You should look up Jane Elliot’s brown eyed blue eyed study — Anaxagoras

I done seen it a while back and forgot it again. But it's kind of obvious isn't it? Well obviously it isn't at all obvious, 61 pages un-obvious. And the determined resistance to acknowledging the truth is just that people like to think well of themselves and especially that if they have any privileges, they are justified and deserved.

I called you a leftist because of past experiences. — Judaka

That's extremely cool, and I have absolutely no objection to being called a leftist. However, the matter having been brought up, it would be interesting to see what the fair-minded rightist has by way of a justification of violence, given that destruction of property or seemingly any contravention of the law by way of resistance to murderous oppression by law officers is unjustified. Care to have a go?

I'll just point out that to the extent that it is a practice or a habit, it is not present but a repetition of the past.

Having said that, I think it is intended to encourage folks to live in the world rather than in ideas, thoughts memories and imagination. Not that one should not remember or learn, - even philosophers and gurus are not that daft - but these things are provided in order to enrich our immediate experience, not to substitute for it as rather too often happens.

I don't want to forget about these treasured memories. It makes me feel more deeply about life. — Ross Campbell

Live with memories, but not in them. Don't forget the dead, but live with the living.

Correction. It's already significantly worse than Italy ever was. Italy peaked at 6,000 deaths new cases per day. Florida had 9,000 new cases yesterday with just one-third of Italy's population. — Baden

Talking of animal farm statistics, is that you comparing new cases in one place with deaths in another?

A medal for honesty is on its way you. Black people are despairingly familiar with the click of the door lock as they pass by a car, and the attentive store detective, and so on. We judge strangers on the information we immediately have; first appearance, then accent, possibly smell, demeanour, and so on.

Respectable clothes are safer, white faces are safer, the familiar is safer. You and I sometimes dress to impress, and black folks sometimes bathe in bleach. And everybody most of the time dress according to local convention, to be part of a group of policemen, or city gents, or burger flippers, or members of some other gang. Young men in groups are always dangerous if they are not working and supervised.

All this is not fact, and it is not ideology, so it is not something one can reasonably argue for or against. One understands and takes account of one's biases, or one ignores and is controlled by them.

I [...] sometimes persist for a while in arguing with intractable people when the exercise seems like it could be informative to onlookers, — Pfhorrest

It's an excellent principle to write for the reader more than the interlocutor. I wonder what is the longest thread anyone would be bothered to read all through. I think I might stretch to 5 or 6 pages if it was a good one. Certainly by the time one gets to page 20, one is having a chat and not much more.

there's a difference between people here rejecting violence and looting and right wing commentators instilling fear of looting and violence with the objective to divide people (for the elections). The latter are the real problem, not the people with ideas similar to PF. — ssu

No. the real real problem is the unfair and unequal treatment of people and the violation of their most basic human rights. People talking on PF is no problem at all, as long as it has no effect on anyone's behaviour. But what people think does rather tend to inform their behaviour. That is why such a lot of money and effort is spent trying to get people to think a certain way. Are disputing that my rightwing meme was condemned as a left wing meme on this thread? Do you not see the implications? What's your beef?

Yes, people not endorsing or condoning looting and violence obviously is the huge attitude problem they have here — ssu

That's not remotely what I am saying. What I am suggesting is that there is a disparity between the condemnation of violence in defence of the human right to fair and equal treatment, and the support of violence in defence of property rights. As you are so clearly a man of peace, no doubt you also condemn the use of violence to defend property rights, in which case you will support and applaud my efforts to point out the need for even-handedness in these matters, so as to minimise the tendency to violence.

I think it's because a lot of powerful people are making a lot of money out of the underclass, a necessary component of any capitalist system. The fact that they can then use their media, lobbying and society influences to come with post hoc rationalisations for why things are that way is secondary. — Isaac

It isn't secondary at all. If it was secondary, they wouldn't bother. The problem is social and psychological, and both aspects are equally important. Teaching people to recite platitudes without changing politics is futile, but trying to change politics without changing minds is impossible.

I condone violence. Stand your ground, wimps! Someone violating your human rights? See the bastards to their graves pronto. — unenlightened

This got me accused of being a crazy leftie, but it was intended as a parody of right wing extremism - presumably because the context was 'rioters' rather than 'businesspeople defending their property rights'. It is a very natural hypocrisy that CEOs like to teach, and I like to try and unteach, because it is part of how the inequality is maintained in a democracy.

Something nice and 'culture-friendly' that we can sort out with a few kindergarten lessons and some well chosen children's books. Not something like the consistent failure to do anything about housing, employment, healthcare, social care. — Isaac

False dichotomy, I'd say. Why is there a consistent failure to do anything? Because there is a very strong commitment to the notion that there is nothing wrong, and if there is, it is all those lefties and others banging on about race. And for fuck's sake let's not pretend that black CEOs are a big problem here.

Because we all know the real issue over racism is assuaging white anxiety. — StreetlightX

Well it's crap I know, but actually this is the real issue, because it's not a problem of minorities, only for them. So how are we going to convince what appears to be a majority of people on this site for intelligent people, that their attitudes are the problem? How can we convey to them that the fantasy of white history as the global benefactor is one they can survive losing, that white privilege, like male privilege confers only a false sense of superiority, and that only a properly level playing field makes the game worth winning?

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I defined these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now — Bob Dylan

Right, yes. I think the lesson is that almost all one can say of human nature is that it is to be almost unlimitedly plastic, and formed by culture. A bit discomforting that one is the captain of one's ship and master of one's fate only to the extent that the culture allows.

I was watching this last night and it illuminates somewhat the difficulty that some possibly white people have with this kind of discussion. I'm not sure how I feel about this happening in schools, but it's interesting to consider the reactions of the children in relation to this thread.

So it starts with a test for unconscious racial bias, which you can find online if you are interested in your own possible bias. Having established that most of the class had some bias, they were separated into a white group and a non-white group. It was immediately obvious that the non-white group were at ease talking about race, ethnicity and culture, whereas the white group were uncomfortable.

There is an inversion that takes place for whites, whereby when race is the topic, they are suddenly at a disadvantage. When the children do the privilege walk exercise, everyone starts to see how the disadvantage that has been inverted operates in favour of white folks every day. It is upsetting to realise.

except maybe brute existence — tim wood

Not sure what you mean by this; some of us have penises and some of us have vaginas, a few of us have something a bit ambiguous - is that brute existence?

Unenlightened is already a known crazy leftist, no need to invite him. — Judaka

And there was me trying to be a gun toting right wing libertarian!

I condone violence. Stand your ground, wimps! Someone violating your human rights? See the bastards to their graves pronto.

I wonder what fun Jung would have had with the distinction between masculine v feminine, and butch v fem.

I ought to mention that "Jung's analytical psychology" should, by his own analysis be called "Jung's male psychology".

Where I start with this is to notice that we are talking about identifications. so we are talking about categories, definitions and binaries. I could say that since I am male, everything that I am, and everything I do is male, and proper to masculinity. Doing housework wearing lipstick and dresses and pushing prams and hugging other men, are masculine because men do them. Such is primary identity security.

But we don't do it like that. Instead, we cover up the genital reality, and perform and conform to an idea of what has come to be associated with the gender we are forbidden from directly displaying or even mentioning. So there is this seemingly inevitable dichotomising of absolutely everything into contrasting signifiers of gender. Colour (pink and blue), dress, mannerisms, are just the beginning: __ men are analytical and women are ... continental??? The ultimate folly being the serious analogising in a psychology book that male and female are so different as to be incomprehensible to each other - asif from different planets

The significance of these more or less arbitrary divisions is enormous, a matter of life and death quite often. But because they are arbitrary, our conformity to these stereotypes leaves us with an unexpressed internal 'other'; animus and anima. And these actually rule our lives most of the time, while we deny their existence. Consider, for example the analytical skills versus the emotional outbursts of our current batch of hyper-masculine leaders.

I quite like that there is variation in quality. It's educational. Discussion is much the best way to learn philosophy, because it makes one use the concepts that would otherwise sit comfortably in the context of what one had read and never get tested in practice.

There is always going to be a top and bottom to the quality of what is posted, and always some dispute at the margins. I prefer stupidity to rudeness, personally. Other arrangements could be tried, though.
Perhaps the most academic, high brow topics could be marked in some way, and more strictly controlled. Perhaps we could make a separate section of text discussions, with a link to an article or book as the op.

One of the best ways to raise quality is by not responding to rubbish. This is very hard these days, but worth trying. Ops that get no answers, drop out of sight quite quickly. This could even happen to the Trump thread if we all made an effort.

The only way to be truly happy ... — Gitonga

As long as one wants to be happy, one is unhappy. Rather as one can want a bath anywhere except in the bath.

Not just a matter of education...

But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation. — Possibility

I put it in harsh terms, for emphasis. But traditionally surgeons do not operate on members of their own family precisely because they cannot be expected to be able to maintain that dis-passionate objectivity that is required to take a knife to living flesh. Without the objectification, being a surgeon would be too traumatic foe anyone except a sadist.

But it looks like the incels are taking over here so I think I'll go waste my time elsewhere for a bit.

Ownership comes down to what you can defend or control, — A Seagull

That's a bit odd. So if I pick your pocket and take your wallet, your credit card is mine, as long as I can keep control of it? That solves the problem of the rioters, doesn't it. I f you can stop them you keep your shop, and if not, you lose it. Nothing more to be said.

The whole reason we imagine the self is to ensure its continuity. — Nils Loc

:rofl: The continuity of imaginary beings can be imagined to be terribly important.

After that bravura performance with the glass of water, I'd be looking forward to seeing the Great Orangery walk and chew gum at the same time, except that multi-tasking is so girlie.

no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. — Possibility

My next door neighbour has been separated from her breasts. My wife has been separated from her womb. A woman's a woman for aye that. The surgeon who operated on my wife, (and all surgeons do this surely?) objectified her. It is a deliberate process of obscuring the body except for the 'part' one has to cut. Before and afterwards, she was a wonderfully warm human being, but for the operation she was a calculating butcher.

Alas for anyone who performs sex as if they were performing surgery.

Yes ultimately you are right, the distinction breaks down, the self dissolves and we belong to each other. But that's rather a long way from shooting trespassers and rioters.

If you do a thought experiment about thinking, is it a real experiment?

To say the one necessarily owns one’s body is just to say that those rights one has over their own body are inalienable. — Pfhorrest

Thing is, this isn't true. If I donate a kidney, or some blood, then whatever rights I may have had cease forthwith, and are transferred to whoever they become part of. The hair I leave on the barber's floor is not my inalienable property. Alien is what it immediately becomes.

there is a division like of software and hardware — Pfhorrest

So you are software that owns hardware? A dreadful analogy, and, incidentally right out of the Cartesian songbook, but it's a police state, you can think what you like, as the saying goes.

Imagine the catastrophe if I persuaded you to change your mind; someone else would possess your body.

I think that is perhaps because of what you take a property relation to be.

People like me who say our bodies are our own property take ownership of property to be identical to having claim rights to a thing. — Pfhorrest

Yes I understand. I point out though what this entails philosophically. A relation requires a division. My relation to my armchair is that I'm sitting in it, and my relation to my laptop is that it is on my lap and I am typing on it. So I suppose your relation to your body would be that you inhabit it, or haunt it in some way. whereas I prefer to say that I inhabit or haunt my armchair, but I am my body. There are not two things in a relation - of ownership or of anything else. I am not a Cartesian dualist.

they are some of the forces that end up solidifying human plasticity into a particular form. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh yeah. Good call. Un-molded plastic is just a useless blob.

Do you think these four grouping categories about where you are from (race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality), are essentially important? Or are they holding us back? — Wheatley

What is your family like?

What is the most important thing in your life?

What sort of culture are you part of?

Who governs you?

I don't know how anyone could begin to think these things are not important They hold us - back, up, together, apart.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it justifies society telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, — Marchesk

Well not necessarily. Your argument seems to be that everything must belong to an individual or to society. Whereas I deny that. Being and having are not the same kind of affair, except grammatically. Rather, you're not the boss of me, and neither am I. Apart from the fact that it just intuitively feels that my relation to my body is not a property relation, there are indeed implications for society and morality. One would for example be able to remove body parts from the economy, forbidding trade in blood, sale of kidneys and so on.

That this is mine seems to be inevitable, as much a part of being human as having hands. — Banno

Ships have hands; humans are hands.

As I said at the outset, the property relation is one of identification and NOT one of identity. ME and mine have to be different in order to be in relation.

When you think about it, so much of reality is bundle-like in the sense that there isn’t “a watch” that is comprised of various elements. Rather, those various elements constitute the watch.
“”I” is a verb disguised as a noun” — Mike5

My favourite topic, though I haven't read Baggni. But it looks as though you are taking elements of rather different understandings there. As to Hume, a brilliant philosopher, but in this case I would turn his method against him and declare that you can't get an 'I' from a bundle of 'its'. You can get a watch from a bundle of bits if they are the right bits and the bundle is arranged. But a watch has no sense of self.

He writes that the idea that “person” is a functional category, and in a sense constructed by the interaction of memories (psychological connectedness, and continuity), bodies, society, that appears unified. However there is no “subject” — Mike5

It is hard to know what this means; I wonder how you or Baggni would answer the sceptic again - no-one wrote this? Says who? It sounds rather similar to bundle theory, and seems to suffer from the same problems. A watch is carefully constructed (by someone) to form a functional whole, it cannot be made by shaking a bag of disparate bits.

What I think one needs to claim is not that there is no subject with or without scare quotes, but more that it is unnecessary, a mistake that humans make. That humans can function better without this aspect.

So I would say that the self is an idea, a thought around which all thought becomes organised, that becomes all important. I call this process of thought 'identification.' Starting like this is has the advantage that it is clear from the beginning that we are not talking about the physicality of the human being, but of the construction of an image in the mind. Now I can say very simply that I, unenlightened, am writing this post, having these thoughts and pressing these keys, but that all these things can perfectly well happen, and happen even rather better, without the idea of myself intruding at all.

And from there, we can look at the process of thought that I have called 'identification' and say something about what it is and how it it a mistake.

If virtue was rewarded and vice punished it would be merest common sense to be virtuous.

And that would make virtue and selfishness the same. Of course as it is, you have to take up your cross to follow the path of virtue. This is not a new insight requiring a long screed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000kbk6 If you can, do. If you can't, complain about discrimination. A nostalgia fest for us ancients. Mr Baldwin is someone to reckon with.

There is an argument, to which I personally do not subscribe, that all sexual relations are objectifications. That is, the best that can be hoped for is that partners consensually and mutually use each other as objects for their own gratification, and willingly become objects for the other's gratification. It's a way of looking at things, but I would say that the mutuality contradicts the objectification.

And using sexually charged language such as ‘dressed provocatively’ and ‘goods men crave’ is hardly presenting an objective view. — Possibility

More an example of objectification than a discussion. Women (or bits thereof) as goods? A meat market.

↪StreetlightXThe solution? — ssu

Unconditional surrender.

Objectification is the sense that I am ONLY valued for my appearance and/or capacity to fulfil your needs. That my failure to deliver on either count would invalidate my existence, because nothing else about me matters.
— Possibility

No argument there, if that was purely the case, if that’s what all looking was about?

But I don’t think you’ve explained what objectification is as an experience. — Brett

Is the experience not 'having one's existence invalidated'? (Man repeats what she just said so it sounds more important.)

Yet, showing skin to attract men seems too close for comfort to using the body as bait and isn't that what sexual objectification means? — TheMadFool

No.