Again, what is "coincidental" about that? — Arkady

So offer me your definition of "coincidental" since you're putting it in quotes like it's a special sort of term.

Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience.
Non-sequitur. — Arkady

No, it's really not. My point was to point out that it was entirely irrelevant to our conversation how deficient theists were.

I didn't say it did. My response was geared towards your comment about some people "bowing down in humility." — Arkady

I know. You were annoyed that a theist might be characterized in a positive light (to the extent humility is positive), so you wanted to be sure to point out that atheists were no less virtuous. That is, you personalized a discussion that was never intended that way because you seem to want to defend the goodness of atheists. My point remains that neither is better or worse per se, but both are equally lacking in support for their definitive statements.

Dawkins unanswerable objection against the intelligent designer is precisely the unanswerable argument made by theists against atheists, just phrased teleologically instead of causatively.

That is, asking where matter came from to begin this long chain of causative events is no more answerable than asking who designed this infinitely complex designer. If every event has a cause, it's impossible to have had a first cause just by definition. If every complex entity had a more complex designer, then it's impossible for there to have been a first designer by definition.

A "coincidence" of what? — Arkady

Everything coming together by happenstance, resulting in everything from rocks to consciousness.

(In my experience, the people most ardently claiming for humility in the face of the universe are those with the least amount of epistemic humility: it is religious believers, not scientists, who claim to have all of the answers.)

Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience. How does this impact my conclusion that neither the atheists nor the theists have any inkling of the answer?

If Colin saw God like I have seen my hand, then his laughing off atheists is understandable. If Colin did see God in this way, I'd ask he show me.

As a a devout non-atheist, I find the whole certainty thing about God's non- existence as troubling as the certainty espoused by the theists. It's obvious that there is a universe and its obvious we don't know how or why it got here. Some bow down in humility to this fact and some boast that they know our existence is all just meaningless coincidence. I'd say both need to just admit they have no inkling of the answer.

And whose fault is that? — Bitter Crank

Your mama's.

I didn't have breakfast.

They are all things I didn't eat for breakfast.

Summarize it in a couple of sentences.

They are all nouns. Had the word "put" or "friendly" appeared (for example), your puzzle would have been more difficult.

The literal meaning of "utopia" is no place. So, you can seek perfection, but, by definition, you can't find it.

Do you believe in such a thing as an innate idea? Or are ideas always built up from experience? — Mongrel

There is evidence that primates are innately afraid of snakes. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/are-primates-hard-wired-to-be-scared-of-snakes/

To the extent that its evolutionarily advantageous to be born with certain ideas or knowledge, it would stand to reason that such would exist.

For those who have owned dogs, I'm sure you've noticed innate abilities to hunt, to shepherd, to retrieve, and to do all sorts of things. If that can exist in dogs, why not people as well?

Intelligence is directly related to genetics. Deal with it.

Religious people, those of deep unwavering faith, are happier. The lot in life set aside for the non believer and the non conformist (as they are one in the same) is harder for so many reasons. The problem is that recognition of the benefits of faith will not result in your having faith. Faith requires a leap, a temporary abandonment of reason, or, as the faithful say, humility that the answers of life cannot be found by normal means.

With all your head banging and otherwise nonsense songs devoid of sentimentality, here's what I'm listening to, about someone I thought I knew:

"Little Wing"

Well, she's walking through the clouds,
With a circus mind that's running wild,
Butterflies and Zebras,
And Moonbeams and fairy tales.
That's all she ever thinks about.
Riding with the wind.

When I'm sad, she comes to me,
With a thousand smiles she gives to me free.
It's alright, she says it's alright,
Take anything you want from me,
Anything.
Fly on little wing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdHHsoW6mMg

I stand by my uncontroversial claim that philosophers are entirely unprepared to deal with assisting with the psychological problems of others. For that reason, I wouldn't go to a psychologist schooled primarily in Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and certainly not one who insisted on the Socratic method.

"She's hot" could also mean that your cat is looking for a mouse should that be what you say when your cat is looking for a mouse.

That is to say that context always matters, with the words constituting only a portion of the thought being conveyed.

I'm saying there have been no cognitive therapy successes administered by philosophers.

Why we should be motivated to live another day is a psychological problem, not a philosophical one. No one has ever been persuaded or argued into happiness.

There are no objective criteria. "Objective" doesn't refer to agreement. That confusion occurs because people take agreement to be an upshot of something being objective. And saying that agreement gives weight to something being true or correct is an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station

No, you've just offered an impossible definition of objective, which implies a view from nowhere, where there is no viewpoint of the observer. Unless you're willing to dispense with the entire enterprise of offering awards for literature because at some point the award will represent only the viewpoints of somebody (whoever that may be), then you've got to accept at some level that one artist is better than the other.

If you believe that a 3 year old's babble is as artistic as Dylan's, I do think there is adequate basis for saying that you are wrong. If not, then why not award the 3 year old?

The whole enterprise of categorization of emotions as this that or the other is problematic because there are just far too many exceptions.

As in the Nussbaum quote about anger being the source of payback or wanting to see someone get their comeuppance really sounds more like vengeance. The purpose of law is to exclude emotion from the equation and to offer fairness, which might equate to payback in some form. We consider a good judge to be a tempered one, not one that is fiery and spewing venom. In fact, we'd exclude a potential juror from hearing a case if he expressed hostility. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the sociopathic who can with a calm heart and cold blood commit all sorts of heinous acts, not motivated at all by anger, but simply carrying out their will.

And I'd think that anger is a very good thing in certain contexts, not leading to vengeance, but leading to something productive. The anger over injustice has led plenty to pass laws and start humanitarian organizations for example. Passions can be channeled to good or bad, whether the passion be love, hate, anger or whatever.

It just seems that Nussbaum is criticizing vengeance, which is hardly controversial, although to what extent this tramples on Kant's just desserts is another issue. That is to say, if the justification for giving you your just dessert is out of a respect for your autonomy and choice, then we've arrived at an alternative explanation than simply saying that we're punishing you because we're good and pissed off about it.

I see emotion as just that which moves you to action, thus the root "motion" within it. If we were emotionless we'd be as computers waiting for someone to offer a use for us. And so I'd submit that if anger over injustice moves us to feed the hungry, then it is a good thing, and if love of our country moves us to open fire into a crowd, it is a bad thing.

Catagories schmatagories.

I wish to retain my anonymity, so I won't post a photo of myself, but a picture of me would be an example of a non-douchy philosopher. So you know, I'm a cross between Tom Cruise, Baden's mom, and Satan. Odd yes, douchy no.

I wasn't suggesting that a personal attack on French POMOs was appropriate or suggesting it wasn't properly deleted. I was only suggesting that a consistent application of that standard would have resulted in the deletion of the commentary on the post that deleted it, specifically with regard to the attack on American adolesents.

It was me. It was a serious discussion, so you don't get to twat on about how much you think French intellectuals look like "douches" and how much it upsets you that they smoke pipes. I didn't find your posts funny, and I didn't realize they were meant to be funny. I just thought it was the typical, insufferable, adolescent American shite we have to either put up with or delete, every single day. — jamalrob

I didn't read any part of the thread in question, but I wonder why ridiculing French intellectuals is off limits but ridiculing adolescent Americans isn't.

Rigor yes. One doesn't get the feeling that Morrison spent long hours getting his lyrics just right as you get with Dylan.

Your comments about the subjectivity of aesthetic evaluation go only so far. Obviously Dylan is better than me and I'm better than a 5 year old. While it certainly has a subjective component, there are clearly some objective agreed upon criteria, else the category itself would make no sense. If we can declare certain BBQ and certain beers superior and even the best, surely I can meaningfully say Dylan is superior to Morrison.

Morrison's poetry wasn't very good. It tended toward drug induced rambling, although he was able to create interesting but disjointed imagery. That was at least my assessment and consistent with his persona of a rebellious, anti- establishment, counter culture icon. Had he won the Nobel prize, the objection wouldn't be that he wasn't properly a poet, but it would be that he's just far to weak an artist for consideration.

The fable of the 60s was personified by Morrison and his music, but he is dwarfed by Dylan in talent, rigor, intelligence, and significance.

The biggest disgrace regarding the Nobels was with the peace prize going to Obama the moment he took office and prior to his doing anything. Obama then proceeded to engage in all sorts of wars while in possession of the Peace Prize. The point of giving it to him was to try and dissuade him from continuing fighting various wars and to distinguish him from Bush. Regardless, the award was used for political purposes and it lost significant credibility IMHO.

Regarding Dylan, I'm not sure he's a poet per se, but he's credited with generally elevating popular music to another level. Dylan's music did everything from protesting wars to advocating for civil rights to meaningfully describing the human experience, which was a far advancement of the doo wop era of 50s music. Surely Dylan wasn't the first to do this, but he was one of, if not the most, important person to do that. Why he's being giving the award now is odd, considering his best days are behind him and this appears more to be a lifetime achievement award than in something he's done currently. It might be that those on the Nobel committee are old hippies who now have the authority to promote their favorite son.

Jim Morrison, while on my avatar, is no Dylan. While Dylan represented a headiness and a change in the mindset of American culture, Morrison represented excess and carpe diem ("I woke up this morning and got myself a beer. The future's uncertain and the end is always near."). I'm a huge (and I mean huge) Doors fan, but Dylan runs circles around Morrison any day.

What is interesting is that every conceivable argument against racism, sexism, or homophobia can be applied to speciesism. Appeals to nature are ad hoc assertions that use the naturalistic fallacy. Appeals to divine law either fail to resolve Euthyphro's dilemma or conflict with independent moral intuitions. Might=right arguments are straight up totalitarianism, as are appeals to cognitive abilities or any other sort of "fitness". Speciesism cannot be held up without leading to a slippery slope. — darthbarracuda

The slippery slope is in assuming that because we believe racism, sexism, and homophobia wrong that we cannot discriminate against anything ever. Why can we eat vegetables, use rocks to build buildings, imprison murderers, own pets, kills roaches in our house, etc.? The difference between rocks, roaches, pigs, and people relates to degrees (or lack of) consciousness, ability to comprehend, and intellectual capacity.

Most millionaires I have met have experienced their fair share of failures on their way to the success they enjoy today. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Excellent! I've gotten my failures out of the way and now I'm primed for my millions.

Gamers are stupid.

I found a variety of lovely castles in Edinburgh for sale. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Edinburgh/houses.html/svr/3107;jsessionid=968B82BD29BE271F20BBAE3899EF3229

There actually was one townhouse on the first page that looks fairly reasonable in light of where it was. The prices weren't too dissimilar for what you'd find around where I live, although we have very few castles, considering our lack of kings and princes.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth. — m-theory

That may be the case in the UK, but it's certainly not the case where I live. In fact, when the housing bubble burst, many homes remained unsold. Supply was way beyond demand. I realize that the Atlanta market is not representative of the world. It is likely that European land use regulations limit housing significantly and that is causing the problem.

Populations have been stable though in Europe, so I don't know if that's a major part of the problem.

I can say that housing costs dropped dramatically when the housing bubble burst and there remain large areas where investors bought up homes and turned them into low rent rentals. Low rent housing is not attractive economically for many reasons: poor schools, transient neighbors, high crime, etc. It's not as if people are living in the street for lack of housing, but it's that poor housing sucks and no one wants to live there. It's less a question of finding affordable housing than it is in finding quality affordable housing.

So, at $450 a day average, you're pulling in over $110,000 per year roofing houses. That is an amazing achievement, and something to be proud of. If sister and dad contribute at some point, you'll even be in a better situation.

I know you feel a great obligation for your fam, and that is admirable. I suspect at some point our young and now over-producing Wosret is going to find himself someone special and how extended family fits into this picture will be a challenge, but that's the next chapter of this journey.

So, even if I got a better paid job, the problem wouldn't go away, it would just go away for me - after a successful application, that is. — Sapientia

You do make a valid point here, which is that your resolving your problem won't resolve the overall problem. I will say, though, that a major part of the public assistance problem is that many (maybe you, maybe not) do not do all they can for themselves but instead find public assistance (which would include housing subsidies) an easier way out and a disincentive to self sustain. As I've noted, I have little problem providing for those who truly can't provide for themselves, but once those who really don't need the help start requesting it, everyone suffers because the resource is limited. What then happens is that there are demands that the rich give more, which is certainly something I've read on this board.

And so while I can't resolve THE problem, I do think it's reasonable to resolve the best I can one person at a time, with the understanding that eventually there'll be some that really need aid and then we can deal with them one person at a time.

Problems finding affordable housing usually occur in very high demand areas. Taking Atlanta as an example, if you want to live in the gentrified intown areas or the traditionally high rent areas, you're not going to find affordable housing. There is, though, plenty of affordable housing not terribly far from the city that is on the public transportation system. Of course, what holds for Atlanta does not hold for Manhattan or San Francisco and probably not many European cities that are densely populated and have limited land they're willing to develop. The solution from a free market perspective (which I would advocate) would be to increase supply, which would mean allowing greater development of currently undeveloped land.

The point of this discussion is to discuss why this is, what can be done about it - particularly what the government can do about it - and why this hasn't already been done.

Frequently reported in the news and mentioned on political programs is the severe lack of affordable housing. At least here in the U.K., but I expect it's a similar situation elsewhere as well. In recent years, house building in general reached its lowest level since the 1920s (in 2010, with 112,000 homes being built across England and Wales), and hasn't improved by much since then (in 2015, this increased to 149,000). — Sapientia

It seems the problem is the government, having severely limited the construction of new homes, thus making demand high and supply low and thereby creating increased prices.

The other solution is to get a better job. I know it sounds so American of me, but when there's a problem, how about looking within for the solution instead of asking for help. I'd have sympathy if you had one arm or half a brain, but you're fully intact, fully capable, just unwilling. Take a job that stresses you, annoys you, pains you, challenges you and your reward is a two bedroom apartment as opposed to a one room flat. If you don't want the job I've proposed, at least accept your one room flat as what you earned.

Did anyone here actually grow up with a real father figure in their lives? Doubtful.

I would add as a time for pessimism any ménage à trois involving you, me and Banno. — Baden

I anticipated sleeping. I'm not sure what you had in mind, although your interpretation is very telling.

From a business perspective, neither Paul nor Porat ever made any sense, so I never thought of it as a business at all. To work decades for a $20,000 pay off makes no sense except as a desperate act when in need of a quick payout. Paying $20,000 for a site that was being hung together by donations of money and server space and then trying to pay people to run it also made no sense. Anyone could do the math and realize that the ads wouldn't cover the cost of labor or server space, much less lead to recovery of the initial investment. And, let's be honest, anyone who sees philosophy as a way to make money probably knows little about business or philosophy.

But to those disappointed with the whole episode and who expected a better outcome, I offer you a little hyperbole with this holocaust saying: The pessimists went to America, the optimists to the gas chamber.

Let's buy it back on the cheap.

How do 3 people sleep face to face??...Oh... :-O — Baden

Alright, I sleep on my right shoulder, you on your left shoulder, and Banno face down on top of us with his face wedged in with all three of our noses touching. Please don't put your lips on mine. That would be soooooo gay.

To be fair, I'm not all that young anymore (26). — Question

Good one.