However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence. — Jack Cummins

The problem I have with this, and the idea of spirituality, is that it seems to me we’re no longer those people. There may be some around, there are certainly a lot trying to be, but I think we’ve lost that. Though we haven’t forgotten it.

I decided I needed to do a bit of reading on this subject. This from the beginning of an article I’m reading;

“ The purpose of studying the audience is to tackle the problem of aesthetic communication where the sender (the artist) transmits a coded message (the artwork) to receivers (the audience).”
Picasso, Cubism and the Eye of the Beholder: Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychology. TOM ETTINGER, American Imago.

Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes. — Possibility

There are things you say that I would agree with. To say yes to uncertainty can only make life better. To say yes to painting on Sundays is obviously better than saying no. And to absorb yourself in something can only be positive. The results don’t determine the value of painting on a Sunday.

This is not necessarily being creative, but it is something of value. Maybe it’s therapeutic, which is fine.

I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different. — Bertoldo

This is interesting. In what way do you think they were different?

if someone doesn't grieve does that mean they didn't love the person who just died? I don't think so. — khaled

I would agree with you there. But I don’t think that means there was no attachment.

A person who has lost something may think about what they had, or what they were given, and know that nothing’s forever. They could have had an intense attachment to a person on a day to day basis and understood that what you’re given can be taken away. In that sense I go along with the idea that you should “be here now”. From my singular experience which I mentioned in a post I can see that one might be accepting of, let’s say, the grace of reality. Depending on what you think you might feel that person has gone to a better place, or is out of pain, or even that they may be standing behind you.

And no, if you are not devastated by the burning of Notre-Dame then you are not a lesser Christian, because, of course, it’s God’s work.

Edit: I don’t think attachments are necessary, I think they come with being human.

Can you still keep the advantages (strong healthy community, interpersonal relationships, etc) without attachments? — khaled

Well from my point of view the attachments are behind the caring, i.e. the concern for others or community.

When Notre-Dame in Paris caught fire there was an outpouring of grief from Christians. Their attachment was probably more than just the material structure of the cathedral. But those sort of attachments to community structures or institutions are what hold a community together. In the past they took responsibility for them and maintained them. As opposed to contemporary communities that have less attachment to their community institutions and in which we see an atomising of communities.

So I don’t think we can expect healthy communities and interpersonal relationships without attachments.

Sure we often form attachments to our children and family but I don't think those are necessary for us to love them. If someone's dad passes away at 80 years old peacefully in his bed and the person in question is at peace with the fact (doesn't mourn or cry) does that mean he didn't care about his dad? I don't think that's fair. — khaled

From my understanding when a child is born that connection between the mother and newborn, the meeting of the eyes, is the beginning of bonding. Those woman who can’t bond for some reason find it difficult to experience the attachment that leads to care under all conditions. So, to me, attachment is the beginning of caring and one cannot happen without the other.

I’m not sure what your point is about the dying man. But attachments will probably end in some grief. Some attachments are superficial and in terms of this OP largely irrelevant. The loss of something can go from irritation to inconsolable grief.

The whole Buddhist thing, and my interest is in Zen more than anything, makes sense theoretically. One can be philosophical about losing someone, if you chose. Otherwise it’s heartbreaking. Remember the message of the Queen of England about the deaths on 9/11: “Grief is the price we pay for love.” I may be paraphrasing there.

Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. — Possibility

Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, — Possibility

This is how I interpret your post:

Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity

Understanding > creativity

But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:

Understanding > creativity > existence

What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.

Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator?

Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. — Possibility

This is a bit unclear to me.

Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work?

Judaka
All it takes to become attached to something is to care,
and caring is worth more than the pitfalls of attachment by itself.
— Judaka

Is it not possible to care about something without being attached to it (without it being a problem to lose it)? — khaled

Brett
The word “care” is a bit of a problem for me. I’m not sure what exactly it means.
— Brett

Does "Want" work better? I'm basically asking: "Is it not possible to want something without it being a problem not to have it?" — khaled

I wanted to revisit the word “care”. To “want” something is different than to “care” about something. So I’m going back to the idea of “caring” for something.

We seem to form attachments without much thought. We all do it in different ways, we find different things to be important or valuable. So attachments seem to be part of human nature, even though different cultures might have different attachments, though there are consistent attachments across all cultures, like the care for children or family.

Attachments are behind our caring, as in concerns. We develop an attachment to someone and find their care to be important to us. We buy a house for our family and care about its condition, we have children and then care about their well-being in education or developmental interests. So these attachments contribute towards a healthy strong community. Without these attachments why would we care? We might care about a famine in Africa but it’s at a very abstract level. Our level of caring seems to get weaker as it spreads out from us, because the further the subject is from us the less attachment we feel. That also seems perfectly natural. One can cope with only so much attachment otherwise each attachment would get watered down in an effort to manage all you take on.

The problem, though, is determining whether those in question seek to do harm. The assumption that a person intended to do harm is one that's in opposition to the position that one is innocent until proven guilty, and must be tried before conviction. — Ciceronianus the White

In the case of Japanese interned in California when war broke out it was done because of what they might do as Japanese people, what US officials imagined they might do. It’s bad enough to treat someone as guilty until proven innocent, and in such case at least a crime was committed to which they were connected. But the idea of imprisoning someone because of what they might do, as with the Japanese, what the paranoid minds of officials think might happen is extraordinary. Ultimately it means imprisonment for anyone who might present a problem in the mind of others. But based on what: physical features, skin colour, religion, the things they read, the things they eat?

I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. — Jack Cummins

My point about Sunday painters was not that it depletes meaning but whether a line can be drawn between them and those who say “yes to uncertainty”. Are they both creative or is there a difference?

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, — Jack Cummins

I don’t think that’s what I said.

Art and spirituality are not enemies. — Jack Cummins

Not only do I not think they’re enemies but I think once they were one and the same. Though I’m wry of the word spirituality which seems to gave all sorts of vapid meanings these days.

Edit: if archaeologists 500 years from now dug up our art of the last 100 years what would it say to them?

once it's gets over certain threshold like combination of ten twenty arts now it became your style and congratulations you've created "original" art due to complexity of how many different "original" styles you copied to basically create a new style that is yours. — yiwakah227

That’s true and I think it could be applied to every aspect of our life. Isn’t it essentially how we learn and develop as people? We’re drawn to particular things of interest that expand our world. Most artists work within a tradition no matter how much they they bend the rules. If one bends the rules too much it becomes incomprehensible to others. An artist can continue to paint outside of a tradition, if that’s possible, and bend the rules with each work and find that only he can relate to it and he can continue without any contact outside of the studio. If we actually lived our lives like that what would we become?

So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.

Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother?

Want is easier if that’s what you mean? I think it is possible to want something without it being a problem not to have it. But there’s also a difference between having something then losing it and wanting something but never getting it.

The word “care” is a bit of a problem for me. I’m not sure what exactly it means.

People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. — Possibility

What reality do you mean?

but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational. — Possibility

I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?

I think you’re giving art far too much credit.

We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there. — Possibility

That’s a big generalisation for what people are looking to art for. Maybe art is a long way from its roots, but even then it wasn’t to discover ourselves. To discover what?

But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’. — Possibility

Once again, for me, too much of a generalisation about the creative artist and why they do it. The creative artist’s answer to whether our experience of uncertainty matters is always yes.

If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same?

Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses.

Given, also, that in the beginning this creative ability wasn’t used to brighten up a hut but had a purpose, or more accurately was directed towards a purpose. That purpose would have been quite primitive. The thing created was not the thing referred to, but it referred to something that could not be spoken of in the Wittgenstein sense: the cave drawings of Lascaux, the Borneo masks, the body decorations, the small fetishes. The art refers back to something that existed outside of space and time. This, I believe, is the origin of “art”.

This is how it operated throughout history, usually referring to something greater than ourselves, greater than the “artist”. As long as we believed in this “something” the work spoke for it.

In time we moved away from these beliefs. The mystery the work held about the unknown was transferred to the artist, the artist became the mystery. Of course there is no mystery except in the mystery of “creativity”. The connection was still maintained between the work and the unknown source, the origins, the unconscious mind. So the work became about the artist, who became some sort of Shaman, revealing unknown depths of the mind through the use of subject, symbols and metaphors.

This is just a performance, maintaining the uniqueness of the “artist’s” mind, perpetuating the idea that they have access to something they can share with us, that they are on some sort of journey to enlighten us in the process of enlightening themselves about reality. But the “artist” knows as much about reality as the man in the street, sometimes less.

So we are back to something that supposedly cannot be spoken of; the hidden genius of the artist. Which is just circular to me.
So yes, there might be such a thing as creativity, but it’s meaningless.

Why was it thatRimbaud stopped writing poetry and left France and everything he knew to trade guns in Africa and never write again?

However, artists can and do create beautiful and interesting things, but that’s all they are. And as we know beauty is subjective. Rimbaud’s poetry led him nowhere. People love and admire it, but what did it mean to him, unless what he found in his poetry was dissatisfaction, that art is meaningless.

What art reveals is not what it’s about but our perception of the function of art.

This from the OP “Essence without reality” seems relevant to me in this light.

So our philosophical quest for the essence of a thing turns out to be a search for what is important to us about it. Aren't these (essentially) the same thing? And this is still an analytical endeavor, but the investigation of our concepts (good, knowledge, intention) are not for the goal of finding one point to ensure their (or all) application, but to draw out the ways they express what we desire and need. — Antony Nickles

If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?

We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.

So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning.

But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. — Possibility

I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity.

I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge. — Possibility

Why do you think this is?

When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. — Possibility

I don’t go along with this at all. The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it.

Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us — Possibility

It’s not meant to surprise us, it was never meant to surprise us. It was made to be understood.

There’s an interesting OP about Wittgenstein, language and God, the inability of language to refer to Gods and beliefs;

“

We should not take a representational account of religious language but try to see its appropriate use in a religious life in form of metaphor, paradox, expectation, commands etc. In other words, religious statements about God cannot be assigned a truth value. They function in a different manner. — Wittgenstein

You may or may not agree with this in relation to art.

as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art. — Jack Cummins

I feel we, as a species, may have moved on from what the visual art did for us. We might have crossed over into images having a meaning that is very removed from what it was. We’re a long way from the cave drawings of Lascaux.

Jack Cummins and others have talked about exploring the self through art and the value of symbolism and even the journey of the hero. But I don’t think that’s who we are anymore. The images and symbols that once contained power have been bleached of significance. With this goes the purpose of the visual arts.

First of all there’s nothing left to paint. Our lives are flooded with images of the world that serve every purpose except to reach out to us in ways they once did. Those images were culturally embedded, they had a history and resonance, they contained meaning that did not have to be articulated or explained. Virtually everything out there in the world has been converted to an image that is removed from its meaning and given new, relative meanings. Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire?

Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins?

Well just art in general. — Darkneos

Do you mean not just 2D art but all art?

I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D. — Possibility

I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative.

the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves? — Possibility

In terms of discovering ourselves do you mean for the artist or for the observer?

Lets assume you reach some sort of Nirvana state if you manage to sever all forms of attachment - is that something most of us would even want? It would mean abandoning family, love, friendships. It would just be you, and, I guess, the universe. — BitconnectCarlos

From a Buddhist point of view my understanding of attachment is in the sense that “ in our everyday life our thinking is ninety-nine percent self-centred. ‘Why do I have suffering? Why do I have trouble?” Shunryu Suzuki

No matter what you believe in, if you become become attached to it, “your belief will be based more or less on a self-centred idea.”

So the attachment is to the egotistical idea of the self. You won’t lose anything by non-attachment, you won’t be unable to love, to have a family or friends. It’s more than likely you’ll have more because you are open to more.

I think it would be fair to say that with the development of agriculture in exchange for security people lost their real freedom. Whether or not they knew that I don’t know. But those imposition on their freedom became more and more severe. In that sense I can see how it could be argued that agriculture and its consequences created “anxious man”. But was it an acceptable trade off? Obviously if it was not we would not be talking about it. And if not agriculture what other innovation might have entered our world?

Yeah, that's the real crazy question, why did they? — darthbarracuda

I think it was those who migrated into regions where wheat and barley few naturally that became agriculturalists. So they didn’t really give up one thing for another. I don’t know if they were hunter/gatherers that made the trip or nomads who settled. It’s difficult for us to conceive of time in evolutionary terms.

If they had lived in a region that served them as H/G then it’s unlikely that there would be the right conditions for agriculture. In fact it seems to me from limited knowledge that if you were H/G communities then you remained that way unless outside forces disrupted it.

But it worked. Unless you disagree with what we have as a consequence.
— Brett

Well, it worked eventually, but only once industrial technology was invented, which facilitated fast and reliable long-distance travel and communication. Before the Industrial Revolution, and especially in the early days, states were rising and falling all the time. — darthbarracuda

In relation to your post that it was extremely risky to put all your eggs in one basket. It must have worked a little bit faster than “eventually” otherwise there would be no eventually. Nor do I believe you could say the industrial revolution was invented, unless you’re just being loose with words. It’s a big leap from the beginning of agriculture to the Industrial revolution but for the sake of it I’ll go along with you. The industrial revolution could not have happened without all the benefits that came from agricultural societies. The fact that H/G societies never changed right into the 20th century is testament to that.

The impetus for agriculture comes from a lack of faith in the eternal abundance of nature. — Welkin Rogue

Could this really be true? Where did this lack of faith arise, what was the impetus? In the beginning of agriculture, (which is pretty difficult to define. What was agriculture in the beginning?) why would anyone commit to it. For it to thrive it would need to have produced real tangible benefits. Which it must have done in many ways. It seems to me that “ a lack of faith in the eternal abundance of nature” doesn’t necessarily mean that a choice was made to go with agriculture, considering the nature of evolution in all things.

@darthbarracuda said

We know now that hunter-gathering, swiddening, pastoralism and the like are comparatively easier and healthier lifestyles. — darthbarracuda

Surely only a really neurotic, unstable creature would give up what worked so well for something that they had to wait for, because of seasons and the nature of agriculture, over what was a “comparatively easier and healthy lifestyle”. Meaning that agriculture offered something better very quickly, which it can’t have.

In particular, it must have been that it was the more risk-averse among us who were willing to pay those up-front costs; to start growing crops and increase reliance on such crops. — Welkin Rogue

This is an assumption made on the basis that they were forced by the instability of food supply into agriculture and those who were not risk averse would have stayed with H/G. Why would the risk averse take the bigger risk?

My other thought is to wonder if it’s only humans that suffer from anxiety. Do animals suffer from anxiety and if so why?

Edit: how exactly are we defining anxiety?

Completely depending on a single method for obtaining sustenance is extremely risky because it is putting all your eggs in one basket. — darthbarracuda

But it worked. Unless you disagree with what we have as a consequence.

Against The Current (book) suggests that agriculture was the invention of the earliest nascent state which saw in agriculture a way of extracting wealth from peons. — Bitter Crank

That doesn’t seem to make sense to me. There must have been an early state of agriculture that had no connection to even a nascent state. The idea that agriculture was a way of extracting wealth from peons suggest that both evolved at the same pace from the very beginning with the state having an advantage before a surplus could have even happened.

Lure people into grain growing. Where did the state get the idea of agriculture from?

For me, that's an inadequate response--X is necessary because we must do X in order to know X is necessary isn't an argument I find acceptable. — Ciceronianus the White

No it’s not an argument I find acceptable, which is what I meant. But it’s also an easy argument made in comfort and security, which to some degree has been given to me by people who may have disregarded certain laws in the past.

What might be acceptable evidence is information establishing with certainty or to a reasonable degree of probability (sorry for using this lawyer-language) that if the law isn't disregarded, then great harm will result. That's a heavy burden of proof, but I think that burden should be applied when the rule of law is threatened. — Ciceronianus the White

What would a reasonable degree of probability, how can we decide that before it’s required? Especially under conditions of stress, or too little time or limited information. Maybe this depends to a large degree on the people who make these decisions, who we elect to govern us? Then again the same people governing during a period of peace may not be the people needed in more stressful times.

How do you think you might respond in a similar situation? Is there a situation where if you could, or had to, you might disregard the law?

The realization of the fact that God is beyond our understanding or we cannot express a lot of meaningful statements regarding him cannot even be articulated by an individual. The only medium left is music/art/poetry etc. You have to corrupt what you had originally in your mind though. Otherwise, it would not be understood at all by the public. — Wittgenstein

That uncorrupted state of mind the believer has, which loses its original state, let’s call it “pure belief”, when articulated is interesting in terms of some of the arts. A Russian Icon is produced by a believer, an artist, to represent that “pure state”. It has, as you say, been corrupted in the attempt to articulate it. To a non-believer it is simply a work of art, albeit bristling with religious meaning. To the believer, on seeing it, it is immediately recognised and translated back into the “pure belief” they possess.

I saved this from something I was reading the other day about the poet T S Elliot. Sorry but I can’t find the source of it. But I’m interested in what you’ve said so far.

“The speaker in "Gerontion" reveals his inability to heed or 'read' the words shown to him, the revelation of the Word in words: the "word within a word" is both the "sign" which the Pharisees are unable to read, and the Word signified by that sign. That the darkness is in the hearer, not the word, is further confirmed by the allusion implicit in the phrase "Christ the tiger"; Blake's words are immediately recalled, his "tyger" not "swaddled in darkness" but "burning bright / In the forests of the night".
The failure to read the signs in "Gerontion" is symptomatic of a more general failure to comprehend the Word; a new language is required for a new spirituality, and the speaker in "Gerontion" is trying to understand the former without having acquired the latter. Watkins comments that
When Eliot [...] turned to the faith, he was faced with the need for a new theological language.

The fact that Watkins goes on to argue that Eliot never convincingly achieved that language, or at least never managed to fuse that language with successful poetry, suggests that words are in themselves somehow inadequate for expressing the Word:
Ultimate meanings in poetry are unutterable just as in theology words cannot describe the Word of God.

Human language has fallen from the unity of sign and signified which can be found in the "word within a word", the signified Word within the signifying word: it has lost the ability to make a fitting response to the Word through words. The poet must therefore strive to make the necessary response through a language which is fundamentally inadequate; the 'religious poem' expresses the poet's response to revelation in terms of his own inability to make that response.”

Complete dependence on agriculture increased the risk of starvation. There was no good reason for anyone working the fields to be doing that, apart from coercion by the state. — darthbarracuda

I don’t think complete dependence on agriculture increased the risk of starvation. I would say the opposite, otherwise it wouldn’t have thrived. Mismanagement might contribute to starvation.

I would think there were very good reasons to be working in the fields. For one you could store grain away for the future. Your idea about coercion seems to me to making a big leap from one era to another. There would be a long period of successful agriculture before people would be coerced by the state, and the state could only exist because of the great success of agriculture.

I think anxiety may more likely be part of human nature. For a long time we were very vulnerable creatures. We had very little to protect ourselves with except our evolving minds. It seems to me that it was an agricultural way of life that gave us our greatest opportunity to consolidate.

I don’t know much about Cicero, but it seems to me, from what you’ve written, that he was, if anything, pragmatic. When he needed it he wore his lawyer hat, when needed his philosopher or Consul hat he wore it. So it appears to me that, for Cicero and others who disregard the law, the end justifies the means. Cicero prevailed against the objections over the execution of the conspirators and as a result, he believed, saved the Republic.

From my understanding of early history the most effective way to make sure conspirators can never succeed against you is to remove the ever present threat of them and their families. Cicero did this by first denying the conspirators a trial then having them executed. This is a person who has a Machiavellian view of the world.

So, are these also the people who can find the Will to disregard existing laws for a future objective, who can make sacrifices others pay for? There have been leaders who have done this and prevailed against forces that were potentially destructive to their country. Would those countries security have been achieved without those decisions that disregarded the law.

In answer to your question “we should, at the least, ask if there is any evidence supporting the claim that the circumstances are (or were) such as to justify disregard of the law”, then there appears to be evidence for those decisions.
I also think if those decisions are made in battle and the battle is won, even with a high human toll, then there would be a lot less questioning of the decision than if the battle was lost and the human toll was high.

What supports the claim there is such a need? If the claim is unsupported, another question should be asked: Why should the law be disregarded? — Ciceronianus the White

In the case of the Cataline Conspiracy, if the Republic was saved then it might be justified. But there are two things that need to be addressed. Would the Republic have been saved if they were only imprisoned, and how can they be sure the removal of those men, by imprisonment or execution, saved the Republic?

Cicero's "maxim" may be factual in the sense that we typically dispense with the law in what we think are times of war or emergency situations, but can't be used to support doing so. — Ciceronianus the White

What situation could there be, where the law was to be dispensed with, that could prove it necessary before dispensing the law. It seems to me that from the point of view of those dispensing with the law they’re saying that it’s only by dispensing the law in the first place that we will know how necessary it was.

Disregarding the law is based on what might happen. That seems to me an unreasonable response to a possible future. If it was based on previous experience then you would imagine the law would have already been changed constitutionally to address real facts. So in a way the act of disregarding the law may be said to be based on fear of the unknown. Is that rational or not?

The findings of the Harvard research are interesting in that “in contradiction to virtually every theory of crisis jurisprudence, war appears to affect only cases that are unrelated to the war. For these cases, the effect of war and other international crises is so substantial, persistent, and consistent that it may surprise even those commentators who long have argued that the Court rallies around the flag in times of crisis. On the other hand, we find no evidence that cases most directly related to the war are affected.” https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/crisis.pdf

It’s an interesting theory but it doesn’t contribute much towards my equity. When you realised there was some idea out there about God how did you respond?

Really, being ignorant of something is a long way from repudiating something.

“Using the best data available on the causes and outcomes of every civil rights and liberties case decided by the Supreme Court over the past six decades and employing methods chosen and tuned especially for this problem, our analyses demonstrate that when crises threaten the nation’s security, the justices are substantially more likely to curtail rights and liberties than when peace prevails. Yet paradoxically, and in contradiction to virtually every theory of crisis jurisprudence, war appears to affect only cases that are unrelated to the war. For these cases, the effect of war and other international crises is so substantial, persistent, and consistent that it may sur- prise even those commentators who long have argued that the Court rallies around the flag in times of crisis. On the other hand, we find no evidence that cases most directly related to the war are affected.” https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/crisis.pdf

I don’t think you can be born an atheist. An atheist is someone who repudiates the existence of God. I don’t know why or how you could repudiate the existence of something you’re unaware of. Simply been unaware of the idea of God doesn’t make you an atheist.

I was born an atheist like everyone else. — Kenosha Kid

That’s interesting. What does it mean: that you didn’t know there was a God or you repudiated God’s existence at an early age?

It also suggests that one can only think of God and God’s existence if they have been taught it.

In what sense was disregarding the law proper? Is there any evidence that doing so achieved anything? — Ciceronianus the White

First of all, to my mind, one can only play with the law if they have sufficient power. Even the mob cannot bend the law to their purpose. So then we are talking about an act of power.

Is there evidence that doing so achieved anything? From whose perspective are we asking? For those in power disregarding the law serves their purpose. That might be a decision made behind closed doors in times of war, or even in a situation like a pandemic. Whatever, those decisions disregarding the law are made with the intention of making the right decision in the circumstances they find themselves. What is the right decision? Because that determines if the law is to be disregarded and to what extent.

In the instance of suspected terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre the decision on how to treat those people was, presumably, based on gaining as quickly as possible information for the fight against terrorism. As it turned out just about every decision was wrong. There are innumerable reasons why it was “wrong” but there are also innumerable reasons why it did nothing to help the fight, in fact might have held back progress. Did it achieve anything? I can’t see that it did.

But there’s another aspect to disregarding the law, which is moral. Why do we have morals and laws? It seems to me that they serve the purpose of guiding us through these troublesome periods. Whenever we come against a dilemma we don’t have to sit down and discuss the problem from scratch. We already have a set of morals and laws that address such situations. In law we refer back to precedents, in culture we have a set of moral precepts. Those are what we act on.

How can we keep eroding those laws and morals without damaging ourselves?

In the case of soldiers losing control of themselves and killing civilians we might say that a law may be disregarded because of circumstances which we cannot imagine. But the fact that the law should be disregarded suggests a crime has been committed and we know it.