion has survived for so long and arisen independently so many times because it near-optimally serves both an important psychological and social function. I think the optimal solution for humanity must find a new framework that achieves this, but that exists without appealing to irrational modes of thought. - Xan

[@DnalorNibul]

I can really appreciate the line of thinking. I definitely didn’t have a name for something like a logic tree but ever since I was young the extrapolation of beliefs from eachother in terms priority always made sense. Even the American saying “God, Family, Country” is essentially doing just that. I will say however I do believe your take on religion and its justification for itself is fairly off. Also because of that thought it seems you’ve decided something deeper and to the “actual” core of humanity but I don’t know. I just think it’s the wrong way to think about it. I think religions are answering exactly that. I guess what I’m saying is that the fundamental truth that you’re questioning could unify humanity would have to be something further than what religion is already answering or arguing for. Things like meaning, purpose, universal origin, etc. things that as far as we can tell nobody actually knows. Like besides the things that religions are about, what else could you possibly conceive of that goes deeper than them? Long paragraph for sure but yeah, great work and best of luck🙏

[@Xandros_Official]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I love to hear this type of feedback. I'd characterise my thoughts on the fundamental ethos as filling a similar psychological place as religion would. The only thing that would make it deeper is that it would make full contact with reality in a way that religions require faith to compensate for. In order to accomplish this, I'd suggest we essentially have to describe all the primary phenomena of reality (including the physical universe and consciousness) from which all more complex phenomena emerge. We then need to make sure all the phenomena outlined in the model match the actual reality we experience without omitting or misrepresenting any elements. From there, if "ought" statements can be made, we have a totally rational and objective platform from which to reason for them. We are then justified in optimising for the outcomes the model establishes as objectively desirable. That's my current conception anyway. Stick around for later videos to see how I argue we can properly figure these things out. Always glad to hear a neighbouring perspective! 🤘 -Xan

[@JT-tp5iv]

Show me