this crazy clinton bi*** — Hamtatro

So, why do you find Hillary Clinton so detestable?

Excellent! A sticky red star goes on your chart.

Oh, I don't think there is any doubt that Republicans are every bit as good at contempt as democrats, maybe even more so.

There are strongly conservative Catholic legislature districts in Minnesota, for instance, that are solidly Republican because they address the intensely pro-family concerns of conservative Catholics far better than Democrats do. I would NOT suggest that progressives try to form up around this kind of conservative agenda. We should not, can not. Not because we are anti-family, but we just don't share most of the other planks in the conservative Catholic agenda.

Conservatives have natural constituencies too, and their core members aren't the obvious place to begin re-building progressive parties.

I believe it was Aquinas who thought masturbation was basically as bad as rape. Or that homosexuality was extremely immoral. Hence why I had previously said metaphysical systems, especially those espousing thorough essentialism, are oppressive. — darthbarracuda

Well, back in the scholastic days -- and before -- how many writers thought masturbation was an appropriate and healthful activity, and that exclusive homosexuality was normal for 3% of the population? Not too many, just guessing.§ Certainly there were enthusiastic medieval masturbators and homosexuals, but they hadn't formed up consciousness raising programs or a liberation movement yet.

§ Right, I've read Boswell. "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980) argues that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately evinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men." I'm not the only one who finds that a bit difficult to believe, but maybe it was the scholastics who caused all the trouble.

As a personal code, your view is admirable that all punishment is senseless, or that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. Karl Menninger (a psychiatrist) argued that the way we (the U.S.) manages prisons is itself a crime. (That was in 1968; prisons have gotten worse.)

It is difficult to conceive scaling up this approach in very large economically, socially, and culturally diverse societies, let alone actually achieving the up-scaling.

One of the most promising interventions I have heard of is a Harlem children project in which program workers intervened in the lives of poor black children, sometimes before they were born, by training mothers to talk and read to their babies -- greatly increasing the volume of positive language the children heard from birth (if possible) or at least in the language-formation years before kindergarten. At the same time the mothers were encouraged to decrease the amount of negative and command language they expressed.

The program was founded on the principle that initial language deficits (formed before age 5 or 6) become permanent deficits, and that the consequent poor school performance led to social marginalization from which it was very difficult for an individual to escape. The Harlem program goes on, but is underfunded, of course.

"Youth diversion programs" are more common later attempts to syphon off potential prison inmates before they offend seriously enough to end up in prison. Again, very underfunded. Restorative justice programs involve community efforts to avoid "punishments" by trying to reconnect the early minor offender with his community. All these programs are small and voluntary.

But when you take the best possible positive view of police and the courts, dealing not with dozens, hundred, or thousands of cases -- but millions, and many of the crimes quite serious, it is difficult to see how your approach can be scaled up. The problem isn't just the badness of many of the offenders. It's the size of the institutions (city/county/state governments, various police forces, courts, prosecution and defense offices and staff, not to mention the probation, prison, and parole systems.

It is particularly difficult to scale up your admirable approach when the economic and social structure of large portions of society are crumbling. People don't just feel "disempowered" and marginalized; they are disempowered and marginalized--often by design.

all punishment is senseless — unenlightened

You take an extreme non-interventionist position. — Bitter Crank

Don't you just hate it when folks attribute the wrong 'ism to you. — unenlightened

I beg your pardon. I must have been hallucinating. "all punishment is senseless" is a totally interventionist statement suitable for law and order types.

I don't know who will execute the kindness and caring program for felons -- you don't like psychologists and their kind, so I guess it will be up to some other group of mechanics.

That's called deterrence. But I call it bullying.

But I hold to the principle that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. — unenlightened

You take an extreme non-interventionist position. I agree, though to this extent:

What deters most people from committing crime is a good childhood, a cohesive society, a reasonable level of economic security, and good family life. It isn't that most people fear punishments so much. They just don't want to actually perform very illegal acts that can result in prison or hanging.

They don't murder people because, really, they've just never developed the habit. On a bad day they limit their rages to imagining the demise of a deserving bus load of assholes (or a stadium's worth).

As the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow once said, I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

Come on, unenlightened: putting armed robbers in prison for 5 years isn't bullying. It's the exercise of socially approved coercion. Bullying is when the leading thug in the fifth grade beats you up and takes your lunch money, or takes every opportunity during the day to make one feel like a worm, using rougher methods than words where slugging is more amusing. The bully is operating outside social bounds.

Since we're ALL on death row and if the law is sensible may I ask what grievious crime did we commit to deserve death? — TheMadFool

i live in a state that has not had the death penalty for a long time. I am opposed to the death penalty. However...

It is one thing to be born, live on one's own terms more or less, and then die a timely death from a natural cause.

Clients of execution service providers usually spend 10 - 15 years, more or less, sitting on death row, which is not quite as luxurious as the usual prison cell. Finally, after many years of legal screwing around, they are given their passport to the hereafter and if they are lucky, the execution goes swimmingly well and they die pretty damn quickly.

Mistakes get made. Sometimes someone who said they were innocent actually was innocent. Illinois executed so many people later found to be innocent that the state gave the executioner a furlough. Sometimes the execution is botched and there is too much gasping, groaning, and squirming for polite society. ("Can't you lie still, damn it, and die quietly?")

What would an authority on ontology look like? — andrewk

Here is one of the 3 global ontology authorities:

Myrtle Krebspark of Lake Wobegon, Minnesota — andrewk

This must be the first mention of Myrtle Krebsbach (not Krebspark) in The Philosophy Forum. Myrtle is the wife of Florian Krebsbach. The Krebsbachs are members of Our Lady Of Perpetual Responsibility Catholic Church. Florian and his son, Carl, run Krebsbach Chevrolet in Lake wobegon.

"Nature" is neither immoral nor moral, neither bad nor good. "Nature" is perceived by us to exist as a process (which we might personify as "mother nature") but doesn't have an existence such as "knowing itself".

It is absurd to speak of nature being a moral subject.

And no I dont eat at KFC. I like to go to Subway on my lunch breaks. — Question

You eat at Subway because you are know that KFC has put batter-fried rats in their buckets of chicken. Well, let's not get huffy over that! Rat protein is as good as chicken protein. What's a little rat meat for lunch? Though, I suppose a big old rat might be a bit stringy. Young rat much better.

Something to think about the next time you all head for the fast food joint of that southern reprobate, "the colonel".

Drink more beer and dance the schottische.

Drinking beer and dancing schottisches and polkas is decidedly more holy and pleasing to God than sucking lemons and calculating whether one is predestined to salvation or damnation. Lutherans get drunk on Grace Alone but what can lighten the burden of Calvinist predestination?

IMHO.

they should be re-enslaved for their own good. You're sounding pretty close to what's called the Protestant work ethic. — Mongrel

"Protestant work ethic" is as lazy as the "derogatory black stereotype". From Luther, "all work is holy" and all work is dignified, whether it is the work of a priest or the work of the lowest class of laborer.

In the disreputable field of psychology (according to Un) Buridan's ass illustrates the 3 basic choice situations:

Attraction / attraction
Attraction / repulsion
Repulsion / repulsion

It's easy for an ass to choose when the choice is between nice fresh grass and a pile of sand. The other two are more difficult, and they illustrate a common enough human situation. Two good job offers or two bad job offers. At least with the two good job offers, you won't loose no matter which one you choose, and in the case of two bad job offers, you won't win, regardless of which you choose.

In real life, the outcome is often enough NO DECISION. One dithers too long about which of two cars to buy, and when you finally make up your mind a week later, both have been sold. Is there a solution? In balanced win/win or lose/lose situations, there isn't, if you don't find a way to tip the scale.

Reasonably intelligent people call in somebody else to help. If a second ass had come along, Buridan's ass would have lived to face even worse choices.

due to the IDIOCY of conservative politicians — Wayfarer

I'm always happy to assign blame to the IDIOCY of both conservative politicians AND their running-dog-lackey-sort-of-liberal-lick-spittle cooperating allies.

My personal opinion is that geo-energy is a non-starter, especially since more abundant -- and sustainable -- energy is available at ground level. Except in places like Iceland.

There are several parables that speak of labor and reward. It's best to interpret these as comments on the Kingdom of God, rather than as practical policy. Should laborers hired late in the day get the same wage as people who worked all day? In heaven it doesn't make any difference; on earth, it definitely does.

Tell me, where did this source of neuroticism, which I might very well be displaying, originate from? — Question

Ultimately? I don't know--for your case or mine. We become 'neurotic' when our deep aspirations are thwarted, whatever those aspirations might be, and the experience of being thwarted is not resolved. So, the kid who expected to be the 'golden boy' who wasn't and never figured out what to make of this Big Disappointment, might react neurotically--just one example. People have all sorts of aspirations that get thwarted, and become a bit neurotic in lots of ways.

Me? I confess to having had conflicting aspirations that were and were not thwarted, were and were not resolved, and resulted in some definite neuroses that were/are problematic for me.

Where do our overly ambitious aspirations come from? Just my opinion, but I think the mainspring of our aspirations was in place before we left the trees. Our primate cousins (and we) are pretty status conscious. We, at least, have to go out of our way to avoid status competition. Those of our tribe who are "other directed" probably will pursue whatever social status games are available. Those who are strongly, and securely, "inner directed" can afford--indeed must--march to different drummers.

I don't know how or why people are inner or other directed, or in what combination of the two.

Great musicians have such gifts.

Below is Allegri's Miserere. We can thank Mozart for having the piece. Allegri had written it for one of the Popes in the 1600s, and the vatican intended to keep it as private piece (not publish it). 150 years later, Mozart happened to hear the piece at the Vatican and wrote it out when he got home. (He didn't pass it off as his own.)

A conductor received a manuscript for a concerto in the late 1800s. (Sorry, don't remember who, specifically). A few days later the manuscript was returned to the composer, and the conductor had left town. Sometime later, the composer discovered that the piece was scheduled for performance, and he was perplexed about where the conductor had gotten the score. The composer told him, "Oh, well, I read your score and remembered it. Quite beautiful."

There are stories of pianists scheduled to perform a concerto at a concert and discovering at the last minute that the orchestra is playing it in a different key. The pianist was able to transpose the piece as he went along (playing from memory).

Most of the time I can't remember a good short joke if my life depended on it.

At least in the US, and I think in England (probably some other places in Europe too) the rate at which children either remain residents in their parents homes, or leave for a time and then return, has risen substantially over the last 30 years. This isn't a problem of too much parent-child attachment, it's an economic problem (mostly the children's).

College results in debt. A failure to get hired in a job (appropriate or not) results in inability to repay debt, more debt is added, and before long the unlaunched young adult is heading home. Once home, the pressure seems to be off and the search for work might become less urgent, because in many cases the parents are carrying the child. And the fact is, jobs for certain kinds of workers are scarce.

This isn't Question's situation (apparently) but it seems to be the situation that Hanover and I were strongly reacting to. College graduates are not always realistic about the benefits of education, and of course, colleges do not always act in good faith with prospective students. Were they operating in good faith, they would discourage a good many students from attending, because a good share of the students will not benefit occupationally.

I am glad I went to college; it started me on a life-long course of learning. I am also glad I was tracked into business classes in high school. Being able to type, and being more or less willing to work as a secretary or clerk kept food on the table more often than my English Lit major did. I am very grateful I never had to go back home to live with my parents. That would have been close to the ultimate humiliation.

Thermodynamics?

I didn't see any reason for banning you, or for even closing the thread. Perhaps the physicists who run the site detected strange particles being emitted from your thread and this freaked out an anal-retentive post doc.

As to geothermal:

Just leave the Yellowstone Caldera alone. You might want to move close to Yellowstone so that your demise will be quick when it blows. KABOOM sic transit gloria Question.

In several geothermal projects water has been injected into hot rock to produce steam. But... putting relatively cold water into hot holes had the entirely predictable effect of cooling the rock off. Project went pffft.

Both in California, Oklahoma, and Switzerland, injecting liquids into rock produced earthquakes. Earthquakes make yahoos twitchy. The yodeling yahoos got their rifles out of the closet and went looking for the usual suspects.

Rather than look for exotic sources of energy, we should be more like you and live simply. Living simply would reduce our energy needs significantly.

Is the pot calling the kettle beige?

A couple of points after a good nights rest. — Question

In fairness to those who some think gave you "hard advice" or were judgmental, you might have been more forthcoming in your initial request for feedback. In light of this information, I would have taken a much different tack. Like already having a degree...

I've been to college for a degree in behavioral economics — Question

...sheds much light on where you are coming from.

Maybe you have disclosed much about yourself in bits and pieces here and there, but I haven't been tracking your posts that closely. (Sorry, I'm too self-centered and egotistical, I guess.)

As for the importance of the ego, it is a watershed issue. Some people think a strong ego important (which is not being a narcissistic, egotistical asshole) and some people discount the ego (which is not the same as making of oneself an unworthy worm). Low self-esteem (your term) does point toward wishing one had a stronger ego--or something to that effect. It's perfectly acceptable to be humble and think well of yourself (to have self-esteem). Self-esteem isn't the same as pride, either, which cometh before a fall.

Now as for becoming a proper philosopher... Getting a PhD in philosophy will help you become a notable philosopher as much as getting a PhD in English Literature will help you become another Shakespeare. It won't. It can't. It never has. It never will.

By this time you either have the makings of being a significant philosopher or you don't -- the same way that I am either a potential notable author, or I am not. (Note: I am not.) That's just the way the cookie crumbled. In the mean time, you seem to be living your philosophy. Good for you. Good luck. Good afternoon.

Question himself laid out his situation and asked for feedback. Good idea? Maybe not.

There are risks in laying out one's situation and then asking people what they think about it. I wouldn't call Hanover's comments an unprovoked attack. Question is asking about a 10+ year project (PhD in anything) which might, quite possibly, not pay off well. Hanover cut to the quick. "How do you think you are going to get on in life?"

I know from my own personal experience (I started college once upon a time, long ago) that the ideas we have in our heads about the future can be terribly naive and mistaken. Later on, when I was counseling college students (this back in the 1970s) many of them had no idea of what it would take to achieve what they, or their parents, thought they wanted.

The children of the privileged upper classes (say, the top 20%) generally get fairly good direction about how to succeed in life. Their parents succeeded handsomely, they have ways and means and they make sure their children benefit from their own advantages.

80% of the people don't have these advantages, and don't have the necessary specialized knowledge to tip off their children about how to get ahead and succeed (something that most parents desire for their children).

Hanover was offering his insight. Nothing more. Not a dick.

Question "literally asked for it"

Thoughts welcome. — Question

and we only have what he offered about himself to go on.

Australia sounds like a nice place. — Question

Bingo.

Hmm, maybe Mars is where it's all at... — Question

It's not flat (Olympus Mons is 29.9 km high) and bus service to get there is really poor.

Arizona — Question

Arizona isn't flat. Nice place, but lots of bridges there.

Then, I'll move to some flatter land where there ain't no bridges to cross. — Question

Oh gawd, Kansas. Oklahoma. Western Nebraska. North Dakota. The American Outback.

I'll cross that bridge when the time comes. — Question

You are on that bridge right now.

I wasn't expecting Margaret Thatcher's "There is no such thing as society" to raise it's hideous head.

I helped pay the mortgage when I still had my money for college, payed for a new car for my mother (nothing fancy, but a good car nonetheless), bought some appliances, helped with some state programs offering discounts and help with weatherization, etc.

We both live hand to mouth — Question

Good on you for all that. The thing is, living hand to mouth does not seem to be your goal. It's a strategy to maintain the life you have, like and enjoy. And there is nothing wrong with that, in the short run. In the longer run, though, maintaining a simple life takes more and more input. Costs rise, needs become greater, small emergencies require ready cash or things get worse quickly, and so on.

What Hanover (and I) are telling you is to undertake more effort. More effort, more income will be needed in the future to maintain the freedom to live the way you want to.

I don't understand why you think Hanover was being a dick. His advice, "...you should get a real job so that you can support yourself and not live with your mother" is eminently sensible. Why is it eminently sensible? Because life is hard, and people who do not take responsibility for their own well-being and self-support are likely to find themselves in various unenviable positions later on in life when mother is no longer alive, and when one is getting a bit old to do entry level work.

Question isn't, after all, a mentally deficient ward of the state. He wants to earn a PhD in philosophy. If anybody should be able to handle eminently sensible, even hard-headed and cold-hearted advice, it's a prospective philosopher.

Is Thorongil being a dick for outlining the unpleasant realities of pursuing a PhD? What he had to say is also eminently sensible. The glory days of academic employment in the liberal arts are now the stuff of vintage memory, a time back in the Mid-Century Modern era when one could get funding for advanced degrees and go on to get decent jobs teaching the burgeoning classes of baby boomers in a booming economy.

had v bad self-esteem — csalisbury

I don't know about the past, but it seems like life as we know it just isn't good for one's self-esteem.

Also, there is nothing wrong with living with your mother. — andrewk

Unless your mother would like to get on with her own life without adult children living at home. Maybe she would like to have a torrid romance with the guy next door, for instance. Having an adult son in the next room cramps one's style.

a few points of information would be helpful:

Your age?
What metropolitan area do you live in or near to?
How much is your debt?

Age makes a difference. If you are 20, that's one thing; if you are 28, that's something else.
Where you live matters. If you live in a very expensive city but with lots of opportunity, that is one thing. If you live in a low cost dead zone, that is something else.
The size of debt matters. If you owe $3,000, that is one thing; If you owe $30,000, that is something else.

I have had low self esteem and either hopelessly vague or totally impractical plans, as one often does. So I am sympathetic with your situation.

I'm suggesting you make some changes; I'm not suggesting you become someone else. I finished graduate school and spent 40+ years in the work force, much of which totally sucked. I had some good jobs and some bad jobs. Sometimes low pay, simple work, and low stress was worth it.

One don't have to make a huge amount of money, but one does have to be thrifty if one's pay isn't high. I never made more the $35,000 a year, but I lived cheaply most of the time. I was able to save something for retirement -- not enough, but it could have been worse. I didn't live in an expensive area, and I paid the mortgage off as fast as possible. Pair up with somebody -- 2 incomes help a lot, even if neither of them is very high.

Had I to do it over, I would have pursued a purely liberal arts English major, rather than a teaching degree. Total waste of time in my case. I would take the first job more seriously, and would quit the second good job at its peak rather than hang around coasting. I didn't strike while the iron was hot.

But do consider trying my 5 year plan.

I'm at a crossroads. — Question

Whether you are in a crossroads, a crosswalk, or crosshairs is hard to say, but you definitely need to get moving. PhD? You don't have a BA in underwater basket weaving (that's an old cliché) yet, so it's premature for you to be worrying about years spent in graduate school getting a doctorate in philosophy.

Get a life! Whether you are working in a plant nursery or a infant nursery doesn't make much difference: Neither plants nor infants will disturb your low self-esteem. People build up self-esteem on the basis of actual, mostly small, accomplishments. Here's a 5 year plan: get a second job and/or a better job, pay off your debts, and move the hell out of your mother's house. Your mother may be a saint, but do your mother a favor. One of the small accomplishments you can achieve is figuring out how to support yourself on your own. You might find that being closer to debt-free and living on your own would do wonders for your self esteem.

you give every appearance of being quite intelligent. Put that brain to work on solving your life-challenges. Job, debt, independent living, self-esteem, a career path.

About which: go back to college. If you have absolutely no idea what you want to do with your life, it's about time you started to figure that out. People without specific plans should major in liberal arts fields which are considered "generally useful". Literature, philosophy, history, mathematics, etc. Stay away from exotica like Sanskrit and Gender Studies.

If you decide that you don't want to go to college, then you had better get good at making money the old fashioned way (by working for it). You need to earn enough to support yourself now and in the future -- so you have to make a decent yearly income.

Be glad that you have a decent brain between your ears. It's time to put it to more use. You strike me as an intelligent fellow who has not "engaged with life" yet. This is a common enough problem--you are not alone here--but YOU need to "get engaged with life". You need to get your ass on the bicycle and start peddling toward something specific.

Genetic markers for specific behavioral traits aren’t genetic markers for disorders. — Perrydiculous

There are not many genetic markers for specific human behaviors, or disorders. Which is to say, we haven't found them. Of course, some behavior is genetically directed, and some features as well as disorders have genetic components. We know that from various researches. However, finding which scattered set of genes trigger a specific behavior is very difficult.

The human reward system is a very odd mechanism, compared to what one would imagine. It would appear logical that doing something that goes well, would induce pleasure. However, the reward system is activated right after the response to fear. The fear-response flushes the body with adrenaline, thus making you extremely fit for fighting and surviving in life threatening situations. The fear-response is followed by a release of norepinephrine and dopamine, which is conceived as pleasurable. — Perrydiculous

I haven't read basic psychology recently and I can't remember. But I suspect your interpretation.

Ending a state of flight-or-fight-fear-indued hyper-stasis is a necessary event. Adrenaline is metabolized and norepinephrine and dopamine are excreted to return us to a state of homeostasis. We can't tolerate hyper-stasis as a steady diet.

But I don't think it's fair to call this part of the reward system.

A better example of the reward system at work is the way we respond to addictive substances like nicotine, caffeine, opiates, and stimulants like cocaine and amphetamines.

People who are addicted to nicotine experience pleasure when they smoke. They feel relaxed, released, satisfied. But nicotine is a stimulant, and it shouldn't make us feel relaxed. So what is going on? What is happening is that a dose of nicotine is overdue and the CNS is getting antsy for what has become a normal level stimulation by nicotine. When the smoker lights up, the CNS relaxes, (dose arrives, everything is back to normal). It isn't the nicotine that relaxed, however. It's just the removal of a stimulative deficit. The same thing works with caffeine. Caffeine is another stimulant. I can testify to how irrupting it is to get up in the morning without coffee on hand. But what is irritating is the lack of the accustomed dose of stimulant, not the arrival of a tranquilizer.

Most addictive substances work in the same way, whether it's a CNS depressant like an opiate or a stimulant like cocaine, or alcohol.