In the last 25 years, "nationalism" has been degraded to an epithet associated with caucasians who are separatists supremacists, racists, etc. This transmogrification of meaning has been driven by various (often white) left-oriented groups who, apparently, dislike the whole business of nationhood, the nation state, and loyalty to a nation--all hideous, hateful, hostile institutions in their minds.

Nationalism used to be cognate with patriotism--and not in the distant past. Patriots love their country, nation, land, soil, homeland, etc.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights or division between the two is blurred. — Wallows

Your statement is internally contradictory: Since Trump, you say,

a. the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights
b. division between the two is blurred

They can't at the same time be subject to both greater differentiation and blurring.

In any event, I don't think "patriotism and/or nationalism" are problematic terms for most Americans. It's the coterie of the left that is obsessed with these terms and finds them problematic.

I don't know why anybody would leave. Whats not to love about TPF?

So is it terrorism or not? — Roke

No. It was as ill-advised as stupid bullshit usually is.

Maybe the prosecutor thought it was just too loony to convict. A few years in psychotherapy would probably be a good idea.

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. — Edward

That's what the word means, true. Philosophy is a both a literature and a practice. Philosophy is often read. How much practice enters into a reading of, say, Thomas Aquinas, depends on how much a reader engages with the text. In a freshman philosophy course at a Catholic college, most students are going to read the Aquinas selections for purposes of passing tests. Once done, never again. They probably won't engage. A pre-seminary student, however, might read Aquinas with more engagement, because it has relevance to his future work.

Analogy: When I was an English major, 5 decades ago, I read blocks of literature in order to perform adequately on tests. There just wasn't time to engage with a lot of the material. I was too shallow and naive a student to be able to do that. Alas. I was too stupid to realize I was too stupid. Later on, as I matured, had more life experiences, and became more intelligent, I engaged much more with the literary material I was reading.

TPF participants are self-selecting, so even participants in their late teens may engage, and a lot of our participants range between their 30s and old age. So here, at least, there is more engagement.

Personally, I don't read much philosophy these days (not that I ever did). I'd much rather read history, psychology or sociology, and the like. I love learning so I guess I am a philosopher (by that definition).

My guess is that people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, and so on are more likely to be interested in philosophy than people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and are not very open-minded.

Can one tolerate conflict (disagreement)? Is one comfortable with abstract concepts? Does one have the patience for the long read? A strong preference for b&w that doesn't have too many shades of grayscale works against a strong interest in philosophy (and many other subject fields too).

I don’t see how that follows? The public had their say and that is why citizens in the UK voted to leave. If you think it’s a bad idea then you’re against the masses decision.

To add, if you think it is because the public were fooled, then that is no reason to allow them to say what should or shouldn’t happen. — I like sushi

I thought I clearly supported the idea of the people making the choice on Brexit. I don't know whether the information people received during the pre-referendum vote was good or not. I wasn't there. But in principle, that sort of decision belongs to the electorate.

If I few people are experts then shouldn’t they have the final say in matters? — I like sushi

In some matters, yes. Whether or not children should be vaccinated against measles has been decided by public health experts. That's the way it should be. People with no training in public health, and people with rudimentary knowledge about disease should not make these decisions: anti-vaxxers to hell forthwith.

In matters of public policy, such as "should the UK stay with the European Union or should it leave" which affects everyone, the public should have the final say. Experts (clearly not members of parliament in this case) should provide counsel, but not make the decision.

Neither experts nor the mass of people will always make "the best choice".

I find it disconcerting to have to point this out. Maybe you’re more suited to twitter? — I like sushi

It's garnered 7+ pages of comments; apparently Wallows isn't the only one who thinks the topic is worthwhile, even if they don't agree with Wallows on some matters. Wallows has a good rep. You do too, so pax.

This is TOTALLY beside the point, but I just finished a pretty good book about the history of Baltimore: Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City by Antero Pietila.

It's one of several that I've been reading about Chicago, Detroit, the role of the FHA in segregation, and so on. Nothing unusual about Baltimore in race relations -- it's pretty much doing what most other American cities have done. I found it interesting partly because I knew nothing about its history.

Then of course there is H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore and John Waters, the scourge of Baltimore.

Take this song by Eddie Fisher from the mid-1950s. It was a big hit at the time. If Fisher was participating in this blog (he isn't cuz he's dead) would you find his testimony about his father helpful or kind of annoying?

I just love my mom because she cares about me. I'm also advocating Carol Gilligan's and Nel Noddings ethics of care. — Wallows

Many people love their mothers, and many mothers are very caring. The same can be said for fathers. But for purposes of philosophical discussion, it would be better to weigh differences between men and women without frequent recourse (or maybe any recourse) to the virtues or lack thereof one's mother or father.

One's own parent is too small a sample, even if as a sample they loom larger than the moon in the sky. My parents have been dead for quite some time, but I loved them both, and both of them were very loving in different but equally caring ways. But that's 2 people out of 7 billion.

I don't want to offend wallows, so I'll post this cut for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6rKrO5iLZs

From the Bible to the popular song
There's one theme that we find right along
Of all ideals they hail as good
The most sublime is motherhood

There was a man though, who it seems
Once carried this ideal to extremes
He loved his mother and she loved him
And yet his story is rather grim

There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex
You may have heard about his odd complex
His name appears in Freud's index
'Cause he loved his mother

His rivals used to say quite a bit
That as a monarch he was most unfit
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother

Yes, he loved his mother like no other
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is

When he found what he had done
He tore his eyes out, one by one
A tragic end to a loyal son
Who loved his mother

So be sweet and kind to mother
Now and then have a chat
Buy her candy or some flowers
Or a brand new hat

But maybe you had better let it go at that
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex
And you may end up like Oedipus
I'd rather marry a duck-billed platypus Than end up like old Oedipus Rex

You have. The heresy is that one sex is better than the other. Women are not more moral than men. They are merely morally and immoral, delightful and disgusting, revolting and remarkable in different ways.

mothers being the more caring and thoughtful nest builders — Wallows

Mothers don't abandon their children as often as men do. Much, much more often than men they hold on to their offspring, doing a perfectly wretched job of caring for them, or using them as pawns for benefits or for various neurotic needs. And that's without crack or smack, booze and weed.

Ride pubic transit more often, and observe.

I often think about this quote with respect to my mother. It's a motto used in the United States Marine Core Corps — Wallows

It isn't everyday that mother-love and the USMC, semper fi, and all, are rolled up together that way. I'd avoid it, myself.

The relationship between parent and child is not "fiduciary" -- which describes a relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary. The language of the USMC, and the language of trusts are not suitably applied to the relationship between a parent and a child. The relationship between parent and child is deeper than that between a trustee and the beneficiary.

Let's keep our categories distinct. The family is the family, work is work, the military is the military, banks and trusts are contradictions in terms, and so forth.

The language appropriate to family has to do with devotion and love, to caring, nurturing, and sacrifice. The abandonment of a child by his or her parent (male or female) may be a life shaping (or life-deforming) experience.

By the way, it's "corps" and not "core". And if you add an 'e' you get a corpse. I'm sure you knew that.

Hey, I not only have my Medium Income, distant civil war, wealthier country of the world (of which my share is about zip), and living in my castle in a state bordering on Canada, but I'm getting fairly old, so all this crap will soon enough no longer be my problem. Unless, of course, I live another 30 years. L'horreur, l'horreur! Should I start drinking a lot more and take up smoking again to move things along? Eat more animal fat? Cut out fiber? Stop eating fresh fruits and vegetables? Stop exercising? Hey, it would be a lot cheaper to cut out the good stuff, and I'll need more money if I start smoking, cigarettes are over $8 a pack, $160+ for a carton.

I dont like some churches. — James Statter

Well on that we can agree, as long as we don't have to agree on the list of unlikable churches. I never met a church that had nothing unlikeable about it.

Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon. — Fooloso4

The early church had a lot to do with creating its official canon. The official canon didn't exist first, followed by the church. The very earliest 'Christian' churches were involved in producing the texts that we fret over. Some of them were later ruled heretical, other canonical.

There is The Gap we have to mind: Jesus didn't have secretaries writing down what he said, or cameramen recording what he did. He appeared on the scene, was active for a few years; he accumulated some followers, and then he died. He appeared in a dynamic matrix of Jewish / Roman culture. The literate Paul came along and picked up the loose pieces and ran with it. Then he died. Then the generation that might have heard Jesus died. And the next generation too, and so on. Various people in various places formed an early religious practice that over the years developed into what we call The Church.

But there are critical gaps between Jesus, the twelve, Paul, and The Church which we can't track closely. We can only track it some. But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions.

So, we are always speculating. What we have is the religion that was created AFTER Jesus, the twelve, their friends, Paul, and so forth. And the church creating process continued on for a long time.

The coffers are empty, the well is dry, we cannot handle the sheer number regardless of costs. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's a big piece of the problem: No locality (city, county, state) can afford to absorb and assist millions of immigrants, asylum seekers, opportunists, and so forth. And what comes across the southern border is not the total of in-coming people. There are the effects that large numbers of non-English speaking immigrants without high-industrial skills have on wages, especially in the low-pay sector. The desperate people may not be criminals, but human smugglers are. Since they are illegal (and outside of the taxation and social welfare systems) they place a greater burden on schools, housing, emergency rooms and public clinics, and so on.

The other thing is social consent: if we didn't agree your coming here, why should we accept and assist you? Of course, the people coming here didn't agree to drug gangs, fascist execution squads, or deep poverty, either.

It's a conundrum to which I don't have an answer that satisfies my own ethical system.

As this discussion has developed, I can see it is unrealistic for me to have limited it to such a narrow focus. — T Clark

The fault is not yours; the problem arises from the term itself, one which has been in regular use for a long time: It's loaded with meaning.

Thinking about "values" can produce a turbid mess, opaque with suspended solids.

But still, we know we value some features of life more than others, and there are some differences between Chinese culture and American culture, or between the values of Athabaskan Amerindians and Zulus in South Africans. Probably, though, Americans, Chinese, Athabaskans, and Zulus will all value similar features of life. Everybody values their children, and everyone prefers healthy happy children. Everybody likes a comfortable home, whatever that means locally. If one contented family has a thatched mud/stick house and another contented family lives in a high rise apartment, how much difference in values are there between the two?

One of the values that people value is living among people with convergent values. People who eat beef and live in high rises will probably not be happy with cows wandering around in the crowded streets. We can tolerate some divergence, but too much divergence causes friction, and people generally don't like too much social friction.

I value:
Awareness, interconnection and love (as actualising potentiality)
Integrity, self control and patience
Kindness, generosity and kindness
Peace, joy and hope — Possibility

That's nice, but aren't these all limited? (Just reacting to your qualifications in the part that preceded the quoted section.)

Children who are not aided in building a value set may miss the boat on developing useful, socially desirable values. At best they will have a stunted, deformed, barely functioning value system -- something like an incompetent immune system.

obedient ... reverent ... capitalism — T Clark

An objection with something in the section that you placed out of bounds: (I've never been big on obedience). Fuck reverence and capitalism.

obscures the extent to which human value directs our thoughts, feelings, and decisions. — T Clark

Do "values" direct our thoughts, feelings, and decisions, or are values the result of our thoughts, feelings, and decisions? It may be the case that personal values, at least, are a consequence of emotion first, thoughts second, and decisions third. I submit this more as a question than a fact. Which comes first--emotion or value--is a distinction that makes a difference. How do we raise children with the kind of personal values (e.g. Boy Scout model) that we want them to manifest in their lives?

Values don't just appear, we know that for sure. Drilling them into children's head gives them the form ("I can not tell a lie", "I will not abuse the cat" ...) but it doesn't give them any motivation to be truthful, or to be nice to the cat.

It seems to me that the key to teaching children good values is first establishing loving relationships in the family. (No love? Just forget the rest of this.). The loving relationship between the parents and between parent and child is where the motivation comes from to please the parent by emulating their behavior. We don't teach children values (initially, anyway) by drilling theory into their heads. Children acquire the parents' values by emulation, then thinking, then by making decisions.

Later on, we add formality to the values instruction, building on the bonds of affection that motivate the wish to be good in the way the parent desires. We tell the child to be honest, play fair, and don't cheat. We tell them to follow the law. No stealing. Be loyal to your country; respect the police, congressmen and women, the Supreme Court, and the President (even if you have to hold your nose and keep a barf bag handy).

No time to wallow in the mire;
Come on, baby, light my fire,
Try to set the night on fire.

Songwriters: James Morrison / John Dens

as I wrote it appears my hand got the better of me and this is what came out — I like sushi

There does seem to be a short-cut between our fingers and that part of the non-conscious minds that actually composes our texts. Then there is the auto-correct software feature which seems to be getting more aggressive in its determination to correct what it thinks is the wrong word.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to get at, though I liked the paradox you incorporated into some of your sentences, like ...

What I am is what I most want to become, not my, or anyone’s, perception of what I’ve done and where I am now. — I like sushi

Perhaps you are saying that life seems like a paradox right now? Is that a happy paradox or an unhappy one?

While I am not wildly enthusiastic about millions of people migrating across our borders for jobs or asylum, there are certainly reasons why this is happening. First, the US has a long history of fucking over Central American and other countries south of the Rio Grande. We've interfered on behalf of United Fruit and other corporations, as well as various banana republic fascists and their friends. So it is not at all surprising that these countries are in bad shape in ever so many ways.

Secondly, we are singularly an economic and civil beacon on a hill. Where else are dissatisfied people going to go--Venezuela?

Third, this is our Dress Rehearsal for far larger future population movements owing to global warming. The closer one is to the equator, the sooner and the worse it will be for heat, weather, crop failures, diseases, etc. Europe has had its dress rehearsal, as have a bunch of other places. Bangladesh is so pleased with the Rohingya flood, that they are thinking of moving them to a large sand bar in the Bay of Bengal where conditions will be even worse than where they are now.

NOBODY LIKES MASS POPULATION MOVEMENT!!! Certainly not the people who are forced by fascism, war, heat, drought, and starvation, and certainly not the relatively poor people a thousand miles up the highway who aren't that much better off.

they just call everything they don't like the term religion — James Statter

Why don't they just call it paganism, heathenism, satanism, or whatever the fuck they dislike?

I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going.

"religion" in its most elevated meaning includes pretty much everything the church does, EXCEPT building management, secular concert sponsorship, and the like. In my opinion a lot of churches come closer to being real estate operations than religions, because they are stuck with these old big bldgs. that take so much maintenance. I mean, on whom could we unload some of these barns?

I am a Lutheran church member by convenience and preference (this one is close and does nice liturgy), even though I have descended (or ascended, depending on how you look at it) to disbelief in the creedal aspects of the church. Virgin birth? Come now. Really!

The church does well when its members feed the hungry, care for the sick, bind up the wounds of the beaten, give water to the thirsty, and house the homeless, etc. But most churches are pretty unenthusiastic about that part. A local disreputable church sent visitors to the sex offender facility in outstate. That is the sort of thing reputable churches should notice and follow suite.

The church I attend thinks it is performing heroically by preparing a meal for a homeless shelter 6 times a year, but they'd be horrified if a bunch of these homeless riff raff showed up in church on Sunday! l'horreur! l'horreur!

'The Conversation No One Knows How To Have' — xraymike79

Why would we be skilled at discussing our demise as a species? Talking about our own individual dying and death is hard enough, and there has never been any doubt about it happening, eventually. Extinctions happen to other species, certainly not us!

In short, no, I do not think it is possible to transition to a net-zero carbon emission civilization within a decade. The idea itself is simply absurd because it would require basically returning to a pre-industrial society with none of the benefits which came from building the society provided by fossil fuels.

Well yes, it's absurd. Major social-industrial changes just can't be executed that fast. We should abandon individual auto transportation for mass transit. Building the mass transit systems required to replace personal cars (buses, light rail, trollies, trains, etc.) would take 30 to 40 years in a crash-building drive (Never mind how long it will take to convince the population that it was a do-or-die proposition.)

Then there is the carbon produced in the process of conversion: melting down 125 million cars and building a national transit system is a heavy-industry project. The end result might be clean and green, but getting there would be pretty dirty.

Then there is the pre-industrial angle. We can't have the benefits of industrialization without the industry. Really low carbon transportation means walking, and maybe bicycling. But bicycles require at least some heavy industry. Get a horse? Horses are more ecological than automobiles, but back in their hay day (so to speak) of horse power, at least 20% of agriculture was devoted to feeding horses hay and oats, and that was for a MUCH smaller population (31 million in 1860).

Pre-industrial means pre-oil, pre-plastic, pre-natural gas, pre-wood/coal powered steam engines, pre-nuclear, pre-solar cells, pre lots of things. A remnant of the species might be forced back into pre-industrial conditions, but nobody is going to willingly buy admission.

In short, we are screwed. I don't think we will go extinct, but I don't see the world sustaining 7.5 billion people in 100 years, either. Somewhere along the line, Mother Nature is going to cull the herd. Yes, it's hard to think about being part of the culled population, dying by the millions.

I've never heard a pastor say such a thing. Can you provide more context for this?

Christianity is a religion. Has "religion" become such a bad term that some pastors don't like it? Weird. What do they think they are doing?

Elon Musk has actually started to do it. — Chris Liu

How about NASA, ESA, the Russian space agency, Chinese space Agency, etc?

Musk? Elon Musk and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee.

too much generalizing? — Wallows

Human behavior is loaded with neuroticism. It just goes with the territory [of being human].

There is nothing inherently bad about spending hours at the gym sculpting one's physique. What might make it neurotic is the motivation. For instance, a man might be attempting to compensate for a low estimation of his personal worth by trying to make himself buff. Kind of neurotic. Someone else might engage in the same sculpting activity because he is a model and will get more jobs if he has the right physique.

Men who are jealous of other men who have gym-dandy physiques are neurotic.

I spent quite a bit of time on a nude beach one summer getting an all over tan. The act of undressing in public resolved all sorts of neurotic body issues. For somebody else, undressing in public might cause neuroses.

People are at least a little crazy. It's called the psychopathology of everyday life. People who eat compulsively. People who don't bathe, floss, shampoo, trim, etc. People who shoplift for excitement. People who engage in sex they don't want. People who won't have the sex they do want. Road rage. It's all crazy. Neurotic.

which just poke the hives nest — Judaka

I just love stirring up bee hives. Poke, poke. :naughty:

women are more reluctant than men to engage in promiscuous activity — Wallows

Women are at greater risk of adverse consequences than are men as a result of promiscuity. Pregnancy and childbearing have been one of the leading causes of women's deaths up until ... 1920, in the industrialized world. In the 3rd world it cans till be quite dangerous. Pregnancy and childbearing carry a greater social stigma when pregnancy results from promiscuous activity. At the very least, getting pregnant and bearing an unwanted child is highly inconvenient.

"Purity" has always been a bigger deal for women than for men -- an emphasis coming from men more than women (maybe). (I want to screw around for a few years then I want to marry a virgin. Well, there's a famous contradiction. This may be less true now than in the past.)

women are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior — Wallows

So what? Risk aversion or risk tolerance has nothing to do with morality or goodness. It's probably a gene-influenced trait much more than a choice. Missionaries tend to be tolerant of risk; so do stock brokers. So do farmers. So do lots of people, male and female.

Trying to make women out to be inherently better than men on the basis of common traits is, to use the technical term, stupid.

Men and women both engage in behaviors which are morally salutary and morally corrosive.

How many kind, decent, moral men have you known? Maybe you just haven't known enough of them.

Marmite and Unilever... let us hope they don't bring out a Ben & Jerry Marmite combo.

Observing the operations of individual neurons gets us one step closer to the goal of understanding nerves and brains. You've heard of C. elegans? It's a nematode with about 900 cells, in total. It has been subject to exhaustive study. '6/.tr,4]3dx~ome of its cells are neurons. These can be mapped, and observed individually. But nematodes don't do a lot of thinking, so... But it is a start.

If consciousness and self-awareness are emergent properties, then we won't find either of those properties in a few neurons.

Bee brains are a better bet. Bee brains are small but do complicated things, so they have to be very efficient. Individual neurons are probably singly responsible for some bee behaviors. We'll learn more by investigating bee brains than poking around in our brains and wondering, "What is it thinking right now?"

:100:

:100:

Your ex-wife must be quite the deal.

that was called....? — NKBJ

Life as men and women knew it.

I'm not lauding the lack of women's suffrage, or women's lack of control over wealth (that condition was not universal), or husbands beating wives (that wasn't universal either), and so on. The relationship between men and women varied over time and place. The favored ancient society we know most about (and we don't know all that much) -- Athens -- appears to be pretty repressive toward women. On the other hand, Aristophanes' Lysistrata (performed in the same Athens) depicts women as persons with executive agency. (The wives went on a sex strike to stop a war.)

Some clay tablet records from trading cultures in the Levant show women running their own independent businesses. Rome was a mixed bag, as were the various barbarian tribes.

What is objectionable about the term "patriarchy" is that it is a retro-projection of current dissatisfactions, applied to most of history. People: men women, adults, children, slave, free, rich, poor, able, hobbled, etc. have always both accepted the world as they have found it and lived within the existing paradigm. It doesn't mean that there was an active patriarchal regime making sure that women were kept in their place.

We know that some people were definitely concerned about women's place in the world. The Apostle Paul was quite concerned that women should stay in their place, at least in church. Paul, of course, was quite influential on one particular western institution. I doubt very much that his view of things was unopposed in his own time.

Never was. Patriarchy and matriarchy are projectiles developed for gender warfare. The historical use of these terms is not ancient. In the Google Ngram below, the two terms had virtually no use in print prior to 1900. Patriarchy started taking of around 1970, and rose like the hockey stick curve.

How old is NKBJ Jr.?