Venezuela), seems to be looking at wanting more of those resources. And a distraction for the economic woes. — ssu

Invasion as distraction I can understand, but Venezuela already has huge oil reserves of which it doesn't seem to be able to make effective economic use. Adding Guyana's oil, plus making Guyana's citizens bitter and resentful, won't help Maduro. To paraphrase Martin Luther, stupid presidents sink ever deeper into stupidity.

Thank you. It is interesting, but it is also very late here in Central Standard Time Land, so I'll watch it tomorrow.

What would we do without chatgpt?

Heard a music program about Chanukah (commemorating the alleged miracle of 1 day's oil burning for 8 days) in the newly sanctified temple in Jerusalem). Was it a miracle? On the one hand, God could have made one ounce of olive oil burn for 8 days--grossly violating the number of BTUs in the oil at the bottom of the bottle, but with God all things are possible. On the other hand, maybe God located some oil that Judah the Maccabee had overlooked in his inventory. God, after all, sees all, knows all, and maintains a detailed list of all. Like as not He knew about an unopened bottle of cooking oil that was under some loose planks. Large bottle -- good for at least 192 hours of continuous burn in the Menorah.

At the time, Jerusalem was ruled by the Seleucids, ethnic Syrians who were part of the Greek empire. The Seleucids tried to impose Greek values on the Jews and pressured them to stop worshipping God and following the tenets of their faith.

Many Jews went along with this plan and assimilated into Greek culture, but a feisty minority refused to comply. Led by Judah the Maccabee, these faithful Jews with only primitive weaponry managed to defeat the mightiest empire in the world. They drove the Greeks from the Holy Land, reclaimed the Temple in Jerusalem, and rededicated it to the service of God.

I suppose the Seleucids were bitter and resentful about losing a war with the Jews. Probably accused them of war crimes.

The program focused on the Ladino tradition -- Ladino is old Spanish still spoken by Jews from the Spanish diaspora.

In 14 hundred and 92
Columbus sailed the ocean blue
While Isabel and Ferdinand,
Total creeps those two,
issued an edict expelling the Jews)

Ladino preserves many words and grammatical usages that have been lost in modern Spanish. It also has a more conservative sound system—for example, f and g sounds still occur where modern Spanish has an h (not pronounced), as in Ladino fijo, fablar versus Spanish hijo, hablar, and Ladino agora versus Spanish ahora.

If you see a candelabra in a window, that's what it's about.

On the one hand, zero percent of this information was supplied by ChatGPT. On the other hand, I didn't make t up either. The part about God's mysterious ways is straight from the Horse's mouth.

@Hanover -- you got your Menorah going yet?

If honest is an adj, is it like tall and short, something we are largely born with, or is it like rich, something we can gain and lose? — YiRu Li

"Honesty" is part of a person's character; we practice honesty. It's an optional behavior, not something we are born with.

Where does it come from?

We learn to be honest; we learn to be dishonest. Proper, moral behavior is taught to children, perhaps explicitly, but perhaps more implicitly, Guilt is an essential part of moral learning; we feel guilt when we fail to behave properly. For children, right and wrong, proper and improper, moral and immoral tend tp be more black and white. As the child grows up, black and white become shades of gray.

"I can not tell a lie; I chopped down the cherry tree." George Washington said, in the fable about the first president of the U.S. Maybe little George couldn't, but but the time he was an adult, big George was as capable of lying as anyone else.

A minimal level of honesty is required. "We can't do business if people are not honest." I can't quantify "how much" is necessary. Certainly, we need to be honest with ourselves -- we need to be aware of when we are lying and when we are telling the truth.

Herr Arthur Schopenhauer had such a pessimistic view of humanity; did he consider himself as wretched a case as he apparently thought everybody else was?

Some questions about love:

The body is wired for sex; we don't have to learn a sex drive. Is the body wired for agape? Storge? Philia? We seem to need to be taught about agape; love of country or community; philia may need less tutoring than agape, but we at least need to learn how to practice philia, agape, storge. ["Storage" only shows up in discussions like this. What word do most people use for Storge (storgē, Greek: στοργή) is liking someone through the fondness of familiarity, family members or people who relate in familiar ways that have otherwise found themselves bonded by chance. An example is the natural love and affection of a parent for their child.].

Is there a single source for the "love urge" be it for one's child, one's friend, one's brother, for 'the world', for whatever it is that we love?

How is erotic love -- or raw eros, for that matter -- related to the other types of love?

Is there 'a basic love' that differentiates in various ways, given the circumstances, or do the various kinds of love arise separately? (seems unlikely to me).

I'm not expecting any definitive answers. Lots of theories out there.

As for erotic love -- my theory is that eros begins as a raw form and is gradually tamed, civilized. Who does the taming, the civilizing? Parents? Not mine -- they didn't talk about sex. School? God, no. The church. God forbid. Who, then?

Eros gets civilized, tamed, during sexual interactions--in the trenches, as it were. Other people set the limits on what they find acceptable or out of bounds, and since we want their approval / cooperation... whatever, we conform to their standards.

In contrast, take a person who has lived a very protected life or has lived in an institution from childhood into adulthood, say, owing to disability or MI. They are liable to display inappropriate sexual behavior because they haven't been out and about enough. By "inappropriate" I mean they don't "read the room" very well.

(I'm thinking of a fellow I met at the Y who was in a MI program. He said he was schizophrenic; could well be. He apparently was gay. His behavior in the locker room wasn't scandalous, it was
unschooled. 99.9% of men avoid prolonged frank stares, for instance. Not this guy, I was sorry to see him at a large gay bar downtown later -- not the place uninitiated vulnerable people should be hanging out.). He hadn't learned the social routines of fitness centers, let alone gay bars.

Case reports aside, most people learn how to seek out and find, locate sexual partners; appraise them for suitability; determine interest, make appropriate overtures, and go somewhere to get It on. Having gotten there, we learn what works well, what falls flat, what is likely to upset or antagonize, and how to avoid doing it. (Thinking of my first early adult sexual experience, "OK, now what am I supposed to do?)

In most cases, it doesn't take long to figure all this out, because quite often the rules for sexual encounters are similar to those that apply in any other kind of encounter.

In decades past (like... 1970-1990) many gay men maintained less exclusive sexual relationships than some gay men do now (now many gay men seem to toe the straight and narrow). One had a set of non-sexual relationships with friends, gay and straight.. One might have a committed sexual relationship with 1 person (at a time--more than 1 gets complicated quickly). Whether one was in a settled relationship or not, there might be very casual sexual relationships that were more or less transitory.

Run of the mill sex with a casual partner usually didn't pose a threat to a settled relationship. What did pose a threat was great sex with a casual partner--it tended to pull one's interest away from the person one was most committed to, giving rise to jealousy and resentment.

How does any committed relationships last under these circumstances? They last IF both partners are committed to each other, without being exclusive. Also, as couples age, the attraction of casual partners diminishes. Casual sex takes time, and having a home, a partner, pets, a job, an exercise routine, civic / religious activities, etc. just doesn't leave time and energy for sexual adventures on the side.

even your odd evasion of erotic love now, is telling of how erotic love, leading to relationships is almost shameful. — schopenhauer1

Dear me, when was I evading erotic love?

sex addict — schopenhauer1

"Lord, make me chaste -- but not yet." Augustine prayed.

But for many of the masses, this is not what they care about (even if they should?). Rather, they want the progression of erotic love (1-4). — schopenhauer1

I don't think it is at all a deficiency that people prize erotic love. As embodied beings who experience the world through the physical senses, we ARE carnal beings. The sexual drive goes back a long ways. The wellspring of life ought not be disparaged. (Screw the Apostle Paul.)

Just guessing, but I don't think our emotional apparatus begins with well-differentiated forms of love -- erotic, philia, storge, agape, etc. Our first simple love is for mama and over time (decades) is differentiated. Young children evidence simple caring--simple philia. Children have sexual urges too, if maybe not erotic desire. By 12? 13? the vaguely sexual becomes specifically erotic, whether acted on or not with others. And our sense of caring, the sense of our capacity to comfort others. and empathy grows as we move into adulthood--not at all evenly across the population, of course. Well developed adults display diverse love -- erotic, filial, maternal, paternal, agapaic, civil even, Love of country.

BUT, being embodied as we are, it is physical erotic pleasure that is the foundation of long-term family relationships. (Non-sexual relationships, like college friendship, can last into old age too.)

Of course, none of this mattered centuries ago. Love had not much to do with marriage, procreation, and a domestic partner. That is relatively new. — schopenhauer1

How many centuries are you going back? Ordinary English villagers lives 600 years ago displayed evidence of courtship, marriage for love, domesticity. Kings, queens, very large landowners, (earls, dukes, etc.) were under obligations to make strategic marriages. You know, if your estate covers a couple of counties in England, you are not going to marry a woman with nothing, no matter how nice she is. You jolly well better marry the daughter of another wealthy landowner, and maybe you will be richer for it. "What's love got to do with it?"

Human psychology hasn't changed much. (That's my theory.).

Courtly and romantic love" as depicted by troubadours and poets was new back in the medieval period. It wasn't practical advice, it was 'romance'. On the other hand, the Song of Solomon (it's in the Bible) was written... maybe 900 B.C. Male and female POVs alternate.

7:1-3, 6 “How graceful are your feet in sandals, o queenly maiden!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.
Your navel is like a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies.
Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
How fair and pleasant you are, o loved one, delectable maiden!”

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.
Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love.
His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.

Don't sit under the apple tree with anybody else but me?

I don't know whether Solomon existed, and if he did whether he had anything to do with the poetry, but what the poet is talking about here is not strategic or arranged marriage, but good old carnal love.

This is all very interesting, but of one thing I am quite certain: theorizing about love will not get one laid. It probably won't lead to love either. I'm not being sarcastic; sadly, rationality just doesn't help the heart all that much. (It's handy though when one is doing a postmortem on a dead relationship.

So my point with 1-3 cannot be bypassed for 4 only, is the following: — schopenhauer1

You are describing erotic love as the end result of a progression, beginning with attraction and ending with "authentic" (whatever that means) erotic love. Probably all love follows a progression. The kinds of love mentioned here--eros, philia, storge, and agape--require investment, commitment, desire, and more by the subject. One doesn't just wake up one day and find one is full of agape.

But it is also because of the necessity of each step to be present and aligned correctly, for which love is generally hard to enter into and hard to keep. — schopenhauer1

One of my favorite religious writers, Dorothy Day's (founder of the Catholic Worker Movement) biography is titled "A Harsh and Dreadful Love". The love of Christ is a very difficult path to follow. Most of the time, for most people, love is not harsh and dreadful but it can be damned difficult.

Ordinary love, the kind most of us find and hope to keep, is difficult because humans are not constant. We change for better and for worse. We may fail in our love at a critical time when our partner most needs us. Love, of course, is never the only thing we feel.

There are so many permutations for unhappiness. — schopenhauer1

Paraphrasing Tolstoy, unhappy families have lots of permutations; happy families don't.

Attraction — schopenhauer1

We can be attracted to all sorts, but if there is zero attraction toward us, it's a non-starter. Some degree of mutual attraction is required. Face, figure, scent, clothes, body, bearing. Brains, maybe. Later.

One can, should, exercise one's intelligence about attraction. There are people who are extremely attractive, but with whom a relationship would be a certain disaster. That wildly worldly woman at the bar might be very arousing, but she probably doesn't want to settle down in a suburban white picket fence existence with an accountant whose hobby is stamp collecting.

emotional connection — schopenhauer1

The emotional connection may not appear concurrently with physical attraction, but if there is prompt and disagreeable emotional affect, it's probably a non-starter.

Sexual function — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Successful sexual encounters can range from the minimalist encounter in the dark to grand seduction scenes. The latter are way too much trouble for my taste.

The experience of sex is simultaneously simple and enormously complex. See Kinsey.

Relationship — schopenhauer1

If we add up attraction, emotional connection, and sex over time we will likely end up with a relationship--usually in that order. Folk wisdom has it that sex with people who were first established friends isn't going to work out. That's been my experience.

A sexual, emotional relationship that lasts will be conditioned by other factors: money, employment, poverty, major illnesses, and so on. If the partners are loyal, the relationship will endure through thick and thin, depending on the capacities of the partners. Failure can happen to good people.

In a long-lasting relationship, the factors that ignited the relationship will change. Lots of relationships endure decades with major changes in the circumstances of both partners. I believe the chances of having a long relationship improve with age. Two teenagers lack enough experience to have a chance at negotiating a long relationship. By somewhere in their 30s, people are (or should be) better able to make a long relationship work. For child-rearing, though, one doesn't want to wait too long.

Needless to say, if you mix too many drugs and alcohol into any stage of a relationship , things will not go well.

"Love" is so overworked and so heavily romanticized (fictionalized, dramatized, hollywoodated) that it is difficult (impossible?) to say anything fresh and insightful about it.

"Loneliness" has lately been getting some attention in the news. Lots of people are lonely, experts have found.

Loneliness, alienation, disconnectedness, isolation, meaninglessness, etc. are deficiency conditions. Love, friendship, belonging, connectedness, validation inclusion, etc. are conditions of sufficiency. Lonely people feel emptiness; loved/loving people feel fullness, to put it in very simple terms. Of course, the experience of emptiness and fullness are not binary -- 0 and 1. There are ever so many ways to experience deficiency and sufficiency.

Love isn't the antidote for loneliness, though it seems to be often sought out as the cure. To counter loneliness one needs friendship, connection, validation, meaning.

AN ASIDE: Back in the 1960s, registration for classes at the university involved a final stop before one could select classes: the Validation Desk. There one's university documents were checked to make sure one's academic affairs were in order. Validated students proceeded forward. Invalidated students had to go fix whatever problem existed.

We all want to be VALIDATED--judged as legit, paid up, qualified, deserving. Validation can be hard to find. END OF ASIDE

We tend to think / hope that a sufficiency of LOVE will fill in all our deficiencies. Love, in this sense, is instrumental. "you give me love" and that will make loneliness, alienation, and other kinds of psychological crap go away. If only! It doesn't.

There is a cure for loneliness, it just isn't "love" per se. In some ways, the cure is more complicated than it is for lovelessness.

We do need to BE LOVED in order TO LOVE. A very large portion of the population are adequately loved early on, enough, so they can love others.

You know, Schop, I think I'm starting to babble here, so I'll step away till later.

Keep your chat to the state of Israel. Keep inferences about the Jewish people out of it. — fdrake

Odd mod.

Romantic love is a combination of lust and trust.

...are long gone — schopenhauer1

True.

Even Nixon... — schopenhauer1

Nixon was a natural-born target for loathing, but he was a reasonably competent crook chief executive, many of whose policies were OK. Nixon's rep also benefits from the descending quality of succeeding presidents, especially demented Reagan and Narcissico Trump.

It was the cover-up that did Nixon in more than anything else. Cover-ups are a sign of the sinner sinking ever deeper into sin, and prosecutors jump on on it. My advice: If crooked politics is your game, prepare to get caught and then confess and apologize early and often. Don't stiffen up and deny everything, unless you have buried all the witnesses and nobody knows where.

It might have been the biggest cultural transformation from 1963-1969. — schopenhauer1

The pill. Mustn't forget the pill. And then later, the Roe vs Wade decision.

There were people who hated Roosevelt and New Deal programs like Social Security. There were people who hated Johnson and Medicare. There were people who hated the pill and Roe vs. Wade. These troglodytes don't seem to get over their hates, and now they have successfully gotten rid of Roe. There are recurrent proposals to privatize SS.

Point is, these were big cultural transformations as you say, and there are people who hated it, and haven't gotten over it. There's nothing that can be protected by law that can't be unprotected later on.

I expect there will be more reactionary moves in the coming years. They might fail (let us hope) but they will be tried.

I was not old enough to vote for him, but I would have.

In retrospect the Kennedy's were classier than their immediate predecessors and successors. Jacqueline delivered high style, something that Mamie and Ladybird decidedly didn't. The Kennedy clan had élan. Money helps, of course. Haute couture and 50¢ wouldn't get me a cup of coffee, but on the right shoulders it's influential. So I've heard.

would the SLIDE into the hippies, and women and gay rights movements, and freedom of expression (more violence and sex in movies and media), have went down the way it would have? Would there not have been a more gradual change perhaps with a Jack Kennedy in power in 1967? — schopenhauer1

Hey! it wasn't a slide -- it was an ascent.

So I don't know how it would have turned out if JFK had remained president for 2 terms. Johnson was able to accomplish major new programs as president because he was a political "insider" par excellence. Kennedy may have been an insider in New England\, but not in Washington, seems to me. Jack's history is a lot more interesting if combined with the history of his father, Joe Kennedy. And less glorious.

It was Cohn, if I read this right, who most influenced Trump's unique talent to be able to lie, attack, and never admit fault — schopenhauer1

One of the benefits of reading only slightly ancient history (which I think you do) is that we find junior men interacting say... 40 years ago, influencing one another, and learning how to get and use power and money, and going on to become important senior men in various fields--like DT.

What role did JFK play in the cultural bloom of the 1960s? He arrive too late to start it. I have to remind myself of precedents whenever I think about Stonewall in 1969. Women's lib, gay lib, civil rights--all sorts of social changes that became visible--had been percolating upwards for a couple of decades, and longer.

During WWII, the Army/Navy discharged quite a few (don't have a number, maybe 10-15k) gay men and women. The witch hunters weren't entirely wrong -- there were queers in the armed forces and government. They tended to discharge the perverts in one of three ports -- NYC, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Rather than go back to Omaha or Atlanta in disgrace, they stayed on, and greatly enlarged the local gay population. These three cities were the places Gay Lib took off first and fastest. The Mattachine Society was founded in 1950 in LA by a commie pinko fag (Harry Hay). The Beat Movement which started in the 1940s was the vanguard for the 1960s. Their poetry, for instance, was far out -- as the hippies would say.

"Beat" is allegedly derived from "beatitude".

You knew I'd take the bait!

Of course, the Kennedy Assassination was hugely important in that decade. It was like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in that people remembered the context of hearing the news. The Kennedy Administration was culturally important too, especially compared to the 1950s / Eisenhower Administration. But then there is the larger governing context:

• The post-WWII economic expansion (which lasted until 1973)
• accelerated white suburbanization
• the Civil Rights Movement
• the 'Warren Court' 1953-1969 (the far-right wing deeply hated Chief Justice Earl Warren)
• greater access to college
• urban riots
• the Vietnam war and its opposition
• subsequent assassinations (Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, et al
• NASA's rocket science
• women's liberation
• black power
• gay liberation
• farm worker organizing
• and more.

Kennedy himself seems less important as time goes on. It's impossible (of course) to say how history would have unfolded had he completed two terms.

Some recent articles raise the question as to whether Kennedy's assassination, the subsequent investigations, and the enduring conspiracy thinking about it cracked public trust in the political system / government.

The assassination itself blew up presidential inviolability in our time, even though 3 previous presidents had been killed in office -- Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley -- and attempts have been made on others. It is significant that the assassination was very public. Shortly afterwards, Jack Ruby assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald on live television. All that was bad enough, but then there were the doubts that the whole story had come out.

I don't know whether the whole story came out or not. There might be more to the story that has not been heard, and if the conspirators were competent in their conspiracy, we never will. At any rate, I think the enduring conspiracy has been more damaging than the assassination itself. People moved on after his death, as people do. Conspiracy fans don't move on.

There is a parallel with Trump. I loath Trump, his presidency was incompetent, and his influence on the the Supreme Court is enduring. His voting fraud conspiracy is malignant. It has been proven baseless again and again, but it endures as a Republican brain rot. The regularly watered conspiracy is subversive. So are most conspiracy obsessions.

Another conspiracy, predating both Kennedy's election and assassination was a far-right conspiracy that communists and homosexuals had infiltrated critical departments in the government. (That's what the Army - McCarthy hearings were about.) The commie/queer infestation conspiracy lasted well into the 1960s. There was also the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, and a similar one in the Senate, another subversive operation, in that it tended to equate dissent with treason.

"Who knows what this technology will evolve into in the next 30 years" the narrator wonders. Yes, what indeed?

I read not long ago that there is more computing power in a singing christmas card than existed in the world in 1946. — Wayfarer

The 1946 computers couldn't sing and the chips in singing Christmas cards can't calculate the best trajectory for a heavy shell fired at a target 3 miles away with a 10 mph headwind, etc. Different machines, different functions,

Mark Zuckerberg must be hooked up to these machines to extract whatever he has in mind for our brains.

There are too many superlatives being batted around about AI, mind reading, etc. Clearly the Tech Bros have fallen in love. (See "Sorcerer's Apprentice"; the Fantasia version will do if nothing else is available.).

These technologies are likely to generate a lot of power and money for those who can wield them. In saying that, I am estimating that it has real potential.

It was a very juicy post but now it's gone.

"Some people's children!" If only we knew how to distinguish those who will competently raise children for 18 years from those who will not.

We know there are conditions under which children tend to do better, and conditions under which they tend not to do well. The level of the parents' education is a factor. The economic stability of the parents is a factor. The parents' age (not too young, not too old) is a factor. A healthy environment for the family is a factor. Effective schools for the children is a factor. Access to at least basic health care is a factor.

Those are all social factors. Society falling apart? Good luck to any parents who can't insulate themselves and their children from the chaos of things falling apart and the center not holding,

What personal characteristics would you look for in approving or disapproving parenthood?

About what percent of prospective parents do you think are deficient in skills, such that they should not parent children?

Do you think you are a competent prospective (or actual) parent? Why?

Was it Mrs. Trump's fault that her son turned out to be such an exceedingly unpleasant person? Or did he he develop into an asshole all on his own?

how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! — I like sushi

No problem! In 100 years the world will be in the midst of a 3ºC - 5ºC overheating crisis; the stormy chaotic weather will be hot; the oceans will be rising rapidly; food production will be disrupted; coastal cities will be regularly or chronically inundated; many millions of climate refugees will be on the move if thy have not died already... We are living in the "good old days"! Israel who?

The folk-singer Billy Bragg used the phrase "the vanity of nations" in his version of the International. Nationalism, religion, ethnocentrism (whether it's black, white, Palestinian, Jewish, Han Chinese. English, Mestizos, etc.). All the specificities that occlude our common, unitary species-relatedness are a piece of the problem. Unfortunately, BOMFOG (the Brotherhood Of Man under the Fatherhood Of God) went out of style years ago. and I don't see anything similar on the horizon.

Maybe a global heat crisis will help us drop our focus on specificities, but I would be surprised if that helps.

I do not look for a cessation of conflict on earth, no matter how good the climate is or how bad, because "whatever it is that people want or need" won't be distributed equally. and therein lies an insoluble problem.

Does there have to be a resolution to ethnic conflict? There does if the relevant ethnics want a decent future, but...

What could peace look like for future generations? — I like sushi

If wishes were horses, the peasants would ride. I wish for a general, mutual peace. That would be good.

What I hope Israel DOES NOT do is create peace by removing the Palestinians from Gaza. I don't know where they would go. It seems like Gaza is being rendered uninhabitable. Of course it can be cleared and rebuilt; will it be cleared and rebuilt? I don't know.

Netanyahu said it will be a long war. Indeed. At least a year? Clearing the tunnels has scarcely begun, other than trying to blow them up with bombs. Destroying the tunnels (I assume that is on the agenda, whatever else happens) will also take time.

"Ethnic Cleansing" has been carried out successfully by any number of respectable countries. Spain kicked the Jews out several hundred years ago. The US severely reduced its indigenous population. After WWII, about 10,000,000 Germans were kicked out of countries their ancestors had been living in for a long time. The Potato Famine wasn't ethnic cleansing, supposedly, but Ireland's population decreased in size every census between the famine (1845) and 1990. My maternal ancestors fled Ireland around 1845. Turkey rid itself of about 1,000,000 Armenians in 1915 -- they died, they didn't move. A lot of Greek Christians were cleared out as well. There are quite a few others.

How much one cares about Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, et al is a distinction that doesn't make a difference. "Caring" sounds a lot like "our thoughts and prayers" offered for the families of mass-shooting victims. Pffft. There is stuff I care about, and Israel is among that stuff. But my caring, as such, doesn't help Israel. Your caring doesn't help either. Perhaps our discussions in the public space matter a little. Each individual's effect is minuscule, but multiplied by a billion or two, it adds up, and perhaps, possibly, maybe it might affect national policy. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

To be honest, we are sidewalk superintendents, by-standers, kibitzers at a long distance from the war. For us, our caring and concern is low-cost.

Go stuff yourself with all the brownies you are withholding from everyone you think doesn't care enough.

People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. — I like sushi

Ever since Daguerre invented photography, we've served up pictures of horrors. The gory details of the American Civil War were captured on film (so to speak; they were using glass plates) and displayed in cities far away from the battlegrounds. People were shocked. Now the transmissions from Gaza City or Kiev are live. Obsessing has become easier.

I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. — I like sushi

What! Your haven't made arrangements to leave your home and fight on the side of Justice? @Baden hasn't either; you both must be trolling. Maybe we are all trolling.

I find the Middle East an ethical can of worms--more so than some other places, and not just in the context of the current military action. "People are dying! Palestinians are being killed and driven out of their homes. They are starving! Little children and women! Etc." Yes, true. We disapprove; we don't like it; we find it unfortunate, unethical, or unbearably cruel. But that's what happens when war is waged. Hamas may be destroyed, but there won't be much left in Gaza for anybody to govern at the rate Israel is plowing up the place.

I don't know how this is going to turn out in the end; nobody else does either. The end justifies the means? What is the end, here?

If we could rewind history and do it over -- better -- how far back would we have to go? Moses? Jesus? Mohammed? The Crusades? The Ottomans? The British and French mandates? 1948? October 7?

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank — Tzeentch

Legal schmegal.

Law is a good thing within a civil society. "States" are not citizens themselves. States have interests which they pursue. The business end of "states' interests" may be very unpleasant for those who experience it. Israel is pursuing its interests in the same way that China, UK, US, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, and every other state pursues its interests. There are agreements among sovereign states to do or not do X, Y, or Z, but enforcement depends on whose ox is getting gored at the time. .

Look, I don't like what's going on in various places around the planet, but "legality" is honored in the breach whenever it is expedient or convenient.

The relationship between Jews and Palestinians has been heavily freighted since before the beginning of the Israeli state. The whole Middle East has been heavily freighted by the activities of the Ottoman Empire, Arabs, Britain, France, Iran, et al. Just ask the Kurds and Yazidis. All sorts of dissatisfactions all round.

What states can try to achieve is reduced conflict over the long run. We can't eliminate conflict, but we can perhaps (maybe, possibly) manage it. What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. Hamas isn't a little cell of committed radicals--it's a military / terrorist element that the State of Israel can not tolerate.

Could more humane management be practiced for the Palestinians who are not part of Hamas? Maybe. Maybe not. There is only so many humanitarian solutions possible in a war.

The fact is that bad things happen to people who get in the way of a state's interests, and generally other states are willing to live with it. Up to an uncertain point. How will the present situation resolve itself? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure "law" isn't going to figure large in the conclusion.

People entertain all sorts of wrong ideas, like the mind and body being two separate things. Blame Descartes for that.

Many people 'privilege' rational thought and denigrate emotion, overlooking the fact that fast emotional responses are a critical part of human survival. Fear get's you moving fast on short notice. Lust keeps the world populated and most of us find it quite fun. Etc.

Thinking is critical too, of course, and one of the things that encourages thinking is the pleasure we experience when we solve a problem.

It SEEMS like our hearts and heads (so to speak) are opposed to each other. But generally our hearts and heads are on the same page.

It's folk wisdom (more like folk bullshit) that mind and emotion are separate.

Emotion and reason are intimately connected in the brain, and they are not in perpetual opposition.

Humans whose emotions and reason are disconnected in varying degrees) aren't robots, they're psychopaths or sociopaths. Guilt, a powerful emotion, does not operate in their brains to curb decisions which are anti-social.

The best bet for people is to accept that they have emotions (some of which are very strong and may be easily provoked) and learn how to manage them. Most of us learn how to live with the emotional machinery we have--sometime; maybe not till 50 or 60, but eventually.

"emotionalism" isn't a philosophical approach to life. Some people make it a practice to display a lot of their emotions openly. Others of us, like us white protestant males, keep our emotions to ourselves -- not a particularly healthy practice, either.

You often link to your relevant past posts, any one out of 13.2k+. How do you keep track of your past posts? do you store them in a text file? Index them? Have an exceptionally good memory?

I tend to forget posts as soon as I post them. Stupid, I suppose. It's like when you see a run of the mill movie at a theater, one sometime forgets what it was about by the time your get on the bus. Or the section of a cartoon bookstore: "Books you have forgotten that you read."

Welcome.

What's your ideal trajectory for learning about philosophy? — dani

A very slow arc, I'd say. Just my personal opinion, but formal, academic philosophy is about as tedious a subject as there can be. Consider that philosophy is a 2500 year-old project. It ran out of new ideas pretty quickly, Around 50 BC a Roman said, "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it." That was Marcus Tullius Cicero. That's even more true today, 2000 years after Cicero. Now,don't rush off to read Cicero.

Thinking is a friendly activity, generally; a lot of very useful thinking goes on in many fields: Literature, Biology, Sociology, Geology, Religion, History, Art, and so on. You are young; do your school work; read widely; talk with people; engage with the world; enjoy life.

If you insist on messing with this field, my advice is read ABOUT philosophy first. Those snakes in the box? That can of worms? Approach it gradually--say, over the next 10 years. Read a book about philosophy. If it doesn't seem all that interesting, that's OK. Try a different one. If none of them seem all that interesting, that's OK too. Think about something else.

Some people are sort of black holes, even if they don't intend to be. Your friend's atheism, by itself, isn't the problem; the problem is in the presentation.

I spent several decades as a young person trying to sort things out. After 60 years of working on the puzzle, the pieces finally all fit.

A book list... hmmm; there are lots of books out there. Too many to shake a stick at.

I don't know anything about you--how old you are, what your background is, whether you are generally happy or not, what you like to read, what you like to do, what you think about. But to me, an old man, you sound like a young person trying to sort things out.

What are you studying?

“Hey, Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” —A protest chant that first became popular in late 1967. — FreeEmotion

Oh yes, I remember chanting that, and others like

ho ho Ho Chi Minh
the NLF is gonna win

or

US out of Viet Nam
Japan and Okinawa

and

one two three four
we don't want your fucking war

The National Liberation Front did win, as it happens, and we are out of Vietnam, at least.

What upsets me is that bombing of civilians has been going on for years all over the world, in wars, civil wars, but without the news media attention that this has got. Where were the protests? 1 million Iraqis? 3 million Vietnamese? — FreeEmotion

According to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, there were 15,000,000 military personnel killed in WWII, and 38,000,000 civilian deaths. Armies don't fight the way they did in the 19th century and earlier, where battlefields were at least somewhat isolated. Henry V's famous victory over the French at Agincourt took place on a battlefield 1000 yards wide. The French force of 20,000 greatly outnumbered the English who arrived at the battle already exhausted. Rather than engage in hand to hand battle, the English unleashed between 125,000 and 500,000 arrows from longbows and crossbows into the French troops. This was in 1415.

In the middle of the 19th century, there was the famous charge of the British light brigade during the battle of Balaclava in the Crimea. You remember (of course you do) Tennyson's lines,

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

Point is, civilians were not involved--just the uniformed cannon fodder.

Technology changed, of course, and by WWII armies were not necessarily making finicky distinctions between civilians and soldiers, economic forces and military forces. The allies fire-bombed a number of cities, -- Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo for example. Cities are where civilians live. The US nuclear bombs made no distinction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima -- indeed, the military wanted to nuke an intact city, the better to measure the effect.

At this stage of the game, we can expect civilians to be targeted in war--probably not as the explicit target (very bad PR) but as "unfortunate collateral damage". Civilians are not so respected that they even make good human shields, these days. In some military thinking, there isn't all that big a difference between a civilian and a soldier.

I don't approve military policy and practice; my disapproval and 50¢ won't buy me a cup of coffee.

It is time to pull out your moral compass and do some judging of the right and wrong here. — FreeEmotion

In these times, my moral compass spins a lot, trying to locate the moral pole.

Don't they have good PR firms in those countries, or good advisors? — FreeEmotion

Of course they do, but people who organize demonstrations generally do not employ PR firms to make sure all of their messages are 'on point' and unambiguous. If you bring 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 people together for a massive demonstration, there are limits on how finely you can direct the groupthink. Small groups can control small demonstrations -- 200-300 people at most -- much better.

Today the PBS reporter on the ground in Gaza said the IDF said that about 43% of the housing in Gaza had been destroyed, so far. The IDF has quite a ways to go yet, what with the many miles of tunnels running under civilian infrastructure. By the time they are finished destroying the tunnels, it wouldn't be surprising if 60% of the housing was rubble.

There are about 2,000,000 people "living" in Gaza; if 800,000 are now homeless, over 1 million will be without housing in a few months. No house, no kitchen, no bed, no pot to piss in. Nothing, Who is going to rebuild Gaza? Who is going to buy the building materials to house 1,200,000 homeless, never mind repairing the houses that are still habitable? Who's going to rebuild the water/sewer/sanitation system? Who's going to rebuild the electrical/telecom system? Schools, mosques, hospitals, food distribution system, etc?

Gaza will be ungovernable, alright -- the was one of Israel's stated goals, right? Make it impossible for Hamas to govern.

I don't know which nations are going to take on the large job of rebuilding Gaza. If civilians shouldn't be killed, they also shouldn't be left to rot amid the rubble, either. The place will need intensive therapy -- lots of concrete, lots of reconstruction, lots of psycho-social support. If there is no physical and psychological recovery in Gaza, then there will be no peace in the area either, just a lot of very bitter, angry, revenge-minded people.

In any case, the more information we get on this and other conflicts the more useful in preventing them. — FreeEmotion

I hope that is the case. We'll see.

I find it very irksome that demonstrators in Europe and the US have marched down the street chanting "From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free." What do these people--who do not send money to Isis, Al Qaeda, or Hamas and who almost certainly do not want to be in anybody's army--think that slogan means? IF the establishment of Israel involved ethnic cleansing, so would the dis-establishment of Israel.

It isn't the Israeli government's fault that Hamas launched an attack in southern Israel. It IS their fault--on numerous levels--that their substantial intelligence and military resources were not on duty, October 7. Netanyahu's all-out attack on Hamas will blunt the search for culpability in Israel.

I take the stand that civilians should not be killed as far as possible — FreeEmotion

Sure; everybody is nominally against killing innocent civilians. It's just that, unfortunately, "as far as possible" isn't much of a barrier, whether it involves blowing up people on an Israeli bus or in a restaurant in Tel Aviv, or dropping a bomb on an apartment building.

America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany — Mikie

Well, they're just not TRYING hard enough.

That is of course what Jews wanted, but that desire had been frustrated long before the late 19th / 20th century pogroms,

As an organized nationalist movement, Zionism is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. However, the history of Zionism began earlier and is intertwined with Jewish history and Judaism. The organizations of Hovevei Zion (lit. 'Lovers of Zion'), held as the forerunners of modern Zionist ideals, were responsible for the creation of 20 Jewish towns in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.

Pacifism is the belief that all disputes can be settled without violence

This is especially true of disputes between individuals and small groups, or disputes between nations that do not involve existential issues. The EU was formed by negotiation, and the UK exited the EU through negotiation. Stupid, but it was done nonviolently. We generally negotiate over financial matters--trade, tariffs, taxation. But if it is us or them, negotiations don't work very well.

For example:

10% of excellent agricultural land which belongs to nation A is seized by nation B. Nation A sends its top negotiators to peacefully negotiate to get its land back from Nation B. Nation B says that 1000 years ago, the nomadic bandits that would later become Nation A took the land that Nation B had ALWAYS considered its own. Our answer is, "No! you cam not have it any more. It is ours now. Go away and don't come back; we have nothing to negotiate with you."

The land is important -- it provides food for many people. What did pacifistic Nation A do?

Nation A sorrowfully accepted the loss of its farmers and most productive agricultural land. No military violence was contemplated.

A year later, Nation B seizes 10% more of Nation A, this time the land that lies over rich mineral deposits. Nation A sorrowfully accepts the grievous loss if its miners and mineral resources. No military violence was contemplated.

A year after that, Nation B seizes 15% of Nation A, this time land that has excellent timber resources. Nation A even more sorrowfully and grievously accepts the loss if its lumberjacks and timber resources. No military violence was contemplated.

After these land seizures, Nation A is 35% smaller and its economy is deteriorating rapidly. It can't produce enough food. It can't produce enough metal and wood products for export to pay for imported food. It has changed from a prosperous country to an impoverished one.

All totally hypothetical, of course, except that there are real nations who have been quite willing to seize their neighbors land (by military violence, usually) and not give it back. The United States comes to mind, but also Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, France, Italy, Turkey, and China -- and more.

Individuals can practice pacifism if they so choose. States can not, States that attempt to practice pacifism will either cease to exist or will become the exploited vassal provinces of another nation, and their citizens will suffer severely. (Switzerland is not a pacifist nation, just in case you were going to mention them. They are armed.) Consider Germany's war to acquire lebensraum and resources: It acquired Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Belgium, Holland, Poland, much of the western Soviet Union (i.e., Ukraine, Belorussia), Latvia, Estonia Lithuania, Norway, and Denmark. It planned to acquire more -- like the UK.

Russia seized a large chunk of Ukraine, and claimed that the whole place belonged to them. Ukraine is currently attempting to reclaim the seized territory.

Jesus said, "You should turn the other cheek." He didn't say Israel should, or Rome should, or Persia should, or any other nation should.