But in the grand scheme of things, the harsh truth is nothing really matters — niki wonoto

Except that’s not the “harsh truth” — it’s a statement made from a perspective, like everything else. The person holding this perspective, and making the claim, has psychological reasons for believing it and stating it. Naturally it seems like the one and ultimate truth to him.

But it’s no more true than when the angsty teenager exclaims that “life sucks” after not being invited to a party.

“Everything matters” is also a harsh truth.

That’s perfectly fine. I’m not interested in discussing anything with you, given your history. In case you need it explicitly stated … which you do.

As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about. ::shrug::

to reverse today’s inequality requires a robust embrace of unions—but of unions that are democratic, focused on bottom-up rather than top-down strategies, and place the primary agency for change in workers acting collectively at work and in the communities in which they reside.

— Jane McAlevey

Or we can go with posturing on the internet.

Pretend there’s no such thing as the outside world, while begging for scraps from our Great Leader Trump. :up:

Just a shame that some internet dude wasn’t around to inform Martin Luther King that organizing “doesn’t work well”, that he was engaging in “random whining,” and that what he really should have been doing is more naval-gazing.

Because, you know, “history.”

Union organizing, civil rights movement, environmental movement, etc. “Random whining.”

:lol:

Don’t worry your little heads about it. Go back to naval-gazing. Because that’s worked wonders the last 40 years. :up:

Not one mention — by anyone — about organizing. No talk of working together with others, no talk of unions, no talk of outreach. It’s all up to the “individual.”

Similar arguments are made about consumption. “Hey, you choose to smoke and eat fast food, that’s your right — not hurting anyone else.” Just giving people what they want, what they asked for. Sounds great — very principled.

But all of that is nonsense, of course. And if you want a reason for why society is how it is, look no further than the belief that everything depends on the individual person — a belief your entire post presupposes.

I think attaining accurate knowledge is about simulataneously learning (accepting knew concepts) and unlearning — Benj96

Absolutely.

Apparently they can acquire it, but only with aggressive interaction with humans, and only if begun at a very young age. — Joshs

No, they can’t. Which is why we can’t talk to primates.

The interpretation of these data is controversial, — Joshs

And ridiculous.

"Why do things happen?" Seems like a question.
— Mikie

It is a question. — bert1

No, it's just nonsense. You're free to adopt this sentimental perspective so that no one's feelings are hurt (obviously your own, most importantly), where no interrogative is "wrong," but I'll stick with the perspective that some questions are, indeed, wrong, bad, worse, etc.

As I said, perhaps growing thicker skin is what's really required.

Who thinks it's OK to say "That's the wrong question"? — bert1

It's OK, but with elaboration. Namely: WHY is it a "wrong question"?

And questions are often wrong -- or nonsensical. "Why do things happen?" Seems like a question. But if you can't even imagine a coherent answer, than it's not really a question.

I often think there are wrong questions, almost as often as I think definitions need to be stated more clearly at the outset (see talk about "God" or "capitalism" or "science" or...just about anything).

I also think we should grow thicker skins.

If happiness is a good, or the good, then what is it? If its living in accord with our nature, then what is our nature?

The function of an axe is to cut. To be a "good" axe is to cut well. I think Aristotle would say that the soul or nature of a human is thinking, what normally gets translated as "reason."

So to be happy, we should live in accordance with our function -- with reason; with the goals that one decides on; with virtue.

I've always liked that picture.

Happiness, then, has nothing to do with feelings of pleasure or joy, or a good time. It's a life-long pursuit, and we can't determine whether one has lived a happy life until it's completed.

I like that formulation too. Nietzsche's isn't bad either, really.

Anyway, this was my plan for this thread. Didn't quite go as I expected. Oh well! I moved it to the lounge, so feel free to continue posting whatever you'd like.

And insisting on an irreparable gap between human capacities and those of other animals could be deemed a classic form of anthropocentrism — Joshs

Birds can fly, unlike other species. Is that aviancentrism?

Insisting there's a gap between human capacities and those of other animals is done because there is a gap between human capacities and other animals. Namely, language. It's insisting on a truism.

How many claimed distinctions between anthropos and other animals have fallen by the wayside in recent years? Only humans use tools, only humans have emotions or can feel pain, or can empathize, only humans have cognitive capacities and can calculate. — Joshs

If there were people claiming that animals don't feel pain, I'd love to hear it. Seems ridiculous.

But I'd be happily proven wrong if there's a shred of evidence suggesting other animals have language. They communicate, of course, but they don't have language. There's been a lot of research on that as well, with primates. They simply cannot acquire it, no matter how it's tried.

Primates using a stick to gather ants or whatever is interesting, but it's on par with learning some signs.

I predict that eventually we will come to see that the cognitive differences between us and other higher species is more a matter of degree than of kind. — Joshs

It can be both. We've clearly evolved -- I don't dispute that. So it is a matter of degrees, in a way. On the other hand, language and other capacities are also of a different kind compared to other species.

Since we essentially evolved from animals, do you think that there is a jump somewhere from having no beliefs to having beliefs? I would imagine the capacity evolved by degrees. — Pantagruel

I think the jump was when humans acquired language. That may have been a unique neural event. But even if it was a matter of degrees, whatever species that existed as a transitional form has died off. Either way, we're left as the only species on earth with the capacity for language.

I don't see animals asking questions, let alone answering them.
— Mikie

Have you never seen a dog or a horse tentatively sniffing at something? For me, that often amounts to asking the question whether the something is edible - which is confirmed when they eat, or turn away. — Ludwig V

To me, it amounts to questioning if...they can ask the question. But they aren't doing that. They're not thinking to themselves, "I wonder if this is edible?" Of course not.

So why not claim that water is "questioning" when it flows down a hill? Or that it's "feeling its way" around? We could, I suppose -- but it's a waste of time.

I find most of the questions to be the wrong questions, so the answers tend to be pretty meaningless to me. — Noble Dust

:up:

Why have you come? — Benj96

To expose my beliefs and thoughts to scrutiny. It makes me sharper. I hope to do the same for others.

To engage in the process of learning, I guess.

I hadn't thought of that possibility. Can you give me an example? — Ludwig V

Whether one believes the world is fundamentally hostile or not can determine how one treats others. If one answers that question with "Yes, the world is a hostile place," then it'll be no wonder that they are suspicious, paranoid, untrusting, etc.

The question regarding human nature -- "What is a human being? What am I?" -- and its answer determines a great deal as well, including how we shape society.

Actually, there is quite a bit of research on animal beliefs. I don't think they have a lot of them or that they are overly complex, mostly related to what we would call practical reason. Lower order of beliefs, lower order of consciousness. — Pantagruel

Animals don't operate on beliefs. Animals don't have language. So I've never been very impressed with views that try to explain animal behavior in this way. Don't see the usefulness of it.

The. you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by belief. — Joshs

Here I mean the implicit answers to certain questions. I don't see animals asking questions, let alone answering them.

On the other hand, both humans and other animals are guided by conceptual understanding in which expectations are formed that can be validated or invalidated. — Joshs

Not sure what this means, but I don't see animals as having concepts either. Again I feel most of this is anthropomorphism.

It created this thread, didn't it? — Outlander

What did? Beliefs?

Not sure this thread is useful, either.

Yup. — Moliere

I'm surprised no one asked "What do you mean by happiness?" So I'll ask it of all of you who so far responded. If it a feeling, like joy and pleasure, or something else?

Not only human behaviour, I would go so far as to say this is what characterizes consciousness as such. — Pantagruel

I wouldn't go that far. I don't consider animals as having beliefs, tacit or otherwise. I think that's an anthropomorphic projection.

Take the "seeking and sucking" behaviour of a new-born mammal. It certainly seems to be embedded but I would be reluctant to attribute that to a belief — Ludwig V

Neither would I. But still a great deal of human behavior can be viewed in this light. It's not the only light, of course.

Of course, and I think we should all try our best to be aware of our implicit biases and subconscious conditioning. — praxis

Yes, and perhaps the answers to philosophical questions that these beliefs imply.

It is popular these days in psychological ( Haidt) and anthropological circles to posit that cultural values and ethical norms originate in inherited evolutionarily adaptive affective preferences , such as disgust. — Joshs

Indeed that is popular. The point being?

Not sure. What do we do with this view and how can it help? — Tom Storm

Good question. My personal opinion is that it helps us understand the importance of philosophical questions, particularly ones surrounding the nature of being human, and being in general. So much of our behavior depends on them -- and yet they are rarely questioned. This extends all the way to our societal systems and structures -- none of them are accidents. So every major thing we do -- where we live, what we eat, what we do for leisure, where we work, who we associate with, etc., are not accidents either and in fact follow from how our society functions.

:up:

It does get tiresome.

The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. — Agent Smith

Come on now. If climate change isn’t watertight, what is?

The problem isn’t that it isn’t watertight, it’s that there has been a deliberate push to confuse and delay. Frontline had a 3-part series on this a few months back — worth checking out. It’s about big oil but Exxon especially.

Look no further for why it’s controversial. Anything factual becomes controversial if it threatens powerful interests. That’s been true since Galileo, at least.

If climate change is true — Agent Smith

The amount of ignorance on this very forum about climate change is itself evidence that we should ignore 90% of what’s written on “philosophical” matters.

If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.

Probably better not to use this archaic word. — jgill

Eh. I use it interchangeably with climate science myself— but I understand your point.



No, that’s denial— which is rampant.

I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking. — jorndoe

You’d be right to. McKitrick is a moron. Not only does he misrepresent the IPCC, notice that he also quotes from the 2013 report. Can’t even take the time to misrepresent the latest version.

Economic models are — and have been shown to be— complete garbage on this matter.

Again— We can listen to the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, and feel great because we have “special knowledge” and are so very much “outside the mainstream” (thus conveniently relieved of actually learning about the subject), and then proudly proclaim it’s “No big deal”— or we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words.

Climate denial is much easier. Just “weather volatility,” after all. So we can rest our little heads about it.

Just what the world needs: more panic. That'll do it. — jgill

Yeah, you’re right. Being calm and collected has worked wonders so far.

The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic. — frank

:lol:

Again, for those truly interested: read climate scientists, not Internet buffoons.

For those not deluded by economists’ models and the “It’s a problem but nothing to panic about” attitude of the intellectual giants we find on Internet forums, I suggest reading several sources — written by climate scientists. You’ll get the facts, and decide for yourself whether “alarm” is warranted.

Spoiler alert: it definitely, definitely is. We’re not panicked enough, in fact.

Yeah, because both of you have shown a real understanding of climatology. :roll:

Keep reading the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world.

You sound remarkably complacent. — Isaac

There's always something we can do. Protest. Kick up a fuss. Make a noise. Same as always. — Isaac

No kidding. Not once did I suggest we remain complacent.

Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism. — Mikie

That's what's needed, and there's plenty we can do to bring it about. The censorship issue is secondary.

We can't just let that go with a shrug. — Isaac

Great, so go do something about it.

The OP is in response to Elon Musk's removal of censorship from Twitter. — Isaac

He's still censoring just as much as before, it's just getting more publicity because he's allowing Trump and Kenya back on and liberals don't like it. There are still plenty of things you can't say, and rightfully so.

What's more interesting is the idea of subscriptions. If he goes forward with that idea, then it truly does change things because it's changing the business model.

I can see the argument that social media algorithms lead to ever more divisive and inflammatory views, but on the subject of censorship, it's the human CEOs and management who are making decisions, and they're making them against what would make good click-bait (though presumably still for monetary gain). — Isaac

Rarely, and only when there's political pressure to do so. It doesn't change the basic technology underlying social media, optimized for views.

But yes, these private owners have always been allowed to dictate terms of service. That's what we accept when we click "agree" to them. They can censor anything they'd like, because they own it. I don't necessarily like that, of course, but it's always been that way.

Ignorance has been around forever, including in the internet age. I remember plenty of ignorance on AOL message boards, blogs, and various websites.

The issue now is social media. But since the major sites are owned by huge corporations (or one individual) -- Google (YouTube), Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Twitter (Musk) -- you'd think we're in the same situation. What's changed?

What's changed is the business model that social media companies follow. It's quite different from newspapers, television, and radio. Tristan Harris has done good work on this. The issue is that what is more likely to go viral, get views or clicks is often the most outrageous, inflammatory, and divisive. This isn't suppressed because clicks, shares, and likes is exactly what is being sold.

So it's not that we should censor ignorance and stupidity -- it's that we shouldn't be promoting them, which is what these companies are doing. For money, as always. Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLfr7sU5W2E

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter?

Trump should he serving time already for his uncountable crimes.

Imagine looking at this guy and thinking he’s an honest man, a victim of persecution. :lol:

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

:lol:

At this point, I would place a light wager on DeSantis winning the primary — Maw

Let's do it. I put my money on Trump. I bet you $1.

He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see....

Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see. — ssu

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.
— Mikie
Really? Lol. — ssu

Yeah, really. It's fairly well documented.

I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies. — ssu

No kidding.

Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be. — Mr Bee

Their positions are so unpopular that they have to do something. They know they're a minority party. You have to hand it to them though, it's always very close. The move to stack the courts has paid off for them, and the wave of state legislators in 2010 continues to give dividends.

The fearmongering and demonization only gets you so far, however. People in the US may be wising up to the fact that the Republicans have no ideas, no plans, no solutions. They love to attack the liberal elite, and all the problems of the country, but they fail to mention that it is their party and its policies that are most responsible for them, and that they obstruct any measures to help.

See their stances on the environment: the reality is that we need less fossil fuels, not more. Their stance? They want to drill more. We need to tax the wealthy and large corporations. They want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Etc.

Their only plan:

(1) Make the country ungovernable.
(2) Blame the Democrats for why things are so crappy.
(3) Have the electorate blame the party in power, ride the wave.
(4) Do nothing but posture, cut taxes for the rich, privatize education, de-regulate businesses, and give the country away to corporate America by any means necessary.

Didn't quite work this time. Maybe it's Trump...or maybe people have woken up to the predictable pattern.

With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. — Mr Bee

The fossil fuel industry supports Republicans far more than Democrats. As long as that remains true, and the owners of media (like Murdoch) and think tanks (Koch) continue to support Republicans, this won't change.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card. — ssu

What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.

Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing? — Tom Storm

DeSantis would be far worse, since he'd be far more focused on implementing even more failed neoliberal policies.



I believe you predictable a blue wave, no? Didn't really materialize, but you were closer than what the media was saying.

It's a mistake to think that conservatives are all better now, having gotten Trump out of their system. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

Yeah, they're definitely both the same. One party believes in climate change, the other says it's a hoax. Minor differences.

Yes. Very happy to see Lake lose.

Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, it’s still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless.

Climate scientists are unequivocal: time is running out to transition away from fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal and instead power our cars, heat our homes and grow our food using renewable energy sources and sustainable farming practices. Most voters agree: two thirds of Americans want the federal government to do more to tackle the climate crisis, according to one recent poll.

Despite this urgency, the climate crisis has not been a campaigning focal point for Democrats or Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections, with inflation, abortion and immigration gaining far more attention from candidates. Worryingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who are forecast to lose control of both Houses, 60% of voters know nothing or little about the historical climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act) passed this summer. And 139 fossil fuel friendly members of the current (117th) Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change, accounting for more than half of Republicans.

https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg

“I don’t understand it that well, but they have to intervene and hold new elections,” said Andrea Vaz, 51, a computer-hardware seller holding a sign that said, “Fraud in the voting machines!” at a large protest outside the Brazilian Army’s national headquarters in Brasília. “We saw various videos. People giving out money, buying votes,” she added. “There’s proof.”

Mass delusion at its best.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/world/americas/bolsonaro-election-protests.html