okay, done, please feel free to reply there.

How about some evidence? — Benkei

This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all? — Benkei

Not worth the price.

increased labour participation of women — Benkei

And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.

In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?

higher levels of education — Benkei

If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.

higher levels of welfare — Benkei

And higher levels of people who live on benefits.

better birth control — Benkei

Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.

longer lifespans — Benkei

Don't see a correlation...

Also another indication of this...

The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. So this endemic sense of individualism that is at the core of American culture certainly shows its head across many different areas of social life. That is why, for example, individual liberty is perceived as a higher value than marriage and devotion to another person/family for example.

Also, it has been my observation that a lot of young people tend to feel that they deserve X, Y, Z in life, and the notion that they might not get it, seems inconceivable to them, and they cannot integrate it psychologically. I'm not sure why that is, but perhaps as living conditions have bettered, parents have tried to offer more and more to their children, which has resulted in a generation of people who expect the world, the state, the family etc. to give them.

The development of the whole concept of "rights", has also played into these expectations. "Rights" in popular parlance extend way beyond actual rights such as freedom of speech, etc. People often say "it's my right to {insert immoral activity here}. I'm free to do it".

I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. — Erik

I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.

So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will.

Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. — Erik

Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Political_Theory

Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right. — Erik

Yes, I agree with that.

Hmm, but there is evidence that affirmations can help produce a better self-image, and greater self-confidence, so long as they end up replacing negative thought patterns, as opposed to merely supervening on top of them.

Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately. — Erik

Thanks for sharing that. I will be listening.

I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.

The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.

Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.

The idea of transcendentals 'interacting with the world" necessarily carries a commitment to "another realm" apart from the world, though. — Janus

I disagree. Only if we dogmatically assert that something must be in the world to affect the world, or something must be physical in order to affect the physical, etc. But why would we hold to such an assumption? For example, ideas aren't physical, and yet they determine a large part of what physically happens - think about the ideas that guide scientists in inventing a new technology.

Interesting observation, but not really the point that I'm making. I'm interested in the history of ideas, and about when scientific materialism became influential or even dominant in Western culture. It is an identifiable, historical issue. Of course there is a whole tapestry of causes, and there are all kinds of political, cultural and social factors to take into account, but I'm interested in a specific aspect of the emergence of the modern world, to do with the emerging conception of modernity. — Wayfarer

But what is the driving force behind the emergence of the conception of modernity? I'm also interested in the history of ideas, but the history of ideas isn't shaped merely by ideas, but also by man. Afterall, it is man who decides what ideas are dominant in what historical period - it is man's liking which makes one idea popular, and another not so popular. So it's not just the merits of an idea that account for its ascendancy.

There's another issue at play. Everyone seems to have a dominating "worldview", and everything gets interpreted in light of this worldview. It is not so much that this worldview is arrived at by much thought - it is rather something instinctive, we find ourselves "thrown" in a worldview so to speak. That's where we start, captured in a certain worldview, which determines the very possibilities of our thinking and also of our acting.

Once our worldview is already given, mostly through peer pressure, our wills are thus shaped to adhere to it, since it is comfortable. All the reasoning that follows is merely rationalisation.

Platonism proposes a philosophy of mathematics ...that mathematics is about a realm of non-physical objects such as numbers and sets, abstracta that exist in a mysterious realm of forms beyond space and time.

Well, that mathematical objects (concepts such as triangle, circle, etc.) are non-physical objects is beyond question. The phrase that they exist "in" a realm beyond space and time though, that is gibberish. The meaning of the word "in" is problematic. We risk equivocating. When we say things exist "in" the room, we refer to one objects being present at a specific location of space, inside another object with its own location. But what does it mean to exist "in" the world? After all, the world does not have a location of its own. Here the word "in" means something more like existing alongside the world, and the word can only be applied to creatures such as human beings, who have consciousness, and exist alongside a world.

Now, the objects of mathematics don't exist "in" space, nor "in" the world, nor "in" time. They are transcendental, and as such do not exist anywhere - in any realm. They transcend "existence in". So their form of existence is thus different from "existence in". There is a reason why the Ancients, along with Plato, insisted on the study of mathematics before metaphysics. "Let no one enter here who is ignorant of geometry".

Despite not existing in the world, the transcendentals interact with the world all the time.

So that is why I have started the persuasion thread @Wayfarer. What's required is persuasion, it is changing wills, not changing intellects. Changing intellects will do nothing without redirecting the underlying will.

I will spell them out - that scientific materialism, and therefore a great deal of what goes under the name of 'philosophy' in current culture, is based on a mistaken premise, namely, that what is real is material. — Wayfarer

I think this is your mistake. Scientific materialism develops out of political and economic tendencies, and not the other way around. Politics is extremely important, because politics is the arena of the will. Remember, that for the mass of unenlightened human beings, it is the will that governs reason, and not the other way around. As such, you cannot expect politics to grow out of some badly thought reasons, but rather badly thought reasons will grow out of politics, and people will hold onto them, even if they are shown to be wrong. The problem of the age is one of will, not one of reason.

Scientific materialism is merely a justification for, a rationalisation for modern politics.

Taken literally, the passages quoted above about "love your enemies" imply that Christians should abstain from all violence. Yet, it seems that violence is sometimes even necessary. — boundless

It would entail abstaining from all violence so long as we assume that love can never be expressed through violence. Because remember, to love one is different than to do what they would want you to do.

On the other hand, I cannot understand the example you give of Abraham. In my understanding, it seems the exact opposite, i.e. that Abraham was seen as "righteous" by being faithful to God even to the point of sacrificing his son. Yet, last year a catholic priest made a point that this was not the correct reading of the episode. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasoning in saying this. So, why do you think that this episode is an example of the importance of preferential love? — boundless

"Preferential love" is another way of saying that there is a hierarchy in love. In this case, Abraham's love for God is prefered relative to Abraham's love for his son. A man's love for his wife is preferred over his love for his neighbour. And so on so forth. So when one comes in conflict with the other, the preferred one is chosen. But it's important to note at this point that preferential love is always built on top of non-preferential love.

Will be answering the rest tomorrow, too tired now!

I believe that here we should consider the duality between the "relative" and "ultimate" truth. At the "ultimate", love is non-preferential. — boundless

On the Christian world-view, I think I would disagree with this assertion. Christian love, at its highest, is both preferential and non-preferential.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. — 1 Corinthians 9:24

In Christianity too, only ONE gets the prize. This isn't meant to suggest that God doesn't love all men, but rather that God loves all men as individuals, one-to-one. So God's Love is both preferential and non-preferential at the same time. In front of God, each human being is the chosen one. And at the same time, this does not stop God from loving all men, even though he prefers each one as individual.

Maybe it points to the fact that we should not neglect who are "outside" our preferences. We should also be "good" with our enemies. — boundless

But there are cases where sacrifices are required, since we cannot please everyone as human beings. We are not God - we are finite creatures, and as such we cannot love the way God does. So it's true, that we should love all men. But what do we do when the love of all men, comes in conflict with the love of our wife, or our child, etc.?

Now, let me ask you, in turn this question: is "preferential love" present in Heaven? — boundless

I would say so - every man has a preferential relationship with God.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Sure, I agree that we must love all men. At the same time, it is evident that our preferential love will sometimes come into conflict with our non-preferential love. My position is that, in such cases, one should choose their preferential love. This is similar to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac when commanded by God.

You are right that Christianity praises preferential love more than what Buddhism does, yet, I believe that Christianity too aspires to arrive at both and encourages people to strive to "imitate" God. What do you think about this? — boundless

I agree with you that Christianity aspires to both.

Maybe not. In fact, I think that this is one of the important points of the anatman teaching, i.e. that, if unawakened, we cannot even have the "right intentions" forever (if that was possible a perpetual succession of blissful rebirths would be possible). — boundless

Okay, yes I see. I see your point, and I agree. However - potentially - we could have "right intentions" forever if we are awakened. So given two lovers who both become enlightened, what will happen to their love? Their love cannot fail to be eternal - that seems the only plausible answer. It is true that in Buddhism, because of ignorance, we cannot act rightly 100% of the time. But what happens if we dispel the ignorance?

This is what one of the blog posts I linked to says:

Reacting vs Responding
Reactions are conditioned – they are based on habits or things we have done repeatedly to condition that reaction.
Responses on the other hand can be carefully thought out and planned, weighing up the situation to see what the best course of action would be.
Responses are done with intention – you insert your intention in to solve the situation. Reactions are not.

If you say that everything is conditioned by what happened before it – then life would just be a series of pure chain reactions in the same way that inanimate objects would react to each other with no ability to change things – like dominoes falling one after the other. But the crucial difference is that we are not the dominoes that have no choice in the matter. Rather, we are more like the creator of how the dominoes formations are shaped, we are the creator of how far apart the dominoes are from each other, we are the creator of when the first domino falls – if we want them to fall at all – so we have all these freedoms!

So we have our own free will, we make our own choices. We are not inanimate things which have no free will – and so, they have no choice but to follow the course of what came before it. For us, we can be influenced by something, but we are not bound to follow along with that influence.

I agree with this difference. We start out in life in the unenligthened state, where we mostly react, instead of respond, to what is happening around us. We are the slaves of our instincts, and so on. But, as we approach enlightenment, we cease reacting, and start responding more and more. When we finally become enlightened, we no longer react, we are no longer part of the stream so to speak. Everything we do becomes a response, that is freely chosen, and not compelled.

The "metaphor" part was meant to include in what I tried to say, the Buddhist tenet of anatman. I hope that it is clearer now. But, I admit that it might be not XD — boundless

Well, is it really the case, or not? Does the metaphor bit suggest that this is a "relative" truth?

You might like "The stages of Christian mysticism and Buddhist purification" by Lance Cousins, a very rare comparative study between Christianity and Theravada Buddhism. — boundless

Thanks, I will look into it! :)

Well, just for curiosity, how would you answer to your question? — boundless

I would say it depends on the means one has at one's disposal. I would say that it's fine to use a degree of coercion in order to prevent a greater evil in this case. What coercion would consist in, depends on the circumstances. It could be some form of financial pressure, not giving your son something else he desires, etc.

IMO "good-will" means willing to do what is good for the other. Being faithful is doing what is good here. — boundless

Hmmm... but in a love relationship wouldn't what is good for the other, also be good for you?

Do you know the paradox of Buridan's Ass? That's what happens when there is no emotion.

Computers are entirely logical and yet devoid of emotion, they make lots of decisions every day, upon which we depend. — Marcus de Brun

Programmed by human beings. We program them based on our emotions, so they do what we want.

Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel? — Marcus de Brun

It's quite simple really. Not having a bowel movement when you need to have one is not comfortable. So you experience revulsion towards abstaining, and therefore you go and have your bowel movement. It is an emotion that compels you to do it. Reasoning is based on emotions. Without emotions, you would take no actions whatsoever. So you take a bowel movement because you want to feel good, you don't want to get sepsis or some other form of stomach infection, etc. All those are ultimately anchored in emotions.

Emotions represent the expression of instinctual imperative, however 'logic' entails the disciplining of emotion towards the universal goal of instinctual satiety. — Marcus de Brun

This is wrong. There can be no logic without emotion. Logic without emotion is dead, it doesn't do anything, and cannot decide anything.

OK, we'll see. I won't forget this any more than you didn't forget my Hillary prediction. :D — Baden

Perfect ;)

Let's say I'm 95% on that. I'd put money on it if I could get decent odds. What's your bet. Do you really think the conspiracy is more likely? — Baden

Yes, I think no conspiracy is less likely than 95%. At the very least, I'm quite sure there will be evidence for the intent to create a conspiracy. Let's say 75% on that.

But haven't you heard anyone ever sound off about something they couldn't follow up with? Saying we'll do this, we'll do that while actually just sounding off because they can't? That never occurred to you? Instead you think the conspiracy theory is more plausible. Really? Common, dude! :) — Baden

Even if he couldn't follow up with it, the fact that he indicated to anyone that the FBI may be used for such purposes is disgraceful to say the least...

I'm not going to physically attack you because you keep shilling for Trump. We both benefit by agreeing to allow free speech but not violence against each other. Of course, it could eventually go that way but personally I couldn't imagine the vast majority of citizens of advanced democracies supporting violence because of political disagreements around the relative centre such as we have. — Baden

Okay, sure, but then we're more of an elite environment here. I would be very surprised if anyone here would physically attack someone else based on differences of opinion.

But the same cannot be said for most people. Most people will easily resort to violence, especially in crowds, where individual responsibility is diminished. You know this, you've studied psychology. The average mass of mankind isn't very enlightened, despite living in democracies today.

Plus, he said in a personal text, "we" will stop him not specifying "we". And you take that as enough evidence for a conspiracy. It's so laughably ridiculous. I mean it's one word in a private text. — Baden

It's a written communication, where he expresses the desire that some faction, which includes him, will "stop it" (Trump's election). It's laughable to think that the "we" didn't refer to the FBI.

5.6k
But let's go back to moral character with regard to women because you brought it up. At least tell me this, who seems the worse offender to you, the pussy grabbing, porn star fucking, alleged sexual abuser, Trump or this random FBI agent who cheated on his wife? — Baden

With regard to this particular side of their character, equally bad.

However, at least Trump appears to be more honest and stick to his values and points with regards to the other issues (immigration, tax cuts, Obama care, etc.).

Is it the type of people this medium attracts? Or is it the medium itself?

This medium doesn't lend itself well for persuasion. — Benkei

Why do you reckon that is? I've noticed the same.

So since that's a plausible explanation and I assume some form of standard of proof is necessary, you don't really have anything to go on as you can't read minds. — Benkei

Sure, it is a possibility, but a highly unlikely one given the context. He was not Hillary, so "We" cannot be Hillary. It must be a group that includes him. Granted that he worked for the FBI, AND they were working on a Trump investigation, the "we" most likely refers to the FBI. You are a lawyer. Do you deny that this is the most plausible explanation, especially given the animosity he displayed towards Trump coupled with his not so upstanding character?

You must admit your comments are little bizarre considering your history of support for Trump and excuses for his despicable behavior towards woman. Strzok pales in comparison. — Baden

There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump tried to obstruct justice, and use state agencies in order to further ideological goals without regard for the rule of law. Here is a guy who WROTE that he and the FBI will stop Trump - what better evidence do you want?!

That's just the cherry on top of the cake, the main thing is that he's corrupt to the bone, and his moral character does nothing to change that perspective of him. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, then maybe we ought to be more lenient in the way we interpret his texts. But that's not the case.

What is even more despicable is the way the Democrats are trying to unfairly defend him.

And Strzok was a senior investigator. It says enough. — raza

I see attempts by Goodlatte to badger him and his Democratic colleagues on a point that's really immaterial. — Benkei

I don't think it's immaterial. Here is a guy who has shown contempt for the electoral process, and has gone so far as to suggest that "We'll stop it" (referring to Trump becoming President). And give me a break, I'm not an idiot, I know fully well that "we" doesn't refer to the American people, as he blatantly lied to Congress. "We" refers to the FBI. He started the investigation into Trump because he hated Trump.

On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth all the while admitting to hurting his wife. Really, a despicable man, and I think he should be in jail.

Short answer, no. — Baden

That's what I was thinking too, and that's what the poll is indicating as well.

But this has ramifications for philosophy. Remember that Socrates was out there in the marketplace to teach his fellow citizens what is right and wrong - to discover what is the right way to live. If we are unable to persuade others, then this foundational task of philosophy becomes impossible or, better said, useless.

The ramifications extend to politics as well, because, if we are unable to persuade each other, then the only alternative left is force. Then we are deceiving ourselves if we think that we can live in peace. Peace can only come about by mutual adjustment to one another. It entails each member of the community changing oneself to accommodate the interests of the larger community.

Strzok should clearly be arrested, he lied multiple times to Congress. What a "human" being...

Humiliated...

Here we are, Gowdy totally humiliated Strzok and pulled the pants down on the FBI

Persuasion does not happen in a public forum in any case. It happens in the silence of the night, and not only as a result of arguments. We're not that kind of creature (Mr. Spock?), thank God. — Mariner

Yeah, I agree with this, I think this is the most useful comment so far. More radical changes require reflection, but, very often, dialogue is too adversarial to encourage genuine reflection. To achieve genuine reflection, one must first calm the passions so to speak. And around contentious topics, this is not easy, because people have emotional reactions to some issues.

For example, if you try to discuss gay marriage with a homosexual who wants to get married, then it will be quite difficult to get past the emotional barrier - to calm the mind and be capable to achieve the stage of genuine reflection.

they were about how I opened their eyes to a different way of looking at some issues. Usually, there were not of the kind "Yeah, I have seen the light, thanks, I'm now wholly changed!" (with one exception). — Mariner

Well yeah, I have witnessed those too, BUT many of those people were already sort-of persuaded prior to the encounter. They just needed a little push so to speak. But I'm more interested in the possibility of bringing about more radical changes.

Are you familiar with them? — Mariner

Not very, do you have a reference?

I posted this several times before, but I really like the take on Buddhism given on this blog:

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/is-there-no-self-or-is-there-free-will-in-buddhism/

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-confusion-over-the-self-in-modern-buddhism/

At the same time, however, I do not think that it speaks negatively about the "preferential" one. — boundless

But, if, as you say, everyone could be mother, father, etc. then your current mother and father are, relatively speaking, devalued, aren't they? In other words, it is no longer a preferential kind of love, is it? If you expand the object of preference to include almost anybody, then you cannot claim to have a preference anymore - it defeats the purpose.

It sounds, actually reminiscent of this passage of the Gospel: — boundless

But the Gospel passage quoted is Jesus's answer. The message is that God's love is not preferential - or rather, that God's love is more than merely preferential. To further unpack this, God's love for each person is of the same intensity as the preferential love a father has for a child, but this does not, in any regard, diminish God's love for others.

The problem is that the “love” you describe requires essential selves: “I will love you forever”, taken literally, sense implies that there is an unchanging “I” that will love “forever” an unchanging “you”. — boundless

I find this notion very strange and unclear. Do we have free will? If we have free will, then presumably, we are able to control some things, such as who we love. So if love is such a choice that we make, it doesn't require our selves to be unchanging, but rather merely our choice to remain unchanging. It becomes, once again, a matter of the will, doesn't it?

It's also not clear to me what an "unchanging self" would even be. Buddhists reject the Hindu notion of atman. But what exactly is rejected still remains mysterious. I mean, phenomenologically speaking, what is the difference between an unchanging self, and a changing one? We live life, and sometimes our preferences change. Does that mean our self has changed? If the phenomena are anatta (empty of self), then there can be no question of our self changing when phenomena (thoughts, desires, etc.) change.

What would you say is the relationship between anatta and will?

So, I think that the “eternal” romantic love you have in mind is incompatible with Buddhist notion of anatman also because it requires an ability to control forever the events, whereas anatman denies that. — boundless

I disagree. The events could lead to the two lovers becoming separate, for example. But this cannot affect their will, all by itself. Love is anchored in their will. Is their will not under their control?

I think that in some Mahayana schools the mindstreams never cease and so in a “metaphorical” sense the promise might be justified. — boundless

Can you detail what you mean?

one should try to stop his son for consuming cocaine — boundless

Okay, but how far should one go to stop their son from consuming cocaine?

for “good-will” a wife/husband should try to be faithful! — boundless

What do you mean for "good will"?

But this choice actually reflects my nature (or at least I think and hope). — boundless

So you do have a nature (or a self)? :P

I think that for Mahayana Buddhism the answer may be “yes”. Buddhas are already “outside” (in the sense of being “trascending and immanent”) and yet they are full of compassion etc. The "mindstreams" of the awakened beings are always present to help countless sentient beings in countless eons. If samsara will be completely emptied, I think that there are at least some schools of Mahayana that do not accept an end of the "mindstreams". Since, the mindstreams of awakened beings are full of "positive qualities", then you can argue that some kind of relational love is endless.

Since I am agnostic (but actively seeking to "find out the truth") about "Samsara", I can only say that I recognize that our world is "fallen" and some kind of "Love" (which I have no problems to call "divine") transcends the this world.

Of course, becoming a Buddha means that one "transcends" the human condition. On the other hand, in Christianity there is no need to do that (in fact, and I agree with it, Christianity teaches that there are serious risks for those interested in "transcending" the human condition. After all, it is very easy to get conceited in the process) — boundless

I agree.

When @Maw talks about Trump and the Supreme Court pick, it sounds EXACTLY like Hannity describes it:


:lol:

he loved women in every sense of the word. — frank

As far as I know, Augustine only loved ONE woman in every sense of the word.