• Why am I interested in designing games that unify sex and psychedelia?
    Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
    Kiss the girls and make them One.
    Boys at one with girls at peace;
    Orgy-porgy gives release.

    - Huxley
  • Hello World
    Have you made an ascent philosophically — MountainDwarf

    I've been to the mountain top and found that it was pretty much like the flat land.

    Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

    I am a young and aspiring philosopher — MountainDwarf

    So, how young are you, and what do you aspire to?
  • Proof that a men's rights movement is needed
    I am free to express my opinion — Meta

    You are free insofar as you obey.
  • Proof that a men's rights movement is needed
  • Proof that a men's rights movement is needed
    ↪WISDOMfromPO-MO
    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are Social Justice Warriors par excellence. The American liberal, receiving many pleas for donations, has to decide whether he likes the approach of the SPLC or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) better. The SPLC goes after its targets in court and attempts to destroy the groups legally and/or financially The ACLU is more likely to defend the rights of American nazis to express their views in an orderly manner.

    SPLC lists every hate group it can find, almost a thousand (that's their raison d'être) but they don't tell us much about these groups -- like how large they are, what bad things they actually do, what their specific beliefs are, and so on. We can't tell how much of a threat some skinhead group (with maybe 5 members) in western Washington is to the American Way of Life. Or, for that matter, whether skinheads ARE part of the American Way of Life.
  • Proof that a men's rights movement is needed
    BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, Weekly Earnings, 2nd Qr. 2017 Report

    Men and women's income compared
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Difference ... ... ...
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...1st decile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9th decile lowest $ highest $
    everyone, age over 16, averaged
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Men $423 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $2,300
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Women $397 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $1,827 ... ... ... ... . $26....$473
    everyone over 25
    high school only, averaged ... ... .... ... .. ... $395 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $1,489
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... Men $418 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $1,661
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... .Women $371 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $1,156 ... ... ... ... $47....$505
    everyone, MA or PhD, averaged, over 25
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... . Men $768 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $3,784
    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... Women $673 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $2,610 ... ... ... ... $95.....$1,174

    Men tend to earn higher wages both at the bottom of the income distribution (the first decile, above) and at the top (the ninth decile, above).

    If all men and women had exactly the same work experience, it would be clearer that an injustice existed. However, men and women don't have the same experience. The jobs are frequently not the same, the hours worked may not be the same, the duration of work (years) may not be the same, and so on.

    If all men and women all performed diligently, pursued advancement with the same eagerness, and so forth, it would be clearer that an injustice existed. However, note the range in both men and women with advanced degrees: $673 to $3784 -- a range of $3,111. Apparently some men, and some women, are more capable of obtaining higher wages than other workers.

    I have an advanced degree (MA) and yet my weekly income tended, on average, to be in the 1st decile. Why was that? It was because I did not seek the highest wage job possible, did not seek advancement eagerly, and did not always perform as diligently as I could have. I took off time between jobs, and did not stay at any job longer than 7 years.

    From what I have seen in 40 years of work is that men and women who very much want to advance as far as they can, and earn as much as they can, generally do much better than people who don't have the same focused drive. And they tend to both do quite well economically.

    Because it is very difficult to capture qualitative differences in work experiences in a labor report, it is also difficult to say that any class of people is discriminated against, only on the basis of income.
  • The Last Word
    Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
    You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me     — Billy Preston
  • Mass Murder Meme
    Reality ain't what it used to be ;-) — Wayfarer

    violence is on the rise and will probably continue to rise as we enter in the coming dark age — Agustino

    But how does it happen that someone loses their intrinsic connection to reality? — Agustino

    Agustino -- what makes you think he lost his connection to reality?

    I don't know. I could not care less whether he was in touch with reality or not, whether he was a relatively normal seeming guy (as a relative reported), or what motive he might have had.

    Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols blew up the Oklahoma City federal courthouse in April of 1995. 168 people were killed and several hundred injured. What motivated this act? They were angry about Federal actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho--the August 1992 shoot-out between federal agents and survivalist Randy Weaver at his Idaho cabin, in which Weaver’s wife and son were killed, and the April 19, 1993, inferno near Waco, Texas, in which 75 members of a Branch Davidian religious sect were burnt to death in their compound (which may or may not have been caused by federal agents).

    Nichols and McVeigh viewed the Federal government as Public Enemy #1. Blowing up a courthouse seemed like a reasonable way to even the score.

    Were McVeigh and Nichols demented? No. Within their frame of reference, they were fighting a guerrilla war. Within that frame of reference, their actions were rational. Please note: I'm not searching for an excuse for what they did, just assessing their sanity. They were evil, but not crazy.

    Was Stephen Paddock fighting some sort of war? I would not be surprised if evidence turned up that suggested he was. Again, he was totally evil whatever the reasoning, but he probably was not insane. (Many people reach for insanity as an explanation in lieu of evil. One doesn't have to be a conservative theist to identify evil.)

    We have waaaay too many guns--300 million and adding more all the time. Actually, the owners of all these guns have shown a remarkable degree of restraint, in that less than 1000 people have been killed in mass shootings since 1966, when Charles Whitman, a former Marine, killed his mother and wife and then climbed to the top of a tower and killed 15 and injured 31 more with a rifle.
  • Expressing masculinity
    'Masculinity' is a sickness, it is a pathology stemming from a self-defeating desire that mirrors a distorted and imaginative ideal saturated by the influence of fear. — TimeLine

    Our desires are formed by unconscious or instinctual needs — TimeLine

    Masculinity is a social construct. — TimeLine

    You can't have it all ways -- that masculinity is a sickness, instinctual, and a social construct -- because the causation is quite different, like social norms vs. biological instinct.

    First, that masculinity is a social construct... Style is socially constructed, certainly. The style in which some men present themselves--powerful, woman-abusing, insensitive--is one construction. The troglodyte is another. There are a few dozen other constructions too, like "the one who fights for righteousness". But men and women--humans--have instinctual drives, as well. Instinct produces society which produces culture which constructs style.

    Masculinity (and I suppose, femininity) as a sickness is just...species loathing. We aren't all going to be Pope Francis and Dorothy Day, the Deli Lama and Gertrude Stein (or whoever your heroes and heroines, if any, are). Most of us humans are going to be kind of rough, unresolved, unrefined, basically decent people with flaws, sometimes second rate aspirations, and a mess of other stuff -- not because we are rotten to the core, but because it's the best we can do under the circumstances.

    Your problem isn't that you are stereotyping; profiling; I have nothing against either stereotyping and profiling. But it's important, if anyone is going to understand people, to have lots of categories, lots of profiles, lots of pigeon holes to put people in. I was in a Whole Foods store the other day -- first time in a couple of years, and I thought the customers looked familiar: Oh sure, this is the Food Coop crowd. Nice people, but a segment of the market populated by more than the usual number of vegetarians and organic snack eaters. People who eat meat, but want assurances that their chicken, pig, cow, and lamb all lived fulfilling lives before they met the axe.
  • Expressing masculinity
    So, what's the deal with expressing masculinity? — Posty McPostface

    Get some power tools if you can afford it--hand tools if not, some wood, nails, screws, and so on and have yourself an orgy. You'll be able to boost your T-levels in no time at all. Just holding a nail gun gives some guys an erection.

    BTW, the power nail gun can serve as a home defense system too. It's just that by the time you hook up the compressor, get the nail gun out of the tool box (you have a tool box, right?) and put a clip of nails in it, the home break in might be all over. Plus, you have to press the barrel of the gun up against the invader's head before the nails will fire off. Clumsy but highly effective. Maybe a regular revolver would be better.
  • Expressing masculinity
    Yeah, but there are some things that symbolize being 'masculine'. Being a bodybuilder with high testosterone levels, or owning a large car, yacht, guns. That's all for display; but, then there's a need to express it too, no? — Posty McPostface

    Some things symbolize being 'masculine' -- definitely, and some things characterize masculinity. Wearing a tie, white shirt, and a suit with oxfords is symbolic masculine dress. So are hard hats, boots, tool belts, t shirts (in warm weather) and heavy duty trousers. Also symbolic are standing at a urinal, ogling women, or going out alone for a walk at night. Having lots of pockets in one's clothing is a symbolic masculine thing. A lot of women's clothing is pocket free (and women carry purses, symbolically female). Having a hairy body doesn't "symbolize masculinity" it is a characteristic of many men, like having balls and a dick is characteristic of men. Most men. Some men seem to not have any balls, but that's another problem altogether. Testosterone doesn't symbolize masculinity -- it is masculinity (and most men have enough, without it being high).

    Men and women body builders can achieve similar results (height, weight, etc. taken into account) but they won't look quite the same when they are done lifting weights. Men more readily develop visible musculature, if the have little body fat.

    Athletics are not limited to men, these days, but lots of men like to engage in physical activity in a disciplined, strongly driven way -- whether that is bicycling, weight lifting, swimming, or any number of other sports. Given youth, a healthy diet, and persistence they are going to get good results, and they will not only look healthy and fit, they will be healthy and fit. That's both real and symbolic.

    However, the beautiful body with the gorgeous tattoos sometimes comes with a personality that is quite a bit less interesting than chopped liver. I mean, what good are they?

    Guns and cars... except that everybody owns a car these days (well, a large percentage do) and guns have various meanings. Hunting is one thing, the machine-gun useful for wiping out concert goers is something else. Yachts? No very many people own yachts. In fact, they say that the two best days for boat owners is the day they bought the boat, and then the day they sell it to somebody else.

    Power tools seem like a pretty masculine thing. Most guys like using power tools. We like to build stuff. Guys are supposed to know how to "do stuff" -- fix a car, build a garage, repair plumbing, dig big holes in the ground, pour concrete, forge steel, paint the house, all that good stuff. Most of us don't, but we would like to.
  • Expressing masculinity
    Does masculinity vary from individual to individual and why, if so? — Posty McPostface

    Of course it does. Even if people are pretty much all alike, each of us (male/female) has to work out our way of being in the world, in our case as men. My interpretation and performance of being a gay man was pretty much the same masculinity as my straight peers exhibited, except I was gay and not straight.

    The way a lot of men and women behave in their ordinary interactions with other people are largely the same. Hyper masculine men and hyper feminine women are atypical, abnormal types who are sometimes emulated by more ordinary types of people, usually to their own regret.

    I grew a beard when I was 24; once it got long enough to call a beard, I recognized that "this is the look that is most me". 47 years later it's white, not brown, but it's still the look that is most me. It's great in the winter.

    Men and women both need love and tenderness, caring and respect and they are both capable of giving these things, more or less. I think there are some differences between male and female brains, but we are not dealing with Mars and Venus differences. Men can make bread and women can dig ditches. We all have a fair amount of behavioral flexibility. Some men and women won't display flexibility, and that's just stupid nonsense.
  • Will there be any Fromage for Catalonia?
    ↪Jake Tarragon
    Catalonia is part of Spain which is part of the European Union. If it secedes from Spain, it will still be culturally part of Spain and it will be part of the European Union (assuming the EU were to accede to their plans). What have they gained?

    Scotland secedes from Great Britain which was to some people's discomfiture, part of the EU, is culturally part of Britain, and could belong to the EU. What does it gain? (I assume both Catalonia and Scotland expect some economic advantages to accrue.)

    ironic — Jake Tarragon

    Ironic or contradictory.

    Regions should be managed for diversity by a World government. — Jake Tarragon

    Why does diversity need to be managed by any government, let alone a world government? What could possibly go wrong with that? People will produce diversity, managed or not, and if some people like their homogeneous selves, well, that adds to planetary diversity.

    Will the World Government be sending Nigerians to Japan, Brazilians to Norway, and Chinese to Saudi Arabia? Probably Chinese everywhere. "Well Look, Andorra -- you don't have any Chinese here at all. You don't even have a bad chow mein take out shop here. Everyone must have diverse bad menu options. You need about 200 Chinese Communist bureaucrats, none of whom can cook their way out of a bowl of white rice."

    "Switzerland? You have no uneducated, southern redneck Americans here. No ghetto gang members either. What's the matter with you? We'll be sending you a selection of 3000 representative examples. What do you mean? Of course they will have criminal records! You need that diverse element here."
  • Does the late Hugh Hefner (Playboy) deserve the excoriating editorials in the NYT?
    My exposure to Playboy Magazine is minimal, so I can't actually judge it. (Gay guys generally weren't / aren't eager Playboy readers.) I didn't aspire to a gay playboy lifestyle either (couldn't begin to afford it).

    ↪Baden
    I was joking about the classist nature of your comment. All publishing caters to class--upper, middle, lower, prole--and so does the porn industry (in which I wouldn't include Playboy). Hefner's
    business was up-market nightclub entertainment--at least that's my impression. Playboy was sold in the front of newsstands, not under the counter, in back, or in the brown paper bag format.

    The retail venues where people used to buy books and magazines, from the New Yorker to hardcore porn, have gone the way of much other retail, but there were several grades of refinement available. Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, and Screw, etc.

    I'm not quite sure who Al Goldstein aimed Screw at, but its aesthetic was decidedly downmarket. If there is such a thing as irreverent porn, Screw was it. Everything that Playboy wasn't.

    tumblr_o0r60j2pCM1qag2f8o4_540.jpg
  • Does the late Hugh Hefner (Playboy) deserve the excoriating editorials in the NYT?
    ↪Baden
    Classism.

    Surely you are not saying that working class men didn't masturbate to Playboy centerfolds?
  • Will there be any Fromage for Catalonia?
    ↪Cavacava
    Rubber bullets are not water balloons. The mobilization of police forces from around the country, along with the instructions they received, pretty much guaranteed a government-delegitimizing response. A better policy would (obviously? I think obviously) have been to stop at denouncing the vote as a bad idea, and let it go forward unhindered.

    Crashing the polling gates could simply not have a positive effect (for the Madrid government's interests). It was a crude and stupid move. The central government would of course have valid reasons to not recognize the vote, and whether the vote was scheduled for today or not, it was clearly time for a national reappraisal of the situation.

    Had the central government held their noses, (and held back intervention) the vote might have been far less commanding than 90% approval. Like I said, it isn't very often that voters approve a ballot measure by such overwhelming majorities. Usually it's smaller.
  • Will there be any Fromage for Catalonia?
    ↪Cavacava
    90 +/- in favor -- of those who voted. I don't think its common for 90% of the population to vote for anything.
  • Any Platonists?
    ↪Wosret
    It is a good animation, and a good presentation of emotion vs. reason non-debate. It's a non-debate because emotion and reason both serve. But one must have an edge, and the edge goes to emotion. Take War. Not abstract war, but a declaration of war by the United States on Canada. Now, as the tanks, planes, and marching troops cross the border and begin liberating Canada from the death grip with which Canadians have heretofore held the northern half of North America, Canadians will not be consulting logic texts or old philosophical tomes about war. They will not be asking themselves why war is unreasonable. They will rise up in anger, rage, wrath, indignation, fury, fear, and (in Quebec) extreme annoyance (but then the French are always being annoyed by someone).

    When someone is confronted by a beggar on the street, their first response will be emotional -- either empathy or loathing. No reasoning about poverty, provisions for the poor, and so forth will arise (from that part of our brain that reasons) UNTIL there is a need to justify what one has already decided to do. Whether one is moved to drop a dollar into the outstretched hand, or kick the beggar in the gut, reason will put together a suitable rationale.

    There have been endless teach-ins, seminars, committee meetings, editorials, essays, etc. written about the goodness or badness of this or that war. People generally arrive at these events and documents with minds made up. How did they make them up? Mostly emotion, a little reasoning. Go to a large, effectively run demonstration for or against any cause and you will be in danger of being convinced by the smell and roar of the crowd, not by the speeches.

    Are we puppets to emotion? No more than we are puppets to reason. We'll attend the kinds of demonstrations we feel good about, and we'll come away (chances are) feeling even better about it. We might pick up the literature, read it, remember it, and quote it but our quoting will move very few people to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the statements. Are they just too stupid and close minded to understand? Not at all.

    Why are some people against war? Because they are afraid they will get swept up in it, first and foremost. They are afraid what war will do their lives (not lives in general, T•H•E•I•R lives).

    We reason where emotion has nothing to offer. :How can I determine whether "2" or "181" are prime numbers?" Nothing very emotion-provoking about that kind of problem, but one might feel emotion if one can't figure it out, or if one finds a really good solution (like googling prime numbers).
  • Will there be any Fromage for Catalonia?
    t independence votes, they only work to separate, not much to join together. Identity is always separation. — unenlightened

    What about the Kurds? 90% are in favor of nationhood.

    Identity has ambiguous, maybe paradoxical consequences. But most people like their identities, don't they? Should they not like them?

    Catalonia, Catalan politicians say, is subsidizing the rest of Spain. Could be, I suppose. The United States has regions that are net "losers" to the Federal Government and regions that are net "winners" from the Feds. The winners tend to be poorer, and the losers tend to be richer. A downside for Spain would be a smaller GDP, never a good thing.

    How far does self-determination need to go? Are Catalans an oppressed minority? Doesn't seem to be the case. Is their language outlawed? Do they have strange and peculiar customs which have been rigorously suppressed? Not that I've heard of, other than their better than average performance as capitalists.

    As for the Kurds, I can see why anyone would be happy to not be part of Iraq, which hasn't been a happy place for quite a while. Kurdish problems probably can be traced back to the damned Brits who along with the damned French, occupied the Middle East for quite a while, and redrew the area boundaries of the regions in a Foreign Office broom closet, before the damned Israelis took over with the help of the damned Americans, and then there were the damned Egyptians, damned Saudi Arabians, damned Syrians, damned Russians, damned Persians, damned Romans, damned Greeks, et al.
  • Will there be any Fromage for Catalonia?
    ↪unenlightened
    France IS a nuclear power, after all, so I would guess that the territorial integrity of France is secure.
  • Any Platonists?
    klunky — T Clark

    A lot of philosophical writing strikes me as "clunky" or "klunky" and a lot of it segues into "murky" and finally, the kind of writing that one would get from 100 monkeys klacking away on mechanical typewriters for 1 million years. Some of it would be quite good, some of it would be readable, some of it would be opaque,
  • Is Democracy viable in a post-space-age civilization?
    What are your thoughts on how democracy will fair in such a time?
    What do you think of my suggestion?
    Do you have a suggestion of your own?     — Eric Wintjen

    Have you read the Dune series by Frank Herbert? It's all emperors and various competing power centers having no similarity whatsoever to democracy.

    There is a good chance that earthlings would be the aggressors. We tend to be kind of trigger happy, and unless we evolve better approaches, PDQ, we might not even be around for a fight with aliens.

    the larger the population, the less able democracy is to properly address needs and concerns of the people — Eric Wintjen

    Not necessarily. Larger populations produce more resources with which to respond to its needs and concerns. Very small groups have far fewer resources. If the islands in the Caribbean have to recover on their own, without any help from outside, then they are probably just totally screwed. With contributions from donor countries, they will recover -- eventually. (But... disasters are disasters and the effects generally can't be totally erased.)

    The US experience of effective governance in a large democracy is mixed. On the one hand, we have been able to mount incredibly successful large-scale projects. Mobilization in WWII is one example. Building the nation's nuclear defense system is another (if highly dubious) accomplishment. The interstate highway system, the air-transport system, railroads, etc. are further examples. On the other hand, our water and sewer systems are deteriorating; soil conservation efforts have pretty much stalled out; the American population is less healthy than it could be; the K-12 education infrastructure is in bad shape.

    What's the problem? Why is our performance so mixed? Doesn't democracy work? Sure it does, but to use a very, very tired expression, we do not have a level playing field. The field has been tipped in favor of major economic interests for a long time, and the interests of "the people" -- 99% of the population -- has gotten short shrift.

    Big projects get done when their is either an existential threat (WWII) or big money to be made. During periods of populist reform (like the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, or during the depression, or during the 60s--about every 30 years, and we're way over due for a reform period) the field is tipped back a bit to favor more democratic projects--think social security, medicare, medicaid, trust busting, better regulation of the financial sector, etc.
  • greetings
    ILP stands for

    Industrial Lighting Products?
    International Language Programs?
    Industrial Liaison Process?
    Infant Learning Program?
    Independent Living Primer?
    Illegal Liver Procurement?
    Instant Luggage Provider?
    Investment Linked Policy?
    Indigenous Lackluster Poultry?
    Intermediate Lead Poisoning?
    Indebted Lesbian Prognosticator?

    What?
  • greetings
    Tell us something. Say something we can disagree or, if you must, agree with. — T Clark

    We really would prefer something we can disagree with -- preferably, strongly disagree with. You say, 2+2=4, and all we can say is, true. You say Karl Marx was wrong about everything, and now we have something to talk about. "Gettier's Case II Is Bewitchment". They are up to 984 posts -- beats me what the hell they are talking about; that's a lot of posts. Most topics don't get that far.

    "The Transition from non-life to life" is up to 638 posts. "Interpreting the Bible" is 147 posts so far.

    Go out on a limb, but be reasonable. Unreasonable positions get dumped on rather heavily. You have to have a strong ego to put up with it.

    Welcome, of course. Hope you like it here.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    We arrive at a question "What, exactly, is the standard by which to measure/establish the value of any interpretation of the Bible? Is there one, or many? Are they universal and necessary, or contingent? — tim wood

    I doubt if there was ever ONE standard by which to judge the meaning, value, interpretation, or efficacy of a given biblical passage. I am guessing that as the texts accumulated over the coarse of several hundred years there was considerable divergence.

    Internal consistency would be one standard. Is this particular law treated in this passage the same way that it is treated in the other 10 passages where it is mentioned.

    Consistency with the cult (in this case, the religion of the Jews). The texts of the OT were probably not the only source of cultic content--just as the NT is not the only source of Christian cultic content. For instance, animal sacrifice conducted by a priestly type of some sort probably existed before the beginning of the Jewish cult. The Eucharist might have been part of the early cult of Christianity and was then (possibly) read into the NT).

    For a couple of obvious examples, rabbits and eggs have nothing to do with the resurrection, and pine trees have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. None the less, they are part of the cult of Christianity -- at least for those parts of the Christian world under the influence of German and English culture -- which is the pagan source of rabbits and decorated pine trees.

    Consistency with the believers' understanding of their religion. This standard was critical in sorting out the various scriptures at the time the NT was formalized. There were various 'sub-cults' in early Christianity, like the Gnostics. The committee that put the NT together wasn't especially fond of Gnosticism, Arianism, and a dozen other heresies, so those type of narrative were left out. The book of Revelations was not readily accepted, not for heresy, but because it concerned relatively local administrative matters (and, incidentally, was put into metaphorical form). It's got some great lines, and was eventually accepted, and all those metaphors have come in handy innumerable times -- for better and worse.

    Consistency with the surrounding culture which was pagan. A lot of Greek philosophy (neoplatonism) worked its way into the New Testament, because whatever Jews and early Christians might believe, Greek Philosophy was pretty much de regueur for the thinking elite -- and it was the thinking elite who edited the NT. It wasn't a populist document.

    Finally, for later Christians (including 21st century Christians) there is the standard of whether the scripture stands the test of time. People ask, "When we read the Bible (if we were to do that) does it speak to us in language and concepts that are meaningful to us?" For many people, the scriptures are not so meaningful that everybody who reads them finds them compelling. For many people the scriptures do not stand the test of time. (Though one must add, for many it does. Christianity is growing in total number of believers, just not in the US and western Europe. The disbelievers, or lapsed Christians, are in the advanced capitalist societies where culture has been pretty heavily secularized, alienated, pummeled by incessant commercial messaging, social deterioration, etc. etc. etc.).
  • Interpreting the Bible
    I think you're being disingenuous if you claim not to know what that is intended to mean and instead offer such a flippant, obviously ridiculous, interpretation. You don't have to feel empathy with the sentiment to know that it is intended, and how it is conveyed by the words. — Janus

    No, wasn't being disingenuous, flippant, ridiculous, or anything else. You tell me what you think it means.
  • Authenticity and its Constraints
    I was going to say I wasn't being pedantic, but that would've been pedantic.... — Wayfarer

    Pedantry comes naturally to me. I am an authentic pedant.
  • Authenticity and its Constraints
    Trump is a real phoney, I'll give him that. You could hardly pick someone phonier. — Wayfarer

    Can't someone be authentically bad? Even if it is risky judging somebody else's authenticity, I suspect at least that Donald Trump is congruent -- he is being what he wants to be and what he is. That's unfortunate for the United States and the world, but that's why he's such bad news. He's not going to wake up one day and see the light. He has seen the limelight, and he likes it. He proposes a sweeping tax "reform" package, and it turns out he'll be a winner. Is this Fake? No. It's bad, but it's not fake. He never said he would suffer a tax increase so that others may pay less. (We don't know exactly how much tax he pays, because he, unlike his disreputable predecessors in office, has not released a complete financial statement.)

    Being authentic doesn't mean someone will be benevolent, beneficial, and benign. It may mean that someone is more like well adjusted, happy and hell on wheels--a fully congruent son of a bitch.

    Of course, when me and thee are authentic, it is like a sunrise over the Garden of Eden.
  • Authenticity and its Constraints
    Thus, I conclude authenticity is a crock of BS. — schopenhauer1

    BS is piled up, composted and hauled away, but never in crocks. As containers go, a crock is too small, too heavy, and too fragile to be a good container for BS. One wants a truck or a manure spreader for a load of BS.

    I consider authenticity to be "congruence between what I wish to be and what I am actually being". In employment, I have, in several jobs, found both authenticity, and inauthenticity. Contriving and conducting an environmental AIDS prevention program was entirely authentic work. Everything I considered important and all my skills came together in that job. I was authentic when I was conducting an open ended discussion group for gay men that ran for about 75 weeks. I worked in a media library for 7 years, developing media for instruction and assisting students. That was authentic work, too. Most of the clerical jobs, and three of the professional jobs felt inauthentic because "what I was being was incongruent with what I wished to be.

    I have felt both authentic and extremely inauthentic in religious activity -- at different times and places. Some clothes (boots, blue jeans, sweatshirt or shirt and leather vest) seemed authentic to me. Other items like a tuxedo (I have never worn) seemed extremely inauthentic to me. Trench coats, traditional mens' hats, suits, umbrellas, and penny loafers have likewise seemed inauthentic. Not bad, just not "me".

    Authenticity is individually judged and achieved -- groups don't get to be "authentic". There is no inherently inauthentic lifestyle. The suburban family engaged in all the traditionally disparaged suburban activities and clichés may be as authentic any any family anywhere. People who live a hard scrabble life, who have a lot of problems in their lives, who "sing the blues" may be no more authentic than Donald Trump.

    No one can casually or remotely identify authenticity and inauthenticity. What may look like a fake from my perspective may be 100% genuine and authentic for the person being judged.
  • Authenticity and its Constraints
    think, actually, there's a link between 'authentic' and 'author'. — Wayfarer

    Let's get Pedantic, yeah yeah yeah

    Authentic:
    late Middle English: via Old French from late Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos ‘principal, genuine.’
    Author:
    Middle English (in the sense ‘a person who invents or causes something’): from Old French autor, from Latin auctor, from augere ‘increase, originate, promote.’ The spelling with th arose in the 15th century, and perhaps became established under the influence of authentic.

    I would rate Donald Trump as authentic: an authentic ambitious deceptive egotist, and thoroughly contemptible, but the genuine article.
  • A Question About World Peace
    Some species of creatures basically never fight, and if they do fight, it is not lethal. — dannerz2

    That's very true, and good for them. But those creatures are not humans. Diplomacy and negotiation is our best non-lethal means of resolving conflict. It works great until someone decides they are not getting what they want by these methods. Then it's pull out the cannons and blast away.

    We are lethal in ways that squirrels and whales aren't lethal in their competition because we are bright, emotionally driven tool users who can amplify our anger with everything from sharp rocks to thermonuclear weapons.

    An additional problem is that we have fairly soft bodies. We can't bang our horns together until one of the two head-butters gives up. If we bang our heads together, we end up with chronic traumatic encephalopathy. We don't have thick fur and tough skin that allows us to slash and bite each other without causing fatal wounds.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    Doesn't anyone here recognize a distinction between reading and interpreting? — tim wood

    I suspect everyone here knows the difference between reading and interpreting--though sometimes interpretation is concurrent with reading.

    One reads the words (word recognition, identify meaning, part of speech, etc -- all pretty much automatic once one is an accomplished reader) then there is interpretation. "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Hosea said. All pretty common words; no accomplished reader will pause over their connotative meaning.

    But... What does "Do Justice" mean? Start the revolution? Vote for Donald Trump? What? That's the interpretation part. What does "love mercy" mean? The Jerusalem Bible translates the phrase "Love tenderly". Then the "walk humbly with God". Keep God company? What? I've never been sure exactly what that means.
  • Acknowledging Beauty Versus Perceiving Beauty
    I just have a difficult time conveying my worldview coherently — TranscendedRealms

    Sure. A 'worldview' is a big complex thing to capture in a few words, without a lot of practice. My first effort at stating my 'worldview' was a mess. 40 years later I'm not sure it is much clearer.

    you need your positive emotions to actually see the good values and you need your negative emotions to actually see the bad values. — TranscendedRealms

    A lot of philosophers want to dwell exclusively in the land of the prefrontal cortex and dismiss emotions. Big mistake. You have correctly identified an essential element of perception. To stand a saying on its head, "believing is seeing". Emotions prime other parts of the mind to see or not see. Happy people, people for whom positive emotions are dominant, tend to perceive the world more positively. Unhappy people, for whom negative emotions are dominant, tend to perceive the world more negatively. This isn't absolute, of course. Neither happy nor unhappy people see the world in black and white; we generally see the world in many shades of gray.
  • Unequal Distribution of Contingent Suffering
    Statistical- Some people will simply have less mental/physical problems, are able to cope better than others, etc. There is no way to tell who will deal with less contingent suffering. — schopenhauer1

    We are better at predicting what will happen to groups of people, than we are predicting what will happen to individuals, but groups are made up of individuals.

    Take Puerto Rico's situation. The island's population is suffering now, and is likely to suffer more in the near future. That Hurricane Maria leveled a good share of their housing and infrastructure is contingent. That their housing and infrastructure was in bad shape was caused by neglect -- not by chance. The current contingent suffering would have been reduced if the infrastructure and housing had been strengthened.

    There is also a good deal of contingent suffering in Houston. But allowing people to build housing on low ground (that everyone knows will eventually flood) and in floodplains isn't contingent, it's just irresponsible, and was preventable.

    Most people will die of circulatory disease, cancer, or infection. A much smaller share will be murdered, suffer accidents, commit suicide, and so on. We know we definitely will die; we have some choice over what we die from. Heavy smoking and drinking frequently leads to death by cancer. Some of this is avoidable by not smoking and drinking heavily. People who bicycle, motorcycle, or drive recklessly have a greater chance of dying from accident than people who ride and drive carefully.

    Some people, as you say, are going to avoid most of the causes of death, will live a long time, may still be active after a century of living, and will die from general organ failure -- they will just wear out. Contingency seems to play a big role for these people.

    Not reproducing is one method of reducing suffering -- especially the suffering one can't do anything about. But a lot of suffering is preventable.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    In my private opinion the bible was written by uneducated, stupid men and women, and there is nothing godly about it. It is a badly written book for guidance and knowledge, and that's about the size of it. — szardosszemagad

    Your reputation as an educated intelligent man or woman would have been better served by keeping your private opinion private.

    Uneducated? No Harvard degrees, true. They may or may not have written or read script, but they were literate the same way Homer was literate--verbally. They had a solid grasp of their cultural history, and they wrote fine poetry (Psalms, for instance). They were "inspired" -- and by inspired I mean creative in ordinary human terms, not that they were telegraphing dictation from God.

    Open the Bible to any page, and there is a good chance that whatever text your eyes land on will not be very compelling. The same thing goes for just about every published work in the history of civilization. You have to read and study any book to give it a fair evaluation.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    ↪schopenhauer1
    I believe Heinz is owned by Kraft, foods. Kraft was part of Phillip Morris for a while, but the smoke folks decided it didn't make sense for them to own a food company, after all.

    It's hard to keep track of who owns who, what with all the conglomerates.

    Like most good products, Heinz Ketchup is made with high fructose corn syrup.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    ↪schopenhauer1
    ''
    The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better. — Sir2u

    Good post, as usual.

    The Cohens, Kahns, Cahanes, Levites... these Jewish names are connected to the priestly caste of Israel, and there are genetic similarities linking the various families.

    Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup, but interesting.
  • Interpreting the Bible
    The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better. — Sir2u

    ↪Sir2u
    Ahh, the chutzpah, the effrontery, the gall, the delusions of grandeur...

    literally >:)
  • Interpreting the Bible
    When did interpretation ever become part of the Bible? — tim wood

    At the very beginning.

    How do you think the Bible came into existence? You must think the High Priest of the Temple went into the Holy of Holies one Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and found a stack of scrolls on the Mercy Seat with a Post-It Note™ stuck to it saying, "Hot off the press -- the Old Testament. Hope you like it. Love, YHWH ps: working on New Testament now"
  • Interpreting the Bible
    ↪Agustino
    It's like the Protestants bitching about the Catholics doing away with the Latin Mass. Or the lapsed Catholics complaining that the priests are not doing the folk liturgy in the right way, or yes, atheists worrying about the interpretation of scriptures.
Home » BC