This can be seen from the fact that a ten dollar note is a valueless piece of paper unless those involved in the transaction have trust in it's value. — Banno

If a ten dollar note (money) isn't a ten dollar note (money), what is it? Something else, which we merely treat as if it were a ten dollar note (money)? The "ten dollar note in itself"?

I'm well known in this forum as being inclined to mock and disparage Heidegger at every opportunity, and this inclination has, I fear, made some angry. The general approach of his admirers has been to distinguish the man from the philosopher, something I find difficult to do. I think him a loathsome person, and that may make me disposed to reject his work. So, I'm probably not his most impartial critic.

But what I've been able to read, and (I think) understand, of his work seems to me unremarkable, and Romantic, mystic and peculiarly nationalistic. Deutschland seem to him uber alles indeed--Germans if they aren't the Master Race are destined to save humanity. It has to do with their "Being" I think. This may account for his seemingly worshipful attitude towards Hitler.

I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven. — T Clark

If only he had done something for the law, I might forgive him too.

Dewey famously wrote that we only really begin to think when we encounter a problem, broadly defined as a question raised in the course of life or situation we find dissatisfying and wish to alter. He called the methods by which we successfully resolve problems "inquiry" which would include the scientific method and logic (Russell, who thought the only real logic was what he wrote of, found this objectionable). Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. The problem defines the ends in view--what is to be resolved, and why we wish to resolve it. It also defines the circumstances and suggests the method by which a resolution may be reached.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say).

I can't preclude the possibility Mary Kane is internally pressurized to relinquish custody of Charlie due to a greedy desire for great wealth. — ucarr

There's a real ambiguity in the scene, (which I think is a powerful one--Agnes Moorhead was superb in that brief role). The mother seems stern and cold, except in those moments when she's protecting Charlie, and holding him. Note that it's the father who becomes less insistent that Charlie stay when he learns that they (or rather the mother) would be receiving $50,000 a year, though the bulk of the funds were held in trust for Charlie. He also complains that if Charlie leaves people will think it's because he's a bad father.

So, I think there's a suggestion that the father has been a poor one, possibly due to drink, and inclined to abuse when angered. It's only my interpretation, but I think that the mother has steeled herself to give up her child to thinking to protect him and give him opportunities he wouldn't have at home, and this makes her appear emotionless. But in fact the unfortunate result is that he comes to hate his guardian/trustee/father-figure, and grows to maturity without parental love, seeking love through money and power. Just my guess at the thought underlying a great work of art.

In the ancient world there was considerably more social stratification, and the hoi polloi were held in low regard. (I wonder if you see echoes of that in Heidegger's conception of 'das man'? Is that the element in Heidegger that is said to be proto-fascist?) — Wayfarer

The hoi polloi dealt with and were bound by, and a part of, the immutable, changing, practical word. Therefore, the unchanging, perfect truth, good, etc., was inaccessible to them. Plato and Aristotle were convinced the world in which we live is imperfect, and there must be something underlying it or transcending it which was perfect. Only the perfect was truly significant; only its contemplation was worthy.

As for Heidegger, I thought his concept of das man derived from the fact he'd constantly yell "You da man!" whenever he saw Hitler or some higher-ranking Nazi. But I could be wrong.

Charlie pushes Thatcher into the snow, using Rosebud. Father takes a swing at Charlie, but misses. Then--
Father: "Sorry, Mr. Thatcher. What that kid needs is a good thrashing!"
Mother: "Is that what you think, Jim?"
Father: "Yes"
Mother: "That's why he's going to be brought up where you can't get at him."

Charlie pushes Thatcher into the snow, using Rosebud. Father takes a swing at Charlie, but misses. Then--
Father: "Sorry, Mr. Thatcher. What that kid needs is a good thrashing!"
Mother: "Is that what you think, Jim?"
Father: "Yes"
Mother: "That's why he's going to be brought up where you can't get at him."

In particular how does one meet local people to talk to about big topics about morality and existence? — TiredThinker

You go to the nearest church, I'm afraid. The priest, minister, pastor or whatever will talk about them, I'm sure.

Consider Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane, a happy boy playing outside in the snow with Rosebud, his sled, learns that his completely insane mother, trading him in for money, has packed him off to New York under proprietorship of Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker.

This is "parenting" without self-sacrifice. — ucarr

There's no indication the mother is insane in the film. Also, she already had money, and clearly wasn't trading him in to obtain more. Thatcher was a hired man. I thought the scene made it apparent that Charles was being sent away because the mother feared what the father (or step-father, perhaps) would do to him.

I think you must find a different example to support your theory. There must be one out there, somewhere. Maybe something from Dickens. He had the requisite sentimentality.

Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

Some of them do, for something in any case.

I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. — TiredThinker

I'm not sure what those topics may be. But if you confront people about large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions, it shouldn't be too surprising that you find that people are inclined to avoid you if possible, or to change the subject. I've been in places where, if you tried to engage others in conversations about the reality of the external world, you'd likely be punched or beaten with a pool cue, which I think would be a more effective refutation of Berkeley than that of Dr. Johnson. In fairness to Johnson, I think he would have used a pool cue on Berkeley if the bishop-philosopher was present and a pool cue was handy.

You had to mention Ayn Rand. When she's mentioned, I'm obliged to repeat that Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

Self-love is a fault. When it comes to self-love, Ayn Rand is a kind of archetype; nay, a totem, brandished by the selfish to ward off the monster of selflessness.

But I see no connection between atheism and solipsism. Atheists know quite well there are others in the universe; they simply think there's no God there as well.

It's interesting that ancient philosophers taught that death was nothing to be feared, and should be faced with acceptance and even cheerfully. I refer to Epicurus and the Stoics. Lucretius thought Epicurus a great benefactor of humanity for delivering us from the fear of death. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius both felt that death was something we should accept willingly though it was not something desirable to be pursued by someone eagerly ("like a Christian" as the Emperor wrote).

Epicureanism and Stoicism were the most popular philosophical schools during the Roman Empire, and the idea that it was noble or virtuous to have "contempt for death" may have accounted for some of their popularity.

Here's Cicero on gladiators in his Tusculan Disputations, Book I, On Contempt for Death:

What wounds will the gladiators bear, who are either barbarians, or the very dregs of mankind! How do they, who are trained to it, prefer being wounded to basely avoiding it! How often do they prove that they consider nothing but the giving satisfaction to their masters or to the people! for when covered with wounds, they send to their masters to learn their pleasure: if it is their will, they are ready to lie down and die. What gladiator, of even moderate reputation, ever gave a sigh? who ever turned pale? who ever disgraced himself either in the actual combat, or even when about to die? who that had been defeated ever drew in his neck to avoid the stroke of death? So great is the force of practice, deliberation, and custom! Shall this, then, be done by

A Samnite rascal, worthy of his trade;

and shall a man born to glory have so soft a part in his soul as not to be able to fortify it by reason and reflection? The sight of the gladiators’ combats is by some looked on as cruel and inhuman, and I do not know, as it is at present managed, but it may be so; but when the guilty fought, we might receive by our ears perhaps (but certainly by our eyes we could not) better training to harden us against pain and death.

It was therefore admirable, even desirable, to bravely face pain and death, and the gladiators provided examples of this courage although they were barbarians or the "very dregs of mankind." How could a Roman citizen do otherwise and not be ashamed? The games were considered by some to be a learning device by which spectators were made better in some sense, even though the games were cruel and inhuman.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? It's been portrayed as admirable, at least, even into modern times.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Why should they bother? They create those who create religions.

The belief that the Second Amendment right is absolute is of course silly.

I'm curious why you're seeking an ethical view. No ethical argument will decrease the totemic regard many Americans have for guns or their justified use, nor will it impact the law significantly. Sad to say, I doubt any ethical view arrived at or adopted by the White House will make a difference in the number of casualties

it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

I can't help but wonder just how it would be established that someone is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self-defense, ethically. There are circumstances where that might be established easily; other circumstances where it wouldn't be clear. And, just what is "non-lethal self-defense" supposed to mean? Is non-lethal self-defense any kind of self-defense that doesn't result in death? If so, that could include the use of guns for defense. Would non-lethal self-defense preclude the use of anything that could cause death (a knife, a club, etc.)?

There must have been smoke, for me, for any kind of drug but for alcohol, which I rather like smokey as well. Smoked tobacco far too much, but that was in the past. I miss pipe smoking; tobacco, I mean, though pipes were otherwise useful as well. I always wanted to meet the Peyote Man, but it seems projectile vomiting is required for a meeting with him, and I do like to appear insouciant when introduced to anyone. I can't think of a way to give that appearance while vomiting.

Check out Thelonious Monk, Yusef Lateef and Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Miles Davis of course.

Maybe this would help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40OEBuIZdM

Here's a thought about the Roman games, and pagan life generally.

In the Greco-Roman world, before Christianity crushed most of it into the dust, the afterlife was generally considered to be rather dreary and gray, even for the good among us (unless we became gods, as mortals would sometimes do). In other words, it had no appeal to the living. It wasn't something we desired.

So, we judged our worth by glory and virtue in life. Glory consisted of renown for acts done while living. Glory was achieved through courage, bravery, skill--it could not to be achieved when among the dull dead, but one's glory would be remembered by the living. One's death could be glorious. Even a gladiator's death.

For those who are into it, there’s quite a resurgence of enacting the Ancient Roman dictum of “bread (like fast food for those who can’t afford better) and circus (like the both literal and figurative bloodsports that surround)” … this in our oh so civilized society, so as to keep the vast majority of us appeased in times of ever-increasing want. — javra

For those who don't know, it's phrase taken from Juvenal, writing about 100 A.D. or C.E. or somewhat later (oddly, during the reigns of the Antonine Emperors, generally considered "good" Emperors, but the dole and public games had been a feature of Roman life for a couple of centuries by then):

They shed their sense of responsibility
Long ago, when they lost their votes, and the bribes; the mob
That used to grant power, high office, the legions, everything,
Curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only, Bread and circuses.
‘I hear that many will perish.’ ‘No doubt,
The furnace is huge.'”

I think there’s a difference between physically exerting your strength over another person and learning a skill like playing an instrument. It may not be PC to say, but I think a lot of men particularly have a need to exert their strength; whether it’s through violence, physical labor, or exercise. — Pinprick

An uncomfortable truth, I think. There's something peculiarly male about this, for good or ill. For example, although there were female gladiators, they were uncommon and a kind of novelty. It may be that the Roman games were exceedingly popular because Rome was a military society--service in the legions was expected even of senators; it was part of the cursus honorium, the course by which senators attained respect and prominence.

Admiration and respect for fighters, how they fought and how they died, can be seen in warrior societies as well.

This may be changing, as some women seem to be becoming interested in combat sports, and the idea isn't as taboo as it once was.

Gladiators were slaves. Period. — god must be atheist

But that's not true. Some were, certainly. That was especially the case early on, when they were generally taken from conquered peoples. Some were criminals. But some were freemen, some were equestrians or "knights" (Roman citizens who had less social status than those of the senatorial class, but were usually well off), some were even senators. Grave inscriptions for gladiators establish this was the case as do other sources.

It's rather strange that as a lawyer, you don't see life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand. — baker

Well, we're pretty strange, sometimes. But lawyering can be a kind of contest or struggle, especially in the courtroom, and there's an audience as well (though an unwilling one, mostly, but now and then there are interested spectators). I play chess, and that's a kind of struggle as well. But I don't see life as a struggle comparable to blood games, because to the extent life is a struggle I don't think the struggle is normally one that is admired and lauded by others, and one's participation in life is simply expected.

First, thank you.

If the gladiatorial games were governed by rules and regs, that would reflect the costs incurred in putting the games on. — Bitter Crank

Very true. Training, feeding and boarding gladiators was expensive and so were the games. That's why contests weren't fought to the death that often.

The nonsense that justifies body contact sport disguises the action in which a lot of people find pleasure. I don't know whether bloody sports are good or bad, but a lot of people clearly get a charge out of them. — Bitter Crank

There's something about the idea of purposely killing or harming someone before an audience that makes characterizing it as virtuous or as art objectionable, true. But I have the sometimes disturbing feeling (and that's all it is, perhaps) that there can be something virtuous in the conduct of the participants, and that the combat may evoke responses that aren't merely bloodlust, and that this evocation might be something similar to what art can do, and this is part of the appeal.

Good post.

I think admiration of skill and courage is involved in the attraction to blood games, and would think mysticism of a kind could be significant at least among the participants. Not as to the spectators, though. One sees mysticism involved in the Eastern martial arts more than the Western, and that may be part of the tradition which is behind them. The samurai tradition behind Kendo, for example. I wanted to try my hand at Keno once, but was told that I would have to buy the (mock) sword before I could even give it a try. This irritated me.

I think that the festival/spectacle aspect would be significant as well. It certainly was in the Roman games, which were open to the public and typically took place on holidays. I thought this thread might have a place in Political Philosophy because the Roman games were often given by aristocrats (who were usually politicians) to endear themselves to the people. Later, the Emperors wisely prohibited anyone but themselves from holding games.

Such things may account for admiration and popularity. Is there more to it?

What about the aristocrats who participated? Did they do so entirely by choice or did it have something to do with status or wealth? — praxis

A good question. From what I've read, reasons for their participation varied. Some were down on their luck and turned to the games, some merely wanted to, some wanted to impress women (who it seems would fawn upon gladiators if the ancient graffiti is any indication). I don't think an aristocrat would think to increase his status by fighting in the games, as it seems gladiators, though admired, were thought to be of inferior social status.

Commodus, of course, is the most famous example of an aristocrat who fought as a gladiator. He was a special case, though, as an Emperor could do much as he wanted to do as long as he mollified the Senate and controlled the legions, no matter how ridiculous he was thought to be. He managed to do that for a time, but was strangled by a wrestler in his bath. He apparently thought his prowess as a gladiator and athlete made him popular with the people and discouraged assassination.

I think Hemingway and Mailer felt this. — Tom Storm

Oh yes. I can't understand Hemingway's fondness for bullfighting. No doubt there's risk involved, and I suppose the matador must, to be seen as admirable, kill the bull in certain ways, and that may involve skill. But it still is simply a celebration of a man killing a beast, and I can't think of that as impressive in any sense, particularly as the picadors typically weaken the animal and goad it before the matador is exposed to harm. Hunting doesn't strike me as admirable or worthy either. Using firearms to kill animals who pose no threat normally isn't exactly glorious.

So I think there must be something more involved in the game, or sport, in order for it to be deemed art or an example of virtue worthy of admiration to those who think it such.

I personally think this is largely nonsense - playing the flute would probably accomplish the same end, but it isn't as cool and there's no blood unless you do it wrong. And it is probably true that any activity that helps people take their minds of drug use and hanging out looking for trouble is helpful in some way. Even golf... — Tom Storm

A reasonable view. But how account for the mystique, the appeal of blood games in that case? Is the reference to virtue and artistry mere puffery? It's hard to deny the appeal. I'm hardly an athlete or heroic figure, but I've enjoyed competing in "combat" sports like fencing, and gave Escrima a try; I've enjoyed shooting clays (not birds or animals, though). These certainly aren't blood games (though Escrima can be) and merely mimic them, but competing in them seems to be satisfying in a peculiar way. You feel a sense of worth when you successfully hack at and stab someone with a sabre while being hacked at and stabbed (at least I did). I imagine a boxer or martial arts contestant would feel something similar.

Thank you.

These seem a different kind of game, though. In the Roman games, endurance of pain was valuable, but not the end in view, nor was it accepted or self-inflicted as worthy or redeeming in itself. Gladiators fought one another, and were successful because they were more skillful than their opponent, less fearful, more disciplined. Many were forced to fight, I'm sure, but we know some did so willingly. They put themselves at risk from others who would do them harm, relying on themselves and their training to avoid it--if they were good enough at the game.

In my opinion, the hard problem of consciousness simply doesn't exist. — Hermeticus

Yes--at least as a philosophical problem.

I think this kind of pursuit has its basis in an obstinate rejection of the fact that all we are, and do, and think, takes place in the universe; i.e., that we're just another kind of organism, although a remarkable one from our perspective. The belief--the hope?--that we're more than that, and that there's something literally supernatural about us is hard for us to tolerate. I suspect dualism is the cause of this as it is of so much other speculation.

It may be that we'll discover much more about consciousness, but it's very unlikely philosophy will be the means of discovery.

I'm not interested in the Trinity. Thanks anyway. — Agent Smith

That's okay. I'm not interested in the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit/Ghost is a person. What is a person? — Agent Smith

A good question. Ultimately, though,whatever a "person" is, those three persons are supposed to be in essence a single God.

The early Church faced a problem. It made claim to the God of the Old Testament. However, it wanted Jesus to be God. Since Jesus wasn't around while God was parting seas, hiding in burning bushes, talking to Moses, etc., there were those who thought, quite reasonably I think, that Jesus came into being later. But that might mean Jesus was created by God, and therefore subordinate to him in some sense, as a human or as a lesser God. That wouldn't do, since there was supposed to be only one God, and Jesus was God. So the God of the Old Testament had to be Jesus somehow. The Spirit of God is also mention with some frequency in both the Old and New Testament.

So the Church wanted one God but had to explain why Jesus showed up when he did and how that took place, and the separate references to the Spirit had to be explained as well. I think the Trinity is the rather clumsy, somewhat tortured, solution to the problem of reconciling the desire to have a single God but account for Jesus and the Spirit as described in the Scriptures without being seen to worship more than one God.

The three Persons all have the same substance, was the answer. I think of the Persons as being expressive of the different functions or purposes of the single God as interpreted through Scripture. It makes no sense to me.

That's quite good.

Just when he was about to crack the problem - the way to a man's heart is through his stomach! :lol: — Agent Smith

We can only pray that his idea will serve to inspire someone to finish his work of interpretation and explanation.

Ain't the belief in one god a doctrine? — Raymond

I was brought up Catholic, and associate "doctrine" with its endlessly complicated beliefs and rules. The doctrine involving God as Ham Sandwich is only one of many devised by it over nearly 2,000 years.

What's the difference between a unitarian and a catholic? — Raymond

I don't think unitarians have any doctrine, nor do they support any particular version of a deity. They seem more in the way of deists. But I'm uncertain.

It's pointless to argue when no argument was made to begin with. — Agent Smith

If you're looking for something resembling argument, I'm sure you could find some supporting the Trinity.
You could try Augustine's De Trinitate, but there are other works as well. Google "Triune God" and you'll find a bunch of stuff about it. I once listened to a priest compare the Trinity to a ham sandwich. I don't think he ever published his insight, though.

Christians have always had much to try to explain about their religion, Christianity being a curious hodgepodge of religions and cults which sometimes fit together only very awkwardly.

These days it is quite safe to be a unitarian, and eminently sensible. — Bitter Crank

I've thought about attending a unitarian meeting, or whatever they call the equivalent of a mass. But from what I read, it's too similar to a mass. Readings and singing, though the readings and songs are different, of course. I hate it when people sing and it's expected you should sing with them, with some exceptions. Perhaps a Quaker meeting would be best, as it seems nobody says, or sings, anything, unless they want to "testify" I think it is the word. I could always leave when someone decides to speak. Who knows? Maybe they would say something worth hearing.

Much of the debate around Jesus (the Son) and God (the father) revolves around existence (did Jesus really exist and does God exist?). No such quarrel in re the Holy Spirit! — Agent Smith

Well, the Holy Spirit is supposed to be God according to those who accept the Trinity. So, if God doesn't exist, the Holy Spirit doesn't exist; if God exists, the Holy Spirit does as well. The Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons which make up the One God--three Persons, who nonetheless are consubstantial, one in Being.

Much time and effort have been spent trying to explain the Trinity. Too much.

The Holy Spirit has functions, or primary functions, or is its own "mode" (I think that's the term), According to the Nicene Creed (as represented by the Catholic Credo), the Holy Spirit is "the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" and spoke through the Prophets. Here's some Latin for you:

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:
qui locutus est per prophetas.

The Holy Spirit is, if you will, the Chatty Person of the One God, or at least evokes or inspires chattiness, speaking through the Prophets, getting all the apostles to run out and start speaking in tongues on Pentacost. But, it's also called the Paraclete--an advisor, advocate or counselor. So, I like to think of him as the Lawyer Person of the One God. A Deity made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Lawyer.