These social arrangements no doubt have some grand function. — Enrique

Well sure, like running the world, running the country. Ruling. Look, I disapprove of the ruling class and the Uber-rich. I am interested in how they are organized and how they operate -- the better to make up lists of whose property to seize, and who to send to political re-educate camps after the revolution.

Who are you addressing here? and What are you trying to say?

I am a commodity, first of all, and a commodity fetishist to boot. I was junked as a laboring commodity when I grew too old. But I am still consuming (thank you, SSA). I belong to the "L" Tribe of men's clothing -- LL Bean, Lands End, and Lee. I eat Quaker Oats (rather than artesian rolled oats produced in a mill powered by falling water or tired mules) and Green Giant rather than the local farmers market (the growing season just isn't long enough here).

I get my hair cut at Great Clips, I buy my shoes from Aesics, I prefer up-market Calvin Klein underwear (always bought at deep discount from Marshalls) to down-market Fruit of the Loom, discounted or not. I shop at Target (certainly not Walmart, God forbid!!!) Amazon or Macys, (except to go slumming at Penney's). K-mart is beneath me. I've never set foot in a Dollar General store and sorry, I don't like Aldi either. I yack on an Apple iPhone, and read on an Apple iPad. Music is still delivered on the go from an aging Apple iPod. I surf and write on an Apple iComp. I ride Lyft when a bus or bike won't do.

I am a disgrace.

There are 7,000,000,000+ people in the world (too damned many) and 320,000,000 people in the United States (also too damned many). I don't see how the bare needs of even the 5 million people living in my state, or the 627,180 people living in Vermont--Go Bernie) could meet their minimal needs through pre-commodified interpersonal production and consumption. I don't know anyone who can make a pair of shoes out of the skin of a dead cow, or out of a dead tree. I don't know anyone who spins wool or linen and weaves it into cloth for leggings and a tunic (the minimum clothing). I do know people who raise apples, carrots and kale (first grown as cattle feed--disgusting stuff), and who can make butter and cheese with the help of a live cow. They could furnish me with some food once in a while, but soon I would have starved to death.

London once had water sellers -- people selling slightly less murky liquid that than what the people could get out of a bad well or the Thames. That was a nice person to person business. I prefer the commodity relationship of centralized water treatment facilities. A little more chlorine, please?

Ale? There is a passage in The Tunning of Elynour Rummyng (1550) describing the wench's ale, which was brewed in a barrel over which her chickens roosted. It's a long raucous poem written by English poet John Skelton and presents disgusting images of rural drinking and drunkenness. I was shocked! Shocked! See, they didn't have a commodity relationship to their alehouse. I prefer sanitary, bottled and branded ale that I can count on to not have chicken shit as a flavoring agent.

Our commodity status and relationships are so essential to our lives (and have been for, oh, maybe 150 years) that we no longer see them, and have forgotten (or never knew) anything about the downside of artesian production -- like starvation in the spring, freezing in the winter, dying from bad water in the summer, or having to gather acorns, walnuts, apples, chestnuts, mushrooms, bits of cereal, berries, and what not at harvest time and somehow keeping the stuff from spoiling or being eaten by vermin. Life for us lumpen proles was tough before commodity relationships came to the rescue. (Not too tough, or we wouldn't be here today; most of us did not descend from well-fed, richly clothed, palace-housed royals.)

The person-to-person non-commodified pre-fetishized economy has been fading away for quite a while in different parts of the world. It hasn't disappeared, but to reinstate it as a more humane, less alienating market relationship would be extraordinarily difficult.

You can find a handy sampling of the ruling class by looking at a list of the Fortune 500 -- a listing of the 500 largest corporations in the United States--surprisingly published by Fortune Magazine. It isn't the workers at these companies, it's the top brass. Also, look for a listing of the 100, or 500, or 1000 -- whatever -- richest people in the United States.

Another stat: Less than two dozen people in the world hold more wealth than 1/3 of the world's population. When you have that much money, you can call a lot of shots.

what distinguishes these professional policy-makers from the ruling class? — Enrique

The ruling class is distinguished by the amount of power they have. In any nation, the ruling class has at least tacit support of the population, but they also have the explicit support of business, military, religion, and so on. The power of the ruling class is not imaginary, symbolic, or figurative. Their power is literal, but (at least in democracies) is not crudely displayed.

Who is in the American Ruling Class (ARC)? They who own the largest block of the economy--people like Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway, which includes businesses from Dairy Queen to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad system), major stockholders of corporations, the ultra rich who, like Bill Gates have huge stakes in major corporations, and so on. The boards of directors of corporations -- everything from Wells Fargo, Consolidated Edison, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, etc. (They are on these boards because they hold a large stake in the corporations.). The top management of the military; the heads of central government agencies like Treasury, State Department, Interior, Defense, etc. How many people? Certainly less than 1,000,000 -- or about 1/3 of 1%, counting those at the tip.

What level of continuity does the upper class have that would give it a sustained, multi-generational and cohesive agenda? — Enrique

G. William Domhoff has analyzed the ruling class. Domhoff (and other authors) show how ruling class families have been, are, and (in all likelihood) will continue to be very deliberate about maintaining multigenerational class continuity. Who marries whom? No matter how hot he or she might be, the private's son or daughter will almost certainly NOT marry the 5-star general's child. Similarly, the lowly teller is not going to marry the son of the chair of Morgan Chase Bank. Not going to happen. Money and power marry money and power.

Where do the children go to school? Summer camp? Youth clubs? College? The children of the rich and powerful do not attend public schools, or run of the mill private schools, either. They attend elite schools from the cradle through whatever terminal degree they earn (at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc.). At these elite institutions they learn which class they belong to, what its interests are, and (eventually) how to keep things that way.

Most people do not mix with the ruling class because the ruling class is an exclusive club.

Here is a web site for Who Rules America -- G. William Domhoff's research: Well worth checking out.

what is the mechanism of real control? It seems like you're suggesting money might be the mode of influence, but what is the relationship between financing and cultural organization? — Enrique

In short, it's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules.

"Cultural organization" or what Marx called the reproduction of society, takes money. Some cultural organizations, like public schools, are broadly financed from local taxes. Other institutions, like elite universities, cultivate donor relationships with the upper class of people who have lots of money. Harvard's $40 billion endowment wasn't accumulated by begging on Boston Commons with tin cups. They gathered their endowment by the truck load.

Across the country, major cultural organizations -- schools, orchestras, museums, theaters, and so forth are kept afloat by major gifts, and the major gifts definitely influence what the institutions will do. Whether orchestras play Bach or Philip Glass doesn't matter all that much, maybe, but what is taught in schools (K - post doctoral studies) does matter. Finding major funding for an new arts magazine would be a breeze compared to finding major funding for magazines featuring socialism, anarchism, trans issues, poor men's rights, and so on. You practically have to rob a bank to get money for these sorts of cultural projects. Take two very minor magazines which were really very interesting and lively and covered significant issues -- Processed World (dealt with temporary workers) and Diseased Pariah News (dealt with people who were HIV+ and suffering from AIDS). Both operated on a shoe string.

Are politics no longer a part of public life? — Enrique

If, and only if the governed decide to roll over and play dead.

I'll get in touch with my inner Socrates. What is an upper class, how can we define it? An upper class isn't simply people with lots of power... — Enrique

People with lots of power are called "the ruling class". They rule because they have lots of power.

There are 3 basic classes are divided up on the basis of how they get an income.

Working class (the majority) = people who depend on their ability to labor for a daily, weekly, or monthly wage. They are also called "wage slaves" because they are dependent on their wage.
Middle class (a minority) = people who are small to medium-sized entrepreneurs and highly trained professionals. They are an employing class.
Upper class (quite small minority) are people who are in a position to live off the income of investments. They may actively be involved in various companies, but generally they stay involved in order to maximize returns.
Ruling class = people with an extraordinary amount of wealth who are in a position to shape policy.

There are perhaps 2% of the population who is or could be in the ruling class. Working FOR the ruling class may give one some power and prestige, but those are only on loan.

He'd be right, of course.

Aristotle might die on the spot from the shock of having the light switched on.

Socrates might say, "2500 years later this is the best we can do?"

"I always said that nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of humanity. How right I was!!! Immanuel Kant

Hegel said "'the rational alone is real' and this is REALLY AWFUL".

Camus immediately pulled out his pistol and shot himself.

He just sits there with his thoughts and memories of perception. Out of nowhere, a masked man steals the mans wallet, punches him in his face and has sex with the mans wife in front of him. — Mark Dennis

Maybe the masked bandit would be thoughtful enough to have sex with the guy who doesn't have many opportunities to feel pleasure. It would work for me, but never mind.

Of course a wrong would be done. A person has rights that can be attacked without one being aware of it. If a bank officer swindles you out of your money, you have been swindled before you find out about it. A comatose person (however we define 'coma') has rights too. That's why we don't just start cutting them up for spare parts when they've been unconscious for a couple of weeks. "Awareness of a wrong" isn't required for a wrong to exist.

You might not suffer from being swindled until you know about it; you might not suffer from pain inflicted that you can not feel, but that is another issue separate from a wrong done.

True: a little controversy never hurt anyone. Actually, quite a bit of controversy never hurt anyone either.

If we compare 21st century realities to the historical myths of an earlier time when politics were vital and the citizenry were engaged, then it seems like our wonderful democratic republic has fallen into deep decay. The hard core truth of the matter is that the political deck was stacked against the average citizen from the very beginning.

We began our national history (early 1600s) as elite-governed and elite-serving provinces of an empire in which the average person had little say. The black slaves, of course, had no say in anything, but the "white trash" who made up a good share of the population had no say either. (Good source: White Trash : The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg. 2016.).

After the Revolution of 1776, a local elite was either in place or arose. You know their names -- the familiar founding fathers. Over time, decade after decade of economic, geographical, political, and military expansion the elite's power waxed. It wasn't a conspiracy -- this is just the way most societies work: the many are governed or managed by the few.

I don't want to exaggerate, however. Being an American was a good deal for a lot of ordinary folk who came here from Europe (voluntarily) and prospered in agriculture and trade. Upward mobility was more available here than in Europe, for the most part. Suffrage was expanded (grudgingly) until by 1920 both ordinary men and women could vote. Blacks were openly and greatly hindered every step of the way after emancipation.

So, here we are, the product of the usually complicated history.

The Ruling Class composed of the very wealthy and their ranks of political and economic servants down the line pretty much run things for their own benefit and convenience. Their historical rule is echoed in the last lines of a popular hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy": which wert and which art, and ever more shall be.

Theoretically we could overthrow the ruling class and establish an economic democracy. People have tried hard to float this idea. Damned if I know how to do it.

Just here to mark my dismay at the loss of yet another long time poster. — VagabondSpectre

It is sad.

What is causing veteran posters to lose their cool all of a sudden? — VagabondSpectre

We live in an age of diminishing returns. Those who have been here longest have seen the returns diminish the most.

Street light summarized the demands -- which were stated in an NPR report from Hong Kong. They are not, according to a spokeswoman in Hong Kong, seeking independence from China. There are supposed to be two systems; they want their part.

They might be defeated, true. However, they are not betting on a horserace; they are demanding what was supposed to be their system (one country, two systems). They are also (gratuitously) providing a fine example of resistance to ordinary, banal tyranny for other people around the world who are unhappy with their governments' behavior.

Not all civil battles are won, just as not all military battles are won. But if the goal is sufficiently worthwhile, it is worth the risk of failure. Your lickity-boot approach only makes sense if nothing much is at stake.

The Importance of Philosophy
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest

The philosophy that is most important is the effort we make to situate ourselves in the world, and judge whether where we are is good or not. some people do not think about these questions, because their questions have been answered by their other-worldly or their temporal ruler, or because they prefer not to think about such matters. Somebody has to get out and till the corn so that there will be food on the table. Be grateful that the corn was hoed.

Somebody has been thinking about these questions beginning perhaps 300,000 years ago. There is no accumulation of insight, because each person in each generation who asks these questions must find his or her own answers.

Now in the 21st Century, we are still asking these kinds of questions. Perhaps we are able to use more sophisticated language (or not) but the need to situate ourselves in our time and place is no less or more important. The answer does not usually come to us swiftly. We can spend decades rolling the question around in our heads without much result.

Ok, so we've established that the FHA is still racist. — Harry Hindu

I don't know why this is difficult. The FHA could be 100% color blind, and the black housing conditions could be worse now (which they are). Ameliorating the damage done to the black community in the area of housing would require reparations. The FHA is not charged with the task of paying reparations, and nobody else is, either -- as you know.

There are two other sets of actors in the real estate industry: real estate brokerages and banks. Their roles are at least as critical now as the FHA's role.

Does the FHA still "notice color" for the purpose of segregating whites and blacks today? I didn't get an answer - just more ad hominems. — Harry Hindu

The FHA does not now engage in racial segregation as a matter of policy. They have been reformed by court orders, legislation, and large changes in the political personnel--different than what existed in 1935. In 1935, southern congressmen could force racial exclusion into federal law. The segregationist congressmen, and their allies north and south, have died.

The point I was making is that, even if we became color blind over night racial segregation would continue. Why is that? It would continue because white people, even if they are 100% enlightened about race, possess so much more valuable real estate than any other group. A big hunk of the wealth advantage is a legacy of the earlier segregation. how? After WWII, vast suburban building projects serving many millions of families, were sold only to white people. These were very good housing properties and they appreciated in value several times over. As the older generation moved on, they liquidated that large value and a younger (white) generation inherited the wealth. Real estate, and racially preferential employment policies, has cemented the white advantage.

Most non-whites lack the accumulated advantages of real estate appreciation and preferential employment. THEREFORE, they will not be able to buy into economically segregated communities. The suburbs stay mostly white because blacks can't afford to buy houses there.

The economic crash of 2007 created conditions for some racial integration. Homes owned by bankrupted victims have, in many cases, been bought up by rental companies. Minorities can often rent a house in an otherwise mostly white neighborhood. Rental companies owning large numbers of housing in a community is never a good thing for housing values, but it opens up some opportunities. If housing prices rise sufficiently, the rental houses will be sold to buyers, who will probably be white.

I refer the OP to the Jerry Seinfeld Comedy series, which was a show about nothing. Very popular. Also, this on YouTube:

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me

I'm not tryna be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah

and so on. Nothing has been done already.

But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? — Harry Hindu

The economic effects of what the FHA began doing in 1935 and (supposedly) ended in the 1980s are enduring. In addition, disinvestment in housing continues to occur, which is why some parts of cities descend into slum grade housing, or stay that way.

There are, of course, other important factors at work. Loss of manufacturing jobs, poor education performance, deteriorating family structures, alcohol and drugs, and on and on. There are also cultural factors at work that aren't institutional. Individuals make decisions that affect their lifetime outcomes, for better and for worse.

Does this response address your question? I'm on my way to a funeral just right now, so not much time.

Is there anything we can do about this? — Wallows

Yes: Stop worrying about it.

To use a phrase which you popularized a while back, The Philosophy Forum "is what it is". What it is is a free chat room of sorts where people share ideas in a generally civil, thoughtful manner, helped by a hit squad of volunteer moderators who do a good job of keeping the site free of garbage. There's no barrier to entry and no achievement grades once one signs up. It is there for the taking or the leaving. Moreover, the forum is pitched to a relatively narrow population: People who are interested in philosophy, or at least in having thoughtful conversations about Life As We Know It.

Please be aware that people do the same thing on even fine porn sites. They view; they sign up; they may or may not post so much as a plaid wool-covered breast; they get bored or feel guilty and are not seen again. Some people--usually guys--just like the philosophy forum--contribute content and keep the site as active as it is. Tumblr has millions of porn fans who sign up and "come and go" so to speak.

If people don't stay with porn sites that offer physical pleasure as a reward, how much less likely are they to stay on a site that offers them perhaps only slight interest and many conundrums?

The turnover rate has nothing to do with philosophy. Revolving door participation is a feature of public fora, whether they are actual or virtual. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

As for guiding the peasants into higher abstractions, just put the hay down where the goats can get at it. Most people will, quite appropriately, find their level of interest. Over time a sub-population will migrate across the board, forming layers of interest with people like you on the farthest side, and others with less interest in abstractions in bands closer to the starting point.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing special about the field of philosophy among other academic fields. "Nothing special" is not disparagement. There are a host of academic fields which will interest people differentially. If philosophy or biology or supply chain management or literature or mathematics or history or music or... whatever is your thing, do that.

Let's take a longer over view than the last century. We evolved into our modern form roughly 300,000 years ago, and we lived as expert tool making hunter gatherers for about 280,000 years. During that time we were certainly not in any sort of Edenic state: We engaged in the sort of conflict that primates tend to engage in. (We are, after all, primates.). During those 280,000 years we did very little damage to the earth (we didn't have the means, yet). There weren't too many of us then, so we weren't always rubbing up against each other, the way people do in crowded cities.

Around 20,000 years ago, by some means not altogether known, we began to grow food, rather than using the snatch and grab method. There are still some people who hunt and gather. In order to do that, we had to settle down. We had to organize our labor, develop timing methods so that grain was scattered at the right time. In all, life quickly grew more complicated.

In another 15,000 years we had developed writing. We started building bigger things. (Much earlier we had already learned how to travel far and wide.). In not too many years later, the Greeks and others were philosophizing. Here we are.

SO, NO. Our beginnings weren't destructive. We became destructive as we developed the means to behave more dangerously in the manner of the primates we are--clever, very short-sighted creatures.

Former Theists, how do you avoid nihilism??

Maybe they stay theists?

So, we're experiencing the longest economic boom in modern history. — Wallows

If the post WWII boom is what you are talking about, it's a very screwy boom. Anyway, the post WWII boom came to an end in the early 1970s. For the working class (just to remind you, that's about 90% of the population) it's been slowly going down-hill since 1973, with bursting bubbles along the way.

Much of the wealth expansion is highly concentrated and isn't based on actual production; it's based on speculative investments in paper, much of which does not connect to the real economy of production and consumption (per Pikeitty).

I would agree that China is a variety of fascism. I think you'll be seeing more fascist regimes over time -- but don't think Hitler and the Nazis. They were fascists of a particularly vile variety, but fascism has other - friendly and not very friendly - faces.

But but the invisible hand does wonderous things for us. Why shalt one bite it? — Wallows

It's hard to bite the invisible hand when it has your balls in a tight grip

More like rotisserie chicken, I would think.

But which of the two is more pragmatic? Is believing there is a way with optimism better than disbelieving there is a way with Pessimism? — Mark Dennis

Optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with pragmatism. Optimism and pessimism are emotional states. Neither are a solution to anything.

BECAUSE

Political priorities of world governments don’t seem to be matching up with the priorities that are required for long term survival — Mark Dennis

IT ISN'T

... extremely hard to get a true gauge of what our chances really are — Mark Dennis

It's really very simple: IF political [and economic] priorities don't match up with long term survival requirements

THEN

we won't survive.

We're screwed. The world will become our rotisserie.

Is it the biggest challenged we’ve faced as a species? — Mark Dennis

It might be, but you know, the bubonic plague wiped out at least a third of Europe's population in a short period of time. The plague was horrible, but once it let up, the survivors picked up where they left off and carried on. A lot of people found they were better off than before the plague because they had inherited bits of property that the dead had left them. The economy boomed.

I don't cite the plague as evidence that all will be well. I cite it as evidence that abandoning coal/oil/gas, and the private auto would be a horrible experience (it really would be) but that many people would survive. Walking or riding a bike to work, taking a bus, literally running to the store for bread, forgoing many of the luxuries that have become necessities (like fresh strawberries all year round, organic air-cooled-chicken, or flying 10,000 miles to attend a wedding) would be hard, but people would learn to make do. It would be easier than recovering from bubonic plague.

A realistic assessment of the global warming crisis ought to result in feelings ranging from pessimism to despair, with a side trip to include rage.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you are personally responsible. If you are not a high level national decision maker; if you are not a coal/oil/gas CEO or member of any of several coal/oil/gas boards of directors; if you are not a CEO of an auto maker; if you are not a major stockholder in any of these industries--then you are not in a position to make critical decisions.

Those who are in positions where they could make critical decisions have, by and large, decided to burn the last ton of coal, the last barrel of petroleum, and the last cubic foot of gas. That is why I am fairly certain that we will collectively suffer a hot wet death.

We are running out of time (or we have run out of time--not sure which) for our usual slow rate of change to make a difference in the outcome. What we are doing now (putting in modest wind and solar farms) we should have been doing 40 years ago. Jimmy Carter put a solar panel on the White House roof in 1976. Ronald Reagan took it down in 1980. End of discussion. We should have started worrying about temperate and tropical rain forests 40 years ago. We didn't.

A hand full of ultra-rich and power people in the world are both guilty and responsible for the critical problems we face.

I am curious what people class as ‘self taught’. If it means they’ve read a couple of philosophical works then I’d call that ‘Not at all’. — I like sushi

I've read a couple of philosophical works. But mostly, I've lived for 70+ years and have actively inquired what the nature of our life together is. I've read history, science, sociology, psychology, politics, theology, literature, etc.

Mostly though, it is reflecting on life as we live it, for better and for worse. That is the main entrepôt for evaluating reality. Scholars write weighty books which are quoted here (Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche and so on). Were all the books in the philosophical library to disappear, it would only be the end of philosophy as a 'literature'. Philosophy as a practice would continue on.

If all the books about yoga and meditation were to disappear, yoga and meditation would continue. There is a literature of yoga and a practice of yoga; the two are not the same.

It is good for civilization to have the literature of various and sundry fields: accounting, yoga, medieval French poetry, geology, history, math, architecture, agriculture, and much more. It is good to read and learn from the literature of the various fields. But in philosophy (or theology) it is important to live the field.

It is certainly the case that many people do not inquire into the nature of life together, and do not gain much insight as time goes on. Some of them are faultless, and some of them are guilty of the shallowest, narrowest, of lives.

There is a good article tangentially related to your post at Aeon addressing the question, Is capitalism modernity's most beguiling and dangerous enchantment?. The author dips into the Philosophical Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and so on. It was a good food for thought.

Marx has been proven correct. Human life has been devalued. We are replaceable units of production, less reliable than robots and automated equipment. Laborers are not an asset to a business; they are a cost, best shed as soon as possible.

A good share of humanity is simply irrelevant to capitalism.

What about...? Both, of course. We accept a job. It turns out to be a nightmare. We didn't make it a nightmare, but we keep showing up every day. The stress of the job is horrible. We probably can't change the workplace, but we can quit.

Sometimes people are out to get us and the only thing we can do is avoid them or defend ourselves. This may be much easier said than done. Harassers can be devious devils.

I wouldn't hazard a guess about the percentages of internal vs. external stressors. In many cases, it's both. We have pictures of what a perfect life ought to be. Other people fail to cooperate in supporting our picture of the perfect life. Other people in the apartment building make too much noise. The neighbor's dogs bark all the time. There is too much traffic in the street. On and on. We keep identifying new guilty parties who are ruining our perfect life. Alternatively, we could try and accept that we live in a very unsatisfactory, noisy, dog-barking, trafficed, world. (Easier said than done.).

I can testify to having made my own life more difficult than it needed to be because I didn't follow my own good advice.

Poor people, for instance, suffer from a higher rate of both physical and mental diseases because of the low quality of their surrounding environment. Bad air, maybe lead in the paint on the windows (or in the water), low grade housing, poverty, food deserts, crime, violence, crappy schools, and so forth.

I can't say that the study of philosophy produced positive changes in my mental health. What philosophy was useful for was understanding why I had experienced positive changes. I have held it as an axiom of mental health therapy that "Therapy means change, not adjustment." Change might not be produced by one's own initiative; it may happen TO a person, or be brought about BY the person.

IF we keep doing the same things that are driving us crazy, then we will stay crazy. Ceasing crazy-making behavior will (usually) help a great deal. That assumes, of course, that one can change. If raising one's 6 children on a poverty budget is driving one crazy, one might have to stick with it anyway. Or, if the only job one can find is bad for mental health, one might have to stay on the job. [During WWII soldiers in Europe deserted at a fairly high rte -- usually returning to their units later. Soldiers in the Pacific almost never deserted. Did the Pacific Theater soldiers like being in battle? Probably not. But in a war fought on isolated islands in a big ocean, there was no way to desert.]

That's my case. Other people might have knotty problems that weigh heavily on their minds, for which clarity of thought might be extremely helpful and bring relief. In that sort of situation, philosophy could be good therapy. If one is troubled by one's history of bad actions, an study of ethics might prove very helpful.

Europe may want windmills, but in a UN report on meeting the Paris Accord targets ---->

The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking.

The G20 nations (Europeans for sure) aren't pulling out the stops to meet the goals. What the nations are doing is quite short of what needs to be done. Instead we have dithering, delaying, and denying.

The United States has a slob for president. Outside of that, the US behaves much like other countries do and have behaved. Every national government has as its highest goal to benefit its own citizens first. Other nations' citizens are elsewhere on the list.

All sorts of people here have denounced American Exceptionalism--as well they should. Because the USA isn't exceptional. We aren't better than others, but equally, we aren't worse.

If any major power's policies seem confused at times, it is only a sign that we are living in the real world. When governments and their militaries have expanded to maximum size, it is difficult to figure out what the nation should do next. Damned if I know.

there are many groups which disagree with the statement that religions are always a human creation — Samuel Lacrampe

I suppose a bunch of somebodies will disagree with the statement that 2 + 2 = 4. Be that as it may...

I think religion is ALWAYS a human creation. This isn't a reflection on the gods. Suppose that the gods are real. Religion, as @Wayfarer said, is "an attitude of awe and reverence to the gods". If a people have an encounter with a god, they are likely to feel awe, fear (or terror), reverence, and more all to overwhelming degrees. Religion is the response to an encounter with the holy, a connection. Since the gods thought to be real don't conveniently pop in every day religion finds ways of recreating the encounter. The Eucharist, Passover, the gods in the Hindu temples, meditation practices, ascetic practices, and so forth provide a way for subsequent generations to share (symbolically) the encounter.

That religion (a response to the holy) is a human creation would seem axiomatic. The gods do not need religion.

In some religions (thinking here of the classical period) the gods were thought to need sacrifices. A passage in the Epic of Gilgamesh states that when a sacrifice of burnt offerings was being made, "The gods gathered around the altar like flies". The gods were hungry. Since the gods didn't literally descend from the heavens and consume the sacrifice, the sacrifice was eaten by humans, and thus shared with the gods. In other references, libations are poured out on the ground for the gods. I don't know how many extant religions operate with that idea.

Splendid post.

In the 1930s The US declared that control of Middle Eastern oil was a vital interest of the United States. If we didn't need it at the moment, we at least wanted to decide who could have it and who could not. Is this policy defunct? What would really reduce our commitment to the Middle East is the collapse of oil's value owing to sufficient renewable power generation. We are not there yet, but what was unimaginable 25 years ago is now something we can just about plan on.

World Economic Domination requires either exclusive control of a vital substance (like the magical spice drug found only on the planet Arrakis) or it requires being everywhere. Rome was everywhere. The UK was everywhere; we are everywhere; soon the Chinese will be everywhere--the big new Silk Conveyor Belt project is about being everywhere.

Globalism is another term for world domination.

A question: Forced by circumstances, can the United States peacefully cede its role to the Chinese over the next few decades? Can it operate a sufficiently robust economy for 350,000,000 people without world economic domination? Or will we resist their expansion?

World Economic Domination isn't in the interests of most of The People, because the whole reason for going global is to find markets, cheap labor, and maximum profits. The benefits do not flow to the majority Working Class. The benefits flow to a small minority. On the other hand, we probably can't have a really good economy without selling abroad.

Globalism vs. isolationism isn't an abstract choice: It finds its concrete meaning in economics. How are we (the US) going to live? Maximize self-sufficiency? Go for a strong military profile or a modest one? Be everywhere, or just be in some places where we really have to be?

Whether the gods exists or not, a well structured and developed philosophy of religion is a very good idea.

Perhaps we should preface our assertions about god(s) with the phrase, "whether the gods exists or not": Whether the gods exist or not, religions are a human creation. Theology (about the gods that may or may not exist) is a human creation. Ritual is a human creation. Whether the gods exists or not, religions, rituals, and theology have value and meaning to people.

Can people (ardent believers, lukewarm believers, apostates, agnostics, atheists...) agree that there is a a limit on how much anyone can know about the gods, which is imposed by the differences we suppose exist between humans and gods?

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)?

Part of nihilism is recognising that there IS no certainty or authority — Possibility

This is not directed at, toward, or about you. I'm talking about the standard model of juvenile nihilist.

The doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 found nothing to approve of in the established social order. Given how badly Romanov rule sucked, that is probably the very model of political rationality. That is a far cry from the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. In philosophy, it means extreme skepticism; maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. (Not only does life suck, it isn't even real. Fuck!)

One wonders where the young nihilist (or an old one, for that matter) gets the chutzpa to stand up and declare "It's all meaningless!" "There is no authority -- nobody knows anything," "Meaning is completely arbitrary -- life sucks!" I have a picture in my mind of a group of raging adult nihilists throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of Macy's, Forever 21 or -- god forbid -- the Apple Store: rolling around on the floor, kicking, screaming, cursing, and turning red in the face. Eventually they get up, feel much better, and go have cappuccinos at Starbucks.

The thing is, nihilism is self negating. If everything is meaningless, if there is no authority, life is a valueless and dismal swamp, if there is no certainty... then all that includes the nihilist. The nihilist is meaningless, without authority, a swamp creature, altogether lacking certainty. He or she should shut the fuck up before they even open their mouths.

Lots of people fleeing the church feel like they need a bath (something that doesn't involve getting washed in the blood of the lamb). Take a bath, but don't go down the drain with the bath water.

Congruence. (agreement or harmony; compatibility)

Older children and adults do not arrive at a decision-making crossroads with blank minds. We have put together a moral system; over time it will become more refined as we apply it across a broad set of problems. Our moral system is wired into our emotional system, and it has force. Violating the rules of our moral system generally makes us feel very uncomfortable. Most people would rather forego some minor advantage and be congruent, than be morally uneasy and have the minor benefit.

So, if you find a purse on a bench in the park, you can either turn it in to the park office, or you can check it out for anything valuable and take those items, then dump the purse in the trash. If your moral system is strong, you will feel compelled to turn the purse in. If you don't, you will feel bad about yourself. Some people have weaker moral systems and rifling the purse for goodies which you keep will cause at most a blip on one's moral radar screen.

Donald Trump would sift the contents, dump the purse, and be on his erring way. Bernie Sanders would turn it in without thinking twice about it.

I am wondering if others who have lost their religion have found a path out of this sense of loss and underlying chaos and would care to share. — dazed

I am sort of a Protestant mirror of your Catholic experience. I was steeped in mainline Protestant (Methodist) Christianity, and had no objection to it. I 'drifted' away more than severed the connection. I found a new interest in church as a gay man when I got involved with Metropolitan Community Church in the '70s, for a few years. At some point in the 1980s I realized I really didn't believe any part of the Creed any more, and I declared myself an atheist.

I found it much harder than I would have thought to disconnect all the emotional and intellectual ties I had to the Church, Christian theology, and the satisfactions I found in various narratives in the Bible (OT & NT). It took me maybe 20 years to pull the last plug. I wasn't left with nihilism, because I recognized that the Christian ethics I learned early on was my core "operating system" whether I believed in God, the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, salvation... or not.

What I consider right and wrong may be derived from theism, but as an atheist, I don't have any objection to that. Treating other people the way one wants to be treated is a pretty universal rule. Of course, there are elements in Christian teaching that I reject. I reject what the church has to say about homosexuality, for instance. I disapprove of the Church's balance between spending to maintain itself and spending to perform works of mercy (way, way too much spent on the maintenance of the church institution). The Church ought to be poor. On the other hand, atheists do well to feed the poor, house the homeless, visit the prisoner, and so forth, NOT because Christ commanded it, but because it is good for the person who does it, as well as the person for whom it is done. Helping others breaks down barriers between we happy and contented and you miserable and discontented (assuming "we' are, in fact, happy).