It's natural to have desires, certainly, but most of us recognize that some desires are unlikely to be satisfied, for various reasons. Among those is the desire that the universe explain itself to us.

In my more Stoic moments, I'm inclined to believe in a form of pantheism, which for me is a suspicion based on suggestion, that the universe is imbued with a kind of intelligence in which we partake, now and then. But this isn't to say there is a design, which implies the existence of a designer of the universe Instead, it's to say the universe has a particular, more or less ascertainable, nature, constantly changing and growing. As to purpose, I find it impossible to assign anything like a purpose of the kind we might conceive to the universe. Unless it's possible to speak of growing or changing as a purpose.

C.S. Peirce had a most interesting view, which it may surprise some to learn was based on his work as a practicing scientist. As such he know that imprecision was characteristic of science and so wasn't inclined to believe in determinism, or in any mechanistic laws which govern the universe or any particular design inherent in it. He felt that chance played a continuing part in the universe, although he also thought that as the universe evolved over millions of years certain discoverable patterns or "habits" would arise. So, eons ago, the universe was far more spontaneous than it is now. He didn't believe in a designer or even a design as such as far as I can make out, but that the universe like an organism evolves over time.

[ I still believe that the problem of personal suffering is essential, and I remind you that many schools of philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cyrenaicism, Skepticism, etc.) were aimed at solving precisely this problem, that you deem to be insignificant to philosophy

I don't think Epicureanism or Stoicism has anything to do with solving the problem of WORLD-PAIN! (I think it should be written this way; it's such a HUGE pain, after all). The others I haven't spent much time on, but I suspect they wouldn't have anything to do with it, either. I think WORLD-PAIN! is a peculiarly Romantic notion ancient philosophers would have had no time for, and indeed would find baffling. Epicureanism or Stoicism may be remedies for WORLD-PAIN! but Epicureans and Stoics didn't address disappointment or disillusionment with the world, but fear, anger, worry, etc. of the kind encountered by people with no expectation that life would or should be good and satisfying to them, but every expectation that they would encounter pain and suffering in this world if not the next if there was to be one, through war, famine, disease, slavery, the malice of the powerful or the gods, and natural disasters.

But Weltschmerz is caused because our completely natural disposition towards the world is consistently disappointed.

In what sense is it "completely natural" to be disposed to think the world will or should comport with our expectations? It seems to me that only a child, and likely a very spoiled, sheltered one at that, could seriously believe that to be the case.

Mirabile dictu! And it's even a good thing on which to agree.

As best I can, I try to have no expectations regarding what isn't in my control. It's a part of stoic practice, or my practice at least. It doesn't mean I never feel disappointed or upset; I'm no Stoic Sage. But it does mean that I'm not overwhelmed by what takes place or how things are. It works for me.

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2015/12/11
I'm not to the point where I would claim that a vote for "a conservative" makes one complicit in shooting people, as I'm constitutionally [get it?] opposed to excess in rhetoric. But Cicero's cui bono? and this link suggest what may be behind the fear motivating the increase in the purchase of firearms.

Ah, Weltschmerz. I suppose if one aspires to be a Romantic, one would want to be a Romantic of the German variety. Excess was characteristic of the Romantics, and when it came to excess that of the Germans among them couldn't be exceeded. Who else could manufacture such a concept? "World-Pain." It takes a special kind of person. The Latin taedium vitae doesn't do the trick. What is weariness of life compared to the experience of...World-Pain?

But there's no reason to expect the world and all (or anything) in it to meet our expectations, and so I think it unreasonable to be disappointed or upset that it fails to do so.

But if the OP means that anybody who votes for a conservative is complicit in the death culture of America's advanced capitalist danse macabre, I'll agree to that.

Ah well. That's a far more responsible conclusion.

You're quite welcome. I've always been impressed with the way Dewey anticipated much that has been taken as "new" in philosophy. I think he's been ignored largely because pragmatism fell out of fashion, and because his writing style is uninspired, to put it kindly.

If a statement in the New York Times regarding Republican legislators and the sale of guns to those on the terrorist watch list, together with a statement in it that gun manufacturers have immunity from civil suit, suffices to convince you that American society accepts murder and suicide as okay, you're either very easily persuaded or have an exceedingly narrow conception of American Society.

The problem with this idea (such as it is) is that those who buy firearms, especially out of fear, are unlikely to take the time or spend the money needed to learn how to use them properly, safely and well. They'll merely lug them about on the chance someone will do something with some other gun, and then try to use them. Or, they'll overreact and try to shoot shoplifters in a crowded parking lot or some other miscreant who presents no immediate danger to anyone, or will get very angry at something and, the gun being handy, make use of it without thinking.

As I think you know, guns must be taken very seriously. Encouraging people to buy guns and form a posse isn't a responsible position to take regarding deadly weapons.

Isn't this a version of the good old mind-body distinction? But there seems no great difficulty in saying, e.g., that evidence indicates regions of the brain are active when we do certain things or have certain feelings, as this seems to be the case.

Statements of this kind from the good Sheriff represent, to me, either an effort on the part of some in law enforcement to cover their asses or an admission that they cannot, or will not, do their jobs.

But, Landru, guns will never be banned in our Great Republic. And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns.

How touchy you are. Like Schopenhauer was about that poor woman who spoke too loudly outside his door. You should be more Epicurean. My little comment went to the "no progress" angle.

Aspects of the view being represented here as secular humanist or mainstream, and attributed to Brassier, are positively ancient. Epicurean, in fact.

I know there is a "College of Stoic Philosophers" associated, I believe, with the New Stoa, both online. There are some professional philosophers involved with it, but have no idea what it does or teaches (I suspect it has something to do with Stoicism, though). I assume it's potentially a serious effort. Obviously I don't participate in it. I spend what free time I have playing chess, shooting clays, reading and napping. But I don't think the fact that this New Centre is online necessarily renders it frivolous. I know of respected universities which offer graduate degrees obtained through online courses, and it's likely the way things will go in the future, which would have the sad result that students may no longer have the opportunity to demand that statues and names be removed from campus as they offend their sensibilities.

I just don't know what the hell it's supposed to be. "What is philosophy?" (Quid est philosophia) said jesting Ciceronianus.

Gee. How could anyone maintain there is no progress in philosophy after reading this essay?

Dammit, I thought this was going to be about the Haddaway song.

From what I know of Brassier, which I admit isn't much, he objects to what is called "speculative realism."

Baden will evidently be shutting us down, justly no doubt, and perhaps we can continue this elsewhere. But I think you're drawing a distinction--not me--between us and what we do. As living organisms, we must do things in order to exist; this is apparent. There are no other thing, in addition to me, when I do something. There is no Ciceronianus Eating (state of existence X) distinct from Ciceronianus Drinking (state of existence Y) followed by Ciceronianus Going to the Bathroom (state of existence Z), all of them different entities.

I would say as to any action that it takes place. So, walking isn't a state of existence; we walk, (talk, eat, draw) however. When we categorize we do something. What we do isn't itself a thing existing in the world; we are, and we act in certain ways. If there's no me then I don't talk, eat, draw or categorize.

Well, I wasn't claiming you suggested any form of biological alteration; just stating that we have certain physical characteristics which shouldn't be disregarded. I don't think we can speak of how we categorize as "state" however, or don't know what you mean by "state" as applied to how we categorize. It's something we do, and is in that sense an outcome of our interaction with the rest of the world, yes. It's part of our conduct as a human being which is perforce determined by the fact we exist as an organism in the world. But there's no state of categorizing that I know of, nor am I aware of a state of how we categorize. There are consequences of categorization just as here are consequences in anything we do.

For good or ill, we can't disregard biology, and we do have characteristics which are peculiarly human relative to other creatures and things in the universe. It seems senseless to think otherwise, at least until we start altering ourselves physically and this becomes widespread. Even then biology and nature will largely dictate what we are, how we think, what we do. The problem is that we employ narrow categories and apply them in a simple-minded manner.

I I doubt "irrespective" works here any more than it would as to any other category. I don't see this as a radical change, and think it's been coming about gradually. And I don't think the old categories will necessarily vanish. As long as they're useful, they'll be around. As for the new, we'll see. There's something intricate and artificial about them. I expect we'll see them used more by academics than others.

We categorize, certainly. So, we categorize yet again, and claim that what we are now is a separate category, different from others like the categories male and female. That further categorization may well be useful and beneficial for certain purposes, just as our other categories may be. Or it may not. There's no special triumph or unique insight involved in the creation of another category.

What we are is a function of our existence as a part of, and interaction with, the rest of nature. There is no us outside of nature. What exists now is a result of that interaction. That it exists and something else does not exist tells us something about what we are and the consequences of that interaction.

And risk being accused of patronizing? Don't judge me, by the way.

Remarkable. I recall something about 9 innocent bystanders being hit by an officer of the NYPD not long ago. Strange how law enforcement on TV and in the movies seem to have little trouble blowing the bad guys away. Can it be we're being misled? Someone I know has a 357 revolver and one day we spent some time shooting at, and mostly missing, an empty plastic gallon milk bottle. I couldn't believe what a bad shot I was. Maybe I'm better than I thought; a frightening prospect.

I doubt that an armed citizen has the ability to shoot accurately in a tense situation let alone in a fire fight. It's no easy thing to use a handgun and hit even a stationary target. A moving target is difficult to shoot consistently even with a scattergun. A moving target shooting at you or people around you will be very hard to hit. Training is required to disable a shooter, and few citizens will bother obtaining it even if it is available.

"Oh construction," actually. We can be nothing more according to the wise of our bleak times.

So, you assume Judith Butler self-identifies as female, and you characterize her as a woman, eh? You victimize her by failing to understand the restrictive nature of the antiquated theatrical performance you oh hell who cares what she or anyone else identifies as people should just shut up about their gender and be whatever the fuck they think they are and stop telling us about it and live their lives it's not like they're important and we'll all be dead soon anyhow. Amen.

I was so hoping that Peirce's How to Make our Ideas Clear might somehow be chosen, even though it wasn't included among the options, as a kind of deadening surprise. Or an essay by Vidal or Mencken, just for fun. But no.

As for Judith Butler, she looks precisely like a gender theorist should look. It was explained to me recently what a non-binary is. There, now I've used "non-binary" in a sentence. Living the dream of pertinence in the year 2015.

What's not to like?

You seem to be stating that there is progress being made in addressing problems which have no satisfactory resolution. It just doesn't involve resolving those problems. Well if that's the case then it's clear I'm wrong.

No robot could spot weld like I did back in the '70s. They were so astounded they switched me to spray-painting after a time. I suppose you'll say robots do that too. Well, not like I did.

Being a lawyer, and getting old, has made me persnickety. Getting old has probably also made me fond of the word "persnickety." I use it as often as I can. "Whippersnapper" too. I like how they sound.

Not the Founders, no. Although Washington fought in what we call the French and Indian War, that was some time before he became a Founder, and the failed American assault on Canada during the Revolutionary War can hardly be called a conquest. Jefferson's "purchase" of the Louisiana territory from Napoleon's France is more properly opportunism than conquest; one might say America benefited from the imperialism of France in that case, as it did from that of England earlier, while it was made up of colonies. Again, though, we can't attribute that imperialism to the Founders.

It's when we get to Jackson that we, as a nation, can be said to have begun our conquest and annihilation of the Native Americans. Jackson was not a Founder. Regardless, I was referring to America's propensity to impose it's power across the seas, not from sea to shining sea, as that seems to have been the focus of the thread.

Not Reagan. It was the first Roosevelt who started our grand march along the path of imperialism and into what Washington called "foreign entanglements."