When the light is too far, music comes close. The sound of the human voice declares one is not alone in the dark; one has companions.

threads should be removed if they
...take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy — Banno

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? There are threads on current affairs, on environmental issues, on the latest space telescope, etc, which have good claim not to be philosophy by most definitions.

I would suggest that the scope of philosophy is something to be explored, not laid down by fiat. People come with the questions that concern them, and philosophers should be able to help them clarify the issues and consider the implications. The stories we tell about our origins and nature that have found their way into religious texts are not thereby rendered off limits to philosophy, but are the foundations of society that are there to be explored and questioned. The thought police must operate here, but not in this arbitrary manner.

Beloved how I love, how I love
To see things through the magic of your eyes
To share things that make your spirit rise up
But try as I might, and try as I may
I can't see anything.

If [...] would be [...]. — frank

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It ain't going to happen. Not soon enough , if ever, and it doesn't address the huge environmental problems at all. I'm unsurprised, but disappointed that the same nonsense is being spouted here as we have been hearing for 40 years or so.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-not-the-main-driver-of-madagascar-food-crisis-scientists-find But it is an additional, back-seat driver. Deforestation, overfishing, soil depletion, uncontrolled mining and logging, are all also driving in the same direction, and as people get more desperate, the over-exploitation of whatever resources remain gets worse.

Yes. Nuclear is another excuse to do nothing and carry on as before. Personally, I have no wish to go back to the stone age, but that is where current plans would take us if only they would be implemented. As they are not being implemented at all, the 8 degree rise is starting to look more likely.

Covid has demonstrated how easy it is to reduce fuel usage by simply not flying and driving so much. Onshore wind is the cheapest source of energy, can be built locally and supplemented with tidal, solar, river, geothermal, etc depending on local availability.

But agriculture is heavily dependent on energetically produced fertilisers, and becomes more so as intensive farming destroys the soil. We need to eat less meat and dairy to reduce the pressure to deforest to make room for cattle, and allow less intensive methods that allow carbon capture by the soil. But this will not happen by the action of the invisible hand of capitalism. The invisible hand has shown already that it does not in the least mind exploiting resources to the limit of profit and leaving a wasteland. Slash and burn economics is rife.

Global warming is one aspect of a larger man-made environmental catastrophe created by the industrial revolution, because capitalism has never been properly regulated and forced to account for its environmental costs, which have been off-loaded onto 'the commons' in the form of pollution and environment destruction. Let's call this 'freedom', and wave a flag.

Nuclear energy doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere. It's no more of a concern for climate change than putting up a shit ton of solar panels. — Marchesk

Some more, not no more. Solar panels absorb energy they do not add any energy. Whereas suns, big and little, add energy. They don't add to the greenhouse effect. But the very idea that we can continue our current way of life with such a technological fix is a pernicious lie. We already have millions of climate refugees, and we are already set to lose a great many low-lying cities and a large portion of our arable land. This much is already unavoidable, and dreams of cheap energy are what brought us to this point.

So the solution to too much energy in the global climate is a source of abundant cheap energy? Place getting too hot? let's make some tiny little suns to power our air-conditioning. That'll work.

Good ole American style pragmatism. — Dermot Griffin

Oh dear, I've really let myself down there! :grimace:

No, but some of my best friends are.

We
Don't
All
Have
To

Be the same, read the same books, agree about everything. Some of us need to read The Plumber's Bible, but not all of us.

#49. https://shwep.net/podcast/the-long-secret-history-of-the-jews-part-ii-second-temple-judaism/

Those of us that were brought up with some kind of view of Jews and Judaism as a homogeneous single lineage with a single unchanging monotheistic religion, will find some surprises. This episode can pretty much stand alone and gives some background to early Christianity as (yet another) Jewish sect with odd beliefs and practices, and charts a strong interaction of Judaism (and thus Christianity) with Greek religion.

Why do you think so many people try so hard to get into America? — RogueAI

Someone asked a seasoned bank robber why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is", he replied.

please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream. — jgill

1. Creamy.
2. Chocolatey.
3. Cold.
Always happy to help.


Distinguish:

1. Comedy from tragedy.
2. Wit from folly.
3. Playful from serious.

My first thought is that humour is an antidote or inoculation to fear, disgust, and other negative emotions. One laughs out one's negativity, and this reduces stress. Or else one refuses to recognise one's negative emotions and projects them onto others - 'that's not funny, it's disgusting/offensive/cruel/ puerile.'

Send not to know on whom the butt lands, it lands on thee.

But never mind me or thee, let's get serious about humour: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255480/

A martial arts student went to his teacher and said earnestly, "I am devoted to studying your martial system. How long will it take me to master it." The teacher's reply was casual, "Ten years." Impatiently, the student answered, "But I want to master it faster than that. I will work very hard. I will practice everyday, ten or more hours a day if I have to. How long will it take then?" The teacher thought for a moment, "20 years."

http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/workhard.html

My goal is to grow old and die, and to do it as slowly as possible. A man focussed on goals and always in a hurry is called a "bisy backson". The trouble with being goal oriented and busy is that one misses the wonderful scenery and the wonderful characters of the world. It's just not much fun, and what is life for if it's not much fun?

Episode #45 - Physics and Esoteric Metaphysics might be of interest to the more sceptical wing of the forum. A discussion of pneuma, sympatheia, and logos. Even from a merely linguistic historical perspective, there is some good stuff; how 'logos' morphs from word to God and back, for example.

"Free love" ) is not feasible in a healthy family. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Look, there is a long tradition of having a wife and a mistress. Lets not pretend that before the 60's everyone was life-long monogamous. What happens is feasible. If you define a healthy family as a monogamous relationship, then there are rather few healthy families now or in history. and there is really nothing much else to say. But actually, look at a bit of anthropology and you will see that the possible families, and relationships and arrangements for the care of children are legion, and that the nuclear family is one of the most stressful and dysfunctional there is; and at that, it is more often than not a mere pretence.

There seems to be a confusion about "plans". In a game of chess, my plan is to win. To do that I implement an opening sequence of moves that is tried and trusted against any and every response. My plans never include planning for the opponent to make a blunder, but if they do, my plans will change. If they play well, I will have to adapt to the moves they make. I always hope for, but rarely expect, an easy win. by and large, once the opening moves are made, plans are developed and abandoned almost at every move until there is a simplification of the board that allows for the calculation of the end game.

Of course in a real war, even the definition of 'win' or 'stalemate' is flexible.

Ah I see. But you don't see the relevance of adoption?

It's evidence that emotional ties result from commitment, not the other way round. In your thought you treat biological paternity as necessarily connected with emotional ties; I have to tell you that there can be either one without the other, and quite commonly.

Do you believe this is really feasible? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Certainly. You have heard of adoption ?

In the old forum, back in the days when philosophers were ...

{10 pages later}

... and the button that here is labelled "Post Comment" was more accurately inscribed "Submit". You submit your ideas to the online community; and they put you straight!

The postal worker, bank teller, grocery store worker, and everybody else I rely on for bits and pieces of everyday life, have no authority over me, even though I rely on them. — Bitter Crank

So you don't have to pay for your groceries or buy stamps for your post? You pay whatever you like?

I just get annoyed when people think people always get depressed ‘for a reason’ when it is simply brain chemistry just going awry. — I like sushi

Ah, yes. I find my mood is like the weather, and just changes unconnected with what is going on around me. "Why are you sunny today?" is a silly question. Anyone who has spent time totally alone will probably notice that their mood changes from day to day, and even if there is an explanation, it is no more use asking me to account for my mood than it is asking a storm why it is angry. A man bitch-slaps his good buddy on public stage on probably one of the best days of his life, because... Freud knows.

It takes a village to raise a child. (African proverb).

Freedom does not come cheap. Children need stable loving care for a long time, and the social arrangements around sexual relations, property, and so on are what have in the past provided at least the stability. The industrial revolution, welfare state, and consumer society, have reduced the family to its current nuclear state. Formerly, families were extended through all the generations and across them so as to provide that stability when life even for adults was precarious; aunts or grandmothers might take over from mothers, and so on.

Lifelong fidelity to a single partner is not particularly natural or common for humans, we are tribal and promiscuous. But it has been made the ideal and norm, and the price of freedom from that norm is either paid by the adults making provision for the stable support of their children through a network of care, or it is paid by the child through inadequate care.

It is not simply about being beaten or abused. — I like sushi

If I gave the impression it was anything simple at all, it was unintentional.

I personally believe it is a lack of trauma that is more damaging to the psyche than individual instances in childhood amounting to little more than ‘growing up’ in a world that is not exactly safe. — I like sushi

In the literature, the term they use is "resilience", and a deal of study has been done. Resilience is the ability to recover from traumatic experience and it is developed in childhood with the support of primary carers. By dealing with minor trauma and stresses, one develops a psychological strength to resist and bounce back from events that would overwhelm one at first.

https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/resilience/according-experts/resilience-after-trauma-early-development

Stephen says he was beaten "a great deal" while attending prep school until the age of 13. "I think in my last year I was probably beaten every day, because I was a very bad boy.

"People think, 'No wonder Stephen Fry is such a completely screwed up individual!' I don't know whether that is true, as I am sure I would have been screwed up wherever I had been."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/film-and-tv/stephen-frys-schooldays-1131692

A nice video, but says nothing at all against trauma theory. There is a complex genetic predisposing component as one would expect because genes build organs, and there is a spectrum as one would expect because brains are complex. And then one might look for environmental factors, and one might find, one does find, that childhood trauma is very overrepresented in the depressed cohort.

Interestingly to me, though it passed without comment by the great man himself, when he mentioned being sent to prison, something one might expect to be somewhat traumatic, he said that to him is was very little different from the two schools where his behaviour first manifested. One is expected to regard being sent to prep school at the age of 6 or 7 as a great privilege, but I think at least for some it is experienced as abandonment by one's family:-- to be suddenly institutionalised into something that, if it is like a prison is also like an orphanage.

My point was that people can suddenly be depression even though their life has been perfectly fine (including childhood). — I like sushi

And do you have evidence for this?
Bah, never mind, I agree; psychology is always vague and fuzzy because it generalises the uniqueness of personhood. But the correlations for trauma theory are unusually strong.

Sorry, I posted the same link twice instead of a link to my previous thread. I've edited it above, but here it is again: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5783/adverse-childhood-experiences/p1

there are some links in that op and more later in the thread, and there is a deal of research been done done. One link I like is this:
https://whatnow727.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/herman_trauma-and-recovery.pdf

What evidence? — I like sushi

Links are provided in the thread I linked to, if you are interested.

Is my condition actually an illness, or is it an adaptation, really? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

The current psychobabble rather agrees with you, that depression is an adaptation to traumatic experiences. This is actually in line with physical illnesses to a large extent, in the sense that symptoms are very often adaptations to pathogens - coughing, raised temperature, and so on.

The classic case is childhood trauma at the hands of one's primary carer. There is no escape from the neglect or abuse, and so the mind shuts down or turns down the sensitivity.

Here is a link about adverse childhood experiences: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/riskprotectivefactors.html

And here is an old discussion on this very site where we talk about them: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5783/adverse-childhood-experiences/p1

Adverse adult experiences can have the same effects, and PTSD often includes depression.

men escape the burden of pregnancy, and the risks and pains of childbirth. — _db

That's a fact and always has been, but whether it is women who are imposed upon or men who are deprived and dependent, is decided otherwise than as a matter of fact. My inclination is to suggest that procreation is desired by most people who are not alienated from their own bodies. And in that case it is a privilege and advantage for women, who always know that their children are theirs. Indeed that is the exact reason that patriarchy needs to control female sexuality.

Ok, I don't have the book to hand, so I'm going to use some of the wikipedia material and quotes. If there is other stuff you want to look at put the quotes or links up if you can.

The first women are fleeing the massacre, and, shaking and tottering, are beginning to find each other. ... This is painful: no matter how many levels of consciousness one reaches, the problem always goes deeper. It is everywhere. ... feminists have to question, not just all of Western culture, but the organization of culture itself, and further, even the very organization of nature. — Firestone

So I am old enough to remember the times from which she speaks, when the rigidity of gender conformity was such that the Beatles caused outrage by growing their hair so long it covered their ears. homosexuality was illegal and depraved, and lesbians didn't exist, because nobody cares what women like or don't like. Abortion was illegal, and having a child out of wedlock was 1, shameful, and 2, economically ruinous. The culture was not quite Taliban, but it was closer to Taliban gender politics than to the modern West.

So it is understandable that women felt that their very biological nature betrayed them, but I think they, and she, was wrong about that. So all the stuff about liberation from childbirth, I simply reject.

There were no ancient matriarchies (societies ruled by women), and the apparently superior status of women in matrilineal cultures is due only to the relative weakness of men. Whatever the lineage system, women's vulnerability during pregnancy and the long period of human infancy necessitate the protective and hence dominant role of the male.

This dependence of the female and the child on the male causes "psychosexual distortions in the human personality", distortions that were described by Sigmund Freud. — Wiki

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321759/

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/ancient-cultures-matriarchal-society-0011588

The science and archeology has moved on, or rather back; the reality of ancient matriarchies is back in vogue. The evidence is that a matrilineal descent when accompanied by matrilineal property inheritance results in a more equal society, precisely because it does those things that I suggested in the op, it removes the necessity for the control of sex, and divorces power from physical strength. The methodology of matriarchal rule is thus more cooperative based and less violence based.

While I'm here, I'll also just mention that the incest Taboo is more regarded as a social amplification of the Westermarck Effect. Again this post-dates the Firestone text.

1. Mr Normal's winning the lottery is very improbable if caused by chance.
2. Mr Normal's winning the lottery is very probable if God causes him to win.
3. As before.
4.That someone normal often wins the lottery is strong evidence that God exists.

I think the pungent essence of weasel lies in the proviso: "single-universe". For that, there is no evidence or justification. And allow a multi universe and there is no improbability at all, that we find ourselves in one of the ones that we could exist in.

More important, what to do about it? — EugeneW

Carbon fibre and non-biodegradable plastics to replace steel and aluminium wherever possible, ie cars planes etc.

Insulate buildings until they are energy neutral. Less steel, glass, concrete, brick, and tile for new build, more wood, plastic, slate, stone, mud, straw, wool, etc.

Get busy with the obvious power sources, tidal, wind, geothermal and heat pumps for heating, solar, etc.

Reduce meat consumption and plant trees and peat bogs as appropriate. reduce fertiliser use by rebuilding soil fertility.

Just slow the fuck down a bit; travel by internet more and aeroplane less. More public transport and bicycles, less cars and private jets. More communal facilities in general - we don't need a washing machine each, we can share.

Less rocket science, more brain surgery.

It's the beginning of insight. Don't go looking for a new pair of rose tinted spectacles, instead look through the gloom of self for the jewel of life.

man's fullest realization of himself; he goes from worshiping Nature through women to conquering it.

The declaration of conquest of nature seems a little premature to say the very least. 'Man' is part of nature, entirely dependent on nature as 'other' for his existence. His conquest of nature thus turns out to be the sawing off of the branch on which he sits. The rape of mother nature is a Freudian fantasy whose realisation is the global catastrophe of man-made climate change.

But that is a rather misleading quote from a radical feminist Marxist, who is interesting but very controversial in her interpretation of psychology and biology. We could go into it a bit more if you are interested, but her views are not mine by any means.

Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins.
— unenlightened

The problem is this is simply not true. — boethius

It's not quite true; the winners will be those far away and not involved - China and the US maybe, and S. America and Australia. But Russia can gain all their objectives and still lose. Lose a generation of young men, trade with the world, the intangible 'social capital' that they are already very short of, and of course military materiel and reputation. Kind of like the UK won a couple of wars last century, and lost an empire.

Your narcissism surpasses your contributions as a subject of interest by some margin. — Isaac

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a mental disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with others' feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder is one of the eleven sub-types of the broader category known as personality disorders

It makes a change from 'mad' and 'idiotic', but it's not an improvement. When I was in primary school the insult of choice was 'spastic'. Ah, the good old days.

As to propaganda: the idea that anyone will win is propaganda. Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins.

You're all spastics!

Trolls to the left of them, idiots to the right of them,
Volleyed and thundered.
But all joined in the hymn of the new world order: and you can too ...

Why is lineage an either/or deal? — Agent Smith

For example, if you took both names, then after a dozen generations you'd have 4096 names. One has anyway to be in one tribe or the other. There was a hippy movement in the UK to reject surnames along with the possessive implications thereof, but to comply with the law at the time, such revolutionary offspring were all surnamed 'Wild'.

However, it seems to still be about an either/or arrangement. Patriarchy v Matriarchy.
I don't think this is helpful. Indeed, doesn't it play into the fear of males that women are taking control and being less than subservient? Women have their roles to play; the main one being a mother? — Amity

If you look around, there are quite a few inbetweeny cultures of various complexions, but I'm not remotely wanting to take account of the fears of unfulfilled patriarchs. That is why I took myself off to another thread, and wrote a long op with lots of links. :wink:

Here are some inbetweeny oddities for you:
https://www.ssozinha.com/post/5-african-traditions-where-gender-roles-are-reversed

In one instance the mother’s brother had more of a role in bringing up the child than the father - who was more of an uncle weirdly. — I like sushi

Yes, that seems quite natural to me in a matrilineal society. A man's children are those born to his sister, rather than to his lover. His lovers children will not inherit from him, but from their mother's family. The mere facts of life are unimportant in comparison to the social constructs of life.

Sometimes the men stay with their birth family, and sometimes with their spousal family, and that obviously affects which children they are more close to.

To keep on track with the topic how do roles differ between older men and women? Is there less difference? — I like sushi

I don't think it's possible to answer. One is dealing with 'old-fashioned' - shall I say? - tribal groups that cannot be compared with youth obsessed modern urban culture. Elders are generally respected in stable societies, but modernism rejects stability in favour of progress.

It just may be that women that excel at being women suit positions that differ from men that excel at being men … the question is then more about what exactly we could possibly mean by saying ‘excel’ here and this inevitably cannot be disentangled from cultural factors above mere physiological processes. — I like sushi

The question that I'm asking myself about this is what you could possibly mean by "women that excel at being women". The only sense that immediately occurs to me is that it means "women that excel at performing the role of being a woman", but that is the thing that we can only measure the excellence of, relative to the society that assigns and defines that role. The role that we are talking about the transformation of. Am I tying myself in knots here?

The history of Iceland brings this into question. To this day girls inherit their mother’s name and boys inherit their father’s name. Women also used to fight, control ships and lead others. — I like sushi

I stand corrected. Twice.

You have not presented any kind of argument here. — I like sushi

That's right, we are speculating and imagining. The global prevalence of patriarchy makes the evidence thin to the point where it is almost impossible to disentangle social nature from social nurture. That's why I am as interested in the fiction as much as the anthropology. There is a thread within patriarchy, of virtual nostalgia for matriarchy.

The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall. — Possibility

Yes, except that collaboration is controlled. Not all control is coercive. I'm trying to imagine, without being totally utopian, how a a post-industrial matriarchy would function. Big institutions, national government would probably become less dominant, in favour of regional and tribal administration.

Mothers are loyal to their offspring. It kind of sounds wrong - too obvious to mention - I want to suggest, that the matriarch, in general, in a matriarchy, as opposed to the patriarchal matriarch one sees, is not an entirely separated self, identifying with an abstract body (oxymoron) as head, but as the birthed birthing of the extended family - I am the ancestors-and-inheritors ...* There is something radically different in the psychodrama of matrilineality.

*There is something of this in our (UK) current queen, even within the heart of patriarchy, dedicated to a lifetime of service as an almost religious duty. So old fashioned! So subtly different with the typical male identification of self with state that we call 'loyalty'.