-
Wouldn't we be better off without most of the labels we apply to ourselves?The labels may be pragmatically useful at various times, but they don't really tell us about who those people really are, or what they're really thinking. It just allows us, in some limited circumstances, to predict behaviour. — Agustino
So, if you don't identify and yes, label behaviors, traits, tendencies, fluidity, and all that, how is it that you eventually get to know who people "really are"?
Hmm I don't think such labels work very well. — Agustino
There are a set of labels that describe what you do for a living. I don't mean "moves fingers around on a keyboard" but rather things like "analyzes problems", "develops solutions", "identifies flaws in sub-routines" and so on. 2 or 3 labels of that sort don't cover what you do, but maybe 20 labels would.
When I say "label" I don't mean things like "stupid", unless deficiency of intelligence really is the feature being labeled. "Stupid" is a bad label because it just indicates dislike for something.
Sure, there is some fluidity in behavior, but behaviors are not so fluid that we can never guess what someone is going to do next.
The independent one seems to me to be inherently superior (not in an existential sense) to the other one, because the independent one can achieve a degree of freedom that is unavailable to the other one. In other words, he seems to have a "skill" that the other lacks. Am I wrong about this? — Agustino
The independent one is inherently superior IF he is going at being independent, and is good at charting his own course. Some mavericks who are very independent thinkers characteristically end up not getting the results they want because they are just not very good at being independent.
We couldn't have this discussion if we weren't using labels.
People like their own labels, they tend not to like the labels that get stuck to them. -
On GuiltLet me add that in happy families, the share of time spent on discipling children so that they feel enough guilt to behave well is pretty short. Children learn pretty quickly that there are some things they should not do, or they will get into trouble, and they don't like being punished (even if punishment is being put in a corner to be quiet for 5 minutes). A lot of time is spent on rewarding children for doing the things they ought to do -- little pats on the head, encouraging words, stuff like that. It isn't that children should be constantly punished for doing bad things, or that they should be constantly rewarded for doing good things. They learn, and once they learn, they tend to remember what is good to do, and what is not good to do.
Now, we have all witnessed families, haven't we? where one or both parents seems to be on the warpath with their children all the time. This isn't healthy or desirable, and indicates problems with the adults being a bit crazy. Or a lot crazy. -
On GuiltYes, and no.
While it is the case that children, and some other animals besides humans, reveal some innate willingness to share and help each other, this doesn't automatically develop into a system of moral behavior.
Calling disciplining and training children "indoctrinating" tips your hand. But OK, yes, we have to indoctrinate children about:
Rule #1, there is a right and wrong in life
Rule #2, provide the details of what is right and wrong as they get older
Most people successfully teach there children rules #1 and #2. The details of what the rules are may vary a little bit, but not too much.
I am not at all sure that young children would develop useful guides to social behavior if left to their own devices. In any event, young children left to their own devices are not going to survive. We require care for quite a few years before we can survive on our own. The built in "tendency" to display "limited" empathy, sharing, and helping behavior is limited. Those desirable traits are not so instinctive that they will blossom into a fully fledged moral system. They need to be trained in.
"Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving" is a joke among people who feel guilty all the time, but in a way it is true. "Guilt" is the mainspring of moral behavior. We don't like feeling guilt, so we tend to behave in ways that minimize the likelihood that we will feel guilty.
I would lie, cheat, and steal if I wouldn't feel guilty about it. But I sometimes feel guilty for absolutely no reason at all. Having been raised as a good Protestant, there must be something I should feel guilty about. Guilt helps us behave well when there is no one around to observe us behaving badly--at least most of the time. Sometimes the grip of guilt slips, and then we do things we later regret--feel guilt about.
The trick -- and it isn't too difficult a trick because a lot of people pull it off -- is to raise children with enough guilt that they behave well, but not so much guilt that they are tied up in knots. -
Why am I the same person throughout my life?Why am I the same person throughout my life?
There are several factors.
1. You have not forgotten 99.9% of your memories. Most of your mental functions are non-conscious; your memories are alive and well in this department. When you need a memory, non-conscious brain operations will provide it to you. (((Or not. Things do get forgotten, and there is always that business of not remembering who somebody is that you "you know you know" but you can't think of their name. All that stuff is normal.)))
2. While it is the case, as Heraclitus said, that you never step into the same river twice, the world is pretty stable for all practical purposes. You are part of the world, and you too remain pretty stable. If you de-stableize too much, you will be declared dead. Since you are posting here, you are probably still alive. Just guessing.
3. Some of the atoms in your brain are coming and going in fairly heavy traffic because you seem to be still alive. But just because there is trafficking of atoms and molecules in your brain doesn't mean that everything in there is being chewed up and lost. Your body does get renewed completely several times during your lifetime (with a few exceptions, one being a lot of those neurons inside your skull), but the shape of the structure stays the same.
I know I do feel like I'm the same person, but say that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, there will be an unimaginably huge amount of people who also think that they are me, does that mean all of them actually are? Does that mean that the woman who thinks she is a reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe actually is Marilyn Monroe? — A disturbed person
Forget about the many worlds of quantum mechanics. It's speculative and it isn't going to make any difference, anyway. It's not your problem.
The woman who thinks she is a reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe may enjoy thinking she is, and as long as she isn't annoying everyone by constantly trying to sing "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" or obsessing about her affair with President Kennedy, she's probably harmless.
4. Who else would you be?
I bet that whatever you feel, there is a lot of continuity in it. That is, you aren't constantly feeling like you have become somebody else, or are losing the continuity of identity that you had several days ago. Ideas sometimes occur to us that just aren't that helpful, and we waste time thinking about it. Like the many worlds business. There may be other universes, but as far as we know, we aren't going there.
So relax. Or get busy -- whatever is on your list of things to do. -
The Illusion of FreedomI guess somebody already said it, but I don't see how we could possibly figure out whether we have free will or not, IF we start from the idea that there is a long, winding chain of causation. The chain of causation would result in our ideas about causation and free will, whether either or both exist.
Are there many chains of causation determining everything that happens, and clear causation (earth and apple attracting each other until the stem of the apple fails, falling on your face as you lay sleeping on your back under the heavily laden big-apple tree, breaking your glasses, and causing a severe injury to your eyes which causes you to go blind, preventing you from writing, etc...)? Can a system of causation create openings of non-determined situations which an animal can make a choice in? -
Wouldn't we be better off without most of the labels we apply to ourselves?I don't think that being in tune with one's interiority means being a complete narcissist and filtering everything through one's self. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I agree.
I believe that it means finding what transcends the self and connects all of us. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I'm not sure that we can transcend our selves, but we certainly can find connections.
Do you mean autotelic? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
No. Inner directed people rely more on their own, developed beliefs, priorities, and self-confidence to decide what they should do. They tend not to care so much about what other people think they should do. Other directed people tend to reference their peers, authorities, social norms, and so forth to get directions about what to do next. It isn't all one or all the other. Of course, we all rely on our own sense, and the sense of the group, when we make decisions. It's a matter of emphasis.
Thoreau's man who marches to the beat of a different drummer is inner directed. The man who votes with the majority (assuming the majority will be right) is other directed. One is not more moral than the other. The independent soul and his different drummer can be terribly mistaken about their marching orders.
I started this thread by suggesting that we are overdoing it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
It's a matter of preference, I think, as to whether we say we use labels freely or that "we don't like to label people". I'm a labeler. I sort people, places, and things into pigeon holes. It's the way I deal with the world. I like to know who's who and what's what. Labels help me do that. The trick is using the right label. Some people are crazy. "Crazy" isn't a very good label; it's too vague. "Narcissistic personality disorder", to use a currently popular label, is much more precise. Schizophrenic" is not as precise as it sounds. Neither is "felon" or "holy man" or "mechanic". Airplane mechanic? Ship mechanic? Auto mechanic? Good mechanic? -
Against All Nihilism and AntinatalismYou are more informed than I am about art, clearly. It just seems to me that the velocity of change in the last third of 19th century was so much higher than in previous centuries, and the velocity has stayed fast. But then, the velocity of change across the board sped up in the 19th century, and has continued. So, what shall we attribute this to? Science, technology, industrialism, capitalism (its ability to mobilize and deploy resources very rapidly), population growth, two world wars (which also led to a fast mobilization and deployment of resources), empires (like the B.E.) which concentrate resources, and so on? All those things are disruptors of equanimity and settled belief.
On the other hand, nihilism seems to have gotten an early start in Russia which in the 19th century was not on the cutting edge of progress. And that, could it be, is because the absolute (and sometimes stupid) despotism of the Romanovs, and the social system in Russia, left little room for philosophical dissidents to maneuver? The church, the state (in the person of the Tsar), and the landowning class were a smothering layer?
Or was nihilism a broader, earlier development throughout Europe? I guess I'll have to turn to the Internet to get some background. Unless you happen to have a nice capsule history... -
Against All Nihilism and AntinatalismImagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me. — praxis
If you went to an art exhibit in 1817, 1917, and 2017, you would have seen huge changes in artistic production between 1817 and 1917; between 1917 and 2017, it's quite possible (depending on the selections, that you would think things hadn't changed very much at all in the previous century.
Besides, is constant change inherent to art? Is there something wrong with art if doesn't change faster than women's wear fashion? What makes art change rapidly? It could be that it is driven, or pulled along, by a very strong demand by art buyers for novelty. Should we hand out awards to cultures that maintain a style for a long time, or only reward cultures that are always changing?
Personally, Praxis, I'd probably find Egyptian stability stultifying, but there is something to say for less hectic change. -
On GuiltGuilt is the gift that keeps on giving.
I've felt guilty a lot -- sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.
Guilt is a critical piece of child development: guilt and fear. Sounds medieval? Well, I don't mean it that way. When children are raised, they are usually disciplined regularly (I don't mean cruelly beaten, or anything like that.) When children are punished for doing something their parents don't want them to do (like throwing a tantrum on the bus, in the supermarket, at church, whatever) the parents will spank the child, speak harshly, isolate the child for a while (solitary confinement in a "quiet space") and the like.
To the child, the punishment is frightening, because they fear the parent will withdraw their love and care. (We were always threatened with being sent to bed without supper, or being forced to get out of the car and walk home). The fear of punishment is learned, and internalized.
Guilt comes along with internalized morals: internalized fear. The child knows what he is supposed to do and supposed to not do, but sometimes does it anyway. Because the fear of punishment is internalized, he feels fear (called guilt) when he does something wrong.
Sounds awful, but this is what enables us to go through life obeying laws, not cheating, not stealing, not being unspeakably nasty to other people because they got in your way, and so on. In fact, it helps us be nice to other people, it helps us to be moral individuals.
Some people who have a brain disorder that interferes with the fear/guilt/obedience mechanism are classified as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths" to varying degrees. They don't feel guilt, and they can't feel responsible for what they do -- though cognitively they are perfectly capable of understanding guilt and responsibility. But they don't feel it, and feeling it is where the rubber hits the road.
So, a little guilt is a good and necessary thing, a lot of guilt is destructive.
When one feels guilty a lot, (like if one is religious, is gay, and can't square the religious condemnation of what one can not help but feel), then something has to give. Usually, and it's the best outcome, people decide their morals are too rigid, are incorrect, or just plain wrong. The alternative is to tear one's self to shreds feeling guilty for what one IS and can not change.
My solution to the Christian/gay/guilt problem was to decide that the church was wrong. Fortunately there were several religious organizations handy to facilitate this conclusion.
So, you can beat guilt. It doesn't mean you have to throw the moral bath water and the baby of principles out the back door. What you have to do is, maybe change the bath water and teach the baby better principles that come closer to matching your personal situation.
Good luck.
"In the name of mumble mumble mumble I hereby absolve you of all your sins. Go in peace." -
Poll: out of body and near death experiencesPlastic bag -- come on! I'm more technically sophisticated than that!
-
Poll: out of body and near death experiencesI'm having an out of body near death experience right now. Oops, got too close. Bye...
-
What's soupA doll house is not big enough for people to live in; is it a house? It is, yes. Even if it's a rather imaginary space, something a child has conjured up, it is "house" in as much as it is space divided up, and given a "roof" for shelter, even if for imaginary objects in imagined situations.
So, the doll's rocking char is no problem. It has the form of wooden rocking chairs, and if a rat sat in it, the rat could rock. Rat rocking contentedly, Hickory hickory dare; the rat rocks in the chair.
is this a table and chair or is it a "sculpture" as it is termed, put in a London park to encourage people to be creative? If an ordinary object is changed in scale, does it cease having the form that gives it identity? Hmmm, don't know about that.
-
Bukowski's novel WomenBukowski wrote somewhere that bars were ruined by TVs. — dog
I'll drink to that. Video killed the bar stool star, too, I guess. Good bars don't have TVs, or music so loud you can't hear anyone talk. That's not accidental--when people can't hear anyone (can't hear themselves think, practically) they buy/drink more booze. I always thought the reason to go to a bar was to talk and/or get laid, certainly not to watch television. -
Bukowski's novel WomenThey didn't have to be Batman or Mick Jagger to live noble lives. — dog
Mick Jagger lives a noble life? -
What is the mind?I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean?
We know from experience that when we give people certain anesthetic drugs (an + aisthēsis, sensation) systemically they become unconscious. When they wake up they have no memory from the period of unconsciousness. Sleep is similar, but we often wake up with what we believe are memories from that state -- dreams.
When we wire up the box in which the mind is presumably located, we know that whatever is going on inside the box keeps going on during sleep, and anesthesia, though not quite the same as when the person is awake. The EEG trace is not something we can read to see what we were thinking about, if anything.
FMRIs provide similar information about what is going on in the box, whether we are awake or not.
We can't get outside of our heads to objectively view our minds, and we can't directly observe somebody else's mind.
If we switch to what the brain is doing, we can make a little more sense of what is going on. -
What's soupA chair is a portable piece of furniture on which it is intended 1 person will sit with back support.
A chair is designed so that it will not fall over easily while in use. Four legs is the most common solution for stability, but other solutions are possible. A chair may include structures on which to rest one's arms. The legs of a chair may be attached to curved wood pieces so that a limited rocking motion can be made. The chair may be made out of wood only, metal only, plastic only, other material, or a combination. The chair may be hard or covered with cloth, leather, plastic, and padding. Parts of the chair may be movable so that one can recline in the chair instead of sitting upright.
The height of a chair seat is usually such that most people can rest their feet on the floor while using the chair.
Chairs A, B, C, & D; all different, all obviously chairs.
Christiansen
Saarinen
Marcel Breuer
Avant Guard
-
What's soupThe difference between soup and stew is thickness, usually. Unless nothing worked out right, in which case soup and stew are indistinguishable.
In the midwest "chili" is all too often hamburger-kidney bean-tomato stew. -
Bukowski's novel WomenPOLITICS IS LIKE TRYING TO SCREW A CAT IN THE ASS
"Dear Mr. Bukowski:
Why don't you ever write about politics or world affairs?"
M.K.
"Dear M.K.:
What for? Like, what's new? --- everybody knows the bacon is burning."
I think that if Adolph Hitler were around now he would pretty much enjoy the present scene.
what's there to say about politics and world affairs? the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban crisis, spy planes, spy ships, Vietnam, Korea, lost H-bombs, riots in American cities, starvation in India, purge in Red China? are there good guys and bad guys? some that always lie, some that never lie? are there good governments and bad governments? no, there are only bad governments and worse governments. will there be a flash of light and heat that rips us apart one night while we are screwing or crapping or reading the comic strips or pasting blue-chip stamps into a book? instant death is nothing new, nor is mass instant death new. but we've improved the product; we've had these centuries of knowledge and culture and discovery to work with; the libraries are fat and crawling and overcrowded with books; great paintings sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; medical science is transplanting the human heart; you can't tell a madman from a sane one upon the streets, and suddenly we find our lives, again, in the hands of the idiots. the bombs may never drop; the bombs might drop. eeney, meeney, miney, mo
now if you'll forgive me, dear readers, I'll get back to the whores and the horses and the booze, while there's time. if these contain death, then, to me, it seems far less offensive to be responsible for your own death than the other kind which is brough to you fringed with phrases of Freedom and Democracy and Humanity and/or any of all that Bullshit. — Charles Bukowski -
Bukowski's novel WomenI haven't read any Bukowski for many years, and I don't think I read Woman. I enjoyed his short stories a lot. A year or two ago I made an effort to read Kerouac and some of the other Beats I hadn't read when I should have, back in the 1960s; It was "OK". I liked Ginsberg's beatnik era poetry. I've tried Henry Miller several times and just don't like his stuff. Burroughs was not too bad. A reviewer said, "Bukowski is a disgraceful role model for any aspiring writer but he writes with extraordinary candor and conviction." Maybe not all that disgraceful, but he'd be a difficult act to top.
When I read him, the internet was in the future we now occupy. Just fished this poem out.
we are always asked
to understand the other person's
viewpoint
no matter how
out-dated
foolish or
obnoxious.
one is asked
to view
their total error
their life-waste
with
kindliness,
especially if they are
aged.
but age is the total of
our doing.
they have aged
badly
because they have
lived
out of focus,
they have refused to
see.
not their fault?
whose fault?
mine?
I am asked to hide
my viewpoint
from them
for fear of their
fear.
age is no crime
but the shame
of a deliberately
wasted
life
among so many
deliberately
wasted
lives
is. — Charles Bukowski -
Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!I believe the unit belonging to the handle, "ProgrammingGodJordan" may be having delusions of grandeur, just from the handle alone. Beliefism is for the birds.
-
Wouldn't we be better off without most of the labels we apply to ourselves?Just because something is natural does not mean it is a good idea or should be a high priority. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Well, sure, true enough. Just because one's murderous rages are natural doesn't mean one should give free rein to them. Or just because the pie is so delicious, doesn't mean one should, therefore, eat the whole thing at one time.
On the other hand, just because something like wanting to belong is natural doesn't make it something to lament and overcome.
I am not convinced that people would not benefit from getting in touch more with their own interiority and worrying less about what jigsaw puzzle piece they are and where in the external puzzle they fit. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Of course people should know themselves more thoroughly. The unexamined life is not worth living, and all that. I am, and you, I should think, are also an inner directed person. Inner directed people generally know the territory of their interiority somewhat better than other directed folk. (One is not better than the other; different features have different advantages at different times.) Other directed folk probably get other people better than I do.
A shortage of labels makes it difficult to think clearly about one's self and about other people. One needs many pigeon holes and many labels to sort out the features of ourselves and others. "Nice guy" and "asshole" aren't quite enough categories. We are, I think, much more alike than we are different, but we are still all composed of many components. Components combine into various types of thinking and personalities. It gets complicated. -
How much can I, as an individual, affect political policy?One individual citizen usually can not sway public policy at all. There are exceptions: You might be presented with the opportunity to do something remarkable, and it might be photographed and published. Think of that guy who stood in front of the column of tanks rolling into Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. His brave act didn't bring a government down, but he made a political point that rolled across China.
Or think of the many thousands of people who individually and collectively worked to reduce discrimination against gay people in the 1970s or against black people in the 1960s. A lot of the work was carried out by very small groups of people planning and acting in their local communities. Sure, there were huge political demonstrations, but that was late in the game. In the beginning, it was mostly individuals and small groups.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead
Individual citizens always play a role in social, civil, and political change by making choices in their personal actions that support change. An example is when individuals won't cross a picket line to shop at a store where workers are on strike. This is usually not much of a sacrifice, but it helps.
Inform yourself. Decide what kind, or what specific issue(s) you find important and urgent. Read the literature of large groups. For instance, you might check out the Nature Conservancy or Sierra Club if the environment is your issue. Find your group.
But there are always local issues which are a piece of larger issues. Maybe there are people in your immediate neighborhood that have difficulty navigating because they have mobility problems (use wheelchairs or walkers) and the city hasn't made curb cuts at the corners which enable people with mobility problems to use the sidewalks more easily. (Assuming there are sidewalks, of course -- which a lot of places don't have.) One individual becoming a thorn in the side of a city council person or city bureaucrat can often get the city to do things.
You will probably find your city and county government more accessible than the state government, and the state government will be more accessible than the federal government. That's OK, because a lot of what government does is done at the local level. -
Wouldn't we be better off without most of the labels we apply to ourselves?
So, you are a non-drinking non-smoking belief transcending New Yorker with overtones of post-modernist pragmatic tendencies. OK, then, your group is meeting in suite 15-129. Lots of people for you to get to know up there.
NEXT
Labels didn't hurt Steve Miller's Joker
I'm a picker
I'm a grinner
I'm a lover
I'm a sinner
I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a mid-night toker
We have terms for things, conditions, places, people, animals, times, behaviors, landscapes, and so forth. All LABELS. I can't get along without them.
Labels reach into the most privy parts of our personalities to pin down properties that we might prefer to be left free to wander from their named corral. But if we can't name them, what can we think about, talk about, know about, do about them?
The great discovery of each homosexual is that there is a label for what he feels, and the existence of a label leads to the knowledge that he is not the only one. Homosexuals (gays) may be despised and/or damned to hell, destined for a life of aesthetic superiority, or any number of labeled fates, but at least there is a category into which they fit. The label enables a linking up of many more labels that eventually adds up to knowledge. It's axiomatic that we social animals do not want to be so unique that we don't resemble anyone else. We don't really want to be "one of a kind".
So, we label. The problem is not labelling, the problem is slipshod labelling, or the pasting on of descriptors and tags that don't correspond to the object (person, condition, color, politics, etc.). Were you to have been raised among people who practiced no religion, had no superstitions, had never heard of incorporeal beings, and were entirely innocent of doctrine, neither "believer", nor "unbeliever" would be an appropriate label. The usual labels would just not fit. You might be labeled "innocent of religion."
The problem isn't labeling, the problem is coercive labeling which might be ever after inescapable. "Felon", "terrorist", "Christ killer", "nigger", "white trash", "faggot", "retarded", "sex maniac", "criminal", "narcissistic personality disorder". Negative labels can be a burden, and mislead. But so can positive labels when misapplied: "Presidential", "genteel", "distinguished", "inspired", "brilliant", "faithful", "royal", "Christ-like" and numerous other words, negative and positive can have outsized effects. Dorothy Day (founder of the Catholic Worker Movement) said, "Don't call me a saint. I don't want to be dismissed that easily." "Saints" are too good to be true for this world. Much admired, they are quite ignorable. Incorrect positive labels can lead to abject failures. -
The trolley problem - why would you turn?Thank you for providing moral clarity here:
It is not morally permissible to kill innocent people no matter how handy it might be to get rid of someone. The trolley problem is trying to get people to engage in sacrificial conduct. — Thorongil's Link -
Is Experience definable?an eye opened up onto the world — michael r d james
Not that it makes a bit of difference, but the first eyes did not have lids that opened and closed. They were light receptors wired into a nervous system. No blinking back then. No eye rolling. Just the simple organism with some light receptors sloshing around in the swamp. Eventually eyelids were invented so that higher creatures could avoid looking at disagreeable features of reality. -
On the possible form of a omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, GodWelcome to The Philosophy Forum.
Question: Where did the formulation of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent come from? What is the textual support?
I am opposed to this formulation because it seems to me to be
a. meaningless in human context
b. beyond human conception
One can toss the term "omnipresent" around, but can we understand a being who we say is present in all moments everywhere throughout time? And beyond that, knows everything there was, is, and will be to know, and can do anything about it that he, she, or it so desires?
I don't think we can get our time/space/knowledge-limited brains around such a being endowed with these infinite characteristics. We also lay at the feet of this being responsibility for everything that has happened, is happening, and ever ill happen. An omniscient being in whose cosmos we live is incompatible with us having free will. (If we did something that God didn't expect, this would violate his omniscience. If we can can do nothing that is unforeseen, then e do not have free will. Yet, we are supposed to have free will so that we can freely believe in god. And so on and so forth ad infinitum.
These "omni" concepts get us into muddles. Solution?
a. We know nothing, we can know nothing, about god.
Or
b. God is knowable to us, and isn't omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
But then, if he isn't all that Omni stuff, how did he manage to instigate the big bang or creation in some other form?
The more one digs, the deeper the hole gets. -
What happened to "Philosophy Forums"?The old forum moulders in its grave as The Ungrateful Dead. Don't hang around there. You may find a thread you are in suddenly collapses into a subbasement with NO EXIT. The monsters of the past lurk in untended prisons. Ghouls and zombies lurk in dark corners. It is as thoroughly contaminated by filthy lucre as Tsjernobyl is by radiation.
Abandon hope all ye who enter there.
Any other questions?
And welcome to this fine successor. -
#MeTooet al
This may or may not be of interest to anyone... But how do gay men behave toward each other in gay bars, and other working-class gay socializing or meet-up situations?
It isn't too surprising that the standards of behavior are somewhat different than heterosexual settings, but they aren't a world apart. One difference is that physical contact is often a stand-in or lead-in for verbal contact. Touch then talk. Not always, but often. Much more civilized. Physical contact can range from very frank sexual contact to much more tentative gestures. Not all forays are accepted, of course, and rejection is generally expressed also through ordinary gestures. Most guys don't take offense to unsolicited, unwanted gestures. If someone persists, they are verbally set straight, so to speak. No, it's not going to happen. Forget it.
Where gay men display more open hostility to unwanted contact is where their social status seems to be 'on the line', in public places like bars or gatherings. Some presumably socially insecure men almost display a "negative force field" around themselves when persons who don't enhance their social status approach.
The social distance between personal boundaries is generally smaller for gay men than straight men. This is especially obvious in the Midwest where interpersonal boundaries are generally the length of each person's arm. A lot of midwestern men need a couple of drinks to comfortably tolerate the crowdedness of a cruisy gay bar, let alone function socially.
At times and where possible, gay men also sometimes practice 'sexual contact before social contact', something that horrifies a lot of straight people. "How could that possibly be?" It's possible and it works quite well.
I've often thought heterosexuals would be happier if they operated on the same terms that gay men operate on. Sexual objects (other gay men) are fair game for a frank approach, and a firm "no" seems to work, partly because less is invested in the approach in the first place (less to lose), partly because there are lots more possible objects to approach (more fish in the sea, even if the sea is smaller than the heterosexual ocean).
This whole style of interaction does not work well for gay men who take an "only you and nobody else" approach. In that case, rejection isn't respected, and the campaign continues, often to the point of rather awkward, socially inappropriate, and embarrassing extremes of desperation. That's when gay behavior really begins to resemble some heterosexual behavior.
Are gay men always respectful, kind, decent, sexual partners, once the deal has been closed? No, of course not. Gay men are like other people in this respect, which is that people tend to be disappointing in ever so many ways. -
New Year FundraiserYou need a more self-confident ask. Your's is too wishy-washy. Just come out and demand everything!
Who knows? The next Hegel may start posting here, or the next Heidegger. Or the Real McCoy. And YOU could be held partially responsible! So dig deep. Just give us ALL YOUR MONEY!
That's right: sell your house, your car, your children; you wife, husband, spouse, significant other––whoever that loser is that you have been running around with; your tchotchkes, your books, pets, etc. Send the proceeds to infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom.
Unburden yourself. Be free at last of material burdens that keep you from achieving the ideal world you want to live in. Be free of inanimate impediments to the True Life of the Mind. You have nothing to lose but the chains of possession!
Giving The Philosophy Forum ALL YOU MONEY will not be a disaster. You will change the history of The Philosophy Forum forever. You will be remembered and mentioned frequently. Overcoming thingy attachment is not easy to master, but the rewards are INFINITE. Don't delay -- prevarication is the mark of merchants of mendacities. ACT NOW. Bank Tellers are standing by to receive your cash and issue Thank You notes. — Crank Promotions
Of course we will visit you in debtors prison.
Your poverty will not be our problem.
Donations are not refundable.
It was your free will choice.
Sell it all now.
Give it to us.
At once! -
#MeTooReally? BC, you have known me for over a decade and do you honestly think that I cannot tell the difference between a pat on the ass and rape?
Such an insult to the #MeToo movement. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm absolutely sure that you can tell the difference. You, however, are a rational, thinking individual while #MeToo is a hashtag which is, perhaps, becoming something more complex and capable of differentiations. It's not there yet.
Two cases in particular can serve as an example of the misuse of #MeToo-ism: Al Franken and Garrison Keillor. Both men were accused of acts that hover around "bad manners" and "minor error in judgement" on the low end of the scale, not approaching sexual harassment and certainly not sexual assault. Both, however, were compelled to resign (Franken) or given the bums rush by their former employer (Keillor).
Harvey Weinstein's behavior was egregious, and lands solidly on the high end of the scale, at rape. Kevin Spacey's behavior with the 18 year old guy was in the middle, somewhere around deplorable--and actionable.
These are the sorts of distinctions that aren't being made by the #MeToo wave. -
Challenging the Status QuoI'm usually all for subverting the dominant paradigm, but "status quo" sort of covers the whole universe. Could you narrow this down, just a hair?
-
Philosophy WebsitesAnd if you think wsws.org is anything else than a cesspool of conspirationist degenerates, than I cannot accept your judgement as valid. So I guess there it goes. :s — Akanthinos
Well... you don't like the alt-right, you don't like academic criticism of BS, and you don't like Trotskyist socialist rags, what the hell do you like?
Like I said, I've looked at a lot of left wing socialist stuff over the years. I didn't say so above, but I don't find most of their publications or web sites very satisfying. This one did have a perfectly straightforward article about a new class of HIV antiviral compound, which appeared to have just been picked up off a science web site without any editorial comment. On the other hand, they didn't strike me as a cesspool of degenerate conspiracists (or conspiratorial degenerates either).
This is probably a Socialist Workers Party product -- or something similar.
A good 50 % of their pieces in the last month were nothing more than postmodernism bashing or feminism bashing. — Akanthinos
Yeah, but I like bashing postmodernism. I like bashings of "feminist theory" or "critical theory" too. You may not like liver and onions, but that doesn't make it any less delicious. Same for drowning POMO kittens in ice water. -
Philosophical Progress & Other Metaphilosophical Issues"unconscious undercurrent"
Creative activity seems to be mostly unconscious. Stuff flows out of one's head, without one having decided exactly what one would do in the studio, at the typewriter, with the marimba and bagpipe horror show. -
Philosophy WebsitesI've looked at a lot of socialist web sites in my day -- http://wsws.org/ struck me as a good all around site.
-
Philosophy WebsitesGee whiz, I didn't think they were alt-right sites. Is it not possible to criticize academic fads, feminism, and such without being tarred by the alt-right brush?
Lingua Franca (died some time back) and Quillette are very similar magazines. They are not right wing, they are merely critical of extremes in academic BS. -
Philosophical Progress & Other Metaphilosophical IssuesDidn't only Warhol say that? Regardless, — Noble Dust
According to Google search and Wikiquote (and how could there be any error in that) they both said it. It could be that one of them was quoting the other. Or, it could be they both had the same insight, though the likelihood that they would have both conceived this insight in exactly the same words and word order passes unlikely.
It sounds more like Warhol than McLuhan, though McL was quite capable of the snappy quote. You decide for all time: Just say which one said "Art is whatever you can get away with" and that will be that.
Don't literary and plastic arts also require knowledge of what the given mediums, the forms, can and cannot do? — Noble Dust
Sure, but not nearly as much as music. Sculptors would need a great deal of material knowledge in order to take a chisel to marble or a spatula to clay. So, I know I couldn't write a decent short poem in iambic pentameter let alone a longer one with a formal rhyme scheme. Iambic tetrameter I can manage, and can manage a rhyme scheme too for short poems. (Iambic tetrameter is ideally suited to drivel poetry.)
Paint? I've seen some modern paintings where knowledge about anything didn't seem to be required, or even helpful. But knowledge about paint should have a shallower learning curve than the curve for writing string quartets or odd instrumental combinations (bagpipes and marimbas).
BC
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum