I’d say it’s something being used for that purpose. If it’s not actually useful to that purpose, it’s a bad thing of that kind, but still a thing of that kind. — Pfhorrest

Would you then define food as anything ingested?

do you or do you not agree that good food nourishes the body, and that bad food poisons it? and that food that neither nourishes nor poisons it does it neither good nor ill? — Leghorn

Yes I agree with that — Pfhorrest

Then would you also agree it follows from this that we cannot define food as dry nourishment for the body?

More or less yes. — Pfhorrest

I don’t want you to be equivocal here. We’re talking about an important thing; what is good and bad for the body. So let me ask you again: do you or do you not agree that good food nourishes the body, and that bad food poisons it? and that food that neither nourishes nor poisons it does it neither good nor ill?

But, science tells us that the offspring of this racial mixing process are likely to have different set of strengths and weaknesses relative to their native ancestors, with a high degree of creative intelligence not being one of them." — Baden

Did he offer any evidence for this?

He was certainly creative in either leaving out the indefinite article where it was needed, or failing to make a certain noun plural.

Can you explain more fully what you mean by “negatively nourishing” and “actively bad”?
— Leghorn

Like something poisonous, something that reduces your health rather than preserving it. — Pfhorrest

So do you say then that subsumed under the general category “food” is a scale much like that of the integers, where the positive numbers represent “nourishing” food, “poisonous” food is represented by the negative ones, and zero quantifies food that is neither nourishing nor poisonous?

Banned JohnLocke for racism, pertaining primarily to an OP he wrote on "the problem of racial mixing" in society. — Baden

Was it the OP itself that was offensive, or something he posted within it?

Well, not sure why you’re talking about souls, but my only point is that we can’t prevent our emotion from occurring. We will feel angry, sad, etc. no matter what. But definitely we have some control over whatever actions come next. — Pinprick

That’s exactly why I’m talking about souls.

When I was a child I learned that the soul is the part of you that flies off to heaven after you are dead; when I grew up (and got some liberal education) I learned that it is rather the term that describes the immaterial part of you that exists down here on earth, that comprises the rational and irrational sides of a human being. I learned that the rational part of this economy or polity is one: reason; and that the irrational part, the one prone to the multifarious vices of the emotions, fear and pride and ambition, etc, are many; but that they all, reason and the emotions, make up this one thing: the soul...

...it all depends on who rules for his little economy; whether it be reason, or the passions.

Vodka, probably — Baden

A six-pack of cheap ice-beer would have effected the same.

Just remember however: though the Persians decided their enactments of an evening in their cups, they didn’t ratify them until the following sober morning.

I’d say that things can be nourishing to a greater or lesser degree, so some things can be better or worse as sources of nourishment go. Something that’s not very nourishing, or negatively nourishing, is not very good, or actively bad, for use as food. — Pfhorrest

So we have a continuum of nourishment here where some food is more nourishing than other food. Not only that, we also have some food that is “negatively nourishing”, that is “actively bad”. Can you explain more fully what you mean by “negatively nourishing” and “actively bad”?

Can anyone think of other cases where being a kind of thing at all is conflated with being a good example of that kind of thing? — Pfhorrest

It seems to me that it is instinctive to conflate identity with goodness. We do this whenever, for example, we take a bite of food, grimace and exclaim, “That’s not food!”

@baker’s “true Scotsman” reminded me of the old tv show theme song, “Daniel Boone was a man, was a real man”. The two parts of this verse really express the same sentiment; the second part is just added for clarification.

Returning to food, in defining what it is we might presumably call it “dry nourishment for the body”. How then do we explain the difference between good and bad food? Substituting the phrase, as in a mathematical equation, “dry nourishment for the body” for “food”, we obtain, “good food” = “good dry nourishment for the body”, and “bad food” = “bad dry nourishment for the body”. How would you respond, however, to this objection: “But ‘good’ is already implied in ‘nourishment’, so in the first equation, ‘good’ is redundant, and in the second, ‘bad’ is contradictory”?

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally.
— Book273

I don’t entirely agree with this. If that were the case, then why would we ever “allow” another’s words to upset us? — Pinprick

It depends on whether we perceive our emotion to be justified. First comes the emotion (as you have suggested); then, the rational part of the soul weighs in and either condemns or justifies the emotion. If the former be the case, that reason condemns the emotion, then she as though says to it, “I can see these words caused you upset, but they are not true, and so you need not be upset”, or reason says to the stirred-up emotion, “do not be so angry and hurt: maybe the words said against you are true, in which case they were correctly spoken. Let’s consider whether this is the case before we take action”, etc.

Whenever reason is absent from the economy of the soul, the emotions feel what they feel and act on that feeling and justify whatever action they take. Or rather, since reason is the only element that can cast judgement, they hold her hostage, and force her to agree with whatever they do.

@TheHedoMinimalist

I think you read my anecdote too quickly, negligently and thoughtlessly:

Even if his sole motivation was to make his sister in law happy — TheHedoMinimalist

If you reread my post, you should realize that she is MY sister-in-law, HIS wife.

The rest of what you have to say regarding the anecdote tells me you entirely missed its point. In it, I related certain particular details of what happened, but left it to the reader to draw the conclusions without explicitly stating them myself:

he bought her a new electronic piano as her present that year, but within a month he had signed up for piano lessons and was playing it everyday, far more than she ever played the old one... — Leghorn

What does my brother’s behavior after Christmas suggest about his motivations for giving the gift?

I believe mental states are really body states. I’m not one to say we should eliminate the concept of mind altogether, just that we should never forget the object it abstracts. Embodied cognition is somewhat appealing, but I prefer biology to philosophy when it comes to mind. — NOS4A2

It would be irreproachable to consider psychology a subset of biology—if the phenomena of the soul could be deduced from those of the brain; alas, they cannot, just as the phenomena of biology cannot be understood solely by applying the principles of chemistry to them. That is why different sciences have been developed to explain the different categories in nature.

Your mistaken belief that nature is homogeneous in this respect rather than heterogeneous blinds you to the peculiar workings of the human soul, which has laws and phenomena that must be understood on their own merit, without being reduced to the more basic elements that are its mere infrastructure.

...every move she makes begins and ends with her. — NOS4A2

That is, whatever she does is not attributable to any outside influence, but only to her will. A human being is assumed to have independence from all outside influences, unless those influences are physically coercive.

So unless something forcers her to move against her will there could be only one cause to her actions. — NOS4A2

And that cause is her individual will. The human will is something free of outside influence, able to make decisions and take actions that sometimes fly in the face of what its circumstances appear to dictate. It is Cato, thrusting a sword into his own guts rather than surrender to Caesar; it is Diogenes, breaking his drinking-cup after watching a slave-boy drink from his cupped hands; it is Socrates abiding by Athens’ death penalty rather than scurrying off into exile, urged by his aristocratic friends willing to put up the money; it is a widow woman putting all she owned, two mites, into Jerusalem’s coffers...

...it is certainly not someone, hearing that toilet paper will be in short supply, running off to the supermarket to purchase a closet-full of it; nor is it a mother who fears snakes and poison-ivy forbidding her children go down to the creek to play; nor is it someone storming the Capitol because he heard from his president that his country was being taken away. These sorts of ppl must not have a truly individual will. Their actions must be attributable to external circumstances, for what they think and what they do conform to their fears...

...but let me ask you: which of these sorts best describes the human will? The sort that is rare and immortally inscribed in the annals of history, the one that does outstanding deeds and makes decisions worthy of lasting recognition, that stand as models of exalted human behavior? ....or the sort that is commonplace and expected of most everyone?

...technically any kind of decision that you make could be moralized and be framed as being “other regarding”. For example, a man could believe that he has a duty towards his wife and kids to learn to manage his finances better because they are financially dependent on him. Normally, managing your finances is seen as a self-help concern. Nonetheless, I think one can usually insert a moral agenda into any sort of life decision that one makes. — TheHedoMinimalist

Your ingenuous words here, “technically”, “moralized”, “framed”, “insert”, “agenda”, betray that you perceive no distinction between the true impulse in a man’s soul that causes him to make a moral decision or action, and a false one that can be “technically” “framed” or “moralized” as pure...

...my sister-in-law had an old piano she played occasionally as a pastime. As time passed, it became ever more unplayable, and she occasionally complained to her husband, my brother, about it. Christmas was approaching, and he bought her a new electronic piano as her present that year, but within a month he had signed up for piano lessons and was playing it everyday, far more than she ever played the old one...

...technically my brother had his wife’s interest in mind when he bought that piano; one could moralize his action and say so; you could call it “other regarding”, for it was technically a gift to her; we could certainly frame it that way, based on appearances (and ignoring certain other details), and I don’t doubt that he inserted this moral agenda into the decision he made.

As for the man who manages his finances well for the sake of his family—presumably he’d rather blow his paycheck at the races—this seems a rather antiquated and misogynistic scenario: doesn’t his wife work also? How does she manage her money? Do they combine their incomes, or keep their monies separate? If the former, who has the final say?

@TheHedoMinimalist

“Self-help philosophy” literally admits that it is not about morality—if morals has anything to do with our interactions with OTHERS. Questions of how I should eat, or how I should arrange my finances, or what kinds of relationships I should form always assume, “so that I might be most benefited”, which are not moral “oughts”, for they presuppose personal benefit, while truly moral “oughts” sometimes imply what is to my personal disadvantage.

But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? — NOS4A2

Consider this scenario: my wife leaves me, takes her things and goes to live somewhere else. I assume you would consider this a physical consequence of some previous action, for she removes her physical person and possessions from the premises and takes them physically elsewhere...obviously for some reason, and one you would insist must be physical in nature; as a stationary billiard ball, struck by another such moving one, acquires a velocity thereby and direction of movement that conform to the laws of physics. The previous action in this case is the striking of the stationary ball by the one moving...

...but in the case of my wife’s departure, what is the previous action? There are many possibilities. She may have decided to move in with her invalid parents, to take care of them. What is the causative action in this case? Doesn’t it lie in the change of the physical circumstances of her parents? Not that alone: it also lies in her piety. Both that change of circumstance, and the presence of piety in her soul must obtain for her to do what she does...

...she may have been ordered by a court of law to remove herself from the premises. What is the causal factor here? Is it the brute force of the cops who grab her by the arm and lead her out? Is it the force of the judge’s edict that moves the hands of the cops? Is it her unfitness as a mother that sways the mind of the judge, or is it rather her addiction to drugs that results in such unfitness?

Finally, she may have decided that she doesn’t want to be my wife anymore. What previous action caused this? Was it because I struck her (a very physical action)? Or because my words “I cheated on you” struck her ears? Did the striking of her ears by these words impel her physical departure, like one billiard ball striking another?

The Education of Henry Adams, autobiography of same. Just read first three chapters tonight (1838-1854). Very eye-opening, illuminating recollection of member of one of America’s first ruling families on his upbringing in Boston, his attitude toward school, early literary influences, opinions about American culture, politics, visit to Washington to meet President Taylor, whose horse was pasturing on the White House lawn, before there was a District of Columbia, etc.

Depends on the sort of animal: if it’s just annoying, rescue it. If it tries to bite you, kill it!...unless it’s human.

@IanBlain

I hate killing anything...until it stings me. Then I swat it until I knock its head off its thorax...as I did this morning with a yellow-jacket.

Come on, Foghorn Leghorn? I cant be the first only one that noticed. — DingoJones

I shed the loudspeaker; all I’m left with is the chick-en.

@NOS4A2 Allan Bloom on Leo Strauss:

“...Strauss was acutely aware of the abuses to which the public expression of philosophy is subject. Philosophy is dangerous for it must always call everything into question while in politics not everything can be called into question. The peculiar horror of modern tyranny has been its alliance with perverted philosophy. Strauss...was susceptible to...the rhetoric of Rousseau and Nietzsche, but he also saw to what extent the passions they aroused and the deceptive sense of understanding they engendered could damage the cause of decency as well as that of philosophy. Aristotle or Maimonides could never provide the inspiration or the justification for a tyrant. They were no less radical, but their voices were softer and attracted less dangerous passions while abandoning excessive hopes. Rousseau was not the cause of the Terror, nor Nietzsche of the Nazis, but there was something in what they said and the way they said it which made it possible for them to be misinterpreted in certain politically relevant ways. Strauss, WITH HIS RESPECT FOR SPEECH AND ITS POWER, believed that men are responsible for what they say...”

“Italics” mine.

The philosophers have shown, more even than the poets and statesmen, that speech has power. This power is not directly physical in nature, but it has physical consequences far beyond the scope of its original intention.

Just received such from Mr.Garcia, and questioned him as to why he invited me to visit his website. His answer was contradictory and vague, so I questioned him more. Now I find I need not worry myself with him anymore...

...doesn't break my heart.

He said he was looking to disseminate his “own personal metaphysical persuasion”. I asked him how he knew I wasn’t looking to disseminate my own.

But Greek "contemplation", theoria, is not mental ideation, it is the act of observing something that you actually see. — Apollodorus

“Theoria, a looking at, viewing beholding,...of the mind, contemplation, speculation, Plat , etc.” from Liddell and Scott. The word speculation itself derives from the act of seeing. I suspect there is a connection in every language between words which convey the notions of seeing and thinking, as in English, when we say, “I see that” in the sense “I understand that”.

@T Clark

I am weedeating a steep bank. I slip and fall and, in attempting to catch myself, impale a sharp-ended woody stalk into my left wrist...

...in the ER I watch the doctor pull chips of wood out of my numbed wrist. When he grabs a certain piece and pulls with his forceps and it will not budge, becoming concerned I remark, “Are you sure you have got hold of a piece of wood??” He pauses, quits pulling out wood and orders an x-ray. The scan comes back negative, he sews me up and sends me home...

...next day a red glow begins spreading up my arm to my shoulder. I return to the ER, and a different doctor orders an ultrasound, which comes back positive for a foreign object. Surgery is done immediately, and an inch-long piece of wood is removed from my wrist. I spend three days and nights in hospital being pumped with intravenous antibiotics.

After I am released I do a little research on Google and discover that wood is invisible on an x-ray.


I seriously doubt my experience is unique, ie, being cared for by an incompetent or perhaps even malevolent “expert” with “credentials”. Indeed, I have heard too many other stories to believe or trust someone on mere credentials, when that means a diploma on a wall, or a position in a hospital or anywhere else.

“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in.

If I remember correctly, the problem is in the relationship between God and good. I think the lesson is that it's wrong to even define "good" in relation to the gods, or even in relation to God, because it can't be logically done. And so with Plato and Aristotle there's a moving away from this, toward a pragmatic definition of "good", "that for the sake of which", in Aristotle, the end. This defines "good" in relation to what the individual person needs or wants. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the Republic, Plato’s Socrates corrects the Athenians in the traditional interpretation of their gods, showing them how those views are not rational...

...as far as how Aristotle defined the good according to individual need...I would desire proof to believe it. The individual good, that is, the good for every man, is a product of the Enlightenment.

This discussion reminds me of the criticism directed at Rousseau: that he did not raise any of his several children, but instead had them all sent off to an orphanage, yet dared to write a book (Emile) about education.

I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny.

If one rolls this die a very large number of times — TheMadFool

Wouldn’t you actually have to roll it an infinite number of times for any of the six sides to land facing up exactly one-sixth of the time?

We are, of course, speaking here not only of the ideal die, but also the ideal toss. The mass of the former must be equally distributed throughout its entire body, and its edges must be perfectly sharp everywhere (and remain that way during an infinite number of tosses), and the toss itself must be such that any of the infinite positions and velocities of the die upon impact with the playing surface be equally possible.

@Banno

That is pure coincidence, as it is my actual name. My real name is Todd Martin... it is on my birth certificate. Is your real name Banno? If not, how did you choose it as your pseudonym?

@Banno

In surfing around in this forum, I don’t much see @jamalrob, its putative owner, but I often see you. The most conspicuous members of an oligarchy, I venture, are the most abusive of their powers. And is it any coincidence that your user-name contains the word “ban”, or that this fact hasn’t impressed itself upon both you and any other member?

And is this all you have to say about my last post, that “Foghorn was banned a few days ago”, rather than respond to the points I made? To point out my ignorance of an insignificant detail, rather than answer my detailed criticism of those who hold power here?

In fine, I ask that my user name be changed to “Leghorn”, in honor of my fallen comrade...which thing I have no doubt you and your colleagues have the power to effect.

The position Nos is attempting to promote is one that exonerates people like Trump and any other promoters of the known falsehoods about 'widespread election fraud' and the idea that the election of 2020 was stolen from Trump. — creativesoul

It is one thing if @NOS4A2 believes speech has no power only because he wants to exonerate Trump; another entirely, if he held this opinion prior to Trump’s promulgation of “widespread election fraud”...

...of course, only he can answer this question for us.

The notion of free speech as a natural right of man has its origins in the teachings of the Enlightenment, and arose as a means of protecting the philosopher/scientist against the political/religious authorities with which he was prone to collide, and therefore be either exiled or condemned to death. It is as though the philosophers said to the new rulers, “Let us be free to investigate nature as we will and communicate our discoveries to each other, even if those discoveries seem to contradict or offend you or the priests, and in return we promise that what we discover will lead to the material and physical prosperity of mankind.”

This exclusively academic right to freedom of speech however soon devolved into a general such right, applicable to any citizen, and the reason for this lies in the very notion of the Enlightenment: the life lived according to reason, Socrates’ ideal, had now come within the grasp of everyman: once the LIGHT of reason has been shone on human life for every man to see the truth, he will unqualifiedly choose light over darkness, truth over falsehood, reason over unreason...

This modification for the plebs of the life lived according to reason was, of course, quite different from that of the original philosophers. It hinged on calculation of material self-interest as opposed to the purely philosophical one of obedience to, or love of the discovery of, nature—which sometimes conduced to actions contrary to self-interest. One need only consider Archimedes’ ignorance of the invading Roman army at Syracuse, or Thales’ failure to realize he was about to step into a well as he absentmindedly contemplated the heavenly bodies, or Allan Bloom putting the lit-end of his cigarette to his lips while engrossed in a discussion.

At any rate, once the scientists and commoners had become allies against altar and throne, the former could not, in principle, deny the latter any of their own rights, and this lead to the citizenry daring to express whatever opinion they will against their leaders and their country’s and religion’s most sacred opinions or symbols: one could now either burn the American flag in protest of the Vietnam War, or declare he was more popular than Jesus ever was, as John Lennon did, or immerse a crucifix in a vat of his own urine and name it Piss Christ, or drive a pickup truck up and down the road in SW Virginia flying a flag that reads, “FUCK BIDEN: and fuck you if you voted for him”, with impunity.

Let us now return now to the ancients, to the Socrateses, Archimedeses and Thaleses of antiquity, who pursued the truth according to reason for their own personal satisfaction: had they foreseen these consequences of an Enlightenment, what do you think they would have thought?

As example, check out the banning thread, the whole thing is basically one long troll fest run by the mods. And to be fair to the mods, this service of making snotty comments behind the backs of those who are no longer here to defend themselves is a popular service with many in the general membership. — Foghorn

I wish you had participated in the last installment of that thread, when I suggested that the moderators not ban anyone until they had expressed their intention to the whole forum and welcomed opinions either for or against their impending action. None of the reasons I offered for my opinion was addressed: the only reason against it that was proffered was, that “this is not a democracy”.

Well, of course it’s not a democracy. In a democracy a citizen cannot be expunged according to the arbitrary judgement of some one or few ppl. Neither is it a benign oligarchy, in which the few who have such power exercise it with caution and a view to the overall good of the citizenry.

To verify the truth of what I am saying, there is no need of any analysis of what bannings have occurred and the posthumous reasons given for them by the moderators and their supporters; one need only read their posts, and the attitudes expressed in them: “keep talking like this and you will find that you are no longer able to say anything”, or, “If y’all insist on continuing in this thread, I’ll ban the lot of you!”, etc. These are not exact quotes, just periphrases drawn from my memory, but they convey the spirit of the mods. That spirit is of those who have absolute power, know they have absolute power, and bounce anyone they will out of Jamalrob’s private club for any reason they can concoct.

When I’m in a nightclub, and the bouncer tells me “I can throw you out of this place for no reason at all”, my impulse is to find the nearest exit, and not venture far from it. But then I’m informed, “You can check out anytime you like/but you can never leave” (!)

Concerning the “bannings” thread, go there now and try to post something. Good luck with that!

@Tom Storm

My bad then. It just seems that your reluctance to answer me combined with your dismissiveness suggested that. Clearly though you are not willing to continue the conversation, and I will therefore cease to ask you further questions.

Feel free to start a new thread on this if it interests you. — Tom Storm

I get the feeling that you despise me. Is that true?

The main personal way I perceive advertisement on tv as bad is that it detracts from the actual programming, the thing we turned it on to see in the first place.

I turn the tv on to watch the French Open men’s tennis semifinal b/w Djokovic and Nadal. First I have to endure the big build up by the commentators who want this to be the most epic of all tennis matches, who shove various information down my throat about their past meetings, their records against each other on various surfaces, their paths to this point in the tournament, the details of their personal lives and how they might bear on this match, etc, etc...

...then, after the match actually begins, between games I am bombarded with ads. These don’t last long of course, because there is a definite time limit, rare in tv advertising, measured by the time on the court that the players have to rest between games. Nevertheless, during that break I don’t get to see the players sitting in the chairs, don’t get to observe their countenances, demeanors, and judge how the match is going from that. Nor do I get to observe a player’s comments to the chair-umpire during that break, or their interactions with the crowd or ball boys/girls, etc. All these little missed details might add much to the entertainment.

The ideal television broadcast puts you there, where it is being broadcast, showing you everything that is happening, from where you are somewhere far away. That is what the word television means: seeing from afar. Our commercial society, however, has passively accepted this conspiracy whereby the most ads, and most expensive ones, fund the broadcast, and preempt at least half its time. This need not be so, as the ads of tv in the 50s proves: then there were no commercial breaks at all. The host of the broadcast held up a box of Borax and said, “buy Borax. It will clean your clothes white as snow”, put the box down, and proceeded with the show...

...but how else were network executives going to become so rich? The net result is that they become rich, and I poor in what they promised to deliver to me.

@Tom Storm

Mr. Storm, I’m still not at all sure what you’re talking about. Do you mean to say that ppl who travel a lot and use “substances” are the emotionally immature? Are you suggesting that responsible adults, the emotionally mature ones, remain sober and in one place? I am not familiar with Jung’s Eternal Boy or Girl.

@180 Proof

You speak like a member of the oligarchy...are you?

I feel like Joe Manchin: yes, I think your proposal is an improvement, and I would vote for it...whoops!...forgot this isn’t a democracy!

It's really not all that hard not to get banned under the current system. — Hanover

I was threatened with a ban several months ago for espousing a very doctrinaire opinion of ancient philosophy which, however, collided with a very recent opinion that is against “homophobia”...but I wasn’t scared of anything.

The rule in this forum is in the hands of an oligarchy. There may be nothing inherently wrong with that. My point is that this little group of all-powerful ppl only hears dissent AFTER it has acted...never, before.