And here I thought that the Trump Derangement Syndrome was a condition that Donald Trump suffered from. If he isn't deranged, then he is certainly in the prodromal phase of the condition. I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up for a press conference in diapers, Derangement will follow, no matter what.

It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?

From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.

I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.

Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.

Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.

Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"

I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned.

can I get a job with your company — Erik

Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely.

Pragmatism — Erik

We need an bad-tempered economic ACT UP organization for the masses. The boat definitely will need to be rocked to shake loose all that cash stored up by the oligarchs.

Don't forget that the now dead liberal wing of the Republican party was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Nelson Rockefeller was their last presidential candidate -- even Richard Nixon had some socially liberal policies -- his drug control policy was treatment based, rather than prison based.

That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. — Erik

Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance).

Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas... — Erik

A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.)

You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant values and live a life on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha... — Erik

Probably screwed, but let's not dwell on it.

Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values.

There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover.

Never mind starting a grassroots movement away from consumerism. Growing levels of poverty will drive people into simple living whether they jolly well like it or not. But a little theory can help the victims of pauperization cope with it better.

There is, though, good reason to block the flow of commercial, consumer messages into one's brain. Buying stuff generally doesn't serve the individual's interests all that well; it serves the interests of the seller. Life is much calmer without all the commercial noise and consumerist flailing. It is easier to make sense of life if one isn't chasing the spurious promises of advertisers or buying stuff one doesn't really need just because everybody else has it. (I'm not guiltless here; I periodically experience hunger pangs for more stuff.)

The age of marriage fell from a high of 26.1/22.0 in 1890, to 22.7/20.3 in 1947. It remained low during the post war economic expansion. In the early 1970s the age of marriage was at 23.2/20.8 and has increased up to 29.2/27.1 in 2015. A close analysis would, I think, show that age of marriage tends to increases during economic downturns (such as there was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, during the Great Depression, and then during the long slow recession from 1970 to 2015) and decreases during periods of economic growth and vitality (like the post WWII boom).

This makes sense: It is easier to find work, marry, and establish a family during periods of expansion than during periods of contraction. Women joined the workforce in large numbers starting in the 1970s; this was less a product a women's liberation and more a product of contraction. In order to maintain the standard of living of the 50s and 60s, it became necessary for both adults in the family to work. During the last 48 years, it has become much more difficult for ordinary workers (70% of the population, at least) to maintain the quality of life. Declining wages, declining benefits, structural unemployment, inflation, and redistribution of income towards the richest 5%, has all played a role here.

If families abandoned the model of 1 breadwinner and 1 home maker, it wasn't because the model became old-hat. It just wasn't financially feasible any more.

I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others. — Erik

If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education.

In the good old days (prior to... say 1950, public schools performed the task of preparing millions of young people to take their place in society as productive cogs. A small minority of the masses were able to pursue enhanced roles which required higher education. After 1950, it became possible to begin shifting the task of educating people how to be good consumers, as well as productive cogs. As the economy changed, consuming became more important than producing, and now people are mostly taught how to consume, and for that there is 24/7 instruction available at all times, everywhere.

Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them.

So, just copy-paste your version minus the suffer bitch part, down with that... — Baden

Where am I supposed to paste this?

"I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and if they find it deficient, they might remove it. I understand that there is no appeal; the moderators' actions are final. As a TPF user, I will strive to improve my writing forthwith."
Agree (check) and welcome to The Philosophy Forum
Disagree (check) and forgo participation in The Philosophy Forum

The benefit of the disclaimer which people have to check to begin posting is that it gives the moderators more standing.

Even if one wanted to uplift the ungrammatical, it takes too long and is too complicated to do in this kind of setting. The untaught will just have to get used to being shunned until they gird up their loins and begin studying the ways and means of proper English.

Well, the disclaimer suggestion I made would at least make sure people knew that there were standards and that they would be upheld. Having to assent to the disclaimer gets around people never reading the guidelines (or the directions).

I suppose "So suffer, bitch" might be viewed as somewhat unwelcoming.

sword of Hanocles — VagabondSpectre

Did you mean "sword of Damocles" or was this a pun on the House of Hanover?

I don't know how the site software works. Too bad there can not be a category of "threads needing grammatical/content rehabilitation" not viewable by all.

One of the problems for people who have posts deleted or get banned for low quality is that they did not sign up for having their self-worth attacked on the grounds of bad grammar or inadequately considered writing. Most students who know they are going to be evaluated don't like it either, but they at least have more reason to expect red ink.

My guess is that most people did not read the guidelines until they found they were in violation. Most people don't read directions, either, until all else fails. Do I really need to read the directions for operating an electric toaster? Or posting on a free web site? c

Is there a way of requiring assent before people are allowed to post? Like the way every two-bit web site is able to compel us to agree to the newly revised terms of service? So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal, so suffer, bitch! I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check)

Something like that.

individual hemispheres, though they may coordinate with each other, are capable of operating independently when need be — Alec

Yes, but we have to put that into evolutionary context. 99.999% of the time, brain hemispheres have never had to operate independently (at least in primates) and the opportunity to do so came about only in the past few decades. Otherwise, any injury or disease which destroyed a hemisphere would have led to death. Normal primates do not have brains with independent hemispheres.

Now, some animals -- certain dolphins, if I remember correctly, are able to put 1/2 of their brain to sleep while the other half pays attention. These dolphins live in non-ocean environments where sleeping in both hemispheres at the same time would lead to disaster. That is a unique evolutionary adaptation not available to other species.

There are lots of very interesting neurological cases. Henry Molaison for instance. He had radical surgical for epilepsy in 1953 or 1957. He recovered--but without the capacity to form new memories. For the rest of his life (he lived a normal life span, and died just a few years ago) his supply of permanent memories were what he had accumulated by age 21 (+/-). He spent the rest of his life being looked after. He could read, but he couldn't remember what he had read. (I believe he had some procedural memory -- he could find his way to the washroom and back, for instance (If I remember correctly, he said ironically). And remarkably, his performance improved slowly over time on a particular test (where the subject copies an object by looking at a mirror image of it). This type of procedural memory had not been previously observed. He could cooperate in research (which is what he did much of his life) but he couldn't remember anything about the researchers with whom he worked--once they left the room for a minute or two. When they came back into the room, it was like he was meeting them for the first time.

Books by neurologist Oliver Sacks are collections of these kinds of situations. (Maybe you know of Sacks?) If not he wrote fascinating books about brain dysfunction like "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat". Sacks himself was 'face blind' -- he could not remember faces. He also died just recently.

I am loath to admit 2 minds in one brain. Admitting two separate minds in one body gets out of hand very quickly.

Interestingly, people can live without the right hemisphere of their brain. On a few occasions, the hemisphere has been removed because of disease. I'm pretty sure nobody who had this done counted it as an improvement, but they didn't drop dead from it, either. I suppose they could live without a right hemisphere (not in addition to losing the right hemisphere, but as an alternative -- though I have met people who appear to be without any brains whatsoever). If the left hemisphere was removed, they wouldn't be able to tell us much about what it was like.

The two hemispheres are not duplicates of each other, but are rather complimentary. Different specialties are allocated to opposite hemispheres -- such as language being in the left hemisphere, while rhythm is a specialty of the right brain. The left brain thinks more in a sequential, linear fashion, while the right brain is given to more of a gestalt, a-linear style. On the other hand, each hemisphere processes left/right body sensory information (sight, hearing, touch, proprioception, smell, taste, etc.).

There is an interesting book by a brain anatomist, Stroke of Genius by Jill Bolte Taylor. She suffered a severe stroke; the book is about her recovery and about brain function and anatomy. Easy read, very interesting. Search YouTube for Jill Bolte Taylor and you can watch her TED talk -- summarizes everything in the book.

If the halves of the brain were never connected by the cerebral commissure, then two "persons" might develop (from birth forward). I don't know whether this has ever happened and been observed. Severing the cerebral commissure in someone who has already developed an intellect and personality (using both hemispheres of the brain) results not in two persons, but two now uncoordinated hemispheres. I (quite literally) can not imagine what that would be like.

The topic is fascinating. Some very radical brain surgeries are still done to control refractory epilepsy, such as severing connections to selected areas of one hemisphere where seizures arise. These are often close to the language centers, so prior to doing this sort of surgery, a preliminary test is done on the exposed brain (and conscious patient) to map out exactly what features will be lost if the surgery is performed as planned. Sometimes it is found that too much language facility will be lost -- and then the surgery is not worth doing, even for refractory epilepsy.

It should be noted that severe epilepsy that doesn't respond to medication (is refractory) is quite destructive--so drastic measures may be worth trying.

au contraire.

But for the Latin I memorized as an altar boy — Ciceronianus the White

Catholic altar boys have that advantage in the classics. Methodists never had altar boys and they never did use Latin. Consequently, I had to learn it from scratch, and a scratch on the surface is about as far as I got.

You might like "Lingua Latina Multi Pluribus Occasionibus" -- Latin For Even More Occasions. You will finally know how to tell people you put goat cheese on it -- in Latin. You will learn how to talk Valley Girl in Latin. or Ask for directions to the vomitorium. And more!

That we can "observe ourselves exteriorly" isn't a lie, but it is a self-deception. We may be quite happy with the way we see ourselves interiorly (or not) but we can not get into the minds of others for confirmation.

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!" — Robert Burns

It hasn't happened yet. We are doomed to deceive ourselves, at least to some extent.

It's a deeper question than it appears to be, and I don't think there is one single factor.

A highly inconvenient truth likely lurks around the corner which, if we were honest with ourselves, we would have to acknowledge. (1) But we don't acknowledge it because our reputation would suffer. (2) We regularly install false premises to protect ourselves from 'full disclosure' -- perish the thought! (3) We either can't escape our own self-delusions, or it is extraordinarily difficult for us to do so. We can't be our own exterior observers. (4)

We may also be engaged in deceiving other people. Effective deception requires the appearance of conviction, and in projecting conviction we may, as the saying goes, come to believe our own bullshit. (5) Successful con artists know they are deceiving others and manage their act. Most of us aren't that good at it. We believe it ourselves.

Other people do not always wish us well and say unkind things about us--some of which may be true, or may be false. True or false, we defend ourselves by denying what they say. (Believing all the negative things one hears about one's self might be quite self-destructive.) Rejecting negative feedback becomes a protective habit. (6)

And more!

suffering — schopenhauer1

One of the problems of discussing "suffering" is that we have not qualified it or quantified it. Below is a standard existential pain chart used in hospitals. The same scale is used to rate physical pain and existential pain. Clearly, not all pain is equal or alike. The pain of sneezing when one has broken ribs is physically about schop 8 -- but existentially it's schop 2. There is a clear reason for, and a probable end to the pain. Existential schop 7, the pain of realizing that nobody likes you -- not even slightly -- is physically schop 1. Existential schop 10 -- wishing one had never been born because life is a cruel and not very amusing joke told entirely at one's expense, may also be a physical pain, but at existential schop 10, it doesn't matter.

Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary. — boundless

It gets worse. Paul adds...

"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

and

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

Not only must you not be violent, you must not even harbor unexpressed hate. The bar is set very high. For Christian pacifists, Jesus provides clear and unequivocal guidance: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and so on. "Your convenience isn't the point," Jesus said to me in a private note.

Only the utterly resolute can attempt absolute pacifism (this is different than conscientious objection to war). Those who are not so resolute will have to define what is necessary violence and what is not. One might decide that violence in defense of one's self, one's spouse, and one's children (maybe pets?) is legitimate. But then, "How much violence is necessary?" Where between a slap on the hand and death does one draw the line?

If one is willing to defend one's self, spouse, and children, perhaps one should extend one's protective circle to the neighbors' children... You can see where this ends. One is prepared to defend one's interests, which is a much broader permission to be violent than merely defending one's self and one's spouse or children.

I did at one time, but I I can not now defend pacifism. I am not willing to accept any degree of abuse without defending myself IF I CAN. If I am unable to defend myself, then I will have to accept whatever happens. "Accepting whatever happens" is not "loving one's enemies". And calling in the categorial imperative, if I claim my own right to defense, I can't deny someone else defending themselves.

I think you should more critically evaluate your so — SophistiCat

Yes, he should. I love well done apocalypse and post-apocalypse fiction, especially when we are not saved by a convenient deus ex machina. To the extent I am pessimistic about the climate's future, apocalyptic fiction has nothing to do with it.

From the science articles I have read, it seems clear that the rainforests have been diminished by human agency. The Amazon rainforest isn't in danger of disappearing, but it is shrinking at a time when the more forest we have, the better.

"Global forest area has been reduced by 40% over the last three centuries, primarily as a result of human activities, particularly the conversion of forested land to agricultural usage" Shvidenko et al., 2005 -- probably more than anybody wants to know...

Ahead we will see large losses from drought and heat, which make it possible for new insect vectors and their diseases to spread into previously uninfected forests, both coniferous and deciduous.

There are also exotic species that are spreading through the forests, like the Asian Longhorn Beetle that kills maples. The Hemlock Woolly Adelgid weakens or kills hemlock trees. The Emerald Ash Borer is spreading through urban and rural ash forests as we speak. Thousand Cankers Disease kills black walnut trees and is spread by the Walnut Twig Beetle that has migrated illegally out of the SW United States.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) or Ehrlich's Population Bomb and others began a change in our thinking about the environment where we began to recognize that the effects we were having on the earth was not benign. Over time, more not-benign or decidedly malignant environmental effects have been identified.

Apocalypses are more interesting to write, read, and talk about than gradual changes. That the Amazon rainforest shrank 1.03% over the last 6 years is much less interesting than reports that the rainforest will vanish in 50 years (both figures just now plucked from thin air). "Whole neighborhoods collapsing into piles of dust" is much more interesting than reading about slow termite damage. It isn't just the media -- most of us like disaster reporting.

I think there is real, solid evidence of environmental change (population, CO2, ocean and atmospheric heating, sea rise, climate change, non-renewable resource depletion, etc.). Some predictions have to remain vague, some can be quite precise. Still, the biosphere of the planet has more working parts than we can account for at any one time.

Take peak oil: IF what I have read is true, then the petroleum industry has had solid and reliable information about oil reserves for many years. Their information shows that oil we be depleted (after the year of peak oil) over about the same length of time that was required to reach peak oil -- a little over a century. So, if in 2000 we arrived at peak oil, we will exhaust the obtainable oil in the ground around 2130.

2130 sounds far less apocalyptic than "OMG! there will be no more oil in just a few years!" On the other hand, once we pass peak oil (as we have), petroleum will become a costlier and less secure commodity.

The SW United States depends on the Colorado River for a good share of its water. Because of the long-term drought in the SW region, the snowpack and flow of the Colorado has been significantly diminished. Lake Mead (the main storage reservoir) is quite low and many climatologists do not expect that it will ever refill to its former level.

A declining water supply hasn't triggered an exodus from the desert SW states. In fact, people are still moving there. Are they being sensible? No -- they are not facing facts. When the SW runs out of water, they will have to move in short order or die.

The opposite problem is occurring in Florida. Florida's already high water table is being pushed higher by rising ocean levels. Yards in southern Florida that used to be dry now have pools of standing water. One would think the real estate market would collapse, but... not so. Sellers just don't talk about the problem.

At 72, I am not going to experience climate doom. Most likely, those born after 2060 will have the best seats in the house to observe major, malignant changes. Life isn't going to come to an end in 2100 in any case. It will be, as the curse goes, "interesting times".

how does one view this Latin phrase in modern day society? — Posty McPostface

Moderns are no more possessed of reliable existential compasses than the ancients were. Google Maps and GPS systems don't help us at the most essential level. The ancients found themselves in varying degrees grounded on dry land or lost at sea as much as we do.

It is our "Human Condition". Animals with brains more suited to their needs do not wonder "quo vado?" or "quo vadis?". Our brains, greatly exceeding the requirements of ordinary everyday life, see fit to ask distracting, useless, and, often as not, unanswerable questions -- like, "What is the meaning of life?" or "What are you doing with your existence?"

Happy are they who ask not "Quo vado?" but who say "Hic sum!" and are done with it.

Ut cum grano salis...

Ego quo ibo? — Ciceronianus the White

Google translated this first as "there" then "What am I going" then "whither shall I go?

"Mymemory" translated.net gave "whither shall I go?" first off.

Google Translate is a good thing, but since it is an algorithm, it knoweth not what it doth.

Oddly, no one but the author has added to this thread. Is a trade war too remote to think about? The state and region I live in grows most of the US soybean/corn production. Stable and strong agricultural income is a key element in the region's economic health. Industrial production is a second critical piece, along with mining. A drop in exports--no matter how it unfolds--will affect quality of life.

On the other hand... tariffs are not going to bring back mass production of consumer goods like fabric, clothing, shoes, household goods, electronics, and so on which once were a large component of the US, British, and European economies. For one thing, it would take decades to rebuild the manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure to restore basic goods production. We can all rebuild national industries, but it won't happen unless trade becomes physically impossible (as it does in a hot war), and even then, it would be difficult.

Manufacturing independence as an alternative to free trade, where low-wage workers in Asia or elsewhere produce our "stuff" fairly cheaply, would require a reorganization of the world-wide economy. Even if that were a good idea it would probably take 50 years to accomplish. (We didn't disestablish our manufacturing base over night.)

And China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Pakistan, India, et al want a bigger share of all the "stuff" -- and reasonably so.

Strangely, American soybean farmers are standing by Trump — frank

I don't track soybean futures, but presumably the futures market will soften and distribute the blow to the producers -- for a while. Eventually, this season or next, they will definitely feel the pain.

It's really about who can impose one's will on the other, it's all politics. — Agustino

It is true to a large extent that in politics, one group imposes their will on another group. Opinions are not thereby changed, but one can at least close off the opportunity for expression. In the United States, the two dominant political parties effectively close off discussion of issues they would prefer never to hear mentioned, let alone discussed -- like a guaranteed basic income of $24,000 or a tax rate of 90% on the wealthiest 5% of the citizenry.

Children acquire, are taught, and they grow up to hold on to world views. We may change a plank here and there, but reworking one's entire worldview is very strenuous work. A few decades ago I decided to replace the God plank. In the new plank God does not exist. I recently changed my opinion about transsexuals and transgendered persons. I decided most of them are more or less delusional, and so are their doctors (or... business is business). I have been repersuaded that gay marriage is a bad idea for gay people (too assimilationist / accomodationist). The 'persuaders' in those cases were authors I have read over the years, and conversations with various people. Otherwise, I haven't changed my world view very much in the last 50 years.

Small things in life are open to negotiation and persuasion. I was persuaded by an optician to switch to highly refractory plastic for my spectacles rather than glass. I was persuaded to let the milkweed plants in my yard grow (for butterflies). I was persuaded by Consumer Reports to switch to air-cooled chicken rather than water cooled chicken (much less bacteria and much less retained water). These were not big decisions.

Some irrationality is rational. For example, fear of death. — Corvus

It is rational to fear the details of approaching death, which can be quite ghastly. Once you're dead, we are beyond caring whether we believe in an afterlife with the gods or an afterlife with worms and plant roots.

IF people "fear death" it is because they have been taught (deliberately or inadvertently) that death is the ultimate horror. Hell is one of the levers with which this instruction is carried out. Shame shame shame. I just don't believe that fearing death intensely is at all natural.

"I have no fear of death. I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

True, and I like soup, but I also like chewy foods like raw vegetables, meat, raw apples, nuts, good bread with tough crusts... all that stuff. Plus, We could not evolve to make, eat, and like soup until we had developed the technology of pots and kettles, which was late in the game.

So, it was definitely a rational choice to trade cash for teeth. Plus, I now have these natural looking lithium dislocate anterior teeth and gold posterior teeth. Unfortunately, I am way beyond the age where people in bars admire one's teeth. People my age with nice teeth are a weird oddity.

I honestly got teary reading about Mary... — Posty McPostface

Mary was an off-the-cuff creation. Her non-existent situation was a quick and dirty way to show how the loading in a logical process could support seemingly irrational decisions from someone else's POV.

Here is a real, non-teary situation: Two years ago dentists at the U of MN told me my teeth had reached a state of wearing down, cracking, and repair where nothing more could be done with them through normal dentistry. The best course they could recommend was either false teeth or a "mouth rebuild" where the bite is redesigned and all the teeth are crowned (a 2 year project). I decided to spend a lot of money (from my POV) on the rebuild.

I made a rational gamble: IF I lived another 10 to 15 years (reaching 79 to 84 years), I would certainly appreciate the benefit of being able to chew on any food effectively and have absurdly attractive teeth. If I die in the next couple of years... well, tough luck, but the expenditure will definitely not matter at that point. Plus, I knew many people who are unhappy with their false teeth.

it really is hopelessly circular — Posty McPostface

I thought so too. But then, how does one define Rationality? A dictionary definition is "the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Reason is defined (second meaning) "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic." Logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". So, "irrationality" is thought that lacks reason, logic; or reasoning conducted without testing it against the strict principles of validity". And so on.

Is there a rational, reasoned, logical kernel that is irreducible? Once one has identified that kernel, one can determine whether something is irrational?

In order to assess the rationality of an act or a thought, one would have to know what was loaded into the logical reasoning process. Example: Mary is 68 and has terminal cancer. She will be able to live independently for a few months, then will deteriorate rapidly. She decides to spend all of her cash reserves doing whatever she feels like doing at the time. (This is a radical change from her previous practice.) Her friends think she is being irrational. "What if you don't die after all? What if you experience a spontaneous remission? Then you will be broke." is Mary being irrational? She knows she is going to die; she wants to enjoy life in a way she has never experienced before. This is her last chance. I'd say she is being rational.

What Mary is doing would be irrational for her healthy friends to do. They haven't been diagnosed with any disease. They will probably live for quite a few years yet. For healthy 68 year olds to just spend all of their cash in a few months would be irrational, because they will probably need their cash to maintain themselves.

I guess we could say that there is no such thing as an irrational person. Just different. — TheMadFool

No -- that is way too loose, too relativist.

Maybe utilitarianism isn't an appropriate moral framework for individuals. Planners in public health, urban design, military readiness, etc. can better use "the most good for the most people" than 1 individual can. Conversely, Kant's categorical imperative may be a better guide for the individual.

In the Fucking Trolley set up, somebody is going to get killed, no matter what. The conductor of the trolley will run over 5 or 1, and you will or will not push the fat man off the bridge onto the switch. Ghastly. This doesn't represent any moral system, it's a conversation starter.

Better to choose real situations to illustrate moral systems. If you are even moderately alert, you will regularly encounter real opportunities to make difficult moral choices. For instance, the beggar problem: How do we judge his or her worthiness to receive our (usually) pitifully small gift? If there are several beggars nearby, which one do we choose -- or do we choose all of them -- or none? How much to give? Does it really matter to you whether they buy beer or buy vegetables? (If you were begging, would not a few beers at the end of another humiliating day be rather pleasant?) Do you have any knowledge of poverty's structure? Do you believe that anyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps--no matter their personal history?

How 'moral' are our assumptions about other people's visible misfortunes?

If you'd like a read to cleanse your brain of Royal Elegance, here's a title that will blow away the frippery of Meghan and Harry: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl. This accounting of our primate relatives' debauchery will leave jaded New Yorkers slack-jawed.

And it's not just apes: Male homosexual black swans pair up, build a nest, then steal eggs from heterosexual swans and proceed to hatch and rear the chicks.

Your post is 2 months old, so you may already have recovered, but if not -- help is at hand.

Do you think war and fighting are the same, or different? — tim wood

I agree that the beginning of a fight is when one decides to fight -- which may precede the first blow by a significant time gap. (The decision to do something -- file for divorce, get a dog, kill somebody, write a book, clean the attic and basement -- often precedes the concrete action by a gap in time that may be years in length.)

War, as they say, is diplomacy carried out by other means. Sometimes individuals avoid fighting by diplomacy -- talking their way out of a hostile situation. Some people assiduously avoid situations which might end up being violent. What applies to individuals sort of applies to states, as well.

Hitler began preparing for war over a multiyear period -- building heavy armaments, airplanes, ships, and subs, etc. The German people were being gradually prepared for a war of expansion for a decade. Observers certainly noticed what was going on--it didn't take deeply embedded spies to see what was happening. There were several test cases -- the Anschluss and the acquisition of the Sudetenland -- that were allowed to pass. His international adversaries (UK, France, USSR, USA, et al) looked, saw, and decided not to act with military force at that time.

But the US, despite its isolationist faction, did begin preparation to fight Hitler and Japan before Pearl Harbor. Our national mobilization didn't strictly begin on December 8, 1941. So again, as you note, the decision to fight preceded the first blow.

It seems clearer to me now (having read a slew of WWII histories) that the UK and France should have attacked Germany in 1937 or 38. Germany wasn't ready for war yet, and the two allied nations were more ready. Further, the US should also have declared war in 1937-38, with its allies, not two+ years later. The result would almost certainly have been a shorter war, far fewer deaths, no holocaust, etc. All 20/20 hind sight on my part, but there were thoughtful people by the mid 1930s who saw where things were heading.

I have taken an anti-war/pacifist stance on fighting at various times, but in the case of 1930s Germany, a clear and present menace was at hand. There was no clear and present danger in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. If there was a country behind 9/11, it was probably more Saudi Arabia and it's export of Wahhabi Islam than anybody else. We didn't need to invade them, we could have blockaded their ports (which would have been an act of war -- a blow, not a gesture).

1) understanding of the situation 2) acceptance of the risks, and 3) commitment to the goal. — tim wood

Fine fine fine. There are various ways of putting it, but we should include rejection of the risks and not committing to the goal. Fighting is often more destructive that the goal is worth.

I don't think emoting or emotional attachment should be mistaken for meaning. — Andrew4Handel

Quite true.

"Making meaning" is a serious matter.

↪Bitter Crank ↪unenlightenedIt seems clear that "fight" is a very broad term, especially if it includes war as a species of fighting. Is there anything in common that might link them in a genus that's more than just a word? — tim wood

Question: can a pacifist legitimately engage in street fights, fist fights with his or her neighbor, all out screaming and rock throwing at the police, etc. AND be against war? I don't think so. A war, lots of interpersonal conflict, and a gang fight all have a kernel of similarity.

When the (US football) crowd sings "Fight on, fight on for victory" to a John Philip Sousa tune, or when the rally leader yells in the megaphone we must fight racism, or when somebody at a bar decides they want to physically beat you up, or when the Senate decides to declare war, and so on and so forth, obviously the term means different things.

One way to define "fight" is: commence an aggressive physical attack. This excludes what happens on the football field, or at a political rally. This usage includes bar fights, gang fights, brawls, organized riots, invasions, and the like. For those on the front line, commencing an attack in war is probably a lot like a gang fight, or a fight where two people agree to fight something out. There is a degree of organization about it.

So it is that "fight" as I use the term includes a moment where one can decide whether anything important is at stake. (One may not have a very long time to think about it, however -- maybe a minute).

"Fight" can be defined for organizational change, too. When people organize a union, or organize the ouster of the boss, or the redirection of a program, it can have the intentionality and intensity of a physical fight without any violent actions. The critical ingredient is that organizational force is being applied to subjects who are unwilling to cooperate. (If the subject is willing to cooperate, then it is called 'negotiation'.)

ln organization 'fighting' one also has the opportunity to consider what is at stake, what can be gained, what can be lost. For most people, the stakes in organizational fighting (no violence) may be much higher than the stakes in a fist fight. Attempting to organize a union and failing can lead to very negative results for working class people.

Trumps trade war is aggressive, has physical consequences, is organizational, but not a physical fight (we hope). It's a fight.

Sleeplessness is nature's way of helping us relive every unfortunate moment we ever had.

Narcolepsy, anyone?