The issue runs deeper than merely thinking that the infinite runs prior to the finite. It goes to the how of how much you respect God as real in (acosmist terms). How you speak about God treats God as a as a possibility, such that we might be born into a world in which God (in acosmist terms) might or not be real. You hold our existence to ransom based on the idea of the presence infinite over the absence of infinite, as if it were possible for the infinite to be or not be. You are still running in fear with belief in the godless world. You haven’t realised that God (in acosmist terms) is real and necessary, such there is no possibility of the godless reality, making the supposed issue, whether or not God is true, entirely moot. The very question is nonsensical. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How strange you are, now you're saying exactly what I've been saying. I entirely agree with you, and in fact have told you that it is a mistake to treat God as a possibility (the way you did when you asked me to consider whether a godless world is worthless). -> No doubt that now you'll go on saying that in fact I don't agree with you, and on we'll go :D

Confusion of the infinite and finite isn’t just a shallow statement that places the infinite in time, it’s one which fundamentally misunderstands the infinite and it relationship to possibility. It creates the illusion of the meaningless (godless) world which then people try to fill in with various imaginings. God gets treated as an action, a state, one possible outcome, which must be inserted into the world for it to mean, for God to be true (i.e. “the saviour”). In the relevant terms, the Christian world is godless, for it denies God is real (in acosmist terms) and suppose God is illusion for God is a possible (finite) outcome of the world which acts, causes and changes finite states. It is the ultimate category error which denies the infinite then tries to use the finite to paper over the nonsensical gap that denial leaves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree with your interpretation of the Christian worldview. I think Aquinas would also disagree, as well as a few other theologians.

Spinoza's split between thought and extension is not between the existing minds and bodies, but a logical distinction between that which is present to mind (meaning) and that which is existing (states of the world, bodies, existing thoughts). It's the difference that the mind/body split has been trying to grasp and failing for its entire history. The meaning (infinite) which we access every time we think and the various states of the world we observe or know about. It's how Spinoza dispenses with the mind/body problem. The infinities of mind are given with the finites of body, removing any need to give priority to either, and so eliminating the "hard problem" and the question of "where does meaning come from?" Since meaning is infinite and unchanging, it never had a beginning or end, it came from nowhere and can go nowhere. All meaning is necessary. It given by definition, with all the finite states which are given in themselves (as opposed to by the infinite). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree with everything, except the second half of the last sentence. The finite is the expression of the infinite and DOES NOT have independence from the infinite.

Thus, it makes no sense to claim the infinite as a ground for possibility. It's necessary. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it is necessary. That is exactly what a ground of possibility means. The ground of possibility is itself not possible, it is necessary, just the same way that that which makes vision possible (the eye) is necessarily not present in the field of vision (well, except when you look in the mirror, but you get the point).

God is never in doubt such that it makes sense to say: "Well, the presence of the infinite constitutes the ground which allows us to have possible finite states as opposed to not." Any finite state is, by definition, possible. To argue something has to come in (God, the infinite) to insert possibility into a world without it, or which might not have any, is incoherent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree!

Why are there no Platonists? Seriously, 6 Aristotle lovers. I was hoping to get a good debate with a strong Platonist, who would point out my misunderstandings of Platonism! :)

This is an inconsistent claim from one who argued so tenaciously against the rational justifiably of any generalized inductive inferences not so long ago! — John

I still maintain that position. But I did say that it is justified based on custom (and NOT that it is unjustified pure and simple). If we take a larger view of reason, and include custom in it, rather than merely deductive reasoning, then we can say that inductive inferences are also the result of reason (although negatively so - there simply is no reason to question these inductive inferences).

Is eating meat morally permissible? Why or why not? — darthbarracuda

This question is relatively trivial to the more pressing questions we have regarding our well-being - this issue is relatively minor. I would say it depends. It would be preferable if there was no meat eating, morally speaking. However, some people do need meat eating to function at top potential - for example athletes. The proteins that are found in meat are hard (though not impossible) to get elsewhere. If someone doesn't do any sports - I'd say morally speaking they should not eat meat (generally speaking - I can see exceptions even here).

That's saying the infinite is present before the finite, Agustino. Finite terms. It's nonsense if you are talking about the infinite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes but not in the temporal sense of before. I can also say that the infinite is bigger than the finite. Bigger is a finite term. Does that mean that my assertion is now false? It's a category error? I don't believe so. It's possibly to compare the infinite with the finite, what is not possible is to compare infinite with infinite, that's when comparison terms break.

For sure... but that's been my point all along: that under original sin our world on it own, without the existing infinite, in-itself, is worthless and doesn't make sense. You've been the one asserting this isn't true. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No what you are saying misses the point simply because it is impossible to judge something that is incoherent. It is impossible to judge or say anything about a triangle without sides. Likewise, under the Christian worldview, it is impossible to judge or say anything about a Godless world.

That's not what I said. The meaning of the body, it logical expression, is eternal. Spinoza shows the difference between meaning and existence, which are, in many cases, is referred to "body" and "mind" historically. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why do you think Spinoza means meaning by body, and existence by mind?

In the sense you are talking about, the meaning of "thinking," as opposed to any individuals thoughts, there is no finite state and no casual relationship. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Rather it is that which makes any thought possible in the first place. It is a ground of possibility.

I see original sin, and the fall of the human species as quite a beautiful story. We are the only species that are truly culpable. Adam's legacy that we inherit is to lose our innocence, become self aware, feel ashamed, contrite, and cognizant of the moral weight of our actions. We can never be innocent like other animals again. We ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and became truly capable of guilt. — Wosret

More a literalist interpretation than I prefer, but interesting.

Harvey Cox, an American theologian, writes in his book "On Not Leaving It To The Snake" that Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but that this would only be a good thing if they made the decision themselves. Instead, they were seduced into eating it by the Serpent. The snack of knowledge therefore had to backfire.

It had to backfire, because the story of Adam's and Eve's fall reads like the typical fairy tale: "Here's the deal: You can go everywhere you want in the forest, but you MUST NEVER STEP INTO THE GROVE OF SACRED ASH TREES." So our hapless hero and heroine wander about the forest, and sure enough they come to the grove of sacred ash trees. In the middle of the grove is a fountain of sparkling water (it's naturally carbonated--Perrier--) and the heroine suddenly is terribly thirsty and must MUST have a sip of the water. She carries on hysterically until the hero says, "OK I'll get you a drink of water." What a bitch, he thinks. As soon as he steps into the circle of sacred ash trees he turns into a stag, and runs away.

Maybe, after much folderol, he will be turned back into a hero and maybe they will live happily ever after. Or maybe he decides stags are better company than hysterical maidens.

Adam and eve stay human, but the deal they get in life soon turns shitty after they eat the fruit. God, in place of the witch, says "I told you not to do it, and you did it anyway. Now you have to be punished -- otherwise, what kind of limp-wristed fairy tale would this be? Out, Out, Out. Raus! Raus!

And forever after it's been one damned thing after another for the children of Adam. — Bitter Crank

Hah this was a funny re-telling!

No, it's your misreading of Spinoza, where you misread the infinite as existence. We are in a certain sense, logical expression, always infinite. We even mean before we exist. Even things which never exist have their meaning (all those possible worlds we might talk about). You are confusing this with existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

According to you, the body is also eternal. Spinoza clearly shows that only parts of the mind are eternal, and not the body. It's again you who are denying what is written plainly on the paper.

There's that dualism again. Thought is a existing state. It is finite. Our thought emerge, pass on and result in changes to existing states. It's not the soul. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes our thought - noun. What I'm talking about is the activity of thinking - the process.

I know that. My point is it an oxymoron. Logic is timeless. To say it is prior or afterwards is incoherent. you are applying finite terms to the infinite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not saying logic is prior to anything. The infinite however is logically prior to the finite. That's what I've said, which is different.

Rather, we are talking about what Christians think about the Godless universe. Whether they believe the Godless universe is true is beside the point. What's important is what they are saying about the world if it was Godless and how that ties worth to the presence of God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well what do you think of a triangle if it didn't have any sides? That's exactly what the Christian thinks about the world if it was Godless. Simple. Just because you can list a string of words and put a question mark at the end does not mean that the question makes sense within a certain system of thought.

That's nonsensical. God is timeless. The infinite cannot be prior or afterwards. It only IS. God doesn't exist, as God is not finite. Logic is not a presupposition that enables existence. It's always true (the infinite) and runs concurrently with world the exists on its own terms (the finite). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I said the infinite is logically prior. The infinite isn't logic btw - logic is merely a tool of the understanding.

Yeah... only because of the divine. Take away God and it's all worthless, despite the fact it changes not one thing occurs in the finite world. For the Christian, the world is worthless because it is fallen. God then rescues it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You cannot take away God under the Christian view. It's simply a logical contradiction to think a world without God given the Christian system. So your point is moot.

No, that's just what many people think, confusing the logical expression they sense fort her own existence. It's false. We aren't eternal. As existing state we have not always been. We start and end. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's what Spinoza thinks :) He wrote it. So it seems that you are the one mocking his insight. I think that in a certain sense, we have always been.

Because it doesn't accept the fallen world (in Christian terms, "the Godless" ) as good. It posits it must be destroyed, that it needs the being of God to save it, because it supposes the world doesn't matter without the divine (and the stuff which usually goes along with that, such as afterlife, judgement, retribution, etc., etc. ). — TheWillowOfDarkness

These terms are incoherent under the Christian worldview. A world without a God is like a triangle without sides!

Logical expression works as a "soul"; it something the world (including bodies) do, but it doesn't exist. It not the existing body. Since it is infinite (logical) rather than finite (existing) it does remain after death, but that's because it was never in instantiated in the physical realm at all. The activity was always logical, even when is person was living. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The activity (the soul) has effects in the physical world. For example the capacity for thought would be such an effect.

You insist despite the obvious contradiction, that the soul was initially apart of the body, a state of the existing state of the world, a finite thing which passed into existence, which somehow changed and altered with time. Here the problem is not the soul as activity, but that you read it as the existence of man. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I insist that the soul's existence goes on before and after the body. Man is both soul and body. Only a part of man is eternal according to philosophy (according to Christianity, the body will be eternal too).

I do that all the time, I might go as far to say in every moment. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Good to know haha!

In logical expression, yes (though our bodies are infinite there too) — TheWillowOfDarkness

It is impossible that this is Spinoza's meaning for the following reason. If it was his meaning, then he would not state "the mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body", which implies that the body CAN BE and IS absolutely destroyed.

Our minds aren't distinct form our bodies in the sense that former is finite and the latter infinite (you are regressing into the mind-body dualism Spinoza dispels here) — TheWillowOfDarkness

You are misunderstanding. Is Aristotle's hylomorphism dualistic? Absolutely not. The soul is the form of the body. The soul does not exist physically without the body. And yet, the soul is eternal and lives after death. Not because of a dualistic break between the two, but rather because the soul is an activity, which still remains as an activity even after death when it isn't instantiated in the physical realm anymore. Spinoza is similar.

You speak of if the indestructible nature of logical expression were the existing mind of a person. As if the feeling one was infinite actually qualified as part of a person existing for eternity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

"We feel AND KNOW that we are eternal"

Another example of not accepting the finite nature of man. Here you propose there is an infinite part of man such that it produces a contradiction. This is not true. Such a contradiction is impossible. No state of man is infinite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Proof?

My point is it considered the world worthless because of that. It is the fear of existing in world in which there is at least some evil that cannot be escaped. Worthlessness is part of the doctrine of original sin. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How come?

Rather than noting the presence of inescapable evil (sin) and the stating that such a world is nevertheless worthwhile, it proclaims the world with evil is completely worthless, such that things need to be infinite to matter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it merely states that it is the infinite which ultimately gives value to this world - in fact this world (the finite) cannot exist without the infinite, which must always be presupposed. It's strange you say this when the Christian position is clearly that this world is good - that God's creation is good, despite its fallenness.

More like: "With the being of the world (including us), He moves (i.e. the infinite expressed by the finite, " if we are being careful in our language to avoid the equivocation of the finite with the infinite. The world is not a subset of the infinite as your quote might imply if read the wrong way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But God is in this case logically prior to the world. The world can't exist without God, but God could (logically) exist without the world. Sub specie aeternitatis, even according to Spinoza, is the ONLY reality, and sub specie durationis is the illusion (in accordance to Hegel's acosmistic reading of Spinoza at least).

the notion the world (including human life) is inherently worthless because it is not perfect — TheWillowOfDarkness

Where do I say this. Please quote instead of assuming some notions that I have never stated nor agreed with. I don't understand why you like to imagine things about what I'm saying instead of actually look at what I've written. You say I have a trouble with accepting the finite nature of man, and I say you have a trouble with accepting what I wrote, and prefer instead to create an imagination of it...

It the failure to accept that we are human, that we live in a finite world, that we will die, that we live in the swirling chaos of the world sub specie durationis. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, original sin states that that is precisely what will happen.

Here the problem is not the identification of the world as full of evil (it is), but rather the delusion that we can ever escape it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not part of the doctrine of original sin - quite the contrary, as I have stated very clearly, the punishment for sin is death, and this is inescapable as I have illustrated. Therefore there is no delusion that we can ever escape from it. Original sin states quite the contrary.

So distraught at the failures of the finite, we run to the lie that our lives are something other, that there is somehow a place, a state, a life, sub specie aeternitatis. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, we run to something other merely because it exists - it is real, and it is a part of ourselves. If we neglected that part, then that would be the equivalent of neglecting part of our being. Kierkegaard wrote extensively on this - on the need for man to balance the finite and the infinite within him, on the fact that man is a contradiction, holding both finite and infinite within him, yadda yadda yadda...

Not even the spirit of man escapes of the world sub specie durationis. When man dies and his feelings leave the world, there is no more feeling eternal. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No the spirit never escapes from the world sub specie durationis because it simply never is part of the world sub specie durationis. I don't know what happens after death - I can't imagine either that there is feeling or that there isn't feeling. Those categories, as far as I'm concerned, no longer apply, except perhaps metaphorically.

It's the fear of the finite, the fear of death, the inability to accept life is sub specie durationis and that we, as existing states, are outside the infinite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Part of ourselves - namely our bodies - are outside of the infinite. But our souls and minds never are.

t's a mockery of Spinoza's insight into sub specie durationis and sub specie aeternitatis, a confusing of the latter for the former because one cannot accept the finite nature of life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Re-read Book V of the Ethics. Spinoza is clear about this: "V.P23: The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal". It's ironic that YOU are the one talking about mocking Spinoza's insights...

Orignal sin doesn't merely point out the wrongness of finite life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It doesn't point out the wrongness of finite life.

It mistakenly proposes we are worthless because of it, that it means we must be something other than ourselves, something other than finite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Neither does it state this.

God ceases to be the immanent expression of the world (i.e. the infinite) and is mistaken for a life, a utopia, which has never existed and never will. It forms a delusion about our life (that be can be infinite) and worth (that the world is worthless, without the expression of God) with which we try to fill the whole in our heart. — TheWillowOfDarkness

"In Him we move and have our being"

But it never really works because we are finite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This assumption is wrong. You have just not discovered the infinite part of man. We are BOTH finite and infinite.

FEEL like they will be infinite — TheWillowOfDarkness

Spinoza's words :) . Spinoza stated that "we feel and know that we are eternal" in the note to proposition 23 quoted earlier.

Excellent post. However, I think at least in moral matters, human beings have always ever been fallen, for we now know that there never was an idyllic utopia from which to fall. Ancient man's life was just as nasty, brutish, and short as modern man's. And speaking of the world, ever since the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago, it has been awash in a staggering, seemingly endless amount of violence and death. I greatly value the doctrine of original sin for its explanatory power, but it is crucially deficient in the above respects. — Thorongil

The idyllic utopia from which we fell is the atemporal and eternal. The world is fallen only when we compare it to the world sub specie aeternitatis - thus, man's fall into time (and hence into death), is the effect of original sin. But, alas - there is still spirit in man, not only flesh, and thus not everything has fallen into time - something still remains which is eternal - otherwise there would be no truth but Cioran. As Spinoza has said, sometimes we feel that we are eternal; or as Wittgenstein has said, eternity is not to be found in time's infinity, but rather in the eternity of the present moment; life knows no end, the same way our visual field knows no end.

The reason why we must presuppose an idyllic utopia from which a fall occurs is the following (this was by the way going to be the next topic I was going to post; why is this world fallen?): in this world, life is destroyed by death, health is destroyed by illness, order is destroyed by entropy. The ontological status of this world is one in which evil triumphs over good, ultimately. However - death, illness, entropy - all of them logically presuppose life, health and order. Thus, life is logically anterior to death and must necessarily be so. No death can be conceived in the absence of life. For this reason, we know that sub specie aeternitatis, life triumphs over death as it is prior to it. Only sub specie durationis does death overcome life, and so, we call this world, sub specie durationis, fallen, because the ontological status of good and evil are inverted compared to the world sub specie aeternitatis.

What is evil and how does it have to do with short-term pleasure? — schopenhauer1

Evil is self or other destructive behavior. It has to do with short-term pleasure because to have short term pleasure (in this context) means to sacrifice long term pleasure. By definition in this case. Whatsoever pleasure you can imagine which does not sacrifice future pleasure is by this definition a long-term pleasure.

Most would say murder, genocide, rape, purposely hurting people, and such is evil, but that does not necessarily correlate with indulging in short-term pleasure. — schopenhauer1

According to the definitions above it does, since what qualifies as short term pleasure is precisely that which prevents one from enjoying a greater good in the future. Thus it is evil because it does harm to one's own soul.

If you allude to sex (with self or others), which almost all Church Fathers and "Saint" Paul were fixated on and essentially "alluding" to with sin it seems, then besides STDs, this does not seem in the evil category or even a short-term loss unless it is accompanied by feelings of remorse or shame which may be a cultural, personal psychological, or personal biological thing- again both not equating to what is normally deemed "evil". — schopenhauer1

Sex in the wrong circumstances (outside of a committed relationship) is evil as it harms the one who engages in it as it leads to them to: 1. sacrifice their capacity for developing intimacy with someone in the future, 2. fail to achieve the natural purpose of sex (intimacy and/or reproduction), 3. treat another human being as a means to an end, and thus objectify them, taking the dignity they rightfully deserve away.

However, the personal consumption of drugs, starts out with the general human tendency towards boredom, and the pleasurable or altered state of the drug becomes an addiction. Addiction could be said to be an "evil" because it can consume a life and cause it to think of nothing else. However, a condition like addiction does not seem to fall under evil in the conventional sense of the word either. — schopenhauer1

Addiction is harmful to the flourishing of the organism, and is therefore evil. Addiction does not promote flourishing.

Also, a bigger point, at what time is it good then to indulge? The short term is forfeited to the long term, but usually with the goal to eventually cash in on all those original forfeits. You invest and wait to see it grow and reap the rewards. The emphasis being that you will eventually reap the rewards. — schopenhauer1

At no point. Indulgence is always bad. What is good is skillful (as Buddhists would say) living. This whole idea of cashing in is part of the problem. There is no cashing in. The focus is on living a good life, which means growing and developing one's self and doing good for self and others. You're cashing in at all times. Going for short-term pleasures is being short-sighted and creating future trouble for yourself, thus, paradoxically, not cashing in. The virtuous man is the only one who cashes in, and he cashes in every moment.

"Virtue is its own reward" does not seem to be saying much to me. Pleasure seems to be the reward of "virtues". If you want to get good at something, patience, fortitude and such may be the way to get there, but the "reward" seems to be the pleasure of mastering something and feeling or seeing the result. — schopenhauer1

Sure. Paradoxically, the only man who ever gets real, lasting pleasure is the virtuous man, and this is the ultimate Socratic irony.

Indeed, but I wasn't referring to being judgemental in that way in my post. By that definition, being judgemental would be to react something like "Ah fuck you, you're an idiot for thinking like that!". But too often being judgemental is used to enforce political correctness today, and that is what I am against. There is nothing wrong with judging (although culturally we have transformed it into a weapon so that we can prevent anyone from ever judging us).

Bingo. I was raised in, and pursued with Methodist diligence, a Protestant, Calvinist view of the world. Sometime around 35 years ago (at age 35) I decided to ditch my religious heritage. Easier said than done. It was like trying to make DOS look like a MAC operating system -- it didn't work. Calvinism is still operating underneath all the replacement systems. It could be worse.

Bertrand Russell noted that atheists generally bear the stamp of the religion they rejected. Seems to be true. Officially, I don't believe in original sin or the rest of it, but when I think about or discuss Christianity, it's the Calvinist view that comes to the fore. Yes, it feels a bit schizoid sometimes. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think it is good you have rationally abandoned the view (even though, it is understandable that some emotional intuition leftovers exist). I looked into it, but it doesn't make much sense to me. If people are inherently wretched by nature, regardless of what they do, then this ultimately acts to shift the blame from man to God, and thereby relieves the former of responsibility - by making wretchedness and sin a necessity. This ultimately defeats the purpose of religion, not to mention that it anthropomorphises God - believes that God can make inherently defective creatures.

The Somali peoples have lived in the horn of Africa since ancient times. I don't know much about the place, but we have a lot of Somalis living in Minneapolis. They are most likely here to stay. They arrived with what seems like an intact culture. Their country of origin, however, is currently a mess. It's a failed state. A people can survive a failed state, and fairly severe disruption. Why has Somalia been disrupted in the 20th century? Ask the Italians, British, Russians, and Americans who have all taken a turn at screwing things up there. And ask the Somalis and Ethiopians too.

As for the Somalis, they tend to be about as insular as many of the non-Christian immigrant groups. Their second and third generations are English speakers, but are Moslems in the Land of German Lutherans and Catholics. Personally, I don't see any great advantage to this diversity -- its just a worse version of conservative theism, as far as I am concerned.

To be fair, the German Lutherans were once kind of insular and didn't speak English in their first and second generations either. Eventually they became the numerically and culturally dominant group, even more than Scandinavians. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and such communities are indeed dangerous. It is many Muslim communities across Europe which are like these, esp. in France and Germany. Ultimately these cultures will never like each other. I have many Muslim friends, and they get along well with me, but with the rest of Western people they don't. They send their kids to school, and for example, their daughters get made fun of and peer pressured into wearing makeup, dressing loosely, etc. Their sons get made fun of for refusing to drink, or to date, etc. This makes them feel very alienated, and makes them try to organise into Muslim-only groups. And even when they don't get picked on directly, they feel isolated, because they see that they are different from everyone else around. Then they try to convert others to their religion slowly, those few who do come in contact with them. And to be honest, they can't really be blamed - if I was like them, I would do the same because obviously the culture here is oppressive to them. But the real problem is that we have organised society in such a way which permits these problems to happen. I think cultural considerations should go into the immigration process - not everyone should be allowed to immigrate to any country, because not anyone fits. First they must show that they can fit adapt, and integrate before they are allowed to move.

I find that ironic coming from someone who harps on about virtue, and is probably the most judgemental member of the forum. — Sapientia

Is being judgemental necessarily wrong? Where did you get this from? I think being judgemental is good if your judgement is correct, and bad if your judgement is bad. As Thomas Aquinas proved in the (was it first, can't remember now) chapter of Summa contra Gentilles, the office of the wise man has two purposes: 1. to provide guidance towards the truth, and 2. to refute the false. Thus, likewise, the office of the virtuous man has two purposes: 1. to show what virtue is and how to approach it, and 2. to fight against vice (and hence judge it).

As for the abortion issue, perhaps you should actually read (or reread) my part in that discussion. Then perhaps you wouldn't waste time attacking claims that I wouldn't make, and have actually argued against, like the claim the mother should have the choice to kill the child at her whim. — Sapientia

Do you mean your first post in the original thread (not this one)? Or the posts in this thread (haven't read through those yet!). And I do agree that your views are more sensible on abortion compared to some of the other ones I've read in that thread.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" are almost meaningless. Using your own labels as an example, being opposed to the death penalty and in favor of universal health care are positions most on the left espouse.

I find classical liberalism, which seems to fit me best, is now seen as a conservative or rightist position, ironically enough. But this has only come about in the last 50 years or so with the rise of the highly illiberal New Left. — Thorongil

Can you PM me with some recommended readings from the old Left please :) Thanks!

Hanover calls himself a common sense conservative. There isn't much sense in your views on those topics - whether common or otherwise. Take abortion, for example. Hanover and I want to conserve only that which it's sensible to conserve, rather than being a reactionary, harkening back to the bad old days of back-alley abortions. — Sapientia

Always trying to take the moral high ground no? Well let's see if you do have the high moral ground. Is women having no respect for their bodies and fucking around something that the state should spend money on? If they want to bring a child in the world, if they can't be bothered with protection and/or if they wanna risk their life in a back-alley abortion, so be it. They just got to learn that they have to be RESPONSIBLE for their actions. It's their choice and that should be allowed to happen. Is women denying the right of the father to have the child, even after they have had unprotected sex with him, just because they have different plans compared to the father right? No, it's a moral abomination. The child belongs to both parents, and the mother having the choice to kill the child at her whim is simply s-t-u-p-i-d, as it denies the father the equal right he has over having the child. (of course there are exceptions to this such as rape).

Why not? :)

It's good training ground for me. As Sinatra says, if I can make it here, I can make it anywhere ;)

Hah! I just noticed that I am the only conservative around here :P

Hanover calls himself conservative, but I look at his gay marriage, abortion and drug positions and ummm doesn't sound conservative at all...

Major shifts in Western culture have occurred in terms of sexual behaviour before long term relationships and in the ending of long term relationships, but most people are not promiscuous otherwise. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Which simply is the problem, because instead of seeking and/or preparing themselves for long term relationships (which even according to your account is the end goal), they engage in activities which do nothing to facilitate the achievement of the end goal, but to actually profoundly harm it, and move them farther from its achievement. The end goal is a long-term dignified relationship, in which both partners are loyal and care for each other, in which they grow together and live together in mutual company and love.

I claim this because it is your position. You are more interested in whether people are said to be in a community, whether they a pronounced to have ties or joy with others, than if they actually do or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, this isn't my position. I am interested in facilitating a reasonable and fulfilled life for people, NOT in it being said about them that they live reasonable and fulfilled lives.

I mean that I see some promiscuous people thinking of others in their sexual practices. It is a limited subset, but not every promiscuous person views sex as question of getting an object. For some people it is about what other people want too. The point is, even amongst those who you would single out as lacking community, there are people with communal ties. You are making the mistake only looking at what is said to be a part of community, rather than examining what people actually do. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am not even talking about this. What I'm talking about is that promiscuity should never be allowed to become the NORM of society. I am saying that promiscuity becoming the norm destroys social cohesion and ties. The majority of people should not behave promiscuously. Our problem in the West is that promiscuity has become the norm. That it should exist as a small subset, sure - that's how it has existed for most times historically.

In an established society and growing, were there is an excess of economic roles, the equation reverses. There aren't the places in the workforce for everyone and so it's not a problem which can be solved through motivation to do pad work. Interests shift outside doing work which obtains money because it isn't there and often plays a big part in serving the community (for all that work that needs doing which no-one is interested in paying for). — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is never an excess of useful work for a community. We have so many sick people, so many elderly, etc etc. who need to be cared for. I don't see that we live in a day and age of too little work available.

"Becoming weak" amounts to ceasing to be a warmonger and actually caring for the well-being of one's citizens here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

YES! But in a different way from the way you put it. Decadence comes first, and it is rationalised AS morality after (which by the way is EXACTLY the rationalisation you are displaying in your post by labeling empire building as warmongering and other negative adjectives). We say we're no longer like the Romans - we don't need to train our young men to fight now, we're morally superior - we don't believe in fighting. But the truth is that first we became complacent in our wealth, and only then did we stop being interested to train our young in fighting. After this fact, we started rationalising why we're no longer training them to fight - why we no longer follow traditions - because we're moral - we've become morally superior. This drama has played multiple times in history.

It not actually a question of selfishness (people still care for each other plenty in falling empires), but rather having no interest in empire building anymore. What you care about here is not community, but building empires. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it is a question of selfishness. In the early stages, people sacrifice themselves for the well-being and prosperity of the community. They seek to grow and expand their community - they work for their community more than they work for themselves. In the later, decadent stages, they have forgotten the duty they have towards the community, and remember only the duty they have towards themselves. Empire building is the pinnacle of civilisation.

Agustino, I can't say with certainty that The Willow... has precisely described your overt beliefs in the quoted statement, but I think he has put his finger on some inchoate beliefs that are common to people who share your world view. Much of what you say makes more sense when viewed in the context of his appraisal.

You might not like this appraisal, but I don't consider it negative. You are as entitled to our understanding of what you believe, (without any obligation to agree with it) as we are to your understanding (without any obligation to agree with it). Both of our belief sets are derived from cultural lodes which we separately mine for gold. — Bitter Crank

I have no problem with any of this, nor do I think TheWillow's comments to be negative, even if they were true. My point is that I simply don't think he has portrayed my position accurately, but he has shown merely how he understands me - the parts of me that he perceives and sees. I'm just trying to say that there is more there, which because he has tried to categorise within such bounds, he fails to see, and must necessarily ignore in order to maintain his image of me. Willow is at this point not arguing with me - he is arguing with the image he has of me, which I see as the problem.

BTW, I disagree with your characterization of original sin. Original sin has nothing to do with the statistical likelihood of sin, or probabilistic depravity. Rather, original sin is about the dead certainty of our fallen state and the necessity of our moral failure (in the context of Christian doctrine). — Bitter Crank

Not really... what versions of Christianity have you learned this from? It must be some form of Protestant or Calvinist versions. The Christian position, at least in Catholic AND Orthodox Christianity (I was born Orthodox Christian), is that man is naturally, inherently good - because he is made in the image of God. Original sin reflects the fallenness of this world. This means the natural tendency this world has towards evil - it means that in the long run, statistically, there is a higher probability of doing evil than doing good, a higher probability of sin than rightousness. Let's say 50.1% probability of sin. In the long term, as time approaches infinity, the probability of having sinned approaches certainty. BUT man is not necessarily going to fail morally - it's never certain that he will fail. This is simply more likely. There can be individual exceptions. On the individual level, we can have rightful people (for example Socrates). Historically we can have societies which are, during short periods of time, highly moral and hence exceptions. What original sin talks about however, is that, sooner or later, even those righteous societies will become unrighteous. That is why, contra Marx, no change in social structure can EVER produce the perfect society which will last forever. All social structures are inherently unstable - that is the effect of original sin. In physics, it translates as the arrow of time, which inevitably leads to death. That is why the punishment of sin is death. The punishment of this world is death - its arrow of time, its entropic tendency, its second law of thermodynamics, which will ultimately destroy it.

Theologically, this world is fallen because the ontological status of good and evil are inverted. In this world, death triumphs, and life perishes. However, logically, sub specie aeternitatus, life is what makes death possible, and thus life is prior and above death, for it subsumes and consumes death within it. Thus, in comparison to this eternal perspective, we say that this world is fallen.

It seems to me that the founders of Christianity wanted to contrast our totally fallen state to the absolute salvation which Christ offered. Sometimes it seems like the church fathers unnecessarily cursed mankind for the sake of high contrast, and at other times it seems like they hit the nail on the had. Sometimes our species seems hell bent for leather to be as bad as we can possibly be--usually acting collectively, such as during the Holocaust. — Bitter Crank

I think rather that the Church fathers wanted to awaken us to our true potential of being the sons and daughters of God. If, with Plato, we remembered who we are - namely that we are the sons and daughters of the supreme power, in whom we move and have our being, we would not act immorally. We only act immorally because a veil has fallen over our eyes, and we have forgotten who we are. All vice has its root in ignorance, after Socrates + Plato. And salvation is in what Plato and Socrates said: know thyself. We sell ourselves for too little - we are kings and queens, the price should be set very very high. But we give ourselves for nothing. That is the real shame of it all, the real worthlessness as Willow calls it. We're not inherently worthless - we're actually worth so much! But we don't know about it!

They wanted us to drop our wealth and possessions, drop our greed and lust, and pick up the Cross (kill our egos), and follow Christ (community). They wanted us to live lovingly with each other, not being interested in money, life, health or anything else more than we are interested in the well-being of our souls (psyches) - in virtue. The Church fathers wanted to show that unless we remember who we are, we necessarily make ourselves worthless - we sell ourselves for nothing! If I showed you proof today BC, that you are the son of a great king, would you not start carrying yourself differently? Would you not act differently, think differently, and BE differently? That was the power of the Gospel in the early years of Christianity. That's why people were willing to die for it.

And it's not that different from the truth shared by other religions, although they use different devices and metaphors for it. Buddhism says ultimate reality is emptyness - sunyata. But the Buddhist sunyata is the dynamic active emptiness which underlies everything and gives being to everything else. Just like in Christianity, God is the ACTIVITY that supports everything else - the prime mover - that in which we all move and have our being and without which we are nothing. This means that our self is communally mediated, and without the community (others) our self IS nothing. That is also why "whosoever loves one of those little ones, loves Me".

On this point (about to be stated) we are going to part company: I consider original sin a doctrinal stumbling block because it frequently leads Christians to focus on their favorite depravity -- in your case, it's promiscuous sexual activity; in my case, it's promiscuous economic activity. — Bitter Crank

I think both are depravities, I merely think the former is more dangerous than the latter (at least at the moment). If I lived in the 1800s, I probably would have agreed with you.

Defensiveness, Pessimism, Materialism, and Frivolity seem more like features of individuals than societies, and in any case, don't seem to have any obvious connection to societal or national decadence. — Bitter Crank

Well they do - they are features which were noticed in a majority of the population in those times of social collapse. And yes, they describe attitudes of the individual. When they are applied to society, it describes the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of people in that society. So what this means is that pessimism, defensiveness, materialism and frivolity should never be allowed to become the views of the majority. They must always be contained within society, never allowed to grow like a cancer and destroy everything else. They cannot be eliminated, that's why containment is the strategy.

Maybe an influx of foreigners -- but it would depend how they arrive. If the foreigners are mostly an army arriving in tanks, bombers, and troop carriers -- that could be very bad. On the other hand, an influx of foreigners might be invigorating. I would prefer a more controlled southern border, but there is no doubt that all the folks arriving from south of the border have invigorated a lot of commercial dead spots in towns where they have settled. — Bitter Crank

Economically yes. But socially it's disastrous. They form their own communities within the larger society, and their loyalties lie with their own communities rather than with the larger society, thus they promote division, and they can never integrate and accept practices which are radically different from their own. That is why, conflict is always boiling underneath - who knows when it will erupt.

What is "too long'? Rome was an intact, functioning, vital concern for a long time. Was that 'too long'? It's just not a actionable valuation. — Bitter Crank

He speculates 250 years is too long. 10 generations of people. It's an important question, but I don't think the answer to it matters that much. What matters much more is that an answer can be given, it appears to me that you think no answer can in principle be given.

Again, that seems more individual than collective, and traits such as 'selfishness' and 'love of money' are present in all societies from the get go. — Bitter Crank

Yes, they are present in the beginning, but represent minority positions. When they become social norms, THAT is the problem. A social failure to contain evil instead of allow it to spread and infect all of society.

Well, I suppose so! What else would one teach in history other than the history of the human race? — Bitter Crank

If you read the article, you will see he contrasts this with the common historical teaching we find in many countries today, where children are taught history from the perspective of their own nation, thus embelishing their own nation's achievements, and diminishing its failures - labelling their opponents as tyrants, and themselves as emancipators, etc.

a long term decline in essential economic activity (agriculture, production of necessities, and basic goods)
a long term decline in the quality of governance involving
- failure of the government to raise sufficient funds to operate
- failure of the government to effectively protect the country internally
- failure of the government to respond to acute problems (floods, famine, epidemics, etc.)
- failure of the government to maintain an adequate defense for normal (not overwhelming) external threats
a decline in the quality of social and cultural reproduction (population decline, inadequate education, decreasing longevity, deterioration of the preservation and renewal of cultural resources (literature, drama, music, etc.)
a falling birthrate and a falling child survival rate
a decline in mutual community support activities (a breakdown in the 'ties that bind' people together: festivals, religions, mutual aid, social interaction, accepted responsibilities, and so forth
increasing anomie, alienation, isolation, fear of one another, criminal activity by people previously unlikely to engage in criminal activity, etc. — Bitter Crank

I agree with all elements from your list.

Morality is a critical element in the mutuality of community bonds. A well-functioning society performs mutual service as a matter of course. Mutual service is considered a fundamental good, an obligation: make sure old folks are not neglected; — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

that the young are not allowed to publicly flout community standards (talking about 6 year olds, here, not 26 year olds — Bitter Crank

Agreed with the non-bracketed part. 26 year olds are equally, if not more dangerous.

make sure the sick get cared for; mutual respect for families; material contributions to the common good (support the school, the church, the fire department, the play ground, the annual fund drive for social services, the parks, community gardens, etc.). — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

A well-functioning society has clear standards of behavior AND can tolerate a certain amount of deviation. Every community has members who do not conform to some accepted standard but don't count as a threat — Bitter Crank

I agree.

There are going to be bachelors and spinsters in a town of married people. "That's sad" but tolerable. — Bitter Crank

I would even say it's good, so long as its maintained to a low level and never becomes the norm.

IN OTHER WORDS, SOCIETIES FALL APART FROM WITHIN. — Bitter Crank

The article I posted actually agrees with this (despite the way he summarised his conclusions). He states, somewhere halfway I believe, that social collapse is FIRST started from within - lust for money, forgetfulness of duty, etc. and then fulfilled by external factors (such as barbarian invasions, etc.)

Not if there is no work available or that work can't pay regular bills. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A characteristic of young nations, companies and empires is that their people are enterprising. They are keen on finding solutions, and are willingly to try anything. They are also loyal to the group, and self-sacrifice for the good of others when needed. This pursuit of work just to get paid is something that comes only later on.

More like a significant underclass of people that weren't talked about in polite society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is quite ahistorical. It was not "significant".

Indeed... but you aren't offering that. You are talking about community in terms of fiction, of the God they all follow, of the country they all serve, not their ties to each other and what they build as a community. It's all bluster with you. Statements which soothe fear, which say they have belonging, without examining how people live or if they have substantial ties to others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't understand why you claim this is my position. It isn't.

I do. I see everyday. I even see it amongst some "promiscuous" people people who are giving similarity interested people an expression of their interests. This is what I mean about ignoring people. You don't examine their interests or what they are doing. Someone one focusing on a career, for example, maybe about helping other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sorry, but the English of your sentence isn't very clear here and I can't understand what exactly you're trying to say. What do you mean by "see it amongst some 'promiscuous' people people who are giving similarly interested people an expression of their interests"?

That's economically driven situation — TheWillowOfDarkness

Economics itself is driven by the motivation of a peoples. A highly motivated group of people will be interested to work, grow and develop. A highly unmotivated group of people on the other hand, will not really care about working and developing. They will work only as much as required for survival. They will spend the remaining time in useless pursuits.

(1), (2) are not new — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes history repeats itself, indeed.

(3) has always had a presence too, present Western culture just doesn't make an example of them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A much more diminished presence, except in periods of social unrest and instability.

The turning of joy over to humans is what you care about most. It the focus on the individual and their worth which hurts you the most (which you incorrectly perceive as "selfishness" ), for it means the loss of community based categories as sole providers of joy. Now one doesn't need to be a part of a church, a monogamous relationship, a nation, etc.,etc., etc. to feel joy. They can have that all on their own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, with Aristotle, I think man is a social animal and cannot ultimately be happy on his own - but requires his community for that (even Spinoza said it - the best thing for man, is man!). I also think that it is immoral for someone to pursue only his own happiness and disregard the happiness of others. I think it's immoral, for example, to trick your collegue at work so that you get a promotion instead of him. I think it's immoral to disconsider the interests of your beloved ones when deciding what to do with your future. Etc. etc.

And this is why you completely ignore the question of of whether people love, respect themselves and their neighbours. Notice you do not actually examine the beaver of various individuals in their communities, what they do for each other, the community projects they run, the way they play a part in their local communities. Instead, you talk about what (supposedly) governs people (money, rampant desire for casual sex), which are really only and image presented as ideal. You ignore people themselves. Thus, you come away with this impression that Westerners are somehow all money obsessed, sleeping with everyone and without communities ties at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Just go and have a look and see if people are loving to each other. What I see is that men abuse women they claim to love and treat them as exchangeable socks, what I see is mothers neglecting their children in order to advance their careers, what I see is young people wasting their time in nightclubs doing effectively nothing productive but wasting resources, etc. etc. Is this loving and respecting themselves and their neighbors??

Belief in God is something different to what you claim. Here it (though it is not always this) is the idea human are worthless and the need to band together under the "divine" to matter or have community ties. A position so caught-up in the joy of being "saved" that it ignores that many people don't need saving and their social ties and virtues. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree with this, it's simply not a correct description of my position.

Much collapse and rebuild occurs on cycle depending on the resources and economics of the time. Beating-up the "Moral" decay frequently has nothing to do the the rebuild. It just people violently venting anger that they were unlucky enough to be stuck with a terrible time. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Allow me to post this summary at the end of the article I posted before:

Summary
As numerous points of interest have arisen
in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
(a) We do not learn from history because
our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years
emerges as the average length of national
greatness.
(c) This average has not varied for 3,000
years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great
nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
(g) The life histories of great states are
amazingly similar, and are due to internal
factors.
(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are
largely the result of external causes.
(i) History should be taught as the history
of the human race, though of course with
emphasis on the history of the student’s own
country.

It's not only resources Willow. It's that people no longer want to work - they are no longer motivated. People in the West no longer want to sweep streets. They want the fucking immigrant to do it for them. They no longer want to clean toilets. All of them want to work in large corporations, sit with their bums on a chair in front of computers clicking a few buttons, finish work early and recieve a good paycheck, with free weekends and easy access to alcohol and sex. This decadence in values, starting with a switch from a community centered life, to an individualistic, selfish centered life, followed by greed and lust for money, and ultimately followed by moral and sexual collapse which leads to indifference to the good of the community and of other people is what makes our resources become dwindled due to horrendous management. We don't have resources anymore not because our neighbors have become too powerful - but rather because we have become too WEAK. Our people are not interested anymore in preserving and increasing our resources. Everyone cares just about themselves. No sense of community exists.

Utter falsehood. You do think them worthless. Without the divine, humanity is scum. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, because the divine is more human than human themselves are. As St. Augustine states, God is closer to me than I am to myself.

The point is about whether one has joy without the divine. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That, by definition, is impossible. You seem to be under the impression that the divine is something other than human, whereas I'm saying that the divine is humanity's real nature.

The duty to what exactly? (Further) subjugate the rest of the world under its military might? To (again) wipe out cultures and communities, (continuing) exploit other places such that we maintain overwhelming economic and military superiority? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Duty towards themselves and their fellow human beings.

You are delusional here. Make no mistake, the West will end sometime. Empires are built on the subjugation of others. Sometimes the fall because, at some point or another, they weren't destructive enough to those around them to hold themselves as a powerful interest. In some ways it is the life cycle of empire. The West won't end in the near future (still too much economic and military power for that), but it will pass on at some point, as is the case with all empires. Eventually, some force will develop with is strong enough to effectively oppose the West and it will crumble (as the British Empire, as the Ottoman Empire did, as Rome did ). And it won't be because they did not remember a duty to avoid casual sex. It will be because successive generations abandoned empire building for other interests (in some cases the interests of others). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The West has less than 100 years to live, the way things are going at the moment. Mark my words. You don't realise the dangers of immorality to social cohesion and capacity to lead a good life in society.

No saviour required, for we we matter in ourselves. And this is what you find most objectionable about Western culture, that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I actually find (1) selfishness, (2) the enthralment of money, and (3) lack of sexual mores to be the most serious problems of the West. For me, your statement that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves - I could really care less about that (because the way you've phrased it, it's incoherent to begin with - as I said, joy without God makes no sense by definition). Someone who loves and respects themselves and their neighbours, and follows virtue, is a believer in God as far as I'm concerned. You seem to think that belief in God is something different than this.

Most of the time, these have just about nothing to do with the collapse, with the case of the collapse set in motion many years before or beyond the immediate control of the society (e.g. the presence of invading armies, economic depression precipitating internal conflict, long standing ethnic tensions, etc.,etc. ) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Have a look at the article I posted, it explains the rise and fall of empires quite well.

"Moral decay" is a useless measure for exactly that reason. It doesn't actually name anything that's happening in society. It's post-hoc blaming of the nearest thing (the promiscuous, the gays, the Jews, etc., etc., etc.), in the vein hope there is something that can avoid the collapse which is already in motion. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it does name a change in people's behavior. It may not name the cause of the change, but it names and identifies a behavior which is bad, not the cause of that behavior.

in the vein hope there is something that can avoid the collapse which is already in motion. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The only thing that can avoid the collapse is mobilising a sufficiently large group of people, and creating communities of righteousness within the larger society, which slowly take over it.

Societies collapse because of the distribution of resources and how they are used. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I would say they collapse because people's lives become too easy, and people become unmotivated, they no longer understand what greatness is, or what matters in life, and a prevailing nihilism befalls upon the world.

He is so investing in saying who is wrong and what is wrong because he views joy a question of overcoming one's worthlessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think people are inherently worthless, they just make themselves worthless by forgetting who they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-vnLHaTe3g . Simba's relationship with his father is much like man's relationship with the divine.

In fact, my use of original sin shows that I don't think people are inherently worthless. Just like the gas laws, original sin refers to the statistical, probabilistic, and NOT inherent behaviors of people.

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The individual makes himself worthless, and puts himself in a position where he needs to be saved.

He is lamenting the lack of demands put on people in Western culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, the West has forgotten duty, and because it has forgotten duty it will either remember it, or it shall disappear, as all other civilisations have disappeared. That the West thinks of itself as immortal is a grave delusion. The barbarians are at the gates. Hannibal ante portas...

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving — TheWillowOfDarkness

My moral decay is the loss of a culture which can detect and correct worthlessness.

Aside for whether any individual is happy of not, his problem is we think we are worth too much — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes and no. We have become too selfish, that much is true. In that sense, yes my problem is that we think we are worth too much when in truth we are not. And no, in the sense that if we thought we are great, and we were indeed great, there would be no problem with thinking ourselves to be great.

We've replaced the what Agustino calls the "spiritual" with ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, we've replaced the spirit with ourselves, and so we have sought to make man into a God, into a standard for judgement. That is why we have become so selfish and perverted. Anamnesis as Plato said. Forgetfulness.

Have you read the symposium? — Wosret

Yep, that's one of the major reasons why I consider homosexuality to be a minor sin only. In fact, I'd argue that young men should be gay in the sense that they shouldn't be interested in women, but rather in their own development until a certain age. Their own development occurs better amongst males. Young men should learn the art of fighting, should do sports and develop their bodies, and should become enterprising and disciplined people, ready to make a name for themselves in life.

So you don't agree, some information doesn't require interpretation, and people directly perceive the causes of events. — Wosret

Some information is just re-statement of facts. And yes I do believe there are such things as facts, although I agree that facts can be interpreted in different contexts/ways.

Aristotle it's less clear, as he was certainly a naturalist, but not by discarding the supernatural as a separate domain to the empirical natural world, but by attempting to fuse the two. He definitely believed in a god, and inherent purpose in nature, though I don't recall him saying much about spirits. — Wosret

I think he was right.

Plato on the other hand, Socrates definitely thought that he was on a divine mission, that he heard the voice of a spirit, his daemon, and believed in gods, and an immortal soul. — Wosret

I think Socrates was also right.

More conspiracies... there are sociological studies that show that conservatives are just more afraid of things than liberals, and tend to perceive things as more threatening. Scoring much lower on "openness to new experiences". Stop being so paranoid, and thinking everything conspiracies. — Wosret

Well maybe they just don't want to experience that particular new thing, why should that be considered bad? I don't want to experience getting raped. Does that mean that I'm afraid of it? Or that I'm not open to new experiences? No, it simply means that I consider that activity bad, and I don't want to engage in it. If some stupid social scientist gives me a survey asking me if I am conservative or liberal and then asks me if I want to participate in having sex with a random stranger, of course I will refuse. But that's not because I'm afraid of new experiences, it's simply because I think that action is wrong. And yes, I, like Socrates, am more afraid of doing something unjust than of death.

No, elemental, and humorous imbalances is ripe nonsense, something someone comes up with when they have no fucking clue. — Wosret

Right. I wonder why peasants came up with ghosts instead... :S

Could you actually present an excellence that produces any kind of effectiveness, or dividends? — Wosret

That's one my purposes in life, to illustrate through practical example, that while it seems that the irresponsible man full of vice triumphs in this world, actually that is an illusion, and in the end it is the rightful man who comes out on top. So yes, I'd say it does. I've generally been successful at what I've done, some say even highly so. But again, I think the main reward is that I feel good about myself, I feel happy about helping others, and I am not afraid of death, because I know I am doing my best to live a good life. I don't feel superior, I feel very very fortunate to have had the chance to learn and be a light unto myself and unto others.

How could you demonstrate it distinct from a delusional conceit? — Wosret

A tree is known by its fruits, hence why I seek to show it through my life :)

Those people all look fairly attractive, so I would say that they are probably fairly happy, and emotionally well adjusted. — Wosret

LOL. Okay. If that is what happiness is for you, then I have nothing more to say... If this is the human potential and the good life for you :( And if this is the end product of modernity - let me say that this is just laughable. A Julius Caesar, a Plato, an Aristotle, etc. would be rolling in their graves if they knew.

Do you think these people are happy Wosret? Is this the good life to you? Are these people really more knowledeable about their nature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hFDiqHGTXM

ecause we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? — Wosret

We know more about the physical sciences, but we have lost the knowledge we had about spiritual and moral matters.

Because we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? It's honestly getting painful to continue to exchange with you. — Wosret

Right. Now that you let off a little heat, hopefully we can return to a civilised discussion.

You're just repeating yourself, you never answered my questions about why this even matters, nor addressed my criticism that information isn't without interpretation, and the tools people has for more realistic, reasonable interpretations were far fewer than what exists today. — Wosret

Well you yourself answered the first question. It matters because it will enable us to prevent the collapse of our civilisation, and it will enable us to build communities in which people can live good, decent and reasonable lives. As for how this is to be done, the answer is by first learning from the past, which is what we're doing here.

Information isn't without interpretation I agree. However, you have to realise that we have the writings of historians who witnessed those events, and they describe what happened. The fact that they noticed moral decay in their society is a fact. It's unquestionable. It's not something that can be interpreted. Something that is up to interpretation for example, is why did moral decay occur? Some say because of relaxed religious control, others because of too much well being, others because of orientation towards money rather than virtue, etc.

They still believed in that shit — Wosret

Proof?

Plato never struck me as particularly impressive, or interesting like Aristotle did (he was a twat), but it's mainly their scope of topics, and how little there was to know about anything at the time. — Wosret

Well he certainly struck some of the greatest minds in Western history as impressive, including Schopenhauer, and Wittgenstein...

It's impossible to become a polymath today, because each field is far too developed and complex. — Wosret

No, that's not true. It's impossible to become a polymath because society doesn't want it. It wants to mass produce workers, not geniuses. Our whole educational system is set up in such a way that is not conducive to the production of genius. To become a genius you have to be devoted to study. People today go to schools or universities and they party, get drunk, etc. (and when they don't do that, useless information and rule-following is enforced upon them) Of course they won't become geniuses... what are you even thinking. No doubt no more geniuses exist in such a culture. Genius requires hard work and total dedication, not fucking around.

Like elemental, or humorous imbalances. — Wosret

Those theories are not that far off to be honest. Of course it doesn't have the predictive power of modern medicine, nor a detail of the actual mechanisms of disease, but it's a good first attempt, which still makes some sense if you don't read it literarily.

A few centuries about if you read a few dozen books you'd know everything that was known about everything. — Wosret

This is very shallow thinking :S

Yeah, I'm sure you're great. — Wosret

What does my greatness or lack of it have to do with philosophy or with our arguments? :S

Unfortunately history doesn't right itself, isn't free of evaluation, and interpretation, and people from centuries ago where isolated, puritanical, and ignorant of their own natures, and the actual causes of most everything. — Wosret

Right. And you are knowledgeable about your own nature :S. Why should I believe that? Again, you may dismiss the ignorant masses. But you cannot dismiss the geniuses we have had through history, many of them much more intelligent than you can find today. It is these geniuses who noticed the collapse of societies, not the superstitious idiots, who by the way, were generally immoral by the time societies were collapsing.

ISIS isn't coming to get you, and have never been, nor will ever be an actual threat to you or I. — Wosret

That's what you think. I disagree.

Those articles aren't recent enough for me, and are by single people. You can find people that will say just about anything about anything. I was suggesting what is more orthodox among modern historians, and that Rome fell because of moral decay isn't. — Wosret

Yes it is. The article I linked with is recent. it's within the last 50 years, that counts as recent by any standard. That Rome fell because of moral decay is an accepted view in history, and you have to show me why the intellectual elite in the last 30 years wants to argue differently. What changed? Oh yeah, I'll tell you what changed. The current intellectual elite is highly promiscuous, has no sexual mores, and so do not want to admit the truth. That's what changed. Because, as I said before, no new historical evidence was uncovered in the form of primary or secondary sources in order to change our perceptions.

What is happening is that these idiots calling themselves social scientists these days, do all sorts of stupid experiments, regarding for example sexual matters, on a population which is already highly biased, and in a culture which already determines the behavior and thoughts of most members. Thus they spawn all sorts of abominative theories, which make no conceptual sense, but nevertheless have empirical backing. No one bothers to criticise the methodology, nor the population sampled, nor the effectiveness of the statistical method in addressing such questions. And then some revisionist historians will go like "Ummm we know that people are promiscuous today, and so we shall re-read all of history as if this was always the case hurr hurr" ... this isn't scientific research, this is a sham.

You continue to act as if information is free of interpretation. If there are far more liberals occupying a field it means that there is a big conspiracy against forcing out the far superior, more accurate and truthful conservative historians. Like creationists claim about scientists that support creation science. It isn't that they're bad at their jobs, it's just a conspiracy to silence them. — Wosret

Well there is: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all

For most of human history evil spirits caused disease and illness, so taking the entirety of history, and ideas about it, and see how disease and illness hasn't changed in that time, why would moderns be saying something different? — Wosret

Is this what Aristotle, Plato, and the other highly intelligent people in history believed? No :) . So taking popular superstition and comparing it with modern science will not do any good. If you want, compare highly intelligent people from back then, with highly intelligent people from today. Stephen Hawkings is a small baby compared to an Aristotle.

You could always jump off the fucking mountain, join us down here on the ground. — Wosret

I don't want to join the dirt, sorry. Virtue is its own reward. Much rather prefer the freedom of the skies. Virtue must not be sacrificed for anything else in the world, because, as Socrates taught, virtue makes everything else good for men, and without virtue NOTHING can be any good whatsoever.

And btw Wosret, the one who is ignoring historians is not me. It's you. You ignore far more historians than I do, because you only listen to the last 30 years of historians. I listen to the last thousand years historians. So I am not the one cherry picking. I am the one taking the global view on the matter, and saying "wait a minute, these people have all been saying something, and no historical data has changed, and these guys in the last 30 years are telling us something different??"

Data has changed a shitload. Sociological, scientific, multicultural data has changed, which makes us evaluate, and consider different things credible than in the past. — Wosret

What does this have to do with historical data, in the form of primary and secondary sources regarding the periods in question? Again, revisionist history is just that. It imagines whatever it wants into the past. Traditional history is the one that actually takes the evidence we have available to us, and does not impose our imagination on the past.

You should know that waves of progressive mentalities have occured before the collapse of other empires and civilisations in the past as well. Fact of the matter is, that a society which is morally ignorant can never survive, even for the reason that barbarians will destroy it. Look what's happening. ISIS is screwing us, and we're just waiting like sitting ducks to be destroyed because we don't want to harm others. We think we're moral. But we have lost the hard virtues, of justice, duty, courage, etc. The West will either change, or it will perish in the next 100 years.

A better question though, as obviously we'd never agree about this, but why does it matter, and what can we learn from it? How do we prevent it from happening to our society to? What kind of steps are you willing to take? Just complain, and tell people how bad their are as they ignore you and civilization crumbles around your righteous pure ears? — Wosret

Read the article I posted to BC if you want to know. It's a recent article as well, writtein in late 1980s or early 1990s.

Big liberal conspiracies aside, allowing you to make untrue statements, that are clarified with only accepting the historians you agree with in the first place... totes setting that aside... — Wosret

It's not a conspiracy, it's a statistically proven fact.

That's because they're bad at their jobs. Can't make much progress with people that's politically identified label means holding you back. — Wosret

If you've reached the peak of the mountain, a move left, or right, or backwards or forwards is a move down ;)

Data varies, but it's a very large difference between the number of conservatives accepted in academia, and the number of liberals. Conservatives end up being marginalised and ignored at the moment:

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160113_LiberalProfessors2_Johnson.png

Again, this is not that different from the historical progression that we have witnessed in the past. Read the article I posted to BC.

I was referring to "many historians" believing that. Which century was that? That was indeed a credible view in the past... but not recently... if by many you mean more than like ten people... then yeah probably, but if by many you mean a considerable portion of all modern historians then definitely not. — Wosret

No doubt not that recently, if by recent you mean in the last 30 years. Don't forget that progressives have highjacked the intellectual elite of the West - in Universities studying social sciences, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 9:1. No doubt they have introduced their biases. However, the fact of the matter is that the data we have access to has not changed. We have access to historical documentation from the periods in question, where people who lived then recount the collapse of their societies.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/few-conservatives-on-university-campuses . There's been many articles like this one remarking the problem recently.

For pretty much all of history, but I was referring to Roman + Ottoman empires in this thread.

Anyway, pleasure is most definitely a subjective sensation. One can no more be in error that one is in pleasure than one can be in error that one is, say, in pain. Again, you are simply asserting what people ought to enjoy rather than acknowledging what they do enjoy. — Arkady

I will address this for others interested, so don't feel like you've got to respond. It is true that pleasure is a subjective sensation, but pleasure is not always good (ie, en-joyable). For example, when someone is raped, they most probably will feel pleasureable sensations. But guess what, most people would feel ashamed and bad for feeling pleasure during such an act. Therefore pleasure is not always good, and it does not always constitute joy. This is simply a fact. However, joy always requires to be associated with pleasure, but that in itself is not sufficient to constitute joy. Joy cannot be degraded to the simple level of pleasure. Like I said in my previous post, joy has two components. One subjective, and one objective. For joy to occur, both components must happen at the same time. If I feel pleasure, but there is no objective improvement in my condition, then my pleasure is an illusion and cannot be called joy (such as when taking drugs). If I feel pleasure, and there is an objective harm done to my condition, then my pleasure isn't only an illusion, it is a great source of active suffering (such as in the case of rape). If I don't feel pleasure, but there is an objective improvement in my condition, then I am affected by some condition which constrains my judgement or affective system in such a way that I cannot feel the subjective state that is normally associated with the objective state. This happens if I am depressed for example. I may succeed in getting my loan from the bank, but I will not feel pleasure in the achievement, even though, objectively, it is an improvement to my condition.