There is not a single nation on earth beside the U.S. that has a super carrier, yet we are about to build 10 more, ontop of the 10 we already have. The cost 4-6 billion a piece. Why are taxes spent on this shit? The 'market' has corrupted everything; education, war, medical care, and food. Is that not obvious? — XanderTheGrey

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the US about this in a speech at the end of his administration in 1960. He sounded a very clear alert about the dangers of "the military industrial complex" composed of the armed services, suppliers (like Boeing, General Dynamics, Sikorsky, et al), and the congress that would reliably fund projects benefitting their state or district.

We build new fighter planes, aircraft carriers, hydrogen bombs, better missiles, etc. NOT because they are needed or have any actual utility, but because arms industries are very profitable (capitalists like that), they employ a lot of workers (people like having jobs), and the military likes having the stuff. But, after you have 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 nuclear bombs, how many more can one really use? Even if you have 100 super carriers, other countries possess the means to destroy them -- one way or another.

Take for example the Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole: It had a huge hole blown in it by some Yemenis who tooled over to the side of the ship and blew up a bomb--October, 2000. Yemen? Able to disable a destroyer? Sure.

The nice thing about higher education is that students now have to finance it pretty much on their own. When i started in college (1964--yeah, I know--ancient history), states supported about 75% of the cost of college education. Tuition was low. Books were relatively expensive back then, but nothing like the $150+ textbook of today. Room and board was manageable, or one could live off campus--ratty, probably, but cheap. Today states provide only 25% of the cost of education. Tuition at state colleges is not as high as private schools, but still hefty. So, the cost of college education has become increasingly privatized. If you can't afford it, or can't get scholarships, your kind of shit out of luck.

I think its obvious — XanderTheGrey

Thanks for bringing it up. It can't be said too often (well, maybe it could) that the priorities of the ruling class suck, suck, suck.

Well maybe life wouldn't be so tedious if the education system didn't condition people to accept tedium so readily. — Jake Tarragon

Liberal arts education, no less than factory-like k-12 schools or trade training programs, is a component of "the maintenance and reproduction of society". The kind of society that is being reproduced (in our case, a mature capitalist society) governs what life is going to be like. You or I may not like it, but until society is changed, that's the way it is going to be.

Even if we lived in a perfected society where individuals were free to leisurely pursue all their interests, there would still be tedious activities. Example: memorizing Latin declensions. Even if you greatly desire to learn Latin, and find learning Latin a pleasure, committing all that to memory (especially as an adult) is just plain hard work and, at times, quite tedious.

But I guess you are right to say that the tediousness of education works. Employers gain a subservience filter, albeit of a higher functioning sort at higher education level — Jake Tarragon

It works, but I certainly wasn't endorsing college as a means to prepare subservient workers. Besides, learning subservience can't wait until the college level. Subservience gets trained into people in elementary and high school. By the time people are in college, they either have learned how to be subservient, or they probably never will. Those who never will are going to have a lot of friction to deal with. I am one of those people who doesn't like being subservient, and can attest to how much friction one can arouse by resisting.

universities gain easy business, while students gain a spell of social adventure and an opportunity to be a higher paid drone. Social adventure at the higher drone level apart, it ain't pretty that's for sure. — Jake Tarragon

University can provide a spell of social adventure, true enough, at least for some students. The ones that are working three part time jobs and taking a full load at the same time don't have enough spare time to sleep, let alone having social adventures.

Drones. The drone-role is baked in before one gets to college. Some college freshmen are drones from the first day on, and others are not drones after finishing their PhDs (though not very many -- PhD programs pretty much destroy non-drones). Think back, there were drones in kindergarten.

Have you heard of Summer Hill? A. S. Neill founded it.

Many schools opened based on Summerhill, especially in America in the 1960s. A common challenge was to implement Neill's dictum of "Freedom, not license": "A free school is not a place where you can run roughshod over other people. It's a place that minimises the authoritarian elements and maximises the development of community and really caring about the other people. Doing this is a tricky business."

I really like the idea of Summer Hill -- but I never attended a school that was even remotely like it. Summer Hill is for children and youth, but it would be good if at least some colleges ran with a similar open plan. "Production" needs less emphasis and "experimentation" much more. Experimentation carried too far, of course, would result in too much jumping from thing to thing without enough persistence to actually acquire knowledge--like solid working knowledge of geology, for example.

I sing its praises, but it is also the case that college entails a fair amount of tedium, sort of like life itself.

A mind that not only can perceive and control but can create and comprehend is largely shaped by the processes of cultural evolution. — The Empiricist

The brain, which is the place where 'mind' lives, is entirely biological. The components of the body which make mind possible have been developing since life began. The capacities to perceive, control, create, and comprehend didn't spring out of the scallop shell like Aphrodite. They developed over time in many species. And these capacities exist in various animals, elaborated as appropriate to their survival needs.

Maybe, but employers what to know whether you can stick with tedium and difficulty for many months, maybe even for several years, while remaining productive--until they are ready to get rid of you. The best test of tolerance is to put people in a college box for four yeas -- better yet, at their own expense.

rabid gun-toting rednecks — Benkei

That'd be a large proportion of the American population — Wayfarer

True, but the rabid gun-toting redneck Obama & Clinton haters and Trump voters are generally unemployable, unskilled, jobless working class males without a future, anyway, so they might as well get on with their dying, rather than cluttering up the jailhouses, shooting galleries, and workhouses.

Note to "middle class" white liberals: pay attention to what happened to your deplorable brothers on the other side of the tracks. Once AI eliminates your jobs, you will replace them in their misery. You'll be the feckless, white-necked losers loathed by the elites.

It simply doesn't make sense for Satan to rebel against God. — TheMadFool

Why the hell not? Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

For studies in evil, I stick to history books. Evil in practice is more interesting than evil in theory. A few chapters in the history of Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR get at evil better than philosophy disquisitions.

Christian teachers gave me my theories of evil.

Have you read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis?

The 31 letters are between a supervising devil and an inept novice. Lewis dedicated the book to J. R. R. Tolkien, his associate and fellow Inkling at Oxford. You can read it for free here. It's a fun treatment of the topic.

"1. keep his mind on the inner life. he thinks his conversion is something inside him and his attention is therefore chiefly turned at present to the states of his own mind — or rather to that very expurgated version of them which is all you should allow him to see. encourage this. keep his mind off the most elementary duties by directing it to the most advanced and spiritual ones. aggravate that most useful human characteristic, the horror and neglect of the obvious. You must bring him to a condition in which he can practise self-examination for an hour without discovering any of those facts about himself which are perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house with him or worked in the same office."

Amen.

I am not arguing in favor of God or Satan, but it makes for a much more interesting and compelling mythology (story) if God is immensely powerful but not omnipotent, and if the Devil has a bit of ambiguity about his evil, and must labor with great effort to outwit smart people and undo the work of God.

Unless you think the Bible is inerrant, there is no reason why God has to be presented as omnipotent and the devil unambiguously evil. Satan with some regrets is a much more interesting devil that a monotonously evil, not very clever one.

I don't know quite how your idea could be implemented, but in theory it is a very good idea.

I suppose we could require gender-neutral language, a la Sweden, which is trying to replace gendered pronouns. Gender neutrality might help, but I find such practice repellent. We could use gender neutral language: refer to one's self as a person, not a man or a woman; refer to interactions of persons, rather than interactions of males and females, and so on.

But de-gendered language flies in the face of a highly impertinent reality: Humans, like all other animals, (many plants, for that matter) are gendered, and gender is a central part of a person's being. I don't believe gender can be waived by dismissing it as socially constructed. Sex, gender, erotic activity, reproductive behavior, physiognomy, language, -- our bodies our selves -- and so on are all intrinsically gendered.

As long as you can objectively assess your own behavior and label it benign, then nothing is wrong.
Right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your probing search light piercing the shadows is always so... revealing. Damn it.

Well, we did try very hard to figure out if we were doing something offensive. We weren't, we maintained, being offensive, and I think that was correct. What we were doing, however, was behaving the way somewhat (maybe not so 'somewhat') competitive males behave: We were eager to lay out our political views before each other, and CONVINCE everyone else. Maybe many women find that sort of discussion a bit too... rough, or not collegial enough, or something. There are, though, plenty of women who engage in political debate with as much gusto as men, and they do just fine. They can pull out a vorpal sword and cut across neat theory with the best of the guys.

BC, with all due respect, what you said here sure does sound like 'it happens and it cannot be helped'. And maybe that is true SOME of the time but there are cases in which it could have been helped. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well... some of the time yes, some of the time no. In the tradition of socialist organizations, we weren't trying to reach a collegial consensus, we were engaging in "speech to persuade" or "speech to get everyone to conform to the principles of the party". I suppose there was a feeling that this kind of discussion leads one to conform to the party line, or the gulag is next. Who would not like to send Donald Trump to a gulag in the Aleutian Islands or a political reeducation camp in a Northern Minnesota Swamp or a Louisiana Swamp, for that matter--one with lots of alligators, clouds of mosquitos, and just crawling with venomous snakes?

Political parties are supposed to have specified platforms, and we did--actually humane, democratic DeLeonist socialist principles. These had been developed over a century and a half by the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.

A famous poem celebrating laissez faire interaction:

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.

(Fritz Perls, 1969)

Apologies to Fritz Perls (source long since forgotten) less laissez faire:

I did my thing and you did your thing.
I was not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you were not in this world to live up to mine.
And IF, because I was busy doing my thing
and you were equally busy doing your thing,
the world went to hell,
It could not be helped?

1. Impotent
2. Stupid
3. Omnimalevolent — TheMadFool

The devil can certainly be omnimalevolent, but were he impotent and stupid he would be unable to perform the deceits, seductions, frauds, and misrepresentations necessary to dupe even the brightest human.

This is familiar territory. I was a member of a socialist group for many years. We held face-to-face meetings and discussion groups. This was before the Internet, for the most part. Except for Lila and Jane, two senior citizen socialists who had been card carriers for a long time, we were an all male group, and we were all white. A few women and fewer blacks visited the discussion group, but rarely stayed around to become part of the group.

What were we doing wrong?

We weren't doing anything wrong.

Women and blacks didn't want to spend a lot of time in a group where they are always outnumbered by white men. Fact is, most people found us rather dull. There are some, but not very many people who are interested in socialism. One woman characterized the group as "a bunch of heady males". True enough.

Socialist groups in the US are on the fringe. All sorts of groups on the left fringe (maybe the right fringe too) have similar experiences of not being highly successful in recruiting a broad demographic. The fringe feminist groups in Minneapolis had similar experiences with women.

A more or less serious philosophy forum on the internet is also a fringe group, and only some kinds of people are going to be attracted. Most people who visit this site (male or female, gay or straight, theist or atheist, liberal or conservative) are not going to stay on and become active participants. Our deficiency here is that we are a philosophy forum, My socialist discussion group's deficiency was that we were a socialist discussion group.

Ideologically focussed women, or ideologically focussed conservative theists, are probably going to find a lack of like-minded posters disheartening. It can't be helped.

No, it wasn't you. It was somebody whose name I forget. I could look it up, but I don't care quite enough to do that. This person was rather humorless and I had been making fun of his dour humorlessness. He complained. I desisted because he was clearly too tedious to throw an amusing tantrum.

God, but the desire is still there. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps this whole thread is some rationalization to the contrary. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps.

It would almost certainly be good for you to return to college and complete a degree. I realize there are practical problems that might make this difficult. One of those practical problems is you. You have to willingly engage in college, as well as willingly incur the cost, and all the inconvenience that might arise from being a student. I believe you when you say the desire is still there. I'm not sure you are willing to engage (just based on what you have said).

If you don't go to college, you will probably become a learnéd autodidact, at which you probably will do a good job.

From the Greek autos (self) + didaskein (teach) = autodidact, self-taught.

In a way, we are all autodidacts. Nobody can learn anything for you. College students just get many more suggestions about what to learn next. They also get a list of courses they took and a degree -- which in this economy is a big deal.

If I was a young man in 2017 with 1 year of college and ambivalent feelings about the whole thing, I really don't know what I would do. I am immensely glad I did go to college, even the run of the mill state college I attended. The experience of being a student and learning all sorts of stuff, helped prepare the village idiot that I was for the wider world. Without college I would have been so totally screwed I hate to think about it.

the education system is in shambles due to focusing on fulfilling the needs of the economy — Posty McPostface

McPostface, get real.

Like I said above, the economy is everywhere in a society, including the hallowed halls of ivy. Even in the "good old days" when states subsidized the cost of education and places like the University of Wisconsin in Madison were gold plated liberal arts establishments, Milton scholars, for instance, had to think about how they would make a living after they got their PhDs. (generally in teaching at universities).

How could it be otherwise? Only the independently wealthy (inherited the family fortune) can study whatever they please without thinking of employment. Or, only the intentionally poor can afford to do that.

Going to college JUST to become learnéd, without thinking about supporting one's self is not a good idea. I didn't give enough thought to how I would support myself after I graduated. I supposed I would teach -- until I discovered that I was not cut out to be a high school teacher. Had I thought more carefully bout work, I would not have wasted all that time in Education classes.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose to set their mind to. — Modern Conviviality

College freshmen who lack critical judgement skills are going to have a tough curve to climb, so this really needs to begin in elementary school. (In a good school, it does.) Students should leave high school with a good set of working skills. Unfortunately, a lot of students don't. The school districts, not the colleges, are failing on this score.

But yes, once in college a classical liberal arts program is excellent preparation for a lot of jobs.

I feel that education has been corrupted to the maximization of utility for an individual via devoting one's time to working for the economy. — Posty McPostface

The crisis in education (it costs too much, one has to be practical-goal oriented, etc.) has one big root in the way state colleges are funded. When I was in college (1964-1970) in Minnesota, the State provided the bulk of funding -- maybe 60%-70%. Tuition was low; on-campus and crappy off-campus housing was quite affordable, too.

The states (pretty much across the board) have cut back on their share of college budgets, from 60%-70% down to 25%. Tuition is consequently much higher, as are all sorts of other costs -- like textbooks. The decision to major in English (or music, sociology, French, math, art, biology, library science, geology... whatever) was fairly safe. One would get a good education from a state college, and one would probably be able to leave college with minimal debt. Scholarships were fairly plentiful too -- or very low interest loans.

That's pretty much all over. Ancient History (another good major). Whatever one majors in had better pay off, because one almost certainly will be leaving college with hefty debts.

Finding a good job for which one is well suited is always somewhat difficult; kind of a crap shoot. That part hasn't changed any over the years. Luck still plays a role.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose — Modern Conviviality

In many ways we do that. That's why the specific college degree isn't very important. A college grad with a liberal arts degree (most university departments are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, except Tech and Medicine, Agriculture, et al) has proved that he or she has the intelligence to take varied and sundry courses in everything from math to modern art and succeed at least reasonably well. So whether their degree was in Sociology, Math, English, or Studio Arts, they have proved that they are at least somewhat capable and flexible.

Most vocational training is on-the-job. The best jobs I had required I figured out how to do them once I was hired. Was I able? Sure. I have a major in English. We know that English majors can learn to do everything from tutoring college students to designing gritty public health programs to scrubbing floors. I've done all three. Ideal training. Major in English.

People have become in some sense shackled ... to the working of the economy. — Posty McPostface

People are not shackled to the working of the economy "in some sense". They are shackled to the economy lock, stock, and barrel (to use an expression the NRA likes). This isn't new. Economies are "totalitarian" in that they pervade the entire society. This has always been so. "Economy" per se isn't the problem.

I feel as though education has become corrupted to the dealings of the economy — Posty McPostface

Indeed it has. Since you are becoming more Marxist, try this on for size. It was provided by one of my Classics Professors at the U of Minnesota. (I am recalling and paraphrasing)

"Schools have always functioned to prepare people to operate in society. The roles that needed filling have changed over time. [jump forward to the mid and late 19th century US] In the late 19th century, early 20th century American schools prepared immigrants to fulfill their roles of workers and consumers. They needed literacy, cultural knowledge, skills, and science/math (not talking about rocket science). Late in the 20th century (this lecture was given in 1985), demographics, work, and consumption had changed significantly. Preparing workers had become less important, because a lot of jobs were being exported, and computerization and automation was simplifying work. The citizens role of consumer had become much more important than the role of producer.

Schools (especially high schools) were no longer the ideal place to teach citizens how to be consumers. Media provided 24/7 access, ocean to ocean coverage, many channels (TV, radio, film, print -- cell phones and the internet weren't here yet), and there was an advertising industry prepared to produce the necessary messages about "how to be an American, how to be a citizen, how to be (in essence) A CONSUMER."

Schools are "old school" for most people. Are there no decent schools? Yes, there are. 20% of youth (max) still need high quality education to fulfill their future managerial, entrepreneurial, technical, and creative roles. There are good schools which provide old fashioned good education for them.

What about the rest of the population? Well, they are free insofar as they obey. If they keep consuming, everything will be fine. That is the task of most people. Buy stuff to keep the economy running. (individual consumption accounts for 2/3 of the US economy, minimum).

Like this cartoon says:

You didn't define "soul". i'm not knocking any points off your OP for that failure, but at least with quarks there is a definition.

There are several words that are synonyms for "whatever it is": soul, psyche, spirit, vital force, pneuma, anima, atman, embodiment, incarnation animating principle...

Soul

• the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
• the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
• the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
• archaic
• a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena.

If you collect all the definitions you can find for "soul", and collect all the definitions for all the synonyms of soul, you can thoroughly define "soul". Some of these definitions will turn out to be observable and testable. For instance, "emotions and character" are observable and testable. Anything that survives death, or something as vague as "a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena" most likely won't be observable or testable.

Religions teach all sorts of things that are not observable or testable, but this doesn't mean that everything that religions teach is hogwash. Some of it is hogwash, of course.

A young child taught to believe that something called his soul will survive his death is like to find this comforting and (probably) true, even though he will never never never be able to observe or test out the concept. No harm done. Add Heaven and Hell as two alternate destinations for the soul, depending on whether he behaved just right or not, and you have some real leverage over the kid. Harm starts to become possible, if not probable. Add many kinds of ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, angels, and so forth, some who are capable of causing great harm if they are regularly and properly propitiated, and you have a real mess on your hands. Add "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (the title of a famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards) and you have a terrorist.

So... decide what is worth defining and what is not. There may be a kernel of truth buried under the pile of religious bullshit.

I don't understand all this stuff either -- nobody does, yet anyway. And explanations one hands out may not reflect one's own experiences. For instance, what I said about memories being changed slightly every time they are brought up... I don't experience that. That is what the psychologists and neurological researchers say. But then, there is no way I can test whether my memories have been altered either. I can't be an objective observer of my own thinking.

One would have to test out this theory in the psych lab, with observers, structured memory and recall experiments, and many repetitions on many subjects to determine that memories were changed by being recalled.

Since Déjà vu isn't something that can be induced for research purposes (at least as far as I know) it would be hard to study this in a lab.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Epilepsy and drugs are not at all necessary to experience Déjà vu. But... IF one is epileptic, OR if one uses certain drugs, THEN one might experience Déjà vu as a result. But experiencing Déjà vu is no indication whatsoever that one is either epileptic or uses certain drugs.

The trick is discernment. — MysticMonist

Indeed.

People do have moments of great insight, conversion, doubt, and so on--experiences on the road to Damascus. Not often, but sometimes. Our intuitional "bolts out of the blue" have to arise from what we already know. We owe a lot to very persistent persons and their congeries far into the night that finally led to "Eureka!" moments.

How our brains/minds process, reprocess, shuffle, reappraise... takes place at a level we can't get down to. There are way too many neurons, way too many connections, way too many processes, way too much opaque organization in the brain that just isn't observable.

One of the insights coming out of neurological studies is that memories aren't static. When you remember something, anything, trivial or important, it isn't like calling something out of "read-only- memory". Computers have read-only-memory, we don't. A memory becomes a sort of 'live experience' which after being remembered is put back into memory, (probably among the same neurons) but slightly changed.

So, one day you happen to remember sitting in English class, and the teacher was talking about... oh, let's say Emily Dickinson's poem, A narrow Fellow in the Grass. It is about a snake. Since high school English class, long ago, you have developed a little fear about snakes. The memory of the moment in English class will be colored by your more recent snake experiences, which are also memories being called up and re-stored. So now, in this moment, the memory of English class and A narrow Fellow in the Grass 15 years ago gets colored by that snake experience in the swamp two years ago.

I don't want to exaggerate here -- even though memories get called up and re-stored, and are affected by the process of recall, they still seem reasonably stable--especially when the emotional content isn't too loaded, which is most of the time.

Déjà vu is a common experience having several explanations. (One, a psychological phenomena of no great significance and two, sometimes associated with epilepsy (when epilepsy is actually present) or associated with certain drugs (when those drugs are actually being used). Having a good memory is most likely the cause of Déjà vu.

Is that God/Universal Mind/your soul directly communicating with you? — MysticMonist

Always a good idea to shave with Ockham's Razor.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

Now wash your hair with Suave Daily Clarifying Shampoo to keep your thinking sharp and clear.

Here are other "vu" you can talk about when you get tired of Déjà.

Jamais vu is a term in psychology which is used to describe any familiar situation which is not recognized by the observer. You arrive at your house, but do not recognize it.

Presque vu is the intense feeling of being on the very brink of a powerful epiphany, insight, or revelation, without actually achieving the revelation. The feeling is often therefore associated with a frustrating, tantalizing sense of incompleteness or near-completeness. Happens to me all the time.

Déjà rêvé is the feeling of having already dreamed something that you are now experiencing. Life is just a living nightmare.

Déjà entendu is the experience of feeling sure about having already heard something, even though the exact details are uncertain or were perhaps imagined. Typical.

Oh dear, complex history. On which stake would you prefer to be burnt?

I’d really like to develop some sort of middle way between atheism and theism. — MysticMonist

there will always be theists — MysticMonist

There will always be atheists — MysticMonist

In my mind, my philosophic enemy isn’t the atheist, who I’d like to ally with, but our common enemy the exclusivist religious who think they have a monopoly on God and would condemn us both to hell if they had the chance. Maybe I just want to free God :) — MysticMonist

This is familiar territory to me, a decades long internal debate, not resolved to my satisfaction. There is no 'ultimate' resolution to some questions, this side of the grave.

One avenue to approach the problem--works for me anyway--is to invert the order of creation: We created God, to whom we attributed our own creation, and whom we worship. We called God (gods) into existence. This (emphatically) isn't going to work for everybody, of course.

But it allows one to keep the scriptures, the faith, the cult, the congregation. Religion is OUR work, and what we have created in religion is useful to billions of people. The word of the prophets is as truthful as would be as when we believe that God was present before the beginning (or is as useless, depending). After all, we have not, do not, will not, can not know ANY ultimate truths of God -- if there are any. We are finite mortal creatures made of flesh, and doomed to die. God (as we have defined) is immortal, invincible, all knowing, everywhere present -- all attributes that really are beyond our ken.

Heaven and Hell are but pieces of the unknown and unknowable. Stating that God is beyond our knowing, and then saying all kinds of things about God as if they were facts clearly involves a rather big contradiction. God is unknowable, but here is what I KNOW about God -- yada, yada, yada.

If there is eternal suffering in hell, then there is no eternal bliss in heaven.

If you didn't like Surfing Bird from Minneapolis, you certainly won't like Dancing Pumpkin Man from Nebraska. This was originally done as a time-filler on a small TV station by the guy that normally does the weather. It's been a big Internet and AGT hit.

Surfin Bird: The Trashmen's biggest hit was 1963's "Surfin' Bird",[1] which reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the latter part of that year. The Trashmen was an early 60s band from Minneapolis. Bands like this are one of several reasons that the midwest remains "flyover land".

Here’s my theory: that since an atheist or a non-spiritual person can take a pill or snort or inject something or have a heart attack and experience a profound mystical experience, then it means mystical insight and divine illumination of our minds and hearts exists apart from belief or religion. — MysticMonist

Maybe, maybe not. Harvey Cox, a 20th century theologian (Baptist background, I think), Harvard professor, joined a group out in the SW desert for the purpose of taking hallucinogens. He had a good experience and wrote about it. I haven't read the book for decades, so I can't remember what all he said about it. The Christian mystics, like St. John of the Cross (late medieval, early renaissance) achieved remarkable results through meditation and prayer. (The Cloud of Unknowing is about that.)

The atheist, non-religious, non-spiritual, unreflective, not very thoughtful lump can't count on a short cut to depth and profundity. Neither can the religious, spiritual, reflective person. Hallucinogens will produce an experience of some kind. So will lots of other things. Maybe the Holy Spirit produces results too (though that's very hard to test).

I'm not against the careful, occasional use of hallucinogens, but one should keep one's expectations fairly low.

One day when I retire, I hope to move to a large tree surrounded by trees where I can lie next to Hanover and play with his penis. — Sapientia

Psst Hanover, he likes to play with mice till they die and then he eats the mice — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This doesn't bode well for Hanover's penis.

One of the standard and appropriate responses to announcements that one is very depressed, rageful, lonely, and fearful is to recommend that they do something about it, like making an appointment at a mental health clinic and getting a combination of talk therapy and antidepressants.

I've been depressed too, for decades, and at times have been full of rage, lonely, and suicidal (or murderous). I have taken antidepressants and received talk therapy. Do they help? Yes. Are they a full and sufficient cure? No. "Therapy means change, not adjustment" is true. In my own case, early retirement (at age 62) helped bring an end to all the sturm and drang.

It sounds like you are a young person. Many young people are finding life difficult; it isn't that they are starving and freezing in the streets, but life isn't making a lot of sense to them. Practically, I can suggest a couple of home remedies:

Be sure that you are getting at least 8 hours of normal sleep. (Adequate sleep (8 hours) is a critical component of mental health -- for everybody.)

Don't use recreational drugs or alcohol at this time. The effects of the various recreational drugs on offer are somewhat unpredictable, and they aren't a component of good mental health.

Minimize the amount of caffeine you are consuming in coffee, tea, and soft drinks. Some caffeine is ok, but you don't need to be wound up anymore than you already are.

Do exercise regularly at whatever kind of vigorous exercise you like.

Eat a healthy diet.

Find opportunities to be with other people whose company you enjoy, or at least don't find too irritating. Volunteering is one way to do this. Don't isolate yourself too much.

Practicing meditation / yoga might help, too.

Having said all that, I'll admit to suspecting that many people are not actually depressed. What they are is extremely disappointed, very lonely, and angry. If that is the case, antidepressants might calm you down, but they won't address whatever it is that is bugging you. Deal with the causes. One of the purposes of counseling is to help people deal with their issues and their causes.

Good luck.

And now that we live in a capitalist economy, it is making money that has to bring us closer together. To be close, we need to make money together - we need to be actively engaged in the economy with each other. All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy. — Agustino

This is the most depressing thing I've read on this forum. — praxis

Making money brings us closer together? In a sense, yes -- but only in a rather narrow, functional sense.

Were we yeomen in an Anglo Saxon village, 1000 AD, during a good year, working together would probably keep us, if not bring us, close. Sharing the labor of the land, sharing the joys of the meager festivals, sharing a bowl of soup and bread. Sure. Working together would bring us together. But that kind of life was obliterated by industrialism and capitalism centuries ago.

By our labor in the economy we make money, I hate to break it to you, honey, but engaging in economic activity with you isn't going to bring us together. Transactions are alienated interactions, for the most part. You may make--I may save--money in a transaction, but we aren't going to be buddies as a result.

Humans do interact economically. We have to. Unless I go catch them myself, I'll have to engage in economic exchange to get a can of sardines. There must be something better--more meaningful, more compelling, more enlightening, than making money.

I will not here recommend we all become cashless socialists in one great collective. Collectivized economy or capitalized economy is going to be pretty much the same thing. There has to be something beyond commerce, something beyond profit, something beyond meeting needs, something beyond the treadmill.

Family life and downtime? No, I think in this economic world, family life and downtime figure into the economy as much as buying that can of sardines.

Feelings are very important elements of our lives, but isn't it the case that the good or bad value of our lives comes from actions, rather than our feelings?

Having an abundance of good feelings (happiness, joy, love...) is much better than having a surfeit of wretchedness and misery. The value of our lives -- as perceived by others, certainly, and ourselves -- is a product of our works. Someone who vegetates in a state of bliss isn't doing anything for anyone else. And someone who feels like death warmed over -- but who also performs service to others -- has a more valuable life -- yes?

Personally I don't like drinking though I do go to bars sometimes to listen to music and drink some mineral water — Rich

Here's to the man who drinks dark Ale and goes to bed quite mellow;
Here's to the man who drinks dark Ale and goes to bed quite mellow;
He lives as he out to live, lives as he ought to live; he'll die a jolly old fellow.
ha ha ha

Here's to the man who drinks water pure and goes to bed quite sober;
Here's to the man who drinks water pure and goes to bed quite sober;
He'll fall as a leaf do fall, fall as a leaf do fall, he'll die before October.
ho ho ho

Three Jolly Coachmen

All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy. — Agustino

As Uncle Karl said, "Under capitalism everything is reduced to the cash nexus."

uilding on a previous thread about melancholy, I was wondering if anyone has felt some sort of alienation from practicing or doing philosophy. — Posty McPostface

The unexamined life might not be worth living, but the carefully examined life might be more troubled. One does not need to think, read, or do philosophy to live a long and successful life. Conventions, habits, routines, rules, desires, needs, and so forth will get one from the cradle to the grave just fine. Pausing to question whether the life one lives is good, can be the beginning of much trouble.

Some dig their way into alienation and others fall into it. Either way, it is a fairly common experience to feel cut off from the vitality that seems to flow through society, and through many individuals.

But alienation is surely not a desirable state. Even if the affairs of the world are a great waste of futility ("Vanity of vanities, all is vanities" it says in Ecclesiastes) it is not good to just stop in the middle of the wasteland. ("If you are walking through hell, keep moving.")

Philosophy--in one form or another--can, may, should, could provide a means to recommit, connect, affirm, engage to something. I don't know of a good antonym for "alienate". But if one can "de-alientate" it is worth doing.

Have you, by any chance, heard of or read The Anatomy of Melancholy by ROBERT BURTON (1577–1640)? Wikipedia has an article on the book, Goodreads has reviews, and you can get the book from Project Gutenberg, if you don't want to spend money on a modern annotated text (I don't think I would bother).

It was an assigned text in 17th Century Literature which I took -- God, 50 years ago. I don't remember much about it. But... it is both a discussion of what we would call clinical depression, and a book of far ranging essays.

From wiki... "I write of melancholy by being busy to avoid melancholy" Burton says.

You might, possibly, find it of interest.