"Social capital" — unenlightened

Your hostility towards the term indicates poverty of the same kind.

They are so public and have the ability to shape how people see their physical and social worlds. — T Clark

Exactly. And the opposite is true too--neighborhoods of ticky-tacky dreck with too much traffic, dirt, and dilapidation, where decay is slithering in around the edges. Sinks. Places where one feels an urge to let loose a big berserker caterpillar to devastate block after block -- just chewing its way through the architectural manure pile.

I would, of course, say what I said and you would, of course, say what you said, and we'll keep saying it most likely, because we are both ideologues. In saying that, I don't view you as any kind of enemy ideologue plotting an end run around my Maginot Line.

You are more the type to lay a siege and employ a trebuchet to hurl depressing texts over my high walls which do, over time, minutely undermine the enthusiasm to go on living of those whose viewpoints are subject to your bombardment. I, on the other hand, project positive sounding non-inferential dramas on my walls, which lure your troops into thinking that life might possibly, perhaps, be at least slightly worthwhile, after all.

Both of us can rest, assured that nobody is much persuaded by anything we say. Hell, they're not even listening, the sons of bitches.

Alas.

The People are in la la land. "If you aren't depressed it is only because you aren't paying attention" Snark the Great said.

We live in a time of "peak ideology" -- at least as far as the frequency of "ideology" in print.

(Google ngram)

'Ideology' has become a derogatory term, a brickbat thrown at one's opposition.

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "the ideology of republicanism"
synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual.
"a critique of bourgeois ideology"
archaic
visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. — Dictionary

Too bad it went sour, because it would otherwise be a useful word, to describe the necessary set of ideas and ideals one needs to organize one's life.

Usually ideology becomes a Maginot Line when a 'closed mind' is at work. But like the actual Maginot Line, ideology isn't a very good bulwark against one's enemies. Ideology makes one's world seem deceptively secure, and it is as long as one's enemies attack where they are supposed to, and not do an end run around one's defenses.

I find my enemies doing end runs around my ideological defenses all the time -- it's really quite annoying. Worse, they are aided by my stupid bleeding heart allies.

Philosophy should help. It really should, but it sometimes fails. Pulling in your other thread about desire, human emotions trump rational thought a good share of the time. Philosophers rely too much on the good offices of rationality. Everyone likes rationality, of course, as long as it is congenial to one's desires.

The many desires, the many powerful emotions of the animal overwhelm rationality with regularity, and it isn't enough to say we should be more rational. Ideology plus praxis is the kind of discipline we need. Lest the image of troops goose stepping along the streets of Nuremberg come to mind, that's not the kind of praxis I have in mind.

I was thinking more of the the kind of practice the ordinary good citizen deploys: volunteering time to local needs, helping neighbors in need, staying on the job and supporting one's self and family--and staying in the family, as well. Keeping informed of what is going on in the world; tending one's garden, all that stuff ordinary good citizens do.

The ordinary citizen ideologue knows that emotions do boil over at times, and either arranges a good time and place to expend the head of steam (maybe swimming laps or chopping wood) or finds a way of sublimating ones emotions for the good of civilization--a necessary and usually thankless task.

I don't know WHY we have consciousness, and I don't know HOW either. Probably nobody else does either, at this point. My guess is that consciousness has developed over time and that we are NOT the only creatures on earth who have consciousness. Probably Fido doesn't have as much consciousness as I do, and is almost certainly not conscious of his having consciousness, but he seems to interact with me as an at least somewhat conscious being.

Is our having consciousness a hard problem? I don't think so, but then I'm not a serious philosopher--or a psychologist either. If we weren't conscious it wouldn't be a problem at all. All I know is that a lot of smart people have been chipping away at this question and haven't so far come up with much. It may be that we can't.

There are more serious philosophers who will give you a run for your money. They'll be along shortly.

The good stuff of social capital comes from individuals in the form of their parenting, community activity, support of schools, all that. Their good contributions are given to children, neighbors, organizations, etc.

What I mean by the to and from bit, is "How do individuals who don't have much social capital get it now as adults?" It obviously isn't a cash payment or something that is in question. It's the experience of neighboring, mutual assistance with ordinary tasks, volunteering, going to meetings (and being constructive, of course), stuff like that.

Those who have not done these things may not know how. How do we teach them "how". (Obviously, you invite them to meetings, you help them shovel their walk if they can't, you invite them to block parties--blah, blah, blah. But people who don't have this kind of capital don't necessarily know what to do with what is offered them. One has to pass it on, give what one has received. That's the difficult part to teach.)

We can aim high, but what do we load the cannon with?

The George Washington Bridge -- under construction, I think... Margaret, again.

Here is one of the most horrifying pictures, Margaret Bourke-White: Her sitting out on this Chrysler Bldg. gargoyle...ready to be blown off and plummet to the street far below...

Fort Peck Dam, picture taken by Margaret Bourke-White, 1936. MBW specialized in industrial photography and found great beauty in the built world.

"feeling" is response of our body to a thought. — ahmad bilal

True. Thought does trigger feelings. Thinking of a lover who is dead can cause an array of feelings, some pleasant, some not at all pleasant. Feelings, emotions, are also responses to sensations. If you are walking along and you spot a poisonous snake in your path, you might have feelings (fear is quite common) before you can register anything else. If you see your best friend or lover, you may experience happiness before you think of anything.

As is the case with thinking and feeling, we are always engaged in an activity--existing is an activity. Sleep is an activity. To exist is to think and to do--something.

But then there is purposeful activity that is performed only occasionally. Most people are fairly purposeful about sex, cooking, eating, playing games, washing dishes, cleaning the kitchen floor, painting a wall, bathing, reading, etc. Quote often we choose an activity to get a particular emotion. We might go to a bar to experience whatever excitement happens there, or camaraderie, various stages of inebriation (drunkenness), or to find sex. Sex is exciting, pleasant (usually--if not do something else for a while), pleasurable, and later relaxing. We might go for a bike ride to feel exhilarated, or to feel confidence that we are healthy enough to ride for quite a while (whatever that is).

Sometimes we engage in activities to escape emotion--like going to the bar to escape boredom; going for a bike ride to escape ennui. We might go for a walk to reduce anxiety.

Anyway, activity, thought and emotion are a merry-go-round.

Bill Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." referencing his affair with Monica Lewinsky, an intern who made it big.

So, a single noun a sentence doesn't make, but can, none the less, convey all sorts of meaning, as "Bitcoin." does here.

What makes one a better person and who decides? — Harry Hindu

The person making the judgement decides on the basis of their set of standards. This is true whether we are talking about personhood or persons with superior features. "Jack is a better man than Joe because he is strong and honest." I prefer strong, honest men over weak, lying men. I think they are better persons. "Joe is a better carpenter than Jack because his houses are straight and true while Jack's are crooked and leaky." I happen to like houses with straight walls and roofs that do not leak.

Am I entitled to make these judgements about other people? Yes. Are you? Yes.

If you think being the best batter on the team makes you a superior person, that's your business. I don't happen to care that much. To me, being the best batter on the team is pretty much a matter of indifference. On the other hand, being the best batter on the team means he is a better ball player than the other people on the team, even if I am indifferent.

Making judgements about other people according to your opinion doesn't make you a relativist, if you are worried about that. It just makes you a person with opinions about other people, which puts you in the company if over 7 billion other people.

In this sentence "realize" is an action / transitive verb: "I realized I hate coconut." "I hate coconut" is the insight created by realized, and is the direct object of the transitive verb. "By selling these bonds I will realize a profit." Same here, will realize is a transitive verb, profit is the direct object.

Does that seem not-right to you?

If you didn't want to realize clichéd collocations before your very eyes you could have proffered a prediction or submitted a supposition. Who needs the hazards of guesses?

I'm not sure you were properly welcomed to The Philosophy Forum. Welcome. I am glad you are here.

quantum physics — ahmad bilal

True, quantum physics doesn't sit well with the naive picture of atoms as hard bits of matter in tiny little solar system atoms. Fortunately quantum physics works when it comes to us sitting down on a chair; the chair keeps us from landing on the floor; all those strong forces, weak forces, chair-supporting quarks and so forth.

Whatever we do, no matter how much we test our reality we can never know the absolute reality. All we know of reality is that it's bound to someone's perception and their way to thinking. — ahmad bilal

I agree that "absolute reality", whatever that is, is something we can not perceive, nor can we penetrate it with theory, like physicists did with quantum physics. (Unless quantum physics is ultimate reality, but I'm over my head here... best say no more.)

Getting back to souls...

I don't believe souls exist, but I would define "soul" as something that exists within us, is not physical, and continues to exist after we are physically dead. In common usage (everyday religion), it is "our soul" that goes to heaven. Christians claim to believe in "the resurrection of the body" -- that's what it says in the creed. What Christians actually seem to believe is that their "soul" will be transmitted directly to heaven (or hell, as the case may be). I don't believe in heaven or hell either, though heaven is a nice idea.

Whether we exist as bodies alone with all our mental apparatus, or whether we are physical beings plus a soul is a matter of belief; believing is seeing, in the case of the soul. Believers see it, non-believers don't. Well, believers don't "see it" because it isn't visible, but you probably get what I mean.

I would have used Billy Holiday's version of Body and Soul, but David Sederis ruined Billy Holiday with his Oscar Meyer wiener song, and Away in a Manger sung in his Billy Holiday voice.

By the way,

The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing. — Bitter Crank

the "believing is seeing" principle isn't limited to other-worldly things. When my partner drove downtown he could never find a parking place on the street. I kept telling him (and pointing at them) there were parking places -- it's Sunday night at 9:00 for christ's sake -- the only people down here are guys at the gay bars, and they aren't taking up all the parking places. "If you don't believe there are any parking places, you won't see them."

Internal is as real as external. — T Clark

Not differentiating the reality of the physical world (which is external, perceived by the senses) with the reality inside our heads (which include imagination, wishes, delusion, emotions, ideas, etc.) can get us into trouble pretty quickly.

We have to test reality carefully sometimes to make sure our perceptions are not wrong. The strong wish coupled with a delusion and backed up by emotions isn't as easily testable as whether or not the water is really deep, or only looks deep... whether ice is really thin or is very thick... because the rational machinery is involved in the delusion itself. That's why we can go off half cocked about something, and stay that way for a long time.

Granted, sane intelligent people do manage to self-monitor the traffic between their ears and identify screwy thinking reasonably often. But we same people can also miss the boat on self-monitoring fairly often.

It exists in your reality if you believe in it. — ahmad bilal

Yes. And so does god, the devil, hell, heaven, angels, and all other heavenly unworldly or otherworldly things.

On the other hand, the physical world exists whether you believe in it or not

The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing.

Unlike the reaction of moderators here when they encounter the word "race" (grand mal seizures and severe blistering--like shingles) I experience only slight itching when I see the word "soul". Clearly Sap gets fairly itchy around such words.

Soul, on the other hand, is ill-defined and seemingly mythical. — Sapientia

Soul is going to stay ill-defined because it is a vague mythical concept. As I said to Ahmed above,

We can refer to the soul, spirit, and essence and get away with vague meanings because there is a general agreement that "soul" has a private meaning for individuals. We all don't have to agree about what the soul is. It is "something that people think is an important part of themselves" even if it is invisible in both substance and action. — Bitter Crank

"Spirit" is another one of those vague words people get away with using; it has so many meanings. The "spirit" of the law, a horse with "spirit", "spirit" duplicator (used in schools for duplicating souls), wine, beer, and "spirits", "she's very spiritual", wtftm, and so on.

As a member of the National Council of English Majors, I'll first critique your writing, because NCEM's enjoy torturing people that way.

Hi, im new here and i have a thing for thinking. I write sometimes but i am unable to discuss maturity and ability to convey my thoughts on paper with anyone. Here is something i wrote: — ahmad bilal

Many native speakers have started off their threads with writing about the same as yours. It's OK. A grammar point: " maturity" and "ability" are nouns here intended to describe the infinitive. verb "to discuss". They should be adverbs, words that modify verbs. So, "I am unable to discuss maturely and ably".

"Imagine that earth is our body and moon is our soul. Both are among each other at all times but we cannot see the moon in day light and it lights our way at night and guides our oceans. — ahmad

Calling the earth our body and the moon our soul is a metaphor, a very common device in poetry and prose both. The earth is a concrete thing, solid, the soul isn't a solid thing. You make them both solid, earth and moon. You could also say the earth is our body, the wind is our soul -- the wind being lighter and different than the earth.

Just like we are unaware of our soul when we are occupied by worldy matters but as soon as we are in darkness and despair it guides us through it. It draws its light from the devine as the moon draws its light from the sun. — ahmad

One hopes the soul can do that -- maybe the soul has it's own dark nights of despair, then where does guidance come from?

Our soul has << a >> significant role in each moment of our life but we are unaware of its presence because it is present in the void and it is communicating with << the >> body through the void. As << the >> void itself has presence and it encapsulates all that exists. — ahmad

It's my life, singular, or our lives, plural. Native speakers have problems with this too. I don't know what you mean in this paragraph -- a soul in the void communicates with the body through the void, and then the void itself is present... Just don't get that part. The meaning is obscure.

If we want to know how seperated our soul is from our body.. We should see how separated << the >>moon is from >> the >> earth, compared to the size of this whole universe. They look like they are one, yet << are >> separated.". — ahmad

Please identify weak points and please guide how i can i think to think better?[/quote]

So, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a soul, and I am pretty sure nobody knows what it is, exactly, whether they believe in it or not. It's the "spirit" or "essence" of someone or something. We can refer to the soul, spirit, and essence and get away with vague meanings because there is a general agreement that "soul" has a private meaning for individuals. We all don't have to agree about what the soul is. It is "something that people think is an important part of themselves" even if it is invisible in both substance and action.

Some police won't wave "soul" through the intersection; they'll stop and question it. "Just what do you mean be "soul" they'll ask. They'll protest "There is no such thing as the soul". They will demand you justify the use of the word "soul". Most people will, however, wave your soul on, and won't demand explanations.

Be aware that "soul" and "spirit" have a lot of religious connotations. The "soul" is loaded with issues in other words. Soul is by no means the only word that causes unexpected reactions. For instance, the word "race" has been known to give certain moderators of the site seizures and severe rashes. They twitch, foam at the mouth, proclaim various nonsensical ideas, and break out in painful blisters, something like severe herpes infections. So be careful about using the word "race".

Of course, politicians already have come up with these ideas, and put them into effect. In fact, it's been done several times on a very large scale. Turkey did it to the Armenians, The British let the Irish starve, the Europeans did what they could to get the Native populations in the Western Hemisphere out of the way, the Hutus did it to the Tutsis in Rwanda, Pol Pot did it, Mao did it, Stalin did it, Hitler did it, and if you want to go back far enough, the Eurasia Steppe People did it to the people who were living in Europe at the time, around 4,000 BC, give or take a millennia or two. Maybe we all did it to the Denisovians and Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. It's an ancient tradition.

Once people get on a mass murder kick, there isn't any Humanism so elevated that it will make any difference. Germany had loads of elevated Humanism on hand before Hitler came along, and he put it into deep cold storage for the duration.

I don't see anything inherently against disabled people in doing that. — Sapientia

And just because we think some traits are better than other traits like having two legs to walk on rather than none; or having properly functioning eyes and ears; doesn't mean that the obvious next step is sending out the poison gas vans to despatch everybody who fails to be "better".

Some people fear that if we admit that some people are "better" than that means everybody who isn't better is worthless. Not so. For one thing, if you list all the traits upon which we might rate people, the list will be very long, and no one will be better at all of them.

you are what you are. — Sir2u

Damn.

A guy with a very high score spends his time spending his rich wife's money in fancy restaurants, gyms and fine clothes — Sir2u

What's the matter with that? :naughty:

where do you draw the line? — Plato'sView

Give me a pencil. :naughty:

RP: What is the "crack whore conundrum"?

We need to build a society that can see that buying a gun to protect from people who are in turn are buying them doing the same is screwing Freedom, Liberty and being "ok" into an early grave. — Robert Peters

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Guns tend to make everything look like a target.

A move, in media, — Robert Peters

The world portrayed by mass media and advertising (whether print, broadcast, cable, or Internet) is grossly distorted in too many ways to describe quickly. This isn't a new situation; the reality portrayed by newspapers, radio, and television has always been quite distorted by the dominant interests of the owners. This is still true, but some outlets (the half-hour news programs constructed by local television stations) devote a substantial portion of the news-time to the city as a very dangerous place of robberies, fires, murders, and car crashes. It's very formulaic - if it bleeds it leads. There will be maybe one or two 45-secomd to 60-secomd stories about politics or the environment, then they talk at great length about the weather and sports.

Better to just stop looking at it.

Skip the news on commercial television and radio. Read a well edited newspaper that is nationally distributed (New York Times, Wall Street Journal) on line or occasionally in print. Find a few weekly or monthly magazines that are heavy on content (The Economist, for example, or Scientific American) to stay informed about major events. There is a lot of good, solid, and important information out there, but you have to seek it out.

some people are more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent... [and] motivated. Other people have none of these traits. — Purple Pond

Would you prefer to be In the first group or the second, and why?

I would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, than less so, because higher levels of these features enable one to engage the human and physical world more successfully. Why would one not prefer that? People who have these traits are "better" than those who lack these features.

IF one would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, apparently one thinks it would be better. Can one logically prefer to be talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, and then say "everyone is of equal worth"? If we, ourselves, would prefer to place ourselves in the "better" category, then we are not entitled to claim that everyone is equal, regardless of the undesirable traits they have.

There are some nasty elements throughout history in comparing humans. Eugenicists and social Darwinists thought that some people are better than others and it's the duty of society to weed out the 'junk humans' to promote a healthy human society. — Purple Pond

Do genetics disease specialists add the "eu" to their field (eugenics) when they give reproduction advice to individuals who are carriers of heritable diseases, especially the really bad ones? Apparently the genetic disease doctors think that it is better that some people should not be born.

What about some future day (probably not that far off) when we can change the germ line (what we inherit through genes) to eliminate certain disadvantageous features, and enhance advantageous ones?

You and Sapientia seem to be in need of couple's therapy.

I'm familiar with the fear of the unknown, but the "ironic fear of the unknown" is less familiar.

Open the door and walk right in, preferably during business hours.

'm so curious though; mainly about what type of person will be behind the counter. — Noble Dust

What would be so scary that you would be reluctant to go into this bookstore? The Spanish Inquisition?

Just out of curiosity, where did you stumble across "Propaedeutics"? Nice obscure word.

Most people's gut reaction will be "Yes, obviously -- some people are a whole lot better than other people" and if they feel they are among friendly company, they may list just who all are better, and (more likely) who all are worse.

You need to decide whether you want to distinguish "personhood" from "specific traits of a person". All persons, supposedly, are sacred beings of equal value regardless of whether they are healthy, sick, smart, stupid, sane, crazy, honest, thieving liars, and so forth. On the other hand, most of us are not going to waste too much time on the sacred worth of the person who is in the process of stealing our car after beating us up. Shoot the son of a bitch, sacred worth or not!

Parents value their children as persons of sacred worth, even if the child is affected by disabilities. People continue to love their partners who develop severe mental illness. Friends stand by the murderer.

Christians are supposed to differentiate the sin from the sinner. (Hate the sin, love the sinner.) You might not be Christian, but the distinction is still there to be accepted or rejected. Without an interpersonal connection or relationship, most of us are probably more or less inclined to reject the distinction. People who behave like shit ARE shit. Bad acts are performed repeatedly by people who are bad. You can get away with one bad act, maybe, but 5 bad acts in a row and you are scum, filth, and dirt.

So what's your decision, Purple Pond? Good people do bad shit, or only bad people do bad shit. And what if bad people do something good? Then what.

I noticed there was a Waldorf site that had a list of his books. I'm not knocking Steiner -- I really don't know anything about him.

In fact, I have rarely read anything that isn't a computer programming related book — MasterSplinger

So, it would probably be a good idea to NOT start with hard core texts by philosophers who, truth be told, are fairly often unable to write their way out of a wet paper bag.

If there is a philosopher who interests you (like this Rudolph Steiner) start by reading about him. Not so much biography, but books which summarize what he said. (this might be a chapter in a book about many philosophers.)

Amazon has several Steiner books, mostly available on Kindle (which as a computer person you know can be read on other devices with the Kindle app), and a few about him, like:

Rudolf Steiner: His Life, Work, Inner Path and Social Initiatives (Social ecology series)1987
by Rudi Lissau
Paperback
$2.99(23 used & new offers)

The Beauty of Anthroposophy, or:: What's Scientific About Spiritual Science? (Anthroposophical Studies Book Kindle Edition
by Frederick Amrine

Frederick Amrine is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of German at the University of Michigan. He has been an anthroposophist his entire adult life. Besides Rudolf Steiner, his other interests are Goethe and the Goethezeit, German and English Romanticism, and modernism -- especially The Blue Rider, Freud, and Jung. He has a deep connection with Owen Barfield and Joseph Beuys.

Rudolf Steiner, Life and Work Volumes 1, 2, 3 by Peter Selg and so on...

Whether reading about a philosopher is easier than reading the philosopher himself depends on the writer. Like I said, I don't know anything about R. S. so, can't really tell you anything about who to read.

As you come across difficult words (philosophy has a few) write them down along with the definition. Tedious, but helpful. Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are all places to look.

What works with Steiner will work with other philosophers too -- approach them indirectly first, read about them before you tackle their main books.

Youtube has some stuff on Steiner too.

Good luck. Hey, welcome, and let us know how this goes. Don't be afraid to give up on Steiner if it all seems just too, too obscure, and don't be embarrassed to tell us he's the greatest thing since sliced salami.

When I speak of life-changing experiences I don't mean to refer to events that merely change the course of one's life; I am speaking of events which alter the whole orientation of one's being. Love can do that — Janus

Most of us do not have life-changing experiences on the order of the Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Usually we have small-scale experiences that lack the voltage to remake our whole orientation toward life.

I am not at all certain that had I a choice, I would choose a road-to-Damascus type experience. It was good for Saul/Paul, but there would be no guarantees about the kind of metanoia one would experience. It might be an unmitigated disaster.

Love is good bet. Love is an unplanned disruption.We can not choose to desire; one can't choose to fall in love. It just happens, (or it doesn't). We can change ourselves through learning, practice, persistent effort, working toward a worthy goal, but this won't have that ZAP! experience you spoke of. We can keep ourselves open to new experiences, and maybe something surprising and worthwhile will com of that.

The federal government spends, and has spent, a great deal of money on causes which are not especially worthwhile. Iraq, Afghanistan, tax rebates for the wealthy, agricultural subsidies, industrial tax breaks, and so forth. The figure for all these things runs into the trillions, for which we have almost nothing to show.

Some inflation seems to be thought essential In a capitalist economy, provided the volume of economic activity is solid. While the UBI would increase government spending, at the same time other government spending would be eliminated: The various state welfare and unemployment programs, food security programs, and so forth might amount to 1 trillion dollars a year. Were a UBI to be instituted, most of these welfare and unemployment programs would disappear (because they would be redundant).

Does this pass your muster as amusing pseudo-economics?

it will be inevitable that the political pressure from the left side will lead to an unsustainable high UBI, as the mere socialist rhetoric of social rights (read entitlements) will dominate the elections. — Kitty

The left yammers about social rights a lot, true enough (it's dirty work but somebody has to do it) but not since the Johnson Administration has a major new program been instituted (Johnson instituted Medicare In the 1960s) and welfare payments are niggardly*** despite all the socialists complaints, even in northern liberal states. I'm not counting Obama care as a significant new program--it's still not clear it will exist very long or in what form.

*** Note to politically correct persons: 'Niggardly' is neither derived from nor is the source of the word 'nigger'. So just relax. You all have hereby been headed off at the pass.