It is not literally ‘forced’. They can choose to face the consequences of refusing to play by rules they don’t agree with. Suffering is unavoidable when matters get serious.

Why do you want to contrive a scenario that might justify torturing a baby, or any one? — unenlightened

Because they are sensible and care I expect. Those not willing to do so are usually the ones more likely to actually carry out such acts because in their minds they would never do such a thing!

Torture is never justified, under any circumstance. — Tzeentch

You lack imagination :D

No. Life is not ‘fair’ though. If I did not believe in a war then I like to believe I would accept prison instead.

I believe people should fight for what they believe in. They might be right, they might be wrong. The important thing is to try your damn hardest to act as you believe is ‘best’.

I believe ‘steeling’ is wrong, yet if I ‘stole’ something to help save many innocent lives I would like to think I would do it regardless of the consequences. Doing the ‘right’ thing can be sometimes be easy and sometimes be very, very hard. The true test of character comes in the later.

I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men. — Amity

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war.

Hatred leads to violence quite often compared to anything else. Sexual relations are merely more add-ons than affecters surely?

War is more than likely started because people (men and women) often want a cause to throw themselves into. In life situations where people feel belittled and useless they crave more and more a cause to side with. War offers people an often overly simplistic way of siding with some perceived ‘good’ against an enemy.

If we look at the example of the conflict in the Ukraine we see a great many people wanting to help, and even fight and risk their lives to help. War is often brought about by a sense of higher nobility that supplants personal safety (a greater good). Sadly there don’t seem to be any black and white situations in such conflicts and inevitably the ‘noble’ cause can turn out to be tyrannical as a repercussion of investing in somethings wholeheartedly to the point where any actual ‘wrongs’ are viewed as ‘good’ again some enemy rather than measured against personal principles over the principles of the ‘cause’ being fought for (by whatever means).

@Possibility Not interested in your drivel. Bye

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology. — Possibility

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!).

What do you care soooo much about my reasons? — Olivier5

On a philosophy forum? Caring about someone’s reasoning? How strange! :D

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. — Possibility

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it).

one of us is stupid. Others can be the judge. Bye

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large.

I my personal experience of outside of western spheres of influence there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards marriage and relationships. In one way (I admit) it seems more archaic to me, but in others I can see that there are bonuses.

Refer to Bill Burr on reasons to hit a woman (comedy but it does highlight a problem). Is it naive to assume it is all about sexual domination as women can, and do, objectify men just as much as men objectify women - physically, dues to social status and intellect too.

I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion, but point out merely that it is not limited to governments and nation states. — unenlightened

I know. I framed the colloquial meaning as being more about state/nationhood. If you don’t agree that’s fine.

@ssu @unenlightened

I guess if you don’t agree that ‘propaganda’ is viewed by many as something mostly about patriotic ideals and nationhood there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

Maybe most people are more clued in to political wrangles (beyond state ideologies) than I give them credit for.

A lot of it is context dependent. ‘Conscious’ can simply mean brain activity and when it comes to talking about conscious states there is a blurry line of vegetative states that are sometimes called ‘conscious’ and sometimes called ‘non-conscious’.

Often when someone says ‘conscious’ they are referring to states of conscious awareness, but if you are in a deep dream state you possess ‘consciousness’ still. And contradictorily being asleep/knocked-out is not often referred to as a ‘conscious state’.

This is not exactly very surprising as the neurosciences are hard sciences, and ‘consciousness’ is a phenomenon that is tricky to articulate in terms of brain function and human life. It is further confused by psychological terminology wedding up with hard sciences in this area.

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

The ‘answer’ is in the ‘question’. Why do you seek such ‘knowledge’.

In more explicit terms ‘knowledge’ is defined by the limitations it is bound by. If we can question something in some way then it is ‘knowledge’/‘known’. That which we do not and cannot ever question is not ‘known’/‘knowledge’.

Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. — Rafaella Leon

That literally covers all human activity. So no one is good enough to be a friend?

Demands are now for the territory they already held before the war started and a pledge not to join NATO, clearly not the original war aims, i.e. a change in government and Russian defacto control of the country. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putin has been saying for a long time that Ukraine cannot join/apply for NATO without serious kickback from Russia. He has been pretty consistent.

Here’s something worth a look to help understand the historical context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he25Rl0fE1c

Articulating one’s feelings and thoughts through spoken/written language is very helpful. Anyone who has had to give a lecture or write an essay will understand how actually articulating ideas and feelings helps to refine them.

If I have a big problem I write an essay about how to solve the problem. Doing so brings to light many ideas and feelings that were hidden below the surface and either solves or eases the issue a great deal.

Thinking is very hard. Articulating the problem explicitly allows one to contend with it more readily. Pleas and prayers are the first step to facing the problem head on and bringing the power of rationality to the fore. Meaning, when we feel a situation is hopeless often we just need to break it down into smaller problems and attend to the one/s that are easiest to articulate.

For example: If you have an existential crisis and want to die, then write an essay titled “Why do I want to die?” Then you can just write freeform and get to the crux of the issue whilst offering counter arguments and balancing out reasons for and against.

I think this kind of question will become more and more of an issue as technology advances.

I mean this across multiple areas. For instance, if we could create a virtual environment that mimics murder or rape to the point that it continually creeps towards more and more realistic portrayals I think it is fair to say there should be some kind of law that laws a line.

I think any argument stands purely on something being ‘artificial’ as an excuse to do anything is extremely problematic as it effectively dismisses simulations that are potentially indistinguishable from reality … that sounds bad to me as if there is no/little perceivable differentiation between reality and simulation then they must be treated more or less in the same manner.

Note: I don’t think there is any issue with shooting games as such as it isn’t much like the real lived experience. If future gaming technology does make it the same psychological experience as a wartime experience (or close to it) then it should be banned (even for training purposes) because the harm war does is more than mere physical harm. This kind of thing was explored very nicely in Westworld series.

I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.

Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.

I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.

I think this is more of a modern problem (as in a problem of the last couple of thousand years ish). There is nothing to suggest that we were living ‘hand to mouth’ prior to this as there was a reasonably bountiful land around us AND far less distractions from reality (through media and such).

It could well be argued that having ‘leisure time’ is more than just a time slot for distracting oneself from existential reality as that idea is in itself possibly part of the modern mindset brought about by living in pursuit of distractions from reality.

In acts or artistic expression there is a kind of meditative state that I would call ‘distraction’ in a negative sense (like merely switching off by watching a braindead movie), yet it is more or less a way of becoming unfocused from day-to-day activities and it frees up ones mind to wander and nurture itself. Maybe creating art is just a means of recalibrating our emotional state in order to be more productive in the future. Some people just happen to be more attuned to this than others and so the ‘recalibrating’ becomes a pursuit of improving their ability to attune themselves rather than to do as a means of moving forward in a more concrete sense of production (eating, sleeping and social functioning).

Boredom for me is merely a sign that I am unconsciously avoiding a hard and difficult problem. It is likely a good idea to avoid some problems. I don’t necessarily think this problem is always ‘existential’ though.

Religion and Nationalist views share many commonalities. Neither countries nor religions exist, yet countries are more bound to the profane world than religions whilst both share many sacred elements.

Putin is a Stalinist not a Nazi. They are different but still forms of fascism.

Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.

The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies.

As for Trump … he is out of the picture for now. Sadly those in opposition to Trump were more than a little too liberal in how they decided to label hi as a Nazi. Such labelling has reached out into the public sphere as well for the general populace and it has done little more than dilute the horror of what happened with Hitler.

Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. He is a Stalinist 1 million billion steps before he is a Nazi. The reason he is Ukrainian government is being duped by neo nazis is because most Russian people have just as much a pronounced dislike for nazism as any other country in WW2 (is not more so due to the heavy price they paid in blood).

It is a bit like calling radical Islamic fundamentalists Nazis … no. They want Jews dead and gone but that alone doesn’t qualify the, as Nazis because the reasoning behind that view is based on religion.

I am starting to wonder if I have sporadic memory loss in which I login here under the alias Frank :D

The reason I won’t participate more in this thread is because of these kinds of replies.

My reply was directed at a particular point about a particular conversation.

I was careful with my words and the overall point was to look into the nuance of the situation and steer away over simplifying and casting good against evil. I was in agreed about looking for a resolution rather what I would frame as finger pointing and division for the sake of division.

We don’t have, and won’t have, all the facts for a long, long, long time to come.

Putin stated quite clearly his concerns (valid or not doesn’t matter really). The possible reaction against what he was concerned about was not taken seriously. Putin has remained fairly consistent with his view and the west just didn’t expect him to go this far.

So I do kind of agree that it is pointless to blame one side or another. There were groups in Ukraine that burnt pro Russian protesters to death and there has been an ongoing war for 8 years in Eastern Ukraine (with very low coverage from western media).

To play Devil’s advocate this could be framed as a way of ending the war in Ukraine (that has been ongoing for nearly a decade) as no one else appeared to have been having much success and it is right on their border.

Point being there is nuance to what has led to this conflict that seems to have been purposefully ignored in certain areas by both sides for propagandist reasons. We can just try to read between the lines and look for a way to resolve this diplomatically rather than with conflict. I would like to UN forces embedded deep into Ukraine to observe, aid and protect civilians - even though the UN is not by any means always successful it does make some difference sometimes.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all.

My biggest concern is that in the western world there appears to me to be an underlying frustration in the populace regarding equality and rights (across the group spectra of sex, gender and political stance) that makes people feel like they need to find a quick and easy reaction and to draw lines of good and evil so as to take sides. If this psychological analysis is correct then it will make it far easier for nations to mobilise enough of the populace into military action via a ‘good versus evil’ narrative.

Generally I strongly believe a great many people are desperate to do something ‘good’ and fight with their all on the side of ‘good’. The problem lying in this is knowing what is the ‘better’/‘good’ side and the need/bias to reinforce what one sees as ‘better’/‘good’. If the political powers can play on this issue let’s just hope they don’t and/or enough people in the general populace refuse it and make others think twice.

The road to hell … the more easily one can frame a side as wholly good or evil the closer we get to hell on Earth. Metaphorically speaking.

I feel like a lot of this is more or less a message to who comes after Putin as I cannot see him continuing for much longer (as in he will have to step back in his role as leader within the next decade).

In terms of scientific research/studies and psychology IQ tests effectively measure something we are not quite sure about called the g-factor. This basically represents an ability to ‘do well’ at numerous tasks. If one is good at one task then one is likely to be good at others. This vague correspondence - that can show consistently enough across various areas of cognitive ability - is referred to as the g-factor. IQ tests kind of measure this, but they are not exactly definitive and IQ tests were originally made to identify mental retardation in order to identify and help out struggling students.

In terms of standard IQ tests they are not particular good at measuring at the extreme because that isn’t what they were made for.

It is probably best to regard the g-factor as something like a physical limb. Meaning in an analogous sense ‘intelligence’ is but one of many limbs of human beings and having one strong limb does not necessarily mean you have a more capable human being in any regard … but as ‘g’ effectively measures a cognitive ability to achieve across all cognitive dimensions (in terms of dealing with novel situations and complex problems) it is certainly useful to say the least!

In physiological terms there is a relationship between reaction time and intelligence, as well as general good physical health. Creativity is also something that is difficult to factor into the whole ‘g’ area but they do - on the surface - seem to have more than a tenuous association.

There are various other real world factors involved in cognitive ability too. For instance, some people perform better in relaxed situations whereas a degree of stress helps others do better. Such subtle effects make a hard cast means of measurement/analysis difficult.

We mere persons living a life can only guard against what each side says and remain respectfully suspicious of the various wants and needs from nation to nation and pray that the disintegration of the idea of ‘nation’ will not be too bloody this century.

Again, it's not about whether it's OK, we're not standing in judgement. It's about what to do about it. — Isaac

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

It depends on the religion and philosophy in question. Undoubtedly there are crossovers in some areas more than others.

1- Yes, it exists. It isn't what most people consider it to be though.

2- Obviously. I think it is generally harder to do though as the 'mystic' (and therefore the practical use) is generally steeped into ancient (often fictitious) traditions. People who are good at it can get past that easily enough I reckon.

Note: We are talking about age old practices of what we would likely frame today as propaganda and psychology. It is, in simplistic terms, a very complex form of self-hypnosis.

Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. — javi2541997

This and then some. There is a culture of 'knight in shining armour' too. Those who come running to rescue of anyone who cries loud enough. It is a pitiful display. Kids being exposed to the stupidity may actually learn from it (something Alan Moore commented on in a lecture he gave years ago).

Kids can adapt and change. They are smarter than adults in terms of plasticity. Adults are now fairly spread across the generational strata of those who grew up without the internet and those who cannot remember a world without it. I sit pretty much at the crossroads being around 16 yrs old when the internet really picked up pace and everyone suddenly had a mobile phone in their hand.

I imagine in the future people won't say 'goodbye' they will say 'like and subscribe' :D

There is no room for 'offensive' speech on the internet. That means there is no room for free speech on the internet.

There are 'rules' in place everywhere (even university forums) that require something they call 'online etiquette'. This is then used to smear people. It has always been like this in day to day life but now there is no face-to-face interaction where it is needed most.

My current position is that it is probably not only not worth the effort to try in this area most of the time, but also detrimental in the long term. The real discussions need to be held in the space breathing the same air. Anything short of that is going to embolden the antagonists until society as a whole adapts to internet interactions (by which time it will likely have already become obsolete and replaced by something better or worse).

Why the hell not? — Bitter Crank

Because I simply wanted to show people what others thought.

I did respond a little. This, and many other forums, lack mature discussions on sensitive topics. It usually just ends up as a shit flinging contest with no one listening.

I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other.

I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? Has my posting of this thread made things better or worse in terms of understanding each the different views people hold ... I would say for most it is could well be more harmful.

If people cannot use a sympathetic ear to either correct or question views/statements made by others then I don't see the point.

Just wait. CRIPSR will change everything soon enough (as in easily within the century).

And that is not "thinking"? — jgill

That isn't what I said. If it was a rhetorical question remember to leave the '?' out next time.

If in the future you need heart surgery I'm willing to perform the operation. Okay?

I am just about to slice off some pieces of chicken from a carcass btw just in case you assumed I didn't know my way around a knife or how to slice through flesh.

A thinker is a thinker. A philosopher sometimes isn't much of a thinker at all. Some philosophers dedicate their lives to scholarship only. Meaning they study and analyse the works of other's before them and/or critique contemporary works (be they standalone works, other commentaries or other scholarly works).

Philosophy is a very broad category as are many other fields. In fact today there seems to be a bigger emphasis/attraction to broader knowledge rather than expertise in one particular area. Discussing that is not merely a philosophical area it touches other parts of the humanities and each has something to offer to the discussion.

Some who produces art is not necessarily an artist in any meaningful sense of the term when it comes to appreciation. If I open a restaurant and produce food people spit out and demand refunds for does that make me a chef/cook? I may be trying to be a chef/cook but if literally no one swallows my food other than myself can I really claim that title with any degree of seriousness when asked about my ability to produce food for mass consumption. I don't think so somehow.

There are other areas where one act is deemed lawful in one situation and not lawful in another. The most obvious example being killing a fellow human. In war it is encouraged whereas in peaceful societies it is frowned upon (to say the least). For these kinds of reasons simply stating that someone is or isn't this or that needs to be done carefully and in agreement with the consensus and from there you can then perhaps to question the consensus view by applying critique of it. Such can be viewed as political, philosophical, or anthropological lines of questioning (to name but a few) that engage with reviewing the said consensus and investigating more closely some fringe ideas/views.

I have nothing to say about how someone was viewed a century ago other than through making some judgements based loosely on historical evidence. If someone today calls themselves an artist and no one has even looked at their work, and/or those that have do not view it as worthy of that label, then I would not be inclined to call them an artist at all. Why would I? I would still encourage them i fthat is where their passion lies though and perhaps may discover that they have an artistic eye if not an ability to produce anything much of note.

Different scenario and not really pertinent to what I was saying.