Like their was Jesus and then there are Christians? — frank

One of my favorite topics is how we got from Jesus to Christianity. When one looks at the topic as a historical problem rather than the unfolding plan of salvation, a fascinating conundrum is presented. What happened during the "dark gap" between the (probable) fact or Jesus and the definite fact of Christianity?

We don't know, for sure, because it is, after all, a dark gap. How much of what we know about Jesus was compounded after the fact? In some ways, Jesus is a creation of the church the church says He founded. (Heresy, of course.).

The transition from Marx to Marxism happened in "our time" more or less. We saw Karl's ideas taken up by maybe well-meaning but pretty vicious types in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Surely Karl was spinning in his Highgate Cemetery grave.

Like their was Jesus and then there are Christians? — frank

Yes.

Is there something philosophical about your fondness for Marxism? Could you explain what it is? — frank

Such demanding questions you ask, and it's a holiday to boot.

Probably more social than philosophical. Above I confessed to being some sort of shoddy marxist. I'm a shoddier philosopher.

Jesus and Karl are both seminal characters; of course we know vastly more about Karl than Jesus, and Jesus has been a thing vastly longer than Karl has. In a way, they both are "eschatologists" in a way -- more Jesus than Karl on that point. But for somebody steeped in Christianity (I was), it's natural to taste the eschatological flavor of the egalitarian classless society, free of the state and corporation. Workers of the world, unite! Or, Repent and prepare for the kingdom of God.

Six of one, a half a dozen of the other.

I found a community of like-minded people among some marxists. They were in earnest, serious, secular people. Some were much more intellectually charged up than others, given different levels of education. Some marxists are widely tolerant, others are very narrowly doctrinaire. I find the latter dreary.

I think it is better to think of Marx as providing a framework than a cookbook.

The left abandoned structuralism because it seemed to say that we can't reinvent ourselves — frank

What I know about the history of cultural criticism (structuralism, et al) would fit on a 3x5 card. I should do better, but...

F. Scott Fitzgerald (died 1940) said: “there are no second acts in American lives.”

Not sure what exactly he was thinking of, but American history is replete with people managing second, third, fourth... acts. Riff raff rising to the top, blue bloods ending up in the gutter, and back again. If structuralism was an itchy pinchy intellectual corset, post structuralism has resulted in worse.

I went looking for Marx's view of human nature one time and gave up. It shouldn't be that hard to nail down. That's why I just recently gave up on trying to discover if he was a determinist. — frank

There was Karl Marx and then there are marxists.

Any honest Marxist will believe in trying to shape human nature away — BitconnectCarlos

Marxists will also quarrel with the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature". Clearly, and irrefutably, we are a species which manifests various characteristics -- just like Canadian geese, grey wolves, and porpoises do. In that way there is certainly "human nature". We use very complex language, for instance, and we use it a lot. We have a central nervous system with certain characteristics -- emotional, cognitive, and sensory capabilities. More "human nature".

The difficulty arises when statements like "war is inevitable" or "people are naturally selfish" are made. Even "people are naturally good" and "everyone wants peace" are problematic statements. Certainly, war is decidedly more likely when societies devote a great deal of treasure, time, and talent toward preparation for war. If the economy is organized as a free-for-all fight, selfishness makes sense.

People have better experiences, behave better, behave more peacefully, in a society which meets basic human requirements and affords available rich cultural experiences (like food, clothing, shelter, care, and the opportunity and means for self expression).

That "environment strongly influences outcomes" isn't exactly a new revelation.

Any honest Marxist will believe in trying to shape human nature away from what it has been. — BitconnectCarlos

Like @fdrake I'm probably some sort of shoddy Marxist. Societies are always trying to shape ""human nature", and to some extent they are successful, for better and for worse, of which there are many examples.

I've found that a reasonably tolerant, reasonably stable, reasonably affluent society produces reasonably good results, for me, at least. An intolerant, unstable, and poor society is likely to produce more of the same. Virtuous cycles and vicious cycles beget more virtuous and vicious cycles.

Billions of people have grown up in societies of both kinds, and unfortunately goodness doesn't always last because competing interests sort out winners and losers. The Post WWII Boom, 1946 to 1973, roughly, was a reasonably good time had by quite a bit of the American society--certainly not all, and not all at the same time. Competing policies brought the boom to an end, and since we have had a less equitable society, over all, which is now quite inequitable. The European Community project has produced very good results for a widening circle of people. How all of that work will pan out in the longer run remains to be seen.

Though a monument of rational justifications may exist to support Marxism, it remains as unproven as the existence of the average god.

Therefore, a society is more likely to flourish if it rejects utopian visions and faces the world as it is. — frank

"Reality" is always a good starting point, whether one sets out to remake the bathroom or remake the world.

Ah, but "reality" is a tricky word. Who will enforce the definition?

How we see the world, our negative thoughts about it, in my experience can be improved through conscious effort and will power. — Emmanuel

Yes, I think that is true; most people are not clinically depressed, and managing one's thoughts about the world is a good idea. Conscious effort is required. And diligence, and good habits of mind.

Many years ago, when I was just out of college, an old professor I liked who was going through difficult personal problems, said "We have to be careful about the kind of language we use when we talk to ourselves." One can certainly talk one's self into a pretty unappealing defeatist position, and conversely, one can promote positive views.

I've had depression (diagnosed, treated with meds) for...35 years or so. I worked diligently at helping myself, and achieved some beneficial results. However, I couldn't just "not be depressed". Depression reduced my happiness, work performance, relationship success, and so forth. There were deficits from depression itself, and from medication.

About 10 years ago, after forced retirement, after the death of my spouse and a period of grieving, I did--through no willful effort on my part, "snap out of it". Why, I don't know. I'm not looking this enormously valuable gift horse in the mouth.º. My mental functioning, level of happiness, sleep patterns, energy -- all are much improved, adjusting for age (73). I have read more in the last 10 years than in the previous 30, and with pleasure.

Something in my body changed; I do not know what it was. Depression arrived in 35 years ago in very much the same way: I just stopped functioning well in a variety of ways, and despite medication and psychotherapy, I didn't get better.

ºLooking a gift horse in the mouth means examining it to see what is wrong with it, that somebody would give it away. In the future when we have given up our wasteful ways and no longer travel everywhere in heavy metal vehicles, this expression about horses might become current again.

A journey through depression, is about learning to tame your demons.
The harsh realities of life are facts to be dealt with, to be accepted.
The harsh realities of life are to be embraced.

In life we all will get hit and fall, but it's not about that.
It is about getting up fast, faster...
Making the best of today.

Dealing with defeat calmly and with a clear mind, is a mark of strength, it can be innate but it can also be learned. — Emmanuel

Yada yada yada.

There's the blues, which billions of people experience and overcome regularly, and then there is depression which leads to mental dysfunction. DYSFUNCTION: The brain is no longer working properly.

People who are really depressed, not merely 'blue', are beyond endorsing and acting upon up-beat, positive-sounding, get-up-and-go preaching. They can not "just snap out of it". If they could, believe me, they would.

Depression is no luxury item.

To all:

Thanks for the responses. After reading through them I will withdraw the suggestion that mask wearing is virtue signally. Maybe it signals solidarity, or the intent to comply, but not virtue.

I won't cite newspaper articles (Guardian, Wall Street Journal, New York Times) about the epidemic, but at least many public health experts have voiced that opinion in the pages of those papers. It makes sense because most masks were not manufactured for the purpose of blocking viruses or very small droplets of virus-carrying moisture. They were designed to reduce inhalation of hazardous dusts and pollution (smoke, for instance). The kinds of masks that are designed to block particles both into and out of a person's respiratory track are just not available, or should be reserved for people working in close contact with infected people.

As noted above, even very cheap paper masks can block some transmission -- not much, but a little. But it probably doesn't help for a person actively coughing and shedding virus to reduce the viral cloud issuing forth from their mouth and nose 10% or 15%.

Thorough and regular hand washing, social distancing, and staying at home (not quarantined but not running around a lot) are the most critical steps that one can take, if one can.

If one suspects one is infected or sick, they should self-isolate for 2 weeks. Well before the end of 14 days they will know whether they are sick, and how badly. If they are very sick, they should call a doctor.

All this has been repeated over and over -- so I'm comfortable calling it a consensus.

Donald Trump is unanimous in his opinion that he should definitely be swallowing hydroxychloroquine, and I think he should take as much as he can swallow. More, more, Donald! Eat more hydroxychloroquine! You are the Maximum Test Subject/stable genius. We need to know what the fatal dose is, so more, more.

Pantless people properly place protection on their publicly presented penises. I live in Lutheran Lockdown Land so there are no pantless persons, alas.

The great thing about 'virtue signaling' is that people identify the signaler as virtuous, without the signaler having to actually go to the considerable inconvenience of being virtuous.

what makes you think they are ineffective? — Judaka

Masks are certainly made which can be worn for hours and remain effective. These are not generally available to members of the public, or are quite expensive. Many masks -

do not fit very firmly against the face (without beard hair) and therefore leak air. beards cause extensive air leaking, unless the mask can be fastened tightly against the face/hair

get wet from moisture in one's exhaled air and soften or disintegrate fairly soon (if made out of paper)
are quite uncomfortable after a period of time; this results in people fidgeting with the mask, getting virus on their fingers (if infected), and then fingering the can of corn you will buy 10 minutes later

do not actually stop all droplets from coughs, sneezes, or talking from escaping the mask enclosure

Still and all, I do wear the best mask I can find when in enclosed pubic places.

There is no such scientific consensus. — SophistiCat

Technically, true: No consensus. However, there is consistently less certainty about the value of various kinds of masks people are wearing than the value of social distancing (6 feet), hand washing after promiscuous contact with publicly touched surfaces (door handles, bus / subway straps, hand railings, store check-out equipment, etc.

True, 20% reduction of risk IS better than nothing, but avoidance of avoidable pubic contact is too. I for one don't get around much these days. I don't like it, but...

Sorry; I didn't read any responses to the OP.

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Any human system from which the presumption of human error and greed (and more) are removed is ipso facto fantasy. I voted for communism being the perfect system (I'm a pinko commie), but no matter what system we have or wish for, it MUST account for real human nature. Real human nature, in my book, is actually on balance somewhat positive, but we can't forget the stuff that (on balance) is pretty negative.

So, a good society is made up of heathy people, the vast majority of whom have learned to keep their destructive urges in check and execute their benevolent urges intelligently. Quite a few societies, using various governmental forms, have managed to do that. Probably most societies have.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a most excellent idea, but it has to be fleshed out in law, policy, institutions, and so forth. It doesn't just "happen".

We all know the world is run by the corporations, might as well make it obvious who’s running what — Justin Peterson

Why not just eliminate the corporations? There's nothing that requires us to have corporations that have the rights of persons (as is the case in the USA). There's no physical law, like gravity or heat transfer, that says we have to have profit making corporations. If we wish to rid ourselves of them, we can (assuming we can muster the will to do so).

I'm going to give your solution short shrift -- meaning rejection.

It isn't the forms of currency that are at the root of our economic problems at this time.

Our problems are several: insufficient taxation to bear the cost of government (the rich are not paying enough); the political wing of most governments are in the pocket of the wealthiest class; insufficient investment in human capital (heath, education, environment, etc.), pointless production for profit rather than production for use (much of the consumer economy is based on sham needs), and so on.

In other words its the organization of the political economy that is the problem.

Or did they not... what, unite? No, they -- we -- have not united. Not the way idealists would hope for, anyway.

at the small scale it is true that a common threat unites different groups — TheMadFool

Or spreads them apart. Note that some people marched on their statehouses with guns to demand their freedom to get infected, while others defended public health measures. Fucking morons.

World Unity, alleged to be the result of an alien invasion, wouldn't do us much good because the aliens -- having come from very far away they would thus be more advanced than us. It is possible, I suppose, that they traveled all that way to share the blessings of civilization. More likely they are here for their own benefit, or maybe they didn't intend to land on this god forsaken planet at all and are none to happy about what they have found.

The planet wouldn't unite. Some groups would attempt to ally themselves with the aliens, which others would take as an inherently hostile act. Other groups would attack the alien-lovers and aliens both. A bad time would be had by earthlings, at the very least. How the aliens might fare depends on their technology.

Smallpox, AIDS, polio, Covid-19, McDonalds, Ford, Standard Oil, Christianity, Islam, and other plagues have failed to unite the planet.

Mass media has always been big business. As a business, it's primary function is to make money for the media owners. The way mass media makes money is to sell advertising to other businesses. Programming -- whether splendid or vile -- is the bait which attracts audiences to see the advertising.

Of course, media presents itself as an instrument of free expression, or a means to entertain the masses, or a way of presenting dramas which enrich the culture, or to present the NEWS so that the public will be well informed. By coincidence, mass media occasionally achieves its goals. Some of the programming is actually entertaining. Once in a while mass media facilitates free expression of opinion. Some of the programming resonates with broad audiences. At times mass media does actually present news stories of value.

But remember: good programming is gravy. The meat and potatoes of mass media is selling and delivering advertising messages.

Does mass media suck? Absolutely.

The behavior of law enforcement in the county where this happened displays yet more ways of being bad. Corruption (which comes in 31 flavors, like ice cream) doesn't always involve financial malfeasance.

I'm not excusing or making lightweight of any of this. The murders and the prosecutors are very bad.

To borrow a phrase, "corruption is socially constructed"; it isn't just what a bad cop or bad DA does. It's also what the dominant society in that time and place is willing to put up with. Some communities (in all parts of the country) are at least somewhat willing to put up with some degree of official corruption--I'm thinking of Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles which have displayed outstanding examples of corruption. Dig down and one finds examples of corruption (any of 31 flavors) in one's home town.

Citizen activism and vigilance are the antidotes to corruption; a working press also helps. More and more places have lost their local newspapers, which are a critical piece of community vigilance.

The killing most likely had significant racial components, but there are many ways to be bad that don't involve race. Vigilante justice (most common in the southern and western US) for example, need not involve racial issues.

BTW, I like to check out construction sites, just to see how things get put together; how big/deep the basement is going to be; or walk around rail yards--just what did the inside of a caboose look like? The murdered man did this in broad daylight, (I gather).

Maybe he had to take a leak?

@HANOVER, how common are murders in Georgia, these days? Prosecution rates and success?

Its all a crocodillia of shit.

Can you ease my pain? — Shawn

Either opiates or ibuprofen, depending on how bad your pain is.

Bernie would make a better VP than I would. I humbly accept the nomination for POTUS.

Oh, so you're in favor of rape. Got it. — Xtrix

And what are you doing to lift the level? Not much. Get it.

They don't care. It's psychopathy at this point in the DNC. — Shawn

No, I don't think it is psychopathology. I loathe Trump; I dislike Biden. BUT, by and large, both parties and both candidates are rational servants of the class to whom they are indebted. Neither Trump or Biden is going to piss off the capitalist elite by doing anything rashly destructive to their interests.

Third party? I wish there was a third party of strength and substance. It would have to be very large and very effective indeed to push out both the democrats and republicans, and we don't have a parliamentary system, so winning some seats doesn't help much.

Not only are we stuck in a possibly long lasting pandemic, we're stuck in a global climate crisis and we have the misfortune of being born into mature and hegemonic, maybe late stage capitalism. Being late stage capitalism doesn't mean they'll be going anywhere soon. We are stuck, we are fucked. Short of the revolution or Econo-eco-politico-socio-religio-etcio collapse, nothings going to change

I think we can all relate to stories relative to human beings not being able to express their sexual dissatisfactions with their partners. — 3017amen

Yes, and that's why @ttjordy was wondering how open one's discussions should be.

Couples, however they define themselves, definitely do better by communicating what is important to the relationship. Many don't. Or, they bottle up dissatisfactions until it becomes anger then rage and finally they blow up, and a bad time is had all round. And blow-ups usually don't help. (Of course it isn't just sexual issues that follow this course.). Blow-ups involve too many guided missiles and not nearly enough negotiation. It can be hard for the two people to recover.

I've not always been as communicative as I should have been. I don't really know why -- At times I just wanted to get into my shell and stay there. I'm kind of a loner, sort of introverted. The racket between my ears was about all I could manage sometimes.

BTW, I think Freud gets short shrift these days. True enough, not all of his ideas were successful, and Freud was better than some 'Freudian' practitioners. The various schools of psychotherapy that were spawned (everything from Behaviorism to Orgone Boxes) enriched the field greatly and in other cases added a great deal of bullshit to the soil. Wilhelm Reich had some excellent observations in social psychology, particularly about the psychology of fascism, if I remember correctly,, but his theory that one could accumulate psychic energy in his Orgone Box falls into the bullshit category. Too bad. It would be nice if one could.

Why do people have affairs? — 3017amen

I don't think people have affairs for one reason only. Successful monogamy requires self and social discipline -- and in many instances, both of those disciplines are weak. One may not feel much guilt for having affairs and/or the social sanctions for having affairs are not very consequential. Still, we know that morally disciplined, guilt prone people living in rigidly moralistic societies still have affairs. There are both positive and negative motivations for affairs. An affair does not prove that the primary relationship is unsuccessful.

I didn't include biological motivations. I don't think philandering birds are motivated by sexual boredom, and while human behavior may be driven by biological drives, we usually don't think in biological terms when evaluating our own behavior, Husbands are unlikely to explain an affair by saying that he was optimizing his chances of having surviving offspring. He'd be laughed out of court.

a) for variety in sexual and emotional experiences - positive motivation
b) opportunity (suddenly, bedding a casual partner became possible and convenient) - positive motivation
c) boredom with long-term relationship - negative motivation
d) ego-boost (hey, I can still attract others) - positive motivation
e) vindictiveness (punishing a permanent partner) - negative motivation
f) feelings of worthlessness (I'll prove that I am bad) - negative motivation
g) nostalgia (for the days when one was free and available) - either positive or negative motivation

Being intimate means sharing personal, deep maybe dark details — ttjordy

Sure, but if you have a large collection of dark details (whatever that might be) one should save those details for a time when the relationship is mature. Dumping dark details on the unprepared might cause them to bolt for the door.

Yes, I've know people who mulch dark thoughts, dark feelings, etc. A sampling of dark shadows is OK, but if you have a lot to unload, pay somebody to listen.

Politics is public, sex is private — jamalrob

I heard the pubic was political.

"Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them..."

Because he has a crystal ball and knows we won't get a vaccine in time? — Baden

It seems like one of the basic ideas of the lockdown program is that it will both flatten the curve, and push severe cases into the not distant future. Pushing some cases into the future allows the always limited health care system to handle the flattened curve now. As the resources of the health care system are expanded, more future cases -- severe and not so bad -- can be managed. There's no guarantee that this will work indefinitely, but it seems to be working in many states. Yes, the number of cases is growing; yes the number of hospitalizations is growing; yes the number of cases in ICU is growing. It's all growing, but it remains manageable within the constraints of always-limited resources. So far.

Lockdown logic didn't work so well in New York City, where there are about 175,000 cases, about 44,000 hospitalized, 14,000 confirmed Covid-19 deaths, and an additional 5,400 deaths presumed to be from Covid-19. (I rounded off the numbers) Moreover, a very high proportion of the cases in the rest of the country appear to have resulted from the New York City ground zero (using genetic similarities in the virus found elsewhere). A few people from Indiana went to New York City and picked up the virus and brought it back to Indianapolis--early on.

NYC instituted its lockdown on March 20--waaaay too late. It isn't that they didn't care. I suspect that the virus was present in NYC--and lots of other places--before March and February. Probably it arrived in January, or maybe even December. While it is highly contagious, we know that few people promptly drop dead from Covid 19--or even get very sick. That feature allows the virus to spread, undetected.

By the time the cases started showing up, the virus had already built up a good sized base of cases.

My personal guess (based on various casting of auspices like analyzing the guts of freshly slaughtered lambs), looking into my crystal balls (I use 105, averaging the results) and utilizing the Cover-19 Tarot deck, is that the virus won't be going away anytime soon, that the people will suffer for quite time from infections and a very bad economic situation, and that Donald Trump will be dumped in November. I want Donald to take many more risks with infection -- whatever he can manage, like licking the White House door knobs, visiting Covid-19 ICU wards and inhaling deeply every time one of the poor folk coughs, and whatever else he can do.

I'm 73; It took a long time to get to the point where I could be open about sex. I'm pretty open, given the right audience. Your grandmother's birthday might not be the best time and place to discuss your sexual self. On the other hand, you grandmother might like to discuss hers.

When the sex topic is very specific and personal, I tend towards the clinical approach. Clinical talk makes it easier for me than using the vernacular. So, like a lot of gay men, I like to talk about gay sexuality. OLD JOKE: It used to be that homosexuality was the love that dare not speak its name. Now it won't shut up."

Did Finland install its generous social safety early on? My guess is that it did. The US did not. Social Security was not a universal program to start out. Farm labor, maids and servants was left out in order to deny SS to blacks (per the southern block of senators). There were no medical benefits (for 30 years, not until the mid '60s). Unemployment has always been as niggardly and as hard to get as a state wanted to make it. Disability insurance has in various times and places been difficult to qualify for.

The American social safety net was hard won and not overly generous, but it has nonetheless long since been integrated in people's long-range plans.

I'm 83...I won't see it. But I have been an advocate for the UBI for over three decades now. — Frank Apisa

73, here. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, either. I've been on UBI's bandwagon, more or less, for 30 years too, though from the perspective of socialism. It seems to me the "installed base" of safety net programs, tattered and full of holes as they are, will make a UBI difficult to achieve here (if for no other reason that the installed base will serve as an excuse for not doing).

I am generally in favor of a UBI plan, but I do not think it is a sufficient solution to the distribution of wealth we produce.

Even if a UBI plan were instituted, higher taxation and all, some critical problems remain which would not be addressed.

1. Now more than ever, we need to make a very rapid transition from fossil fuel energy to solar / wind / hydro / nuclear. This involves a radical reorganization of the economy. If you think COVID-19 was disruptive, the very rapid (or even rapid) transition from fossil to renewable energy will be much more disruptive. Much of the world's wealth production is founded on fossil fuels, and it will take perhaps 30 to 50 years to complete the transition. Will we have enough national income to afford a UBI, or much else?

2. Current MANDATORY spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and DISCRETIONARY spending (Defense, Health, Education, Housing, etc.) required 4.4 trillion dollars in 2019, which amounts to 21% of GDP. Taxation produced $3.5 trillion dollars, 16.3% of GDP. [Congressional Budget Office figures].

So, deficit spending.

Reorganizing spending will be a very painful process. Retirement planning has relied on social security for... about 85 years. Medicare has been in place 55 years. That's just two examples of deeply integrated programs. Many other programs are equally integrated in our social expectations. Unwinding trillion dollar programs won't be a simple process.

Like I said, I'm generally in favor of UBI, but implementation has to account for other complicated programs.

Sounds like a very cogent book to be reading at this point.