I’m glad you brought that up because intuition had somehow slipped my mind. Intuition, to me, is also
connected to common-sense, but not logic. Those things not conducive to the seduction of logic are branded as emotion. This is not to say there is anything wrong with logic, only that there are those who shut down debate with the sanctity of logic, as if it’s perfect, almost God-like.

You appear to be addressing my post but you’re really just talking to yourself. This is so much easier to do and gives you more immediate comfort. Such is the seduction of logic, because it means you are always right.

For instance it’s highly unlikely that all the Christians in the world are stupid, logic would tell you that. Christian dogma, as you call it, is not necessarily contrary to common sense, or to reason. Logic might not be able to explain belief, but that may very well be a failing of logic.

You believe logic is the only thing to decide debate with. But I can think of many events in world history where pure logic has governed and led to tragic outcomes.

Successful outcomes in the real world are decided by many things, not just logic.

Your post only confirms my feelings about the seduction of logic.

So sorry if I'm confused as a foreigner on just when did this flag come to be a symbol of racism. — ssu

Well it hasn’t, has it, and this is the idiocy of the whole thing. Why is this idiocy prevailing?

what is the inherent thing in logic that makes you distrust it? — god must be atheist

“Sometimes I feel a nagging distrust of logic”.

I don’t distrust things that make me feel good. I mean I’m wary (maybe that’s a better choice of word than distrustful) of how we are seduced by our own logic, and I should emphasise ‘our own’. Just look at the resistance to challenges on this forum. It’s easy to enjoy this stroking of our ego by the idea of our distinction through applied logic. And consequently it follows that any answer that comes about as the result of logic must be correct. One of the primary characteristics of the Enlightenment was reason. The consequences of that was science and then that science applied to utilising natural resources, the Industrial Revolution and so on, all very beneficial to mankind’s development. But look at the price, where’s the logic and reason in the consequences?

It’s all very seductive, possibly because it gives us this sense of superiority over our environment. We even spin out into space and say this logic is evident in the galaxy, as if it’s not man-made, as if it’s the stuff of the Universe. I can’t help think the negative reaction today towards Christianity is a reaction of logic towards a threat to its hegemony.

On the other hand what are we without it?

I wonder, sometimes, if logic and common sense are two distinct things. Common sense does not appear to be quite so seductive as logic. The outcomes are very tangible, they are either beneficial or they aren’t. Logic seems to want to go on analysing the problem as if talking about the problem is the actual solution. Like today we often hear the comment about a particular problem: “we need to have a conversation about this” (the problem). Do you see the seduction in all this?

often the very ideas they hold are not even in their best interests or are part of oppressive systems. I think parts of religious beliefs are like this, — Coben

That’s true, and it’s offered opportunities for oppression or manipulation. But I would also assume that there have been times when it’s all they had and it’s what got them through.

I don’t think they are the creators of these values, but they have lived them most consistently and for the longest time, and at risk of sounding naive, they are the the core values that have got us this far.

It’s true that the war and technology shook people up and tested those values, and there was cynicism, however those values did not die as a result, even though other ideas about values emerged. As I said, those original values endured, until now.

What do you mean? — Etzsche

The idea that a person will be permanently soaking in resentment, that a catharsis is required to make it out alright. That may not be the case, but it serves as an excuse for revenge, like a person just needs the tiniest approval to carry out revenge. It’s finding excuses for revenge when you know it’s probably not the best move.

revenge.
Building off of this, what will become of a person who soaks in this resentment every day for a long span of time? Without any form of catharsis, will the subject be able to make it out alright? — Coben

You should consider this as just a way to justify your actions. There’s no reason for it to be so detrimental to yourself to refuse revenge.

Instead of getting revenge on someone myself, the other option would be to go to the police. But the problem is, there's no proof or evidence that the act ever happened. — Etzsche

You could go to the police. They may do little, I don’t know. You may have to anticipate that. If there’s no evidence then they probably may not help, but it may help you a little to do that at least. The thing about revenge is that the other party then seeks revenge. In such a situation myself, I would set a time to wait, set things aside and review things again down the track.

What do you mean?

Do you mean instead of revenge?

So putting this into simpler terms, you say that, for example, a thief who has stolen in the past, will steal again if not punished for his actions? — Etzsche

No, I don’t mean that. I’m just addressing issues of revenge and situations where it may have had good reason to be enacted.

Emotions are very powerful and intoxicating. Obviously there is some purpose for them, I guess. But we can’t live purely on emotion, it’s destructive. I don’t think revenge is required anymore. Though revenge can be carried out financially, or any number of ways. Our justice system acts on issues of crime, it’s social, no longer an individual issue.

I don’t know if you read the story on Aboriginal ‘payback’, but it works because everyone accepts it and the ‘payback’ puts an end to the whole issue.

Is there a reward in revenge? Possibly, for a very short time. But you’ll pay dearly for that moment.

Edit: regarding the thief, he may still steal after the punishment. So punishment doesn’t seem to be a solution. The death penalty didn’t stop murder.

Edit: I would think revenge doubles your pain.

So perhaps you don't like flattery? You don't like to hear good things about yourself, said by others? — god must be atheist

No, not ‘flattery’ in the sense of how good a jacket makes you look to others, but ‘flatter’. We’re impressed by the logic and convinced how right we are by our mastery of logic.

Here’s a real story.

“The Duke of Plantagenent, though a member of the House of York, he switched sides to support the Lancastrians, before reverting to the Yorkists. He was later convicted of treason against his brother, Edward IV, and was executed”. Wikipedia.

If he had not been executed as an act of revenge, then very possibly he would have returned again to plot against King Edward. His murder, as opposed to imprisonment, made this impossible.

I would like to entertain you with a story. — TheHedoMinimalist

I find these stories to be such nonsense. Really, what’s to be gained by them?

Because it flatters us so much.

I tend to agree. Sometimes I feel a nagging distrust of logic.

Aboriginal tribes in Australia have, and possibly still do have, a system of ‘payback’. Someone has to pay for a crime against another person. If not the perpetrator then a family member. This seems to be a form of revenge but with a result that satisfies all.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/accused-killer-speared-in-aboriginal-payback-20021008-gdfpf8.html

Yes.

People are born everyday and they will one day die and cause grief to those they left behind. — empathy

This too is not altogether true. There are people who pass through the lives of others and leave a lot more in the long term than just grief.

Why do human beings ignore that the world is full of pain and suffering and try to walk around happy, indifferent to the suffering and even creating more suffering sometimes? — empathy

I don’t know if what you say is necessarily true. I don’t think they’re indifferent and I think a lot of people will take on the suffering of others to help them through it. Walking around being happy, or trying, as you say, may mean they are relatively happy for that moment in a world that is hard going and that they’re experiencing a moment of relief from it all. What’s amazing about it all is that people find moments of happiness in the simplest of situations and pass it on to others. A smile really is an infectious thing.

So my question is, have or have not these values shaped the world. And if they have is the world a better place or not, and if they have shaped the world then why is the ‘common man’ not in a better position as a result? Or is he in a very good position after all? If these values are not responsible for the world as it is then why is the opposition fighting against them?

I work in digital industries myself - but you have to keep your feet on the ground, a connection with human reality and nature. It's crucial. — Wayfarer

That seems to be the general consensus. But crucial for what? And what is a connection with human reality if you’re already human?

Really, if you just calm down and think, what is this really all about?

If everything is just a variation on a theme: God exists, God does not exist, then what’s really going on here?

Thanks Wallows. I appreciate you appreciating it.

That I’d be just as well off without it.

I am sure some don't, though I see a lot disappointed: in God, in life, in their country...and changing. The mass may stay the same but individuals can shift when presented with enough experience that seems, at least, to counter their values being right. — Coben

That’s quite true, but as you say, the mass may stay the same. Individual have always moved away from their roots and started a new life. Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean they abandoned their original values, nor that those values fail to find a place in their new life.

I think we all know what’s meant today in using the term post modernism, just like we know, accurately or not, what we mean by ‘Kafkaesque’. In the end post modernism meant absurdity. — Brett

I’m using them as two distinct ideas, as terms with very broad meaning which we understand. Their only connection is as broad terms.

Like I said, hilarious over-analyzing over what's in actuality a straightforward answer. One of Nike's biggest brand ambassadors criticized the design of a product and Nike pulled it. That's it. This isn't even about "identity politics". Nike's core audience is simply younger and more liberal than the general population. — Maw

I think you’re partly right about the absurdity. But the issue is that the flag has been seen as a ‘racist symbol’. So someone is attempting to rewrite history, as we’ve seen with other issues. If the flag is a symbol of racism, and the flag is representative of the USA, then ergo America is a racist country. I think this idea of racism and symbols, as an example, is definitely about identity politics. It’s part of the whole virtue signalling aspect of segments of society today. Everything, everyone, becomes over sensitised and common sense gets thrown out with it. It’s quite common these days for groups to retroactively describe history according to their political position (and I’m not sure ‘political is even the right word anymore). So it flows into ideas about relativism and the subjectivity of morals.

This is part of my position regarding my post on ‘the common man’, where is the centre to hold things together? How much longer can we function under these existing terms, or is it actually over, for some anyway.

So, a new way of doing business. Stir the country up with issues of racism, then watch the stock market.

If true it’s a dangerous precedent. Well, interesting, anyway, especially if you look at target audiences and their political views based on identity politics.

I was asking my questions about work so I could understand what credibility you had to discuss the "common man." — T Clark

What credibility does one need to discuss any subject?

Suicide: what do you need?

The existence of God

What is freedom?

They don't have another option. — Coben

What I was meaning is that they’ve done so without giving up their values.

Yes, I understand. I’m not trying idealise them. I’m trying to work out why they are still there, still strong and determined. Is it their values? If so should we consider those values more than we do?

If it’s true that such a man exists and has always been there, and endured, then why, how?

How and why do they survive centuries of nonsense?

Chesterton refers to the ‘Common Man’ as the uneducated, — Possibility

No he doesn’t say that.

He said that ‘the mob has always been led by more educated men’ and ‘more true ... to say that it has always been misled by the educated men.’

He is not saying that ‘the mob’ is uneducated, just that they have been led by ‘more educated men’. These so called ‘educated men’, the ‘well informed’, are the ones he holds due for ‘the catastrophes we have suffered’.

So he is not saying the ‘common man’ is uneducated, and he is also asking, what do we mean by education, if those ‘more educated men’, ‘well informed’ men make such catastrophic decisions?

There is a key phrase in that essay: ‘the prosaic practical people’. Prosaic I read as: ordinary, everyday, straightforward, unadorned, literal, factual.

These might be said to be the qualities of ‘the common man’, qualities that have no time for abstract ideas that fail to put food on the table, imbue morality in their children, or give cohesion to society on a day to day basis.

[reply="TheMadFool;303766"

I'm not meaning to be difficult. It just seems like your idea comes down to ridding someone of depression (the gun), which is the problem, or what contributes to the depression.

Edit: I mean the gun in the hands of man b.

But your right, in that light its murder. But murder of who?

However, in my opinion there is no such thing as suicide as understood as killing oneself. It's always something else that does the killing e.g. depression and intractable pain both of which may arise from a variety of preceding causes. — TheMadFool

That's a very interesting take, and quite true, but what does it offer in terms of understanding. It's so intellectual and meaningless on the ground.

Though I have to say, either someone got it really wrong in market research, or they over reacted.

Yes, it suggests, for a moment, they were a bit casual about their core market and then pulled themselves into line again. A costly mistake.

Though we’ll never know what might or might not have happened to sales.

Edit: this is a very tricky time for business.

He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’. — Possibility

I think you might be misunderstanding the use of the word ‘common’ here.

If you had read the article by Chesterton you would understand.

I think you’re viewing the word as used by the British as a synonym for ‘uncouth’, ‘rough’, ‘impolite’.

All I'm asking is that you show me I'm wrong. — T Clark

Wrong about what?

In this case, I'm being more aggressive because you are being disrespectful and condescending - patronizing - to people you don't seem to know or understand. — T Clark

That’s being very disingenuous. I told you I feel patronising because I had to name the common man jobs I’d done to prove I know what I’m talking about, to satisfy you. I wasn’t being patronising before that. Nor have any of my comments been disrespectful or patronising.