In what way do you think the above quote from the Spartacus movie, would impact the idea that a human slave would yearn to be free and would revolt to gain such, even if death was a likely result? — universeness

Yearn, sure. The contradiction is in 'love' :

death is the only freedom a slave knows about.' — Vera Mont

How can you love that which you do not know?

Which do you value most, your own company/solitude or the company of others? — universeness

It depends entire on the 'others'. These days, few others are available; not only can I not choose the right company for the right mood, I can't choose at all: they're dead or far away, all but one who knows when I need to be alone - and we both live in constant dread of losing the other. Old age sucks ostrich eggs!

1. Who are you?
2. What do you want? — universeness

Far's I can see, that's only one question.

That all sounds quite reasonable and balanced, so why such a history of tribal/national/international and possibly global war? — universeness

Numbers, territory, resources and leadership. While Native Americans did occasionally clash over territory and did stage the odd raid on one another's goods, by and large they were able to coexist, until the Europeans swarmed over here with an unbridled appetite for everything. This is why I avoid the term 'tribalism' when talking about national identities and aspirations. They're not synonymous.

We have always been working and fighting for 'someday.' — universeness

And some days, some decades and centuries, have been better than others. I recall saying here, not long ago, that we are currently on the down-slope of the progress roller-coaster. The up-slope - 1964-1980 - were pretty good in north America. It lasted somewhat longer in Europe - minus that hicup in the UK, and I think even longer, though it may have started later in Australia.

Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer? — universeness

No. Social progress takes place in prosperous, peaceful periods, when people are not frightened.

But you choose to interact with other people here/online, which I am sure, is hell, sometimes. — universeness

Not really. You're not real flesh-and-blood people: of any persona on the internet i don't know how much is their true self and how much is invented. I know where the door is on my mouse; I'm never trapped in a room with a bigot, a boor or a bore. I don't take these interactions too seriously: when an exchange becomes absurd, I treat it as comedy.

The only other two possible solutions seem to me, to be, giving control to AGI or becoming one species on one planet, one global civilisation with the concept of individual nations diminishing to become a complete irrelevance. — universeness

Again, that's not two alternatives; that's step 1 and 2 in the same process.
The difficult, the insurmountable word in your proposition is : giving

I remember a flash of Kirk Douglas playing Spartacus, flashed through my mind, saying the line 'a slave does not fear death, death is the only freedom a slave knows about.' — universeness

You told me the revolt was all about 'love of freedom'!

Is 'hell' really 'other people?' — universeness

In a way - but not through or because of their presence. It's really only a few other people: the ones who can invent both a concept of hell and the means of creating some facsimile of it on earth. One of those means is convincing the weak-minded of their own right to lead and decide.

Is it true that we love and need company but we also need solipsism to be true, but not always. — universeness

That's a difficult question, what with the qualifier tacked to its tail. We need society of some kind - and it doesn't necessarily have be our own species. Most of us do crave the companionship of like-minded humans, and the affection of friends, family, the love and loyalty of a mate. Of course we're self-centered, but that doesn't exclude mutual help, protection and co-operation; it doesn't preclude compassion, empathy and altruism. We - as all intelligent animals - are capable of containing and balancing a large number of drives and impulses and ideas that may sometimes be in conflict, one with another.

Can intelligent people make a global human civilisation that works, or is the 'hell is other people,' concept just too strong in humans? — universeness

That depends on the number of people, the space they occupy and the resources available to them. Quite a lot of human groups seem to have been able to form and maintain societies that worked.

I simply believe that we can do better than we ever have in the past! — universeness

Not at this juncture in history. Maybe someday.

Can we not focus on how we think we can make a better world? — universeness

We each are doing what we believe we need to, and can. (except I'm shirking again. Hell isn't other people; other people - well, them and the scrabble game - are what I seek out as a relief from proofreading hell.)

The terminal loss of active hope - that which strives against heavy odds to affect an improvement (as distinct from wishful or magical thinking as in "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, " ) leads to a permanent state of low-grade, unenlightening grief, what they used to call melancholy. Now, of course, every kind of sadness is lumped into a big shapeless bag with 'depression' stamped on it.

You say our bureaucratic organization which includes education for the Military Industrial Complex does not make us fascist and you are in favor of facts. — Athena

No, I don't recall saying that. I said my own respect and desire for facts does not make me fascist.
Bureaucratic organizations of some kind are unavoidable in dealing with the complex needs and interactions of a large, diverse population, especially in times of rapidly developing technological and economic change. I have no objection to a robust, competent civil service - in fact, I believe they are far more stable than elected government administrations, and can do more - allowed to operate according to their mandate - to keep politicians honest than politicians ever do one another.

So how have wars and technology changed our reality as we entered WWI and existed from WWII? — Athena

Humans have had wars throughout their existence; as civilizations grew bigger and more powerful, the wars grew bigger, more deadly and more frequent. They were not caused by bureaucracy or technology; they did not cause either of those things; they have always co-existed within civilization. Wars have been waged with rocks, thrown sticks, fire and long sharp knives, projectile balls and pointy things, things that go bang and things that go thud, things that poison people and sever limb from limb.
Three events changed the attitude the of US conservatives in the wake of WWII: they came out of it the overall winner, the country that scored most points and suffered least loss; they developed the atomic bomb which gave their hawks a sense of invincibility, and the Russian 'communist' state rose up as a major contender for world domination, which threw those same hawks into a state of demented paranoia.

What is different about how we organize ourselves? — Athena

Nothing essential, afaics. Assyria had rulers, aristocrats generals, soldiers, spies, administrators, shills, rich men, poor men, beggars, priests, scribes, magistrates, lawyers, garda, criminals, hucksters, supervisors, pedants, crafters, traders, merchants, labourers, landowners and peasants - just like Athens, just like Medieval France, the Cordoban Caliphate or modern USA.

Does the following remind you of Trump? Trump is not the problem, but the mass who follow him are the problem. — Athena

They're both enormous problems. I don't think they're fascist -- I don't think they any longer have a coherent 'ism' or credo - that started unravelling with Nixon and his unholy alliance with the the South - or any ideology beyond grasping at power by any and all means. They - and their loyal yes-men in the congress and senate absolutely, point-blank renounce facts. They spurn the constitution, debase every agency of legitimate governance, trample on civil rights and education and deny the electorate a means of expression. They will make civil war... Well, not a new one: The American Civil War Part II.

Hope is worse than either boredom or sadness — 180 Proof

Only because its expiration brings about a union of the other two: a state of weary resignation.

The question that is of great importance is why we are here. — simplyG

Who is included in "we" and why is that an important question?
What happens if you get a definitive answer?
What happens if you get an incomprehensible answer?
What happens if you get a nonsensical answer?
What happens if you're told you're not allowed to know the answer - at least, as long as you're alive?
What happens if nobody ever answers?

In the end the creator remains mysterious to all of the above with the exception of liberty. — simplyG

Where did you get it? Why did you need it? Liberty from what or whom?

Question: is god pure mind and physicality a manifestation or manipulation of energy? — simplyG

Yes. What next?

No one need work in a sweatshop to explore what it would be like intellectually. — Benj96

Exactly! You can work out what's good in life without "exploring" what's bad.

"the" human condition as it pertains to the mind - suffering and it's opposite. — Benj96

The theoretical one. Not actual suffering, but some kind of philosophical angst. Didn't we all do that exercise between 16 and 20 years of age? It tends to come with mild substance abuse and bad poetry. But the outcome is generally positive - a thinking-intuitive adult.

The qualities and definitions, the "sets" of things that are considered good verses bad are different for everyone. — Benj96

There, I must disagree. I think the differences, not only from person to person, but from species to species, are relatively minor. I think in the broad strokes, all biological entities choose the same categories of things to seek and things to avoid.

I suppose one could say sadness is the smoldering ember of anger. Is it not? — Outlander

In my experience, it's most commonly a response to loss.

Sadness itself is part of the human experience, though the overarching reality or set of circumstances behind the event or circumstance is what one becomes troubled by, often surpassing the superficial tapestry of sadness into the bottomless abyss that is despair. — Outlander

I think that depends on the scope and depth of the loss - how invested one is - how much of one's effort, identity and emotional well-being depended on the entity, struggle, nation, faith, ideal, species, or planet that was lost.

I cannot say I've had it "worse" than anyone else. It's not nor should it be a competition. — Benj96

I didn't make it a competition. You raised a comparison.

One must explore the worst extremes of the human condition
in order to understand the best extreme. — Benj96

But we're not exploring African sweatshops or Turkish prisons or a girls' school in Afghanistan or Necrotizing Fasciitis ....

I've had some bad times, too, but I sure wouldn't call them anywhere near the worst, and I would not choose to explore them out of intellectual curiosity or to avoid boredom. (Epicurean, me.)

One must explore the worst extremes of the human condition — Benj96

Have you actually done a lot of that? For far too many people in the world, that's their normal, daily condition, and there is no reward. By and large, philosophers do their exploring of human nature and human conditions from a comfortable armchair on a full stomach - yet never grow bored with their own cogitations.

However it's only one side. People also enjoy other peoples enjoyment. So much so that laughter and smiles can be "infectious". — Benj96

Oh, sure. They also watch romantic comedies. What I meant to compare was boredom vs. interest. Whatever happens in it, happy or sad, painful or scary, a movie is always about other people; about feelings you can sympathize with, pity, laugh at or appreciate - but they are not your feelings.
If a movie makes you sad or afraid, it's from a safe distance; if it bores you, the boredom is your own.

People watch sad movies but don't watch boring movies.
Apparently, sadness is more entertaining than boredom.
So maybe boredom is worse? — Art48

They watch horror movies, too. So, I guess that means it's better to be eaten by a monster than have nothing to do on a Sunday afternoon. Naw, people stave off their own boredom through vicarious enjoyment of other people's suffering.

What if you ignored the doctrine and thought about your own version of the essence:
Avoid pain, seek rewarding work and loyal friends, live simply and stop fretting about how other people are messing up? Could some customized variation on that theme work for you?

Well, hey! That's me one-upping gods again.

For me, sadness is always caused by events and situations that are harmful to some entity I care about. And therefore all occasions for sadness are bad - sometimes very bad indeed; to be avoided if at all possible, but it's so rarely possible to avoid them.

Boredom, otoh, is entirely avoidable. I may not be motivated to do anything constructive or practical; I may even be deliberately shirking such activity (as now), but I can always find an alternative way to entertain myself. I'm never really bored; it's unnecessary. Even if I have to listen to a dull speech or or watch tennis, I can always look out the window, or make up vulgar limericks or clever retorts to long-past arguments.

I don't expect to be able to reason with fundamentalist theists any more than I do with miltitant anti-theists. — Janus

I find it easier not to try. But I still recognize the main difference between them: the first holds it as his own inalienable right to force other people, through indoctrination, legislation and intimidation, to live as he believes they ought to live; the second holds as his inalienable right to live his life as he thinks he ought to, and defends the rights of other to live as they see fit.

I'll grant that universeness is an ideologue, a fanatical anti-theist, but I don't think I'd call him or her a militant anti-theist. — Janus

OK.... um... ideologue, fanatical don't sound all that different from militant to me, but no quibble. whatever. I know he holds strong opinions, and expresses them forcefully. I disagree with some of them to various degrees, but I respect the hell out of his consistency of conviction and his right to express them any way he wants to.

I doubt you lost the argument, because I don't believe any cogent or non-simplistic arguments have been presented by the person in question. — Janus

Of course I did. Didn't sway him one iota, while I did revisit my own position on a couple of issues. The disarray was a facetious exaggeration; I am usually quite orderly in retreat.
Just watch.

I am curious as to which "pseudo-friends" you are referring to.

You wouldn't know them. They live in the orange crate I use as a footstool; only I have seen or spoken to them. The upside is, we were in the same isolation bubble, safe from the antii-vaxx militant anti-maskers all through Covid.

I do believe I have said - up to four times each - everything I can possibly contribute here, and so it's time to retire from the field.

What you've never thought that you should acknowledge that your reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased? Are you unable to do that without my help? — Janus

No, not that bit! I've got that down cold. It's the rapprochement with bible-thumpers I don't know how to do and am not sure I could stomach.

If the militant ideology is anti-theist, then it should be opposed by atheists if they are opposed to militant ideologies tout court. — Janus

Oh, right. Oppose universeness. Yah, done that. Lost the argument. Retreated in disarray. Been called Brave Sir Robin by my pseudo-friends ever since. Not an experience I care to repeat.

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater. — Janus

Of course! Why haven't we thought of that? You start and show us how it's done.

That seems a strange question to ask. The answer seems obvious: by anyone who isn't indoctrinated by, or complicit with, the militant ideology. — Janus

What, like atheists?

No, I think rising miltitant ideology in any form should be opposed. — Janus

By whom?

I actually think there is little point to this whole subject, at best it is a diversion from the really pressing issues, — Janus

That's true, but it appears to have become part of - indeed has insinuated itself to the very center - of the pressing issues.

and at worst it contributes to divisions that are already growing everywhere due to the inevitably increasing hardships humanity is facing.. — Janus

And your suggestion as to how to diminish the division is to shut down opposition to rising militant religiosity?

The difference between a reason to love and that which causes you to love is too small to be of any significance at all, imo. — universeness

There may also be room, in the questions about love, for "Would you love any woman who was given to you in an arranged marriage (yes, they are real) exactly the same way as any other - for no reason, not even the biological reason that she's the legitimate mother of your genetic offspring?"
Or is there, perhaps, one you chose because you preferred her to the available others?

Has anyone questioned the identity of humans? Well, I mean anyone outside of humans questioning/denying the right of other humans to belong in the same species with themselves?
Why this recurring need to re-affirm our identity?
Or this obsession with the gender identity?
Just how insecure are we??

That is not an argument. I am not interested in who is eviler than whom, because it is not relevant, nor is who by and large has had the political power historically. — unenlightened

Maybe none of that is at issue for you. And that's fine. However, nor was it my argument.

That's a widely-held opinion, very much akin to witchcraft is evil.
But I've never heard an atheist leader write into law: "Thou shalt not suffer a religionist to live. — Vera Mont

You see, it wasn't a question of which is more evil, religion or witchcraft.
I was contrasting opinion with dogma.

OED: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

I also have yet to see you make the case for a reaction causing an action.

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other. — Janus

The operative word there appears to be : insofar
which makes the equation
theist dogma = atheist dogma
a damned lopsided one.

But the position here is that religion is evil, — unenlightened

That's a widely-held opinion, very much akin to witchcraft is evil. But I've never heard an atheist leader write into law: "Thou shalt not suffer a religionist to live. "

If there were no authority being asserted, there would be no atheist dogma being exhibited — unenlightened

Could you cite the constituted authority which determines atheist policy?

I knew it was a joke... I just couldn't leave it alone for long. Kind of like the cat sleeping on my computer right now - oh, so tempting! And I'm pretty sure that's not a uniquely human failing.

Good observation, but I'm not sure bonobos wouldn't put up a serious challenge there. — wonderer1

Oh yeah?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/europe/ukraine-nova-kakhovka-dam-environment-damage-intl-hnk/index.html

Fascism is a bureaucratic/social order that is very authoritarian and shifts power from the people to the state, totally crushing individual power and liberty. And this goes very well with Christianity. — Athena

And therefore:

I see being overly concerned with facts as fascist. — Athena

?

I don't think wishing for a little more truth in political and social organization makes me fascist. But i wouldn't dream of suppressing your opinion.

What you're saying is pressure, temp and volume cannot be separated from physical things. Sure I agree. — Benj96

I'm saying the same holds true of "minds: IOW mental processes. Not separable. When I say "my body" and "my mind", I am speaking metaphor, because there is no I to own a body and a mind; the union of bodymind is I. No object; all subject.
So, what relationship or interaction can be discerned or observed between, by whom?

aaaannndddd....
Only humans argue over whether somebody is male or female, either, neither, both, too female, not female enough, and whether they should be allowed to be whatever they say they are.

Maybe there's more of that in the US than here in Australia; I haven't encountered it to be honest, except perhaps among extremist sects like the Plymouth Brethren — Janus

Exactly. But you should start to be afraid.

Latin America - This period of religious dynamism has also been a notably violent one in the region, initially characterized predominantly by state repression and struggles to defend human rights and, more recently, by criminal violence and efforts to enhance citizen security.

This movement is now increasingly involved in electoral politics, advocating for conservative social and political policies based on literal interpretations of the Bible.

In recent years, religiously inspired nationalist movements have gained prominence in several countries around the world. Few cases are more worthy of greater study than India

This chapter investigates the political mobilization of religious networks in the construction of the European Union by focusing on the role of key religious organizations in dialogue with European institutions, from the 1950 Schuman Declaration to the institutionalization of religious dialogue in Article 17 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty

and, of course, lest we forget

7 Countries With A Theocratic Government Today

You figure an emotional, raggle-taggle bunch of unbelievers on a sliding scale poses an equal threat?

My argument is very simple, and resolves to the question of by what authority is theism judged? If one sticks to the facts, and to the fact/value distinction, the judgement cannot be rationally made. That it is made, and has been made throughout this thread, is the dogma of atheism. — unenlightened

What about peanut butter? Or electric cars? Or Hemingway? May one judge them according to one's inclination? Where there is no authority, or set criteria, how can there be dogma?

Because of my relationships with low-IQ people, I know if I were stranded in the wilderness, I would rather be with one of them than someone with a high IQ because the person who is more like an animal intuitively is better at survival. — Athena

I'd choose a smart dog. But that won't repair the damage we've done to the world.

So what are you going to do now? — Athena

No much. I'll keep growing tomatoes and cucumbers as long as can, try to get over my speed phobia, feed the cats. Probably won't start any more books as they take too long.

You couldn't have this conversation with an eraser could you? Or a bee. — Andrew4Handel

Not this one, no. OTOH, somehow all the people looking for how people are unique neglect to mention the unique human ability to fuck in numerous, varied and spectacular ways.

It strikes me that a human is a real definable entity distinct from other things. — Andrew4Handel

So's an eraser..... but what's the point?

Some thinkers have already argued for us having unique traits such as a very sophisticated language with thousands of words and numerous uses as well as story telling, inventiveness, creativity, awareness of our mortality and our ability to think about things like infinity and mathematics. — Andrew4Handel

unique among thousands of other animals that also unique for the ability to produce honey, a talent for echo-location or the ability mimic the colouration of their environment. So?

Initially though I was wondering what makes male and females both humans. — Andrew4Handel

Oh, that. As you were.

What are the defining features of being a human? — Andrew4Handel

What for? That's a serious question: For what purpose is it important to define what human is? The taxonomy hasn't been disputed for some little while. No other claimants have come forward. We're not expecting to be carded at some cosmic disco. So - what for?

What about the possibly infinite diversity of individual subjective experience? Could we all be having profoundly unique and unmatched experiences? — Andrew4Handel

Nah! Air, water, food, warm and cold, fear, comfort, infancy, pratfalls, agonizing first love, bad poetry, parents just don't get it, fear of failure, enormous highs of exuberance.... All much of a muchness... all happening in a distinct, isolate, separate skin to a particular, unique consciousness, 8 billion times in eight billion different ways.

It's the only school of philosophy to which I ever felt attracted. Not a card-carrying member, mind you, but it sure sounds better than most of them.

Let's get this clear. If atheism is simply a lack of believe in God, then I am an atheist because I don't believe there is a God. The next step would be to believe that there is no God, and I don't take that step. I don't have a settled opinion on the matter. — Janus

Then you're a lukewarm or moderate atheist, or else at the lower end of the agnostic spectrum. Both are perfectly acceptable and recognized positions, with zero requirements for dogmatic adherence. People slide up and down that scale all the time. http://researcherslinks.com/current-issues/The-NonReligious-NonSpiritual-Scale-NRNSS-Measuring-Everyone-from-Atheists-to-Zionists/9/16/119/html

was aiming at in creating this thread was anti-theism, and that is dogma, just as much as theism is, — Janus

There is also a range of anti-theism, which tends to depend on the subject's proximity to toxic, repressive and highly political centers, either currently or in their formative years. People who have experienced more pain, humiliation, discrimination and social rejection on the basis of their lack of faith do tend to be more strongly outspoken against the religion which subjected them to those experiences - though they are often more lenient toward exotic religions in other parts of the world. That's not dogma: it's not dictated to them by an authority: that is anger and sometime bitterness.

taking both as political stances; as claims as to what others should believe. — Janus

No, it's far more often derision or contempt of what other do believe - or hypocritically claim to believe but do not act if they believed. And it is a political stance, because the issues in which they were/are the victims are politically enacted.

This kind of theistic or ant-theistic dogmatism from either side is socially divisive, — Janus

The social divisions are deep and long-standing; they were here long before any of us. And they are not open to "solution" when the oppressor doesn't merely refuse to yield an inch, but is presently, relentlessly, tightening its stranglehold. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

Of course it's politically motivated; not remotely due to Jesus or Moses or or Paul. But the bible and religiosity in general are their cover story, their banner and rallying cry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5665159/

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy is as bad as a theocracy. — Janus

I really don't think that's either currently nor historically accurate. (FFS, don't go down the Stalin-hole!)

The law itself isn't separate from the three features but rather the culmination of them. (pressure, temperature and volume) — Benj96

But those properties are separate from one another. Or can be arbitrarily separated out of the universe at large for the purpose of limited description, based on demonstrable effects, as they manifest in various discreet materials.
These properties don't exist independently of physical materials. Similarly, you can imagine minds manifesting in various brains and relating to other minds, but I don't see how each can be separated from the brain that generates it, as if they were separate entities.
So, I can't see a "triad" wherein one component is constant and the others are applied to it; at most, mind-brain can apply some degree of objectivity to the rest of the body and a greater degree of objectivity when regarding discreet parts of the universe external to its body - I don't see a relation or interaction; I only see proportionate applications.

Etiher it is fundamental to the universe, or it is an emergent product of complexity. I fail to see a third option. — Benj96

You don't need a third option. If it's an emergent product of the brain, it can't be separated from the brain - ie objectified out into the universe. If it is fundamental to the universe, it cannot be appropriated by an individual, ie subjectified.

Nope. I don't believe I treated anyone as an object alone. Because I'm not here writing on tpf expecting inanimate objects to type a response. — Benj96

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. To physical and objective components that can also be configured in such a way to get a stalagmite, a mix of gases, or a cucumber, or a computer or a part of a star. — Benj96

So in conclusion, we are objects. Physical entities. We share this quality with all things. But we are also subjects. — Benj96

So, wherefore 'a triad' attempting to relate to itself? I can't make sense of the separations.

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. — Benj96

So's my brain. So where is a mind in relation to that?

Also, rather unnervingly, there is always the potential for others to treat us as mere objects. To deny any effectuality of our minds/subjectivity. — Benj96

Didn't you just do that? ^^^

The appreciation/acknowledgement of others subjective expression is the core of ethics and morality. Empathy is assigning subjectivity to others no? — Benj96

yup. That's why I regard various external entities and items with differing degrees of objectivity, as previously stated. I don't believe any biological entity is capable of pure objectivity.

But having said that, the opposite end must exist, the opposite end of the spectrum, where one believes nothing is truly just an object. That all things have innate subjectivity. — Benj96

If they don't bother me, I won't bother them. (The Gods Must Be Crazy is probably due for refresher- watching.)