It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. — Jack Cummins

No, you didn't but the psychosocial aspects of rebellion or obedience are very important. Many who chafe under authority are unable to take off their sabots and throw them into the gears, so to speak. This isn't a fault; it's just reality. Over time, non-conformists develop capacity to resist, to man the ramparts, so to speak.

Resistance and rebellion require justification. One has to keep one's mind clear about why one is making the sacrifices required to challenge authority. resisting the system, rebelling... because the system will strike back. Challenging the boss will. as a rule, result in one's firing. Getting fired (especially too often) may result in dire poverty (like, unhoused homelessness). Usually not, but good competent people do end up on the street, even if they didn't rebel.

The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities.... This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression. — Jack Cummins

I'm in favor of 'chosen destinies' over being a slave to tradition and authority. Where, when, and whether one can manage that depends on just how many "chosen destinies" society is willing to tolerate. I grew up in a time when American society was reasonably tolerant -- the '60s and '70. Not so tolerant that rebels were given medals, certainly. Challenging the authority of various institutions was expensive.

But it was possible. Over time it has become more difficult to to challenge the system, and more difficult to bear the costs. In addition to society changing, I was getting too old to put up with the downsides of a precarious existence -- so I settled for as much security as I could eke out.

At some point, rebels retire. They don't become conservatives because they are now living in a high rise elderly apartment. That is the story of the best rebel I knew: he had become homeless and was living in some unidentified space, when somebody hooked him up with social services. Plus he was finally old enough to qualify for senior housing and was literally penniless -- general assistance covered minimal living expenses. He lived the last 7 years in decent housing, finally getting medical care and enough food. He remained a rebel till the end.

Congratulations! You are the first person to use 'antidestablishmentarianism' on TPF. Other than in the context of vocabulary practice, you are one of the few people I have read who used the word in an ordinary sentence.

embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion — Jack Cummins

Usage varies, but some people do not count non-conformity as a form of rebellion. Conformity / non-conformity are not very far apart. One might dress in a non-conforming way without being a dissident in any significant way. On the other hand one can dress with complete conformity and be a bomb-throwing anarchist revolutionary.

I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins

And the conformity enforcer at the office demands to know what right you have to avoid automated robot hood which everybody else accepts!

I am quite sympathetic to your plight. At various times I have found it difficult to blend in, successfully be part of 'the group'. In my case, political views were not the cause. The cause was a set of behaviors and personal flaws. I have been at times and in some important ways, socially incompetent. The personal became political. I gravitated toward out-groups because I fit in with them better.

So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction...

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

Undifferentiated rebelliousness against authority, for example, is probably mostly affliction. We run into somebody's authority no matter what we do.

I define 'rebellion' as material action aimed at degrading the status quo; subverting the dominant paradigm; destroying 'the system'; etc. Nonconformity doesn't cut it, not matter how outré. Anti-war demonstrations are not rebellions. A riot might be a rebellion, if it is aimed at something higher than looting the local Walmart. The Declaration of Independence wasn't rebellion; rebellion was shooting redcoats. Demanding an end to monarchy isn't rebelling. Chopping off Charles I's head was, or Charles III's would be.

Karl Marx had revolutionary ideas, but publishing them was not revolutionary. In his personal life, Uncle Karl was a slob (but Hail Karl Marx, none-the-less). Organizing the working class in London or Detroit was the significant political act.

For most of us, the opportunity to materially rebel will occur at work. In capitalist society, work is where the boss extracts value from workers. Whatever the operation, there is a lot of similarity from office to office, factory to factory, non-profit to non-profit. Engaging in union organizing is a form of rebellion; stealing time or materiel from the boss is another way. Refusal to perform demeaning tasks, especially in front of other workers, is a form of rebellion. Bosses generally do not like confrontations. They prefer workers to do what they are told to do, and shut up about it, thank you very much.

I resisted, rebelled overtly at work several times. Once or twice it had beneficial results. Mostly, though, they were glad to see me gone. covert rebellion (like stealing time for my own purposes) was more successful. I wish I had found ways to rebel more effectively. Better to be part of a pack of wolves rather than a lone-wolf who is easily picked off. Too late now.

Some movements are slippery and pinning them down is difficult. One author said that the behavior of fascists (how they operate) is more important than what they believe. If Huey Long, George Wallace, Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump can all be defined as "populists", then apparently what is unique about populists is how they engage in politics Bernie Sanders and George Wallace are far apart ideologically, but both of them had a mass appeal (just not 'mass' enough to win). They were both 'insurgents'. So was Donald Trump, who did get enough votes (once and never again we hope).

Long, Wallace, and Trump also smelled more than a little like fascists, something I wouldn't say about Perot or Sanders.

The language of "elites" is as screwed up as the language of "class". A sociologist looks at society and sees classes -- working class, middle class, upper class, ruling class, etc. Class is definable by various features (blah blah blah -- you know this, so I won't go on). "Elite" is a familiar adjective when applied to athletes--think gold medal olympians. "Elite" also applies to those who have, guide, and execute power--the Power Elite of money, military, and politics. The power elite is a fraction of the wealthy top class. There may be 5 million people in the wealthiest class, of whom maybe 50,000 compose the power elite. Some of them are technocrats; quite a few of them are extremely successful capitalists; a few of them are politicians (politicians usually come from below the elite classes, but serve the elite if they want to stay in office); some of them are military elite; there are artists who are elite in their field--most of them nowhere near as wealthy as Taylor Swift

The elite class supports both political parties, more or less consistently, but not strictly; they occasionally support counter-cultural movements like the civil rights movement which was bucking the Jim Crow system 70 years ago.

So much of what goes on in society is managed by the power elite directly or indirectly. How much will we give to Ukraine? How much to Israel? Taiwan? How many millions of asylum seekers/border crossers/migrants will we accept? How much will the rich be taxed? How oppressed will the poor be? How much are we going to do, or not do, about global warming? So on and so forth.

The elite are not sitting up there pulling strings; they aren't puppet masters because the masses are not puppets. It's much more a trickle down process, where the stated interests of the elites flow downward from on high through various academic and institutional channels until it reaches the pavement.

It is important to bear in mind that the Elites are not necessarily nice. It may suit them to have someone like Donald Trump stumbling around in the china store; maybe some of them feel that the liberal establishment needs to be braked. One thing IS quite certain -- the ruling class has class consciousness, and they know (in detail) what is good for them. They don't like chaos, loss of control, uncontrolled violence, and so on. They prefer to operate in an orderly society where people do what they are told to do, so up about it, thank you very much.

So, a lot of the discourse about privileged elites, progressives, populists, authoritarians, fascists, and so on is just peripheral chatter.

G. William Domhoff has done extensive research in the American Ruling Class, the power elite, and how it maintains and perpetuates itself. Here is aYouTubetalk by Domhoff. He did his main research and writing decades ago, but got it right. In his later hears he has turned his attention to neurocognition and dreaming.

Maybe it's odd that the United States hasn't had more populist movements?

On the one hand, 'the people' have been ruled by a small elite since the beginning. During many of the past 250 years, the elite has run rampant over 'the people'. On the other hand, the elite has successfully convinced 'the people' that there are no elites (against whom to fight). 'The People' rule! God bless the United States of America!"

Better than not having any elites at all, the American (and other) elites have done a good job depicting themselves as an attractive group of people. The Beautiful Rich are over there having a good time. Why should they not?

Why should they, one might better ask, given that their wealth has been stolen from the labor of the working class (either recently or in the past).

Is there a difference between a leftish populist (maybe Bernie Sanders) and a socialist committed to revolutionary goals? I think so. The socialist revolutionaries may not be in close touch with reality, but they do have a plan, a method, a goal which encompasses the whole population. Where socialists have dry, cold plans, it seems like populists have hot steamy resentments--directed at any number of deserving groups: muslims, immigrants, welfare mothers, women, gays, etc. etc. etc.

No.

No one is isolated from the or their outer world under generally normal circumstances. We aren't just conditioned rats. We are our impulses, desires, urges, fears, etc. etc. etc. It is our striving, conflicting, conflicted nature. That why life is difficult.

See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception. Neither are any other creatures on earth. We can't lose something we never had to begin with. And that's perfectly OK.

...is satisfying your desires such a worthy business? — kudos

It depends on the nature of the desire and the cost of achieving it. Most of us have desires which we do well to leave unsatisfied. .

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. — kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?

During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. — kudos

During earlier times women and children were thought to be innocent. What applied to men and adults didn't apply to them. They were exempt. Human beings--men, women, and children--whatever they might think about their personhood and being, from childhood to senescence, are not innocent. I do not mean they are evil, disfigured by some sort of Calvinistic stain, original sin, or any of that crap. I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence. This is not a bad thing -- it's all necessary for us to become effective agents in our own lives.

Innocence is the perfect dismissal: "Oh, you are too good, too pure, too 'innocent' for the real world." Bullshit!

Sorry, getting carried away here.

I would not.

Did Miss Brontë greatly desire bestial sexual escapades on the mountain top?

I don't have a personal definition. The dictionary says "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

The rituals of the church are no more magical than the various rituals we perform every day, like saying 'hello' to people on the street, or thanking the bus driver for letting us off the bus.

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence? — baker

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.

subconscious thermodynamics — wonderer1

:100:

One of the ways the magic of the eucharist affects reality is that it unites communicants in the magic. The bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ for those who embrace the magical spell, even if the bread and wine maintain their appearance. Taking communion is participating in magic.

Baptism affects reality more subtly. Most Christians are baptized as infants and the magic is performed only once per person and is not redouble or undoable (according to the theology of the churches). Most people will work out the meaning of their magical baptism quite a few years after the act, unless they are baptized as adults. Or, they won't -- in which case, the magic is greatly diminished. The magic of the eucharist comes to naught as well if the individual just 'goes through the motions'.

This is all true for the rituals and magic in daily life as we know it. Air heads miss out on it.

I tend to go for Guiness. — wonderer1

Stella Artois for me. And I like it cold, even though it is a superior European product.

not every ritual is a superstitious one — schopenhauer1

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you") has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual.

What do you think of "psycho-somatic" disorders? This starts getting tricky because the delusions can be subtle. — schopenhauer1

I don't know enough about It. From what I have read, people who have a 'psychosomatic condition' really do feel that something is wrong with them--feel, not just think. They can have real pain from a condition that doesn't actually exist. Some of these can be serious -- like unfortunate people who think one of their limbs actually belongs to somebody else. They don't 'recognize it' as their own.

I'm wondering though if there is a connection between the two. Perhaps the compulsion is a maladaptive form of the superstitious tendency in humans. — schopenhauer1

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away.

If one has OCD, I would suspect that new compulsions will be manufactured out of superstitious ideas -- like the lucky red shirt MUST be worn under various circumstances or something bad will happen.

The sometimes screwy things that go on in our brains (superstition, religious fervor, unreasonable fearfulness or confidence, hallucinations, etc.) could very well be connected -- I just don't know how. The brain is just so damned complicated.

Human cultures were (I am presuming) far more superstitious in previous millennia, and there is a residue that has been preserved into the present time. Some of the residue is preserved by official religious instruction and informal folkways. Some of it is new -- created by accident--Jack got a raise on the day he was wearing a bright red shirt. The shirt had nothing to do with the raise, but Jack associated the two events (quite strongly) and thenceforth thought of the shirt as 'strongly lucky'.

Superstitions are not the same as compulsions. The compulsion to count things isn't superstitious -- it's just slightly crazy. The lucky red shirt isn't crazy -- it's just slightly stupid.

Still, compulsions and superstitions can provide the sense of having control over the world, which tends to be important to us, given that we do not have control over a lot of things. A professor said, "Magic is religion you don't believe in; religion is magic you do believe in." A former priest said. "Nothing fails like prayer." Millions of people believe in the actual effectiveness of prayer (the gods will act) which is magic one believes in. Religious magic is basically superstitious.

So, my take is that many rational, intelligent, educated people feel better when they deploy whatever superstitious magic they believe in. And as luck would have it, things work out well enough often enough to provide support for magical thinking. And when it doesn't, there are other explanations available.

It's a very intriguing figure.

perhaps sex appeal is an art in itself — Lionino

Some people seem to be just naturally saturated with sex appeal, while others can take what they've got and make what they want, or what they think other people want. There is definitely an art to this. There are a few unfortunates who are (to most other people) sexually repellant. Usually this is not something they bear responsibility for. I'm thinking of 2 guys: one was short, had some skeletal / bone problems, very bad teeth, and had a speech impediment. He was a tax accountant. He was reasonably likable, but had zero sex appeal. The other guy was tall and very thin with wild grey hair and a long unkept beard. His nickname was Bicycle Mary -- he rode his bike to the main gay bar in all weather. In addition to looking like a crazy man, his behavior was a little crazy too. Zero sex appeal.

Those were two people out of a thousand.

Tattoos are a popular enhancements. They have come a long way since the days of the classic drunken sailor getting a tattoo he will regret in the morning. Many men are buying tattoos that are artful designs executed with skill (and quite costly). I would prefer people keep their face and neck free of tattooing, but... no accounting for taste.

Vestus virum reddit, the Romans said -- clothes make the man. The well-put-together outfit goes a long way to enhance one's appearance and presence. The guys who show up in black leather and chains are not doing anything different than the guys who show up in Brooks Brothers suits. A jacket and tie can be good bait, just as jeans with holes and a ripped sweatshirt can be.

It's all art, lower case 'a' and quite essential to human interaction.

Body building has a history, of course. 19th century circus acts (strong men lifting very heavy objects) popularized having musculature that was outside the norm. (There were, of course, very strong ag and industrial workers whose physiques were not celebrated.). In the US, Bernarr McFadden promoted "health and fitness". Himself a raw vegetarian, there are something of a "religion" about him.

How defined one's muscles will be depends on type and duration of exercise, amount of sub-cutaneous fat, muscle flexing during posing, and so on. Here's a picture of McFadden as a young mn, already practicing what he preached:

.
Bernarr McFadden

Raw vegetables and weight lifting worked for him. He was 87 when he died in 1955.

A lot of men who post pictures of themselves on Tumblr (and elsewhere) look pretty fit, but often their musculature does not appear with sharp definition. It isn't that they haven't done the work -- I suspect they are not starved enough to get very fine resolution of every vein, follicle, muscle, tendon, and bone

I'm not criticizing them -- I'd be grateful to look half as buffed. In the summer of 92 I did a lot of training for a series of 100 mile bike rides. I had the endurance and strength but not much definition. I was too well nourished, for sure.

Most men probably do muscle building for sex appeal. Most of them are not doing it as "art", even if they achieve beauty. Ballet and modern dance performers maintain their bodies for their art -- as do some other artists--musicians for instance.

Let's move on. I just don't like the word "wisdom". I have no problem with the content of "experience, knowledge, and good judgment". You like the word--wisdom--fine. Keep seeking it.

Our collective problem isn't the term, it's how to get the content.

So counting curiosity out... "The world" is not self-explanatory. Life is difficult. Bad things happen to good people. Inexplicable events happen, without warning, and with usually bad (but sometimes good) consequences. We feel a need to explain the inexplicable and to control nature.

Unlearnéd humans have sought explanations to avoid harms. Over the millennia we didn't make a lot of progress in understanding how nature worked. Then within the last several hundred years we discovered more about the world, and devised more theories about how the world actually worked that turned out to be correct.

Vaclav Smils points out that Newton, et al who extracted some solid principles of understanding the world would not understand much about the modern world, even though gravity, for instance, is still a challenge. The 19th century scientists who probed deeper and developed an understanding of electricity and magnetism, chemistry and atomic structure would be very surprised by the modern world, but they would understand a lot about what we are doing now.

We are safer now in a world we understand much better. Vaccines, storm prediction, quake-proof architecture, and so on make us safer. Of course understanding how to suck up an ocean of oil and burn it has huge down-sides--global warming. But at least we understand WHY there is global warming, and we know WHAT we should do, even if BP, Exxon, Ford, GM, Toyota, and Trump et al stand in the way.

Making life better (or more richly interesting) and survival is why we strive to understand the world.

"Philosophia" meant "love of wisdom" to the Greeks. for us it means

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"

I have never seen an episode of Family Matters.

A lot of words get abused and take on improper meanings. Take genocide. It is horrible. Take war. It is horrible. War and genocide are different things, even though they are both horrible. So I object to calling Israel's war on Gaza "genocide", especially when the word is tossed around in a facile chant, like "you can't run, you can't hide/we charge you with genocide" chanted at the city council of Helena, Montana. Total bullshit.

"Innocence" and "wisdom" have been abused and over used. It isn't the fault of the word, it's the fault of jabbering.

Yes, I find myself on this "love of wisdom" or "study of reality" site, and often think that many of the arcane posts I read have nothing to do with the price of potatoes--aka, reality. But, carry on, gentlemen.

If you're saying that innocence means, in part, being open to rich and interesting experiences, then we are in full agreement. — kudos

Sorry. I don't think I said, and I didn't mean to say that innocence means being open to rich and interesting experiences.

I don't like the terms innocence and wisdom; they're way too loaded to mean much. And I don't think the boss of innocence leads to the gain of wisdom. Innocence is lost early on. Wisdom comes along a lot later and is the result of being 'refined' in the mills of experience.

You know little children and the "Terrible Twos"? Two year olds can be such a pain. Why is that? Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence. All absolutely desirable things!

Innocence is the baby in the cradle. It's a lovely state in some ways, but we don't want to go back to being babies in cradles.

It sounds like the point both BC and yourself are making is that when innocence tends to be insular and not ask questions of itself, it becomes plainly satisfied. That we need to be 'impelled' by something, no?

Isn't that simply a certain content and form of philosophy? What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos

"Innocence" is another word I don't like very much. It is a feature that belongs to children, presumably, but how long are they supposed to be "innocent"? Freud didn't think they were so innocent. Innocence fits puppies and kittens for only a while.

Experience impels us forward into the world. We find rich and interesting details in experience and we want more rich and interesting experiences. Curiosity, you know.

There's nothing wrong at all with living a simple life, if that's possible. But what does "simplicity" mean? In some ways, the simpler the life, the more anxiety and worry. Picture a family living simply on the land. No worries, except for providing shelter, fuel, food, water, clothing, etc from the land, with their labor. The fatal "simplicity" of that life is deceptive.

Picture a more complex life, one with a house, electricity, canned food, clothing, transportation, medical care, a telephone, etc. This more complex life tends to have more protections, more back-up systems, more help when we need it than a very simple life. Yes, complex lifestyles have significant vulnerabilities. What if electricity fails in a storm? What if the wind blows the roof off one's house? The likelihood of surviving these disasters are really pretty good. Having people to help you means complexity.

↪BC BC should I jump off the bridge now or later? — kudos

At your convenience, of course. But what are you trying to say by mentioning a jump off the bridge?

How did you learn what experience, knowledge and good judgement were, and where did you get the idea that they were better than the absence thereof? All solely from yourself? — kudos

"Experience" arises from existence. Once I existed (not my fault -- somebody else did it) experience began and started shaping my existence. The existence of any animal with some sort of central nervous system will be shaped by its experience--learning. If one's species has a big enough CNS it will develop a culture, and action of that culture will be one more type of experience shaping one's existence. There is a human "I" in the process. The "I" becomes conscious of its existence and becomes aware of self, existence, and experience, and begins to direct the process.

I never did get the idea that no experience, no knowledge, and no good judgement were even a thing. People "judge" their experience on the basis of how it affects their existence. "Good judgement" -- however one defines it -- leads to better existence and better experiences than bad judgement. Falling down drunk in the snow and losing one's fingers to frostbite is an example of exercising bad judgement -- drinking too much to manage one's existence.

there's no way for philosophy to exist without experience and knowledge — kudos

There's no way for us to exist without experience and knowledge, never mind philosophy.

There are a lot of dull-normals in the world, and most of them get along quite well without worrying about philosophy and wisdom. They sleep well, get up and go to work, produce the world's needs and wants. They go shopping, play with their children, make love, watch Fox News, drink beer, pay their rent or mortgage, dine at Olive Garden to celebrate important events. They get old and die. Life goes on.

The arch of life for very bright philosophers is not all that different than the lives of dull normals. They might not watch Fox News (preferring the BBC), but they drink beer. They may shop more carefully, or not, and may dine at an out-of-the-way ethnic restaurant preferred by food snobs. They may read more, and think interesting thoughts (or not). Otherwise, their lives are about the same as dull normals. They might very well have less money than dull normals. They might not even have a pot to piss in. They get old and die. Life goes on.

Would you equate these urges and wishes with wisdom? — kudos

No. "Wisdom" isn't a word I use very often. I don't like it. It's a Hallmark greeting card kind of word.

As we age, infancy to senescence, we discover the various costs that our urges and wishes impose on us. I don't regret having inconvenient urges and wishes -- I regret acting on some of them. Wisdom means "the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment". Those are better words to use.

What gave you the idea that it was something worth finding to begin with? — kudos

Well, "having experience, knowledge, and good judgment" allows one to avoid some of the errors we are prone to.

The more reason to think of it as a construction of Western reason. The way you word it sounds like you think it worth less because it's not a notion that has existed forever. — kudos

Well, western reasoning is all I have got. No, I don't think it worth less because it hasn't existed forever. A lot of very good ideas are very recent.

Good question!

I don't know whether "some desires" are "meant" to remain unfulfilled, but we are all better off if "some desires" remain unsatisfied. We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. In my old age, I don't know whether I have developed all that much wisdom or not. Some people seem to find it earlier. Lucky them.

Children have the temporary advantage of not knowing much about the world; their quest to know and understand the world may or may not be successful, but fairly soon human minds become a warehouse of second and third hand goods--some of value, some ready for final recycling. It's dirty work sorting out all this crap.

What we call "innocence" is short lived. Kittens and puppies, figuratively. Literally, kittens and puppies grow up to be killer cats and wolves. Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. Urges and wishes, kindly and not, start arising fairly soon.

Social historians tell us that "childhood and adolescence" is a very recent view of childhood. As far as we can tell, ancient people on up to the recent times thought of children as miniature adults--not especially innocent and capable of economic contribution.

Some businesses are unethical by their very nature: loan sharking; phone / internet fraud; manufacturing products with known serious deficiencies (toys with lead paint); toxic food products. Some businesses tolerate unethical behavior by staff. The unethical behavior can harm co-workers, customers, etc. Some businesses cheat their employees by withholding part or all of their wages. Some businesses discriminate against customers and employees (various types of discriminatory behavior).

The most pervasive fraud perpetrated is the basic labor contract whereby the worker receives a small fraction of the value of the goods he or she produces. Apple Corporation had profits of 97 billion dollars last year. The workers who produced the various products and services that Apple sells receive none of the profits. They receive a wage which amounts to substantially less than all the goods and services they produce. The people who shared 97 billion dollars of net profit did not produce anything at all.

Your typical capitalist does not see anything unethical about this system. Because the fraud is the foundation of wealth, so they have deep interests in NOT seeing capitalism as theft (Proudhon: "property is theft". Balzac: "Under every great fortune lies a swindle")

Whether the work environment is ethical or not is a worthwhile question, but it would be helpful if you set up the discussion with a little more content.

On the one hand, we are not "forced" to take any given job at any wage in any environment; on the other hand, if we do not work for a wage, we will not eat. Capitalism is a system of wage slavery -- per Karl Marx -- and we are a) in the large exploited group; b) in the small exploiter group; or c) scrounging for survival.

On the other hand, we join together in large enterprises to produce the means for a complex society -- everything from picking beans to drawing cartoons for the New Yorker.

The work environment ranges between sometimes really great to much more often really awful, but only through worker solidarity and agitation can work be "fair".

One difference between animal intelligence and computers is that young animals -- puppies and people -- initiate inquiry into the world around them. Animal intelligence reaches out on its own. another difference: A computer (AI) has to be given instructions to acquire information--which they do not convert into experience. They can discover that it is 110ºF in the shade but they can not "feel" the heat. Animals experience the world through their bodies. They can tell that it is hot, and unpleasant. Computers can not do that.

Animal intelligence isn't separate from the bodies which contains it. Computers may have a chassis, may have millions of components, but there is no experience, no body to have experience,

This animal intelligence that is writing now can not tell whether some of the people who bring. up computers and AI are in favor of, or against, granting computers "thought". Some of them seem to long for a thinking machine. It strikes me as a little like wanting one's puppets to come alive.

There is something 'Hopperish' in his selection of topics. A difference though is that the colors in Hoppers paintings tend to use fairly saturated colors. The second one you posted, for instance.

The photograph I posted was by Dean West at Saatchi Art. Here's another Dean West photo; this one reminds me of David Hockney (painter) based on the subject matter and colors.

Palm Springs # 2, 2015 [LAST ONE] Artist Proof 2 of 296 W x 60 H x 0.1 D inDean West

Saatchi is asking $90,750 for the pool photo.

OK, should there be a shadow to the right of the station? But the suitcase and cowboy shadow seem consistent with the bench shadow, the lamp shadow hanging on the left side of the station. and so on. The man in the window seems more like an added image--he's too close to the window glass and too short. Also, I see that the station belongs to the Grand Trunk line. Don't know much about the GT.

The photo certainly seems composed (not a snap shot) and perhaps manipulated. I still like it, particularly the grey/beige/slightly green palate.

Marlboro cowboy gone to seed... He doesn't appear to be old enough to be a seedy Marlboro cowboy, though I see what you are talking about. The cigarette mascots tended to be mature men with deeply weathered faces, from years of riding, roping, and smoking. He is lanky, though, like a cowboy ought to be. Do cowboys travel with luggage? No saddle bags?

Apparently Grand Trunk is not a double rail system out west. Side tracks are used to allow for passing trains.

When I saw this image on Tumblr, my first thought was 'very realistic painting". The fineness of the detail quickly persuaded me otherwise. Still, it seems a very 'painterly' photograph. It also is a bit difficult to place in time -- the station looks like something from the early 20th century, give or take a couple of decades, but the man, the suitcases, and the transmission poles in the background look much more recent. There is a Petersburg station in western Canada on the CP or CN railroad.

It's a very nice composition.

Preaching is hard work. You have to keep coming up with startling new interpretations of texts that has been chewed over for 2000 to 3000 years. The people expect their pastor/rabbi/priest to have original ideas. When I wrote a paper for a Shakespeare class the professor said we were not expected to come up with new ideas about Richard III -- there weren't any. Just prove whatever case we were trying to make. Shakespeare has been chewed on for only 400 years.

It's good to have posts in church; they enable the bored to doze during the sermon, unobserved.

Communion occurs twice: once in the service, a second time during coffee. If Jesus had been Lutheran, coffee would be the transubstantiating liquid, pie the flesh. Serving hot coffee and pie during communion would be more complicated than bread and wine.

Because God is merciful, we use a pipe organ and sing proper hymns. Why does 'hymn' have a silent 'n'? Many churches, even Lutherans, employ the abomination of "praise bands" which distinguish themselves mostly by being way too loud.

Our prayer list needs to be purged, but you know, bad optics.

it would be surprising, if anyone would admit that he's talking rubbish himself — Pez

We should probably have a Truth and Reconciliation category for people to confess that they have been talking rubbish! Welcome to The Philosophy Forum, by the way.

I've not had much success studying philosophy. Back in the '60s, philosophy wasn't on the curriculum of the state college I attended. 15 years after graduating, I tried some basic courses through extension at the University and found them awful. I share the blame with Philosophy. Academic philosophy just is not my cup of tea.

I'm an old man now, and have spent the last 15 years in the big open pit mine, scraping out good ore to fill in the holes that my undergraduate education left. The history and sociology of cities has been a productive vein. So has the history of technology; trying to understand our several ecological crises has been useful. The Roman Empire and the Medieval period in Europe is always fruitful. There is so much good scholarship out there!

Revisiting books I should have read as an English major is useful too, but I've gotten better results from nonfiction. I am currently reading Zola's Au Bonheur des Dames, The Ladies Paradise, set in a mid-19th century Parisian department store. It's fiction in translation and it opens a window on the development of retail consumer culture. Its history is longer than I thought it was.

I have nothing to offer on Kant or Hegel, Plato or Aquinas.

Something to do with a den of thieves.

There is much to recommend parish churches. I belong to a Lutheran church. I wasn't raised Lutheran, but its liturgy is meaningful and they are located across the street. The congregation used to be very large with many youth activities and programs for adult members. The sanctuary can hold about 250 - 300 people; Sunday services usually are about 125. When I joined 13 years ago, it was mostly old people (including me). Now we have a much younger congregation, have enough children to have Sunday school and (small) confirmation classes.



The church was built in 1949 for a large German Lutheran congregation belonging to the Missouri Synod. In those years they needed that much space. In the mid 1980s the Missouri Synod was split by a fundamentalist take over. Many of the Missouri Synod congregations voted to leave, as did this congregation. The vote was a 49% 51% vote in favor of leaving. Upon losing the vote, half of the congregation left.

Churches are, generally, on the decline but losing 1/2 of the congregation was bad news. It took about 20 years to recover. There are still a handful of members who have been belonged for roughly 75 years

The church was designed by Ellen Saarinen, a Finnish architect. It's a National Historic Landmark--partly because of who designed it, and partly because it broke the 'American Gothic' mold for new church buildings. It's mid-century modern--not a common style for church buildings then or later.

Eero Saarinen Elliel's son, designed the educational wing added in 1962. It includes classrooms, a huge church kitchen, dining rooms, and a full sized gymnasium. He also designed the TWA Terminal in NYC (now a hotel), Dulles Airport, and the St. Louis Arch.

here's a picture of the Luther Lounge in the Eero Saarinen wing:



Less famous, more modest churches can become the congregation's master; this one cracks the whip. The one very good thing about being a national landmark is that it enables us to apply for grants to help pay for repointing and replacing brickwork, reroofing, replacing worn out boilers, fixing damage from heavy rain, and so on. If it wasn't for the grants, the congregation would have been bankrupted.

Or it might have been run through a parish church compressor - a handy machine for reducing small, disorderly charming churches to standard sized gravel. Shards of stained glass can be set in mortar on the tops of stone walls to deter migratory populations.

Just joking. The parish church compressor was mentioned in an odd funny book published back in the '70s, The Universal Daisy Spacer. It included a plastic device to aid individuals in planting daisies precisely 2.73 inches apart. The objective of the author was to achieve an orderly world--or else.