On the other hand, using your own reasoning, it ought to be perfectly alright for Nike to put zwastikas on their shoes since the zwastika was an ancient Eurasian religious icon before it historically came to be associated with the German Nazi party. This may be a more extreme case, but it illustrates that symbols and icons, just like words (think of the N-word, for instance) can't always be claimed by their users to mean what they want them to mean or what they originally meant when they were first created. — Pierre-Normand

This is your fault, @Bitter Crank. To anyone who knows you it's clear you set up this provocation to get the biggest boneheads on the forum to pipe up. And PN - the "N-word," by which you mean "nigger" but are too coy to say, has always been a degrading term for black people. And the swastika had no currency in European or American culture before the Nazis commandeered it as a symbol of their evil regime.

Who cares about the Betsy Ross flag? Who cares about Colin Kaepernick? Who cares about Nike? What matters is the denaturing of American history, culture, and language by creepy, lazy, ignorant people.

There's no doubt that the person who thinks is superior to the person who doesn't. — jorgealarcon

This is certainly not true. I say that even though you aren't clear about what you mean when you refer to "the person who thinks." In all that long list of possible pitfalls you say thinking may save you from, as many are caused by thinking as are likely to be relieved by it.

There are many theories of how language evolved in humans and how consciousness evolved, but none of them seem commensurate. These theories are self-encapsulating and often not ammenable to incorporate broader theories. — schopenhauer1

Some thoughts:

• People have always complained that psychology is not a real, hard science. That's changed a lot over the past few decades with the advent of cognitive science and technologies like PET scans and MRIs letting us look directly at the working of the brain, but it's not there yet.
• Everybody thinks they know what consciousness is. It's a very personal thing.
• Consciousness is also mixed up with religion, morality, philosophy, the supernatural, and other phenomena which are difficult to study in a rigorous manner.
• It's not unusual for scientists studying different aspects of the same phenomena to use different tools, terminology, and concepts. I think that's partly because of the way scientific evaluations tend to pull out little chunks of the universe in isolation from the rest. You end up with a lot of little snapshots until someone finally gets around to unifying the views into a comprehensive approach. It's probably also caused by historical coincidence and scientists not reading each other.

Are there "accurate" movies/books about Jesus without any actual miracles and magic in them? — philsterr

On the web, type in "historical Jesus." You'll find lots of stuff.

i asked you if pedaphilia was ok. See above posts. You are disgusting. I don't care if this gets me kicked off this site. Can i steal a million dollars from you? Your answer is no. Why the emotional response? — christian2017

This doesn't relate to you because it deals with a conversation i had with someone else. I'm done with this site for a while. Some things are just completely unacceptable. Have a good day Leo. — christian2017

Forum members like you come and go quickly. They join and then start throwing out a bunch of posts trying to gain attention, most often smug and poorly thought through. They respond to criticism with outrage or condescension and then leave quickly when they don't get the deference they think they deserve.

At the most fundamental level, are Pain and Pleasure the only real things we perceive? — Mehdim

We don't perceive pain and pleasure. We interpret certain sensory information as painful or pleasurable. Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are motivations for action.

So, let's change the question - Are avoiding pain and seeking pleasure the only motivations for our actions? That just sets up a circular argument - We define pain as something we are motivated to avoid and pleasure as something we are motivated to seek.

Most people would agree that there are many kinds of necessity – moral, physical, logical and metaphysical being examples. An action would be seen as morally necessary if one’s ethical system required that it be done. An event would be physically necessary if it were determined by the initial conditions and the laws of nature. A conclusion is logically necessary if it is validly entailed by the premises one accepts. Something is metaphysically necessary if it is required by the very nature of being. — Dfpolis

These examples seem like they're all the same. Aren't they really only saying "A (the necessary thing) implies B?"

What's objective about that? — Terrapin Station

I can think of lots of measures that could act as a metric for social well-being - life expectancy, unemployment rate, crime rate, distribution of wealth, .... Here's a link to map purporting to show the distribution of happiness in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#/media/File:Happiness_score_of_countries_according_to_the_World_Happiness_Report_(2018).png

That said: could you give an example, a specific example. — Coben

This is the place where I discuss philosophy, so any examples I describe will involve members of this forum. So, I'd rather not be more specific.

why wrong? — christian2017

I don't mean to be rude, but I stand by my decision that any further discussion of this issue at this time is pointless.

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above. — christian2017

I don't "agree to disagree." Your understanding of genetics and human nature is naive and wrong. On the other hand, if what you mean by "agree to disagree" is that continued discussion on the subject between us is pointless, well then maybe I do agree to agree to disagree.

Only two of the effing posts you put up have anything to do with genetics influencing decision making. Neither of them say anything about women's DNA making them want to live longer. Both of them discuss general behavioral tendencies.

Once again you are being vague. Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA? — christian2017

I doubt any reputable scientist qualified to make judgments in genetics, psychology, comparative zoology, or any other discipline ever made such a statement. Not even the most far out proponent of sociobiology would have. What you're talking about is silly and reductive. Naive to the point of incomprehensibility.

Time to put up or shut up. Provide some evidence. Specific to the point of DNA making women want to live longer, not some general statement about how behavior has a genetic component. I don't mean to be mean, but you can't just make dipsy-doodle comments without references and expect to be taken seriously.

well if you choose not to elaborate, i'll also refrain from elaborating my position too much. DNA is a real thing you know and in fact it does influence the decisions people make. You want to have a chat? — christian2017

I think you and I have a difference in our understanding of how inference works. I don't see how the fact that women commit suicide less frequently than men tells us anything about their DNA or about whether they want to live a longer life than men do.

Are you sure about your prior position? — christian2017

Yeah, I'm comfortable with my original position.

Statistics show women commit suicide less often. Gun laws don't prohibit women from owning hand guns nor assault rifles. Do you want to retract that statement? — christian2017

So, the fact that women commit suicide a lower rate than men indicates that women's DNA makes them want to live a longer life? No... I'll stick with my original statement.

Women are less likely to commit suicide because their dna makes them want to live a longer life. I'm not saying men are less ethical than women, just that women are more focused on living into old age than men. — christian2017

This is not true.

Do I undertand you correctly that when you were a child you and others were in danger, and that you required a gun to protect you from those dangers? — tim wood

I wasn't clear - What I meant to say was that, as an 11 year old, using a gun was the first thing I had ever done that could have hurt someone badly. It was a very serious thing - both for me and for the people who were teaching me to shoot - father, uncle, grandfather. There are rituals about how you hold and carry guns. How you hand one to someone else. How you inspect it when you first pick it up and then again before you put it away. Using a gun is a grownup thing to do.

A comedian, of all people, and from Australia, gets it right. Youtube, and imo required watching for people who do not understand what guns are: — tim wood

Very funny, although it didn't change my mind about anything. I guess that means I'm in the first 20%.

So, what are examples of this? How does it happen? Is there a concrete change that you attribute to philosophy? Could a similar change have happen with literature or some kind of spirituality? — Coben

I had always been skeptical of philosophy as a pathway to becoming a better, happier person, but I have met people here on the forum who have convinced me otherwise. There are people here who use philosophy as a tool to help them work out issues they are dealing with in very concrete, practical ways. I've been really impressed and sometimes moved. Inspired.

On the other hand, that is certainly not my way. Philosophy for me is an intellectual exercise. I'm here to practice recreational thinking in front of an audience. Philosophy is playing.

Yes, better than Russia and Brazil. And that, my friends, is what is known as damnation by very faint praise.

Another thing to consider is that England’s crime rate was incredibly low at the beginning of the 20th century, compared with what it is now, and at that time we had very liberal gun laws ourselves. — AJJ

Keeping in mind that the murder rate in the US is more than 5 per 100,000 while those in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia are about 1 per 100,000.

Did you need to hunt? — tim wood

Hunting was a family tradition. We ate what we shot. Do you eat meat? Do you need to? Is it better for me to have someone else kill the meat for me? Learning to shoot was the first thing I had to do where I, at the age of 11 or 12, had to take responsibility for the safety of others in a serious way. Nothing else came close till I got my license at 16.

I don't really like hunting. I didn't when I was a teenager. Getting up at dawn in January with the cold wind blowing off the Chesapeake Bay and the rain coming down. The role of the young guys in hunting is to be the mules. Hauling, moving decoys around, cleaning the birds when hunting's over. But I'm comfortable around guns and I know how to use them safely.

If the 2d amendment did not exist, I would not write it; but as it does exist and exists for an original reason, notwithstanding modern perversions of that meaning, I would not repeal it. It is part of the original experiment. — tim wood

Originalism - the idea that some theoretical "original intent" of the Constitution is what's important - is an approach usually used by right wingers who want to get the Federal government out of State government business. They want to eliminate the "modern perversions" that form the basis for Federal involvement in environmental regulation, civil rights, worker protection, and so on and so on. I don't know your overall politics, but you should be careful about jumping on the original intent bandwagon.

Question: you go to a major league baseball game only to see some clearly odd-looking people wearing guns. When asked, they say for protection: do you feel safer with them near you? — tim wood

I'm the wrong person to ask. Watching baseball is the only thing I know more boring than hunting. I do think that businesses and other institutions should have the right to exclude otherwise legal firearms from their properties. That way, I can decide whether or not to do business with people who allow guns. Some states have proposed taking away that right in some situations. And sure, I might feel better not sitting next to people legally carrying guns. But there are also some people who don't feel safe when black or Hispanic people are sitting near them.

I haven’t read Lott’s book, but according to Hitchens his findings, though challenged, weren’t refuted. That was the case 20 years ago anyway. — AJJ

If you look on the web, there seem to have been a bunch of studies, the results of which seem to be pretty inconclusive. That's for the US. It is my understanding that gun ownership in the US is really different than the UK. Many more people here own guns and it's relatively easy to get them. Is that also true for Australia?

Just to add, “social media” seems a grave misnomer. It is more “anti-social media” than anything social, because we are literally interacting with screens and not human beings. Perhaps this adds to the detrimental effect. — NOS4A2

Is this forum included as social media? I find this a very social place. I've made friends. I share personal information. We are a community. The opportunity for this type of interaction with people doesn't replace my relationships with my face to face friends and family, but it's a nice addition.

I fully agree that not everyone should be allowed a gun. And of course those who do carry them should keep them concealed in public (I thought people had to by law anyway). — AJJ

Generally, concealed carry is much more heavily regulated than open carry. So, the law doesn't agree with your assessment. Many places in the US allow open carry while most require a permit which may be difficult to obtain for concealed carry.

Violent crimes are 81 percent higher in states without non-discretionary laws. For murder, states that ban the concealed carrying of guns have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with the most liberal concealed-carry laws. — AJJ

I am very skeptical of these statistics. If you look at the data, it is very ambiguous whether or not gun ownership has an effect on violent crime.

What are guns? In modern America the only answer, outside the military and police, is that they're toys. And tools of self-destruction. They account for a lot of suicide. — tim wood

I grew up with guns - for sport and for hunting. There are other legitimate reasons to own guns. They're not toys, they're tools. I don't own any now because I'm no longer interested and my wife wouldn't like it.

And enshrined in our Constitution is our 2d amendment, grossly misunderstood now as a justification to possess and play with toys. But the underlying purpose of the 2d amendment is to my mind serious and not to be dismissed. It guarantees an armed citizenry to oppose tyranny - understood in late 18th-century terms. It presupposed a citizenry that understood that a gun is not a toy, nor to be played with. It also noted the importance of training and control, "A well regulated militia...". — tim wood

The Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual gun ownership. The Constitution means what the SC says it means. You may not like it, but that's the way it works.

Gun ownership and use should be only for those willing to be trained in their use, perhaps with a psych profile included. And guns licensed and the owners responsible for them at all times. — tim wood

I know conservative gun owners for whom gun rights are important who wouldn't disagree with what you have written. Problem is, gun control is one of those issues that are so emotional and emblematic that finding a reasonable middle ground is probably impossible.

GK always struck me as a prickly person who maybe wasn't exactly as nice as the character he played. On the other hand - Prairie Home Companion was a truly wonderful program for an unreasonably long period of time. And it was all his. I don't mean his co-contributors weren't also wonderful, but he was the heart, soul, and brain. It was the projection of him - who he is and who he wanted people to think he is - up onto a large screen. I remember when I first started listening in the 1970s. I couldn't believe something could be so good.

I'm going to come off as a prick; but, I honestly think that the domain of great philosophy is reserved for the brilliant. — Wallows

Western philosophy exists in a universe of words. As far as I can see, the "greater" it is, the more that's true. Much of philosophy is playing with words while lost in the illusion that they represent reality when, often, they are just as likely to obscure it.

Intelligence, to a significant extent, is a measure of verbal skills, so, of course the most prominent philosophers are really smart. Smart people tend live in a world of ideas more than other people. They may come up with the best ideas, but they also come up with the worst.

I wouldn't say you come off as a prick, but you sure come off as arrogant.

@Bitter Crank

By the way - I first heard the poem on the radio on "The Writer's Almanac," hosted by another good mid-western boy I know you are familiar with.

Which means that it is not in our self-interest to just take our own needs into account. Further, most of us are social mammals with empathy. So to varying degrees and varying due to situation, we don't like to see others suffer, we like companionship, we love some people, there is a lot of win win stuff, so someone taking their own needs into account must necessarily takes the needs and life quality of others into account. Only damaged social mammals would not. — Coben

Yes.

I often wondered: why do people enjoy arguing with obvious morons? Morons are incorrigible, and all arguments to give them insight fail. What's the point? — god must be atheist

The discussion in this thread is not at the peak level of philosophical discourse which might be hoped for, but I don't think it deserves the sort of pointless, insulting, self-aggrandizing criticism you have provided. If you don't like a comment or thread, you are not obligated to respond to it. I suggest you consider that approach in the future unless you have something substantive to contribute.

Scholars should take her philosophy more seriously given that we had and still do have people with bright minds who adopted her philosophy. Alan Greenspan talked about her with exaltation... — Wallows

I've known a few people who doted on her philosophy - generally young male conservatives who imagined they obtained whatever success they had on their individual accomplishment rather than the privilege they had grown up with and the support they had been given by the society they are members of. Arrogant young men without gratitude or generosity.

I don't intend that as criticism, @Grre, although I hope you will gain a more rounded understanding as you get older.

I'm currently reading The Fountainhead and I'm very much enjoying it. I have never read any of Rand's work before (only the scathing comments, critiques ect.) and before I go and do bunch of preliminary research-ie. probably ruining my opinion of her, I wanted to finish the novel first. But I do want to hear what more experienced people on here think, do you hate her? Why do (generally) people find her so repulsive? What are some of the more central vs. more controversial tenets of her philosophy?
Once I finish the novel and do some of my own research, perhaps I will chime in with my own opinion and thoughts but as for right now, at the very least I feel I have to give her credit. She is a very good writer, nice intricate prose (and intriguing plot) without sounding dry or antiquated. — Grre

People do hate Ayn Rand. I probably do. Her philosophy is deeply, creepily individualistic. "Atlas Shrugged" is significantly more intense than "The Fountainhead." You might want to read it. Much more preachy about her principles and ideology. I've always thought of it as bad science fiction. That's from someone who grew up on bad science fiction.

I suggest you track down the film of "The Fountainhead." Late 1940s. Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, Raymond Massey. For me, it has a real split personality. On one hand, well made - the cinematography is great, black and white with deep shadows. Cooper, Neal, and Massey are good actors. On the other hand, deeply melodramatic, almost fetishistic, romance and preachy, creepy ideology. Lots of fun, whether or not you buy Rand's philosophy, which I really, really don't

It's doing things with words. — Banno

Come on, Banno. You know you have to do better than that. 5 words? Fucking Australians. There's a good chance the moderators will delete your post, with good reason.

Language is not the same as communication. It's is a medium of communication. So, what is communication? It is moving information from one head to another. Rather, moving experience from one mind to another.

does it have a spatial or temporal location? — frank

It's here. Come on. Pick a hard one.

Seems to me that at least some of our values can be traced back to inborn physiological reactions. One of the definitions I found for "values" on the web is "judgment of what is important in life."

This comes from the Stanford Children's Health webpage:

Newborn-Reflexes

What reflexes should be present in a newborn?

Reflexes are involuntary movements or actions. Some movements are spontaneous, occurring as part of the baby's usual activity. Others are responses to certain actions. Reflexes help identify normal brain and nerve activity. Some reflexes occur only in specific periods of development. The following are some of the normal reflexes seen in newborn babies:

• Root reflex. This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his or her head and open his or her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast or bottle to begin feeding.
  
• Suck reflex. Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Babies also have a hand-to-mouth reflex that goes with rooting and sucking and may suck on fingers or hands.
  
• Moro reflex. The Moro reflex is often called a startle reflex because it usually occurs when a baby is startled by a loud sound or movement. In response to the sound, the baby throws back his or her head, extends out the arms and legs, cries, then pulls the arms and legs back in. A baby's own cry can startle him or her and trigger this reflex. This reflex lasts about 5 to 6 months.
  
• Tonic neck reflex. When a baby's head is turned to one side, the arm on that side stretches out and the opposite arm bends up at the elbow. This is often called the "fencing" position. The tonic neck reflex lasts about 6 to 7 months.
  
• Grasp reflex. Stroking the palm of a baby's hand causes the baby to close his or her fingers in a grasp. The grasp reflex lasts until about 5 to 6 months of age.
  
• Babinski reflex. When the sole of the foot is firmly stroked, the big toe bends back toward the top of the foot and the other toes fan out. This is a normal reflex up to about 2 years of age.
  
• Step reflex. This reflex is also called the walking or dance reflex because a baby appears to take steps or dance when held upright with his or her feet touching a solid surface.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that at least some of these actions reflect the babies "judgement" of what is important in life.

Values describe the human condition and all of them are valid. — RW Standing

I can imagine a, somewhat, objective standard for ethics. As a possible example - an ethical standard should promote a stable society that provides security and adequate resources for the members of that society.

Keep your replies in plain English. — RW Standing

Yeah, well, demanding a particular type of response is not really the way things work around here. Seems a bit tendentious to me.

"Getting on with it" doesn't mean we are all-well-adjusted, fulfilled, highly productive, role-appropriate, sensible people. Many of us aren't. We don't have to be. Like T Clark's good enough parenting we do well to achieve "good enough adulthood". "Good enough adulthood" is hard enough. If one can achieve excellence in adulthood, fine. We'll award you a blue ribbon. A blue ribbon and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. — Bitter Crank

One of my favorite poems - Aunt Celia 1961 by Carl Dennis. Here's a link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VHB9RDHiEuUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Aunt+celia+1961&source=bl&ots=Bi0T-LmUaq&sig=ACfU3U0b2JelRzHFD856_46PZFnJkvKjVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBpsf_mo_jAhVkT98KHRL6AA0Q6AEwCnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=Aunt%20celia%201961&f=false

Last stanza:

People will tell you there are many good lives
Waiting for everyone, each fine in its own way.
And maybe they’re right, but in my opinion
One is miles above the others.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been so clear to me
When I found it. Otherwise those who lack it
Wouldn’t be able to tell so clearly it’s missing
As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.
But as for the happiness that can’t be earned,
The kind it makes no sense for you to look for,
That’s something different.

My bold. Not a long poem. Worth a read. He's a mid-westerner like you and he has what I think of as a very mid-western sensibility. Like you.

Well thought out. I agree.

There is a sense in which everything we know about the world is metaphorical. Gravity is called a force by analogy. Here's a description of the etymology of the word "force" from the Internet Etymological Dictionary:

c. 1300, "physical strength," from Old French force "force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fortia (source also of Old Spanish forzo, Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis "strong, mighty; firm, steadfast; brave, bold" (see fort).

So, ideas of force come from comparisons with the human or animal body. As the Greek said, "Man is the measure of all things." In that sense, all generalization is metaphor. Gravity is a force because it shares similarities with what happens when a horse pulls a plow.

@Wallows

I'm not sure this is completely relevant, but I thought you might be interested. Christopher Lasch was a social philosopher who wrote about how family structure and technology affect the structure of people's minds from a sociological rather than psychological perspective. He died in the early 90s, before the internet and facebook, but his writings came to mind when I was reading your posts.

That would be interesting to know - how have the internet and associated media changed the structure of people's minds? And how much of that change is caused by indirect factors - such as changes in the family - rather than the direct effects of the new media itself?