I don't think so. Space expands (inflates like a balloon, or warps) and is not "created". — 180 Proof

But I think the zero-point energy density of space is always a constant and greater than 0. I don't see that as necessarily contradicting what you have written.

I see it as irrelevant if Jefferson himself believed personally and individually in a G-d. The basis of the matter is there is nothing evidently binding the liberal idea to religion, but we can then not easily conclude that these two are fully separate and distinct.

You seem to consider it an accident that there are themes and references in the writing that refer explicitly to a Creator. There is still undeniably something implicit in the writing that implies religious ideas and contingencies. For instance, the concept of liberty itself. Why should we have had this idea without carrying along with it a notion that we were each a valued individual with a personal internal relationship with G-d, each deserving as such a right to our own freedom of will? Before this notion much of the West lived in a state that was a great deal less centred around freedom of private individual desires and choice and a little more deterministic, wouldn’t you agree? I think if you didn’t you’d be a little out of step with the commonly held vision of what the lifestyles of antiquity were like. — kudos

I don't think you can separate religion and human and civil rights. Did Christianity cause the drive for rights to liberty and self-government? Probably to a certain extent. They certainly are intertwined in the political evolution of the west. I don't think this contradicts anything you have written.

You seem to consider it an accident that there are themes and references in the writing that refer explicitly to a Creator. — kudos

I don't agree that there is any accident or that I suggested there was one.

Judeo-Christian ideological baggage — kudos

The Declaration of Independence was written almost 250 years ago by people steeped in the western traditions of culture, including Christianity. What language do you expect them to use. Thomas Jefferson may not have been a theist, but he knew the correct way to say what he wanted to say in the language of those who would read what was written. And it wasn't just him. The Declaration was signed by more than 50 delegates. Most of them probably were theists.

I guess Jefferson was not a theist. I'm not either, but I can't think of any better way to say what needed to be said. There are unalienable rights that are built into the structure of the universe. Say that how you want. "Endowed by their Creator," works fine for me. That's a lofty statement of principle, but that's not how it really works. What works is people making a commitment to making sure those rights are manifested. That's what the Declaration is - a declaration of commitment to principles.

My issue with this is that people with religious morality often seek to change laws and behaviour of others - presumably to please God. We don't just have to consider the Taliban or the Wahhabi Saudis in this enterprise, there are Western Christians working to turn the clock back on science education, gay rights, women's rights, capital punishment, euthanasia - what have you. — Tom Storm

I think you and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about what moral agency means to me. It has to do with my obligation to behave in moral way. By "moral" I mean consistent with my values. There is no room for moral judgement of others in this.

You're talking how some people judge and try to control other's behavior based on their moral understanding, either religious or not.

In my daily experience there are common references to the familiar adage of 'all men and women are created equal.' — kudos

Here's a more complete quote from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

This language is clear - All people are created equal. All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. We're not equal in height, wealth, strength, or any other physical or social measure. We are all equal in moral value. That leaves open the question of how differences in social standing, race, genetics, physical ability, birth and other such factors will be addressed. What is fair? Does society need to be fair?

It's an old story that one of the biggest obstacles to space travel is our primitive technology. — TheMadFool

I think the biggest obstacle is the speed of light.

I can have macaroni cheese as often as I like! — unenlightened

Made with Velveeta!!!

if someone were to say
"you must severely spank your kids every day, or they'll turn into immoral losers, and, besides, they probably did something wrong anyway"
then I'm thinking most would say that's not the right thing to do, i.e. passing judgment, a bad starting point. — jorndoe

I believe we should protect vulnerable people. Child abuse hurts children. I have a moral obligation to try to stop child abuse if I can. If I gather together with like-minded people, we can pass laws that protect children. That is not a negative judgement on immoral behavior, it is positive acceptance of a moral obligation.

We might say that, in principle, autonomous moral agency is a prerequisite for (would-be) autonomous actors. — jorndoe

It comes down to this - Judging the morality of other people or beliefs is not an autonomous moral action. Morals have to do with how you live your life, not how other people live theirs.

.

I'm totally envious of your non-judgmental prowess. — unenlightened

Yes. It's pretty impressive. I think he thinks he's all rational and stuff.

Man, I think you're just envious of Bezos.
After I started doing WHM breath work and reading Yogic books, I feel happy and totally non-judgemental. :) You should try that, too. Also add some Sowell / Friedman, as you don't seem to understand that people like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg ( while I'm totally not a fan of those guys ) did a huge and valuable organizing work for which they are rewarded. — stoicHoneyBadger

I'd say you are trying to make the facts fit your theory when they clearly contradict it. Once the self is expanded to include others, you really have stretched the concept of self-interest way past its breaking point. The only question of interest, is the psychological one, why many people like to cling to the bankrupt notion of the inevitability of self-interested behaviour. — unenlightened

I'm with @Unenlightened on this. You're afraid to engage with people who disagree with you, so you refuse to address directly those who have a less mean-spirited understanding of people than you do. Saying things over and over again doesn't make them true.

The truth is that your vocation, ie your job, takes you away from your avocation, ie, what you really love to do. — Leghorn

Maybe that's true for you, but it's not true for everyone. It doesn't seem to have been true for Frost. But that's beyond the point. "Only when love and need are one, and the work is play for mortal stakes, is the deed ever really done, for heaven or the futures sakes," is a fact. It's not just an ideal, a fantasy, of a perfect life. It's the truth. Plain and simple.

1. people always act in their own interest. — stoicHoneyBadger

This is clearly wrong, unless you jigger with the meaning of "own interest" as @Tom Storm has. People help each other because we like each other. We're built that way. Doesn't mean there aren't other drives that overpower our desire to help others. Sure people can be selfish and look after themselves. That's a natural impulse, but so is affection, friendliness, fellow-feeling, love.

if you're incapable of passing moral judgment on the Quran, then you're not an autonomous moral agent

An "autonomous moral agent" is someone who takes responsibility for their own actions. Passing moral judgement on anyone or anything is not the action of an autonomous moral agent. In a sense, it's the opposite. It's an attempt to control the actions of others.

Given that, the rest of your argument is falls apart.

I think your political cultural views are a bit too much outside the pale for me. We can just stick to philosophy.

Dr Strangelove? Produced by Hawk Films? I’m not into Soviet era propaganda movies (or movies in general) to be honest and I wasn’t even born at the time! — Apollodorus

Are you not familiar with Dr. Strangelove? It is considered a great film. It is a dark comedy - very, very, very dark. It's not propaganda at all. It is a brutal satire of nuclear militarism.

Was saying, sort of even though they were "right" he still chopped the would cause of the reasons he provided uniting avocation and vocation. — schopenhauer1

It's funny. As I was looking for the text of the poem online, I came across a paper that discussed this. It was a summary of past reviews of the poem. Apparently most reviewers saw it the same way you did, i.e. as a sign of Frost's lack of charity. I was flabbergasted. So, if you want to interpret it that way, at least you're in good company.

So the tramps go penniless cause the wood chopper was cheap — schopenhauer1

Of course the wood chopper gave the work to the tramps.

My right might be love but theirs was need.
And where the two exist in twain
Theirs was the better right — agreed.

Or did you think I left out a couple of lines:

Get lost hoboes
Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah

I'm curious how you associate these quotes. — 180 Proof

I should have put in a couple of more stanzas:

Out of the woods two hulking tramps
(From sleeping God knows where last night,
But not long since in the lumber camps.)
They thought all chopping was theirs of right.
Men of the woods and lumberjacks,
They judged me by their appropriate tool.
Except as a fellow handled an ax,
They had no way of knowing a fool.

Nothing on either side was said.
They knew they had but to stay their stay
And all their logic would fill my head:
As that I had no right to play
With what was another man’s work for gain.
My right might be love but theirs was need.
And where the two exist in twain
Theirs was the better right — agreed.

But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers: It is the only prayer that deserves an answer—good, honest, noble work.
— Robert G. Ingersoll
Amor fati (i.e. "amen"). — 180 Proof

Your quote made me think of this:

But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Frost. Two Tramps in Mud Time

It's neither. — 180 Proof

Yes. Thanks for the clarification.

Otherwise said, should Westerners wait to be put in concentration camps, or should we take preemptive action now, whilst we can? — Apollodorus

Well, you caught me by surprise, the way you drove off the cliff like that. Earlier in the thread you sounded way to hawkish for my taste, but now you've moved over into Dr. Strangelove territory.

And asking why the hell do I want to find a black cat in a dark room ? — Amity

It's Schrodinger's cat. We need to check to see if it is alive, dead, or both.

Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight.

If that's true, then philosophy is the instructions for using the flashlight.

However, is the argument that the international community should do nothing under any circumstances, a better one? — Apollodorus

There is one primary question - Does what the other country is doing affect the national security of the United States? If the answer is "no," then, generally, the US should not get involved. That may not always be true, but there would have to be extraordinary justification.

Now to get back to the specific question - China's role in the pandemic is definitely a matter of national security for the US, so it is reasonable for us to get involved. On the other hand, there is very little we can do that will force them to comply with what we think is the correct action. To somehow equate action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home is very short-sighted.

IQ means intelligence quotient, not intelligence. — Vince

From Wikipedia - An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence.

Can you explain to me what makes something a philosophy or philosophical? — Bret Bernhoft

For me, philosophy is an activity that helps increase my awareness of how my mind works, especially why I believe what I believe and how I know what I know.

I'm rather uncertain about this but I believe IQ=Mental AgeBodily Age×100IQ=Mental AgeBodily Age×100. — TheMadFool

IQ - A number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100.

Using your formulation, I would become less intelligent as I got older, even if my mental acuity stayed the same.

Neither do I. I am saying that China is, though. — Apollodorus

When you get down to it, I don't really care about what we call China. We deal with countries that do bad things all the time. We can't fix the world, although there is a faction that thinks we should try. It usually leads to disaster, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Libya...

Yes. That's why theoretical Philosophy, as contrasted with empirical Science, has not made much measurable progress over the centuries...We still debate some of the same questions that Plato addressed in his writings. — Gnomon

I don't think that making progress is the point. Philosophical, metaphysical, issues are intended to be basic, foundational. What's to progress? It's the application of those principles that needs to progress to address changes in the world, e.g. science. That's the problem, as I see it, not that metaphysics hasn't advanced, but that people continue to mistake it for concrete, universal, irreducible, eternal, unchangeable reality.

Those topics are still "difficult" and mysterious, but with our modern understanding of how reality works on a fundamental level, we can look at those ancient topics from new perspectives. — Gnomon

Maybe... Sort of... Wait, no. I changed my mind. Free will vs. determinism was never difficult and mysterious. Philosophers made it so. Science has changed. The fundamentals of metaphysics have not. Which is a good thing. Hmm... Do I believe that? Not sure.

The issue was not the action taken but the action suggested, which was "bashing them on the snout". — Apollodorus

Yes, a poor choice of words, although it was meant metaphorically. @tim wood takes pride and pleasure in being cantankerous. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. This is what we have international laws for. — Apollodorus

I'm ok with that.

China has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs. It has concentration camps. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc. — Apollodorus

The US has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like black people and American Indians. It has had concentration camps - reservations for American Indians, internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War 2. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc.

No, I don't think the US is national socialist.

Yeah but there's just something almost ethereal, mystical even about a sentence or piece of literature that you can ascertain completely different yet equally profound meanings from by simply reading them once more. — Outlander

Perhaps for literature, but not, generally, for philosophy. As somebody somewhere once wrote - Clarity is so rare, it is often mistaken for truth..

The premises of many philosophical efforts frequently seem vague, to the point where, for example, the word "being" triggers my full retreat. "Metaphysics" also is confusing, and I am curious what Stanford's metaphysical laboratory can produce as enlightenment. — jgill

Funny - "metaphysics" and "being" are two of my favorite philosophical words. Because they both tend to mean different things to different people, I generally give a brief summary of what they mean to me when I'm discussing them in a post.

In the event of a prolonged shut down, Defcon 1 would be declared and TPF would execute its Emergency Readiness Protocol. Rest assured, the mods and admins here are committed to philosophical interaction regardless of circumstance. — Hanover

Also, you'd have to go back to the Sears catalogue.

So art is information about the artist's consciousness ( hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now ). — Pop

This is so pompous, pretentious. Where did you learn that bolding something makes it a better argument. It makes you look like a putz.

So art is information about the artist's consciousness — Pop

I wonder how many times you've written this in this discussion. I was going to count but I'm too lazy. It's still bullshit, not matter how many times you say it. It's meaningless. My definition is scientific and falsifiable...What the fuck does that even mean. It's embarrassing.

I promised myself I would stay out of this, but the Force tells me I have to intervene. Just end it, would you please.

I have never associated truth with art. I'm not even sure how they would relate. — Tom Storm

I always think of Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn."

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Sounds good, but I don't know what it means either.

Agreeing on a use for our terms is the very stuff of philosophy.

Beginning with definitions is expecting to start at the finish. — Banno

Typical Banno bologna. He transports into a discussion, tosses his usual smarty pants bullshit, then transports out without contributing anything substantive.

I attempt to discuss philosophy with as little jargon as possible but using strictly everyday language means swapping out concise philosophical terms requires swapping in a long and elaborate essays describing the concise philosophical term as a thesis in everyday language. You can’t have it both ways. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I don't agree. I, like you, try to use as little jargon as possible. When I do use if, I feel like I've failed. If I need to use language that most of us here won't be familiar with, it makes sense for me to spend a little time laying out the framework I am talking about. The "concise philosophical terms" you're talking about rarely mean the same thing to everyone in the discussion. You're going to have to define them anyway, at least here on the forum. I thought that was one of the things you are recommending.

A fair criticism if you are referring to my personal writing skills. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No, I wasn't criticizing your writing skills. You are very articulate.

So, the job of Philosophy (Wisdom) is to evaluate in terms of relative values : more-or-less Good or Bad ; True or False ; Real or Ideal. The Middle Path, the Way of Tao. — Gnomon

I posted this in the Knowledge of Good and Evil thread earlier today:

The belief of the existence of evil, at all, is what allows for the infinite manifestations of evil that we experience daily.
— PseudoB

Or as Lao Tzu wrote:

Recognize beauty and ugliness is born.
Recognize good and evil is born.
Is and Isn't produce each other. Hard depends on easy, Long is tested by short,
High is determined by low, Sound is harmonized by voice, After is followed by before.

Tao Te Ching, Verse 2. Addiss and Lombardo translation. — T Clark

But this is a bit different from the point I was trying to make in my post in this thread. I have a broken record refrain, for those who remember what that means. It goes like this - Most of the difficult issues we discuss in philosophy are metaphysical issues - they relate to the underlying assumptions we bring to the discussion. Metaphysical issues; like free will vs. determinism and the nature of reality, do not have true or false answers. They have no truth value. They are merely more or less useful for dealing with particular issues.

Global warming might start trimming the population at all ages. Not just the heat, but social disruption. — Bitter Crank

Don't forget the technological singularity. 2045. That's when our machine overlords will take over and crush us.