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.

Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. — Outlander

Agreed, but if you, as the original poster, define your terms carefully at the beginning, specify that that is the sense which will be used in the discussion, and then ride heard on the discussion to keep it on track, a lot of the problems many, many, many of the posts on this thread have could be greatly reduced. That is the responsibility of the original poster. If you don't do that, don't complain about it later.

In the philosophy forum, we should expect to observe two things regarding vagueness and ambiguity. First, a far more extensive, interdisciplinary vocabulary as compared to common language users by virtue of the scope and breadth of philosophy upon all domains of research. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This is exactly what we don't need. There is already too much gobbledegook jargon in philosophy. Every philosopher or aspirant to the throne wants to coin new words or change the meaning of old ones. This is at the heart of much of the ambiguity you are arguing against. To overstate the case a bit - if you can't say it in everyday language, you don't understand it. Jargon rarely clarifies.

As for the rest... You could have laid out the problem in two paragraphs but you used 15. A lot of people didn't read it. You know - tl;dr. Using as few words as possible is just as important as using the right words. Your argument could have been a lot clearer, less ambiguous, if you'd made the post a lot shorter.

TL;DR means "too long, didn't read."

Also - good post.

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.

Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker

This is my old refrain. Most things that get people, at least philosophers, excited are neither true nor false. Examples:

• Free will vs. determinism
• Realism vs. idealism vs. materialism vs. pragmatism
• The nature of reality
• The nature of truth

Do Brussels sprouts taste good? True or false? — SolarWind

Love Brussels sprouts. So - true, true, true.

When will you be ‘old’? 60? 70? 80? 90? 100? 100+? — Bitter Crank

I'm 69. If you'll promise not to call me a "senior citizen" or a "senior" and won't notify the AARP where I live, I'll admit to being old.

Without looking it up, what percent of the population do you think live past 100? — Bitter Crank

0.5 percent.

Do you hate or fear the idea of getting old and needing assistance for some tasks? — Bitter Crank

My wife and I have both been having significant problems with mobility because of our hips. She just had a replacement. Mine is scheduled for the end of this month. My sons have been helping out a lot. It sucks.

If you had a choice, at which age would you like to die an easy death? — Bitter Crank

147.

If you are “old”, when do people stop being “young”? (When did you stop being “young”?) — Bitter Crank

When did I stop being young? 35 I guess. When do I think other people stop being young? Say 40. Women between the ages of 35 and 45 are at their most attractive.

What might be some advantages to being old (not “getting older”— but being downright “old”)? — Bitter Crank

Advantages - I don't have to work any more. I don't have to do what I don't want to do very much now.

Interesting things:

• My attitude toward time has changed. It feels like everything that ever happened to me is all happening at the same time. Now. My father, who died in 2001, is still here as much as the other members of my family.
• I've seen everything four times. It's hard to get excited about hurricanes and Donald Trump.
• Whenever I meet someone new, I tell them my birth date.
• I'm much more aware of my body, because it doesn't work so well sometimes now.
• I have become profoundly wise.

Since at least the Lascaux cave paintings 17,000 years ago, beauty and aesthetics have been considered part of the essence of the meaning of art, part of the "definition of art". — RussellA

I'm guessing that Oog Eep in the cave wasn't thinking much about aesthetics. Maybe she was. Being so sure about what she was thinking is a presumptuous.

Sentient life is born with certain innate "a priori" abilities. — RussellA

"A priori" is defined as "Relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience." You wrote me an irrelevant post about my misuse of the phrase and now you're trying to change the meaning.

We are able to know the subjective experience of the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, the pain of a headache, as well as aesthetic form. These subjective experiences don't need to be taught in school. — RussellA

You made your original argument about a priori knowledge. I responded with very concrete reasons why I thought your argument was not accurate. Now you've just repeated the same argument without responding to my comments.

In Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, such knowledge, acquired independently of any particular experience, has been known as "a priori knowledge". — RussellA

In the 200 or so years since Kant died, people have done a lot of work studying human cognition, perception, and child development. Kant was not a cognitive scientist.

My point was that since the problem originated in China, and not with the anti-vaxxers, action against China should be given priority. — Apollodorus

First of all, what "action" is being taken against anti-vaxxers? If you mean complaining, hey, that's what this forum is for. If you mean coercing them into getting vaccinated, whether you like it or not, that is not against anyone. It is a public health action.

I still don't get why going after China matters. Getting information from them to help prevent future events, sure. You say for you that this isn't for revenge. Ok, but for many it is.

And, as I said, in my view China is a National Socialist dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany only about 17 times bigger and more dangerous. — Apollodorus

China may be a bad place, but I don't know what it means to say it is national socialist. Is it dangerous? I think significantly less so than the Soviet Union was. The US is just pissed that China thinks they deserve a place in the world on a par with us. They do a lot of the same things to project themselves out into the world that we have done or are still doing.

It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed. — Apollodorus

I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? Vaccination requirements for children have been around since at least the 60s.

I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better". — Apollodorus

It's just a continuation of President Trump's original plan to manage the disease by changing it's name to the China virus.

Unfortunately, I can't go along with mandatory vaccination as that sounds too much like an infringement of human rights. It would be inconsistent to condone here what I condemn in China. — Apollodorus

Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? If not, your argument falls apart.

Besides, if you have no objection, then you don't need to make your approval conditional on my going along with mandatory vaccination. — Apollodorus

I think trying to go after China is a wasted effort intended only to make people feel like they're doing something to address the issue when it's actually meaningless. It's a human tendency to try to beat someone up when something goes wrong. But if that will make people feel better, ok. Again, it will make me feel better if people get vaccinated. Tit for tat.