People have been killing eachother over religious supremacy for a long time.
The history of antisemitism makes the Jews liable to a higher standard, though.

I am Jewish btw. I have never heard this idea -- that Jews are superior to gentiles -- uttered by anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

I've heard it many times. It's not polite to say it, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people

If Jews are so superior why are they constantly getting humbled by other nations in the bible?

Presumably other nations are testing them, testing their claim.

Just read it.

Or else, I selected three reviews/summaries:

https://blog.rescuetime.com/digital-minimalism/
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Digital-minimalism-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know
https://www.samuelthomasdavies.com/book-summaries/business/digital-minimalism/

Is it so hard to understand the visceral reaction that many people have when somebody claims to be superior to them?

But what is your point? — unenlightened

That it is pointless to criticize othering as long as one engages in it oneself, and even profits from it.

Is it? Or is that an act of faith on your part? You put your trust in it being possible without the case being demonstrated. — Banno

When a scientist tells me that "it's all just chemicals/atoms" and apparently expects me to believe it, what are my options?

Elsewhere, I just wrote this:
Odd, isn't it, that when some folk discover that the chair they are sitting on is composed of atoms, and is overwhelmingly space, they sometimes decide that therefore it's no longer really a chair.
— Banno
The same happens when a Chemist claims that
"there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain"
— baker
As if love vanished after such explanations.

I dare you to tell that to a scientist! I double dare you!

What does Cal say, and why do you think it's important? Is it something like, stop scrolling through Instagram and go for a walk instead? — Jamal

Cal Newport is Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University.

Digital minimalism is a philosophy that helps you question what digital communication tools (and behaviors surrounding these tools) add the most value to your life. It is motivated by the belief that intentionally and aggressively clearing away low-value digital noise, and optimizing your use of the tools that really matter, can significantly improve your life.
/.../
The bottom line of this general thinking is that a simple, carefully curated, minimalist digital life is not a rejection of technology or a reactionary act of skepticism; it is, by contrast, an embrace of the immense value these new tools can offer…if we’re willing to do the hard work of figuring out how to best leverage them on behalf of the things we truly care about.

https://calnewport.com/on-digital-minimalism/

And he wrote a book about it. (Which I actually bought last week, and I rarely buy books. This one's a keeper.)

Notice how I talk about not taking concepts out of their native contexts?
— baker
Oh, yes. How you square this with semantic holism remains unexplained. — Banno

By ignoring your commitment to semantic atomism (or at best, semantic molecularism) ...

Mental (or semantic) holism is the doctrine that the identity of a belief content (or the meaning of a sentence that expresses it) is determined by its place in the web of beliefs or sentences comprising a whole theory or group of theories. It can be contrasted with two other views: atomism and molecularism. Molecularism characterizes meaning and content in terms of relatively small parts of the web in a way that allows many different theories to share those parts. For example, the meaning of ‘chase’ might be said by a molecularist to be ‘try to catch’. Atomism characterizes meaning and content in terms of none of the web; it says that sentences and beliefs have meaning or content independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs.

One major motivation for holism has come from reflections on the natures of confirmation and learning. As Quine observed, claims about the world are confirmed not individually but only in conjunction with theories of which they are a part. And, typically, one cannot come to understand scientific claims without understanding a significant chunk of the theory of which they are a part. For example, in learning the Newtonian concepts of ‘force’, ‘mass’, ‘kinetic energy’ and ‘momentum’, one does not learn any definitions of these terms in terms that are understood beforehand, for there are no such definitions. Rather, these theoretical terms are all learned together in conjunction with procedures for solving problems.

/.../

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/holism-mental-and-semantic/v-1

The other is at least our moral inferior, but at the same time an existential threat. Both aspects are essential for our unity; without the other we fragment into internal conflict. The other necessitates, justifies and takes the blame for the burden of suffering entailed by the individual's subjugation to the group, and there can be no group that is not defined in terms of its other. 'Othering' thus becomes a process, the threat of which controls us. If you demonstrate insufficient revulsion and hatred for the other, you may be seen as, and so become, other yourself. This loss of identity is a fate worse than death. Such a fate worse than death gives rise to the martyr - one who dies to maintain their identity. — unenlightened

Thing is, this othering can go both ways.

Others expect me to stop othering them, but they refuse to stop othering me. What does it matter if I stop othering others if they still other me?

Me neither. I think it clear we do not know what happens when we die. All the rest is story telling.
— Fooloso4

Totally agree; there seems to be no conceivable way to rationally or empirically justify the idea that intellectual intuition can yield propositionally configured knowledge of such things. — Janus

Notice how in all major religions, the religious doctrines are said to be given to mankind by God, or some other supreme being, or by an otherwise uniquely and supremely developed human?

Religious doctrines are always top-down, not bottom-up.

Solved equally well by the understanding that it never truly existed, but only appeared to exist because of identification with phenomena. — Wayfarer

(Quoting it to point it out; yes.)

So wouldn't that give us an account in which the process stoped, as opposed to the substance of body and spirit being split asunder? — Banno

Of course. Here is such an account, in both directions; firstly, how come birth (ie. living bodies) comes about, and then how the process of birth/rebirth stops.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

/.../

Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

I am familiar with them too, but I can't say they make sense to me beyond the fact that they are all logically possible in the sense of not being obviously self-contradictory. That said, I think the Buddhist concept on the face of it is the most incoherent. — Janus

Well, what is your source for reading up on rebirth?

The way I've learned it from Early Buddhist sources and Theravada is this: Kamma, therefore, rebirth. If one understands kamma, one will understand rebirth. For some of these schools of Buddhism, a person is a bunch of stuff held together by craving.

My main objection, or more accurately indifference, to the ideas of rebirth or resurrection, is that they have no significance to this life, and I think this life is all that is important, given that anything beyond it can only remain nebulous. — Janus

That's because you have it backwards. Kamma, therefore, rebirth. This is the right order of understanding things.

I agree with this and often say that critical discussion has no place in the contexts of spiritual disciplines and religious practices, and even, as Hadot notes in the kinds of ancient philosophies which consisted of systems of metaphysical ideas meant to support "spiritual exercises". But tell that to the fundamentalists!

In any case, this is a philosophy forum where ideas and arguments are presented for critique, so if people want to present their beliefs and ideas here, they should expect questioning, criticism and disagreement.

I'm rather amazed, though, how philosophers are sometimes willing to bang their heads against walls ...

Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing? — TiredThinker

They refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door. — BitconnectCarlos

Chosen as in "preferred over all others".

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others.
— baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one. — BitconnectCarlos

It goes without saying.

Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Not everyone can convert to Judaism, or at least not to just any school of Judaism.

I think the interesting philosophical question is that the most common reaction to Stevenson's research is that it couldn't be true, that there must be something wrong with him or his methodology, and that it can or should be ignored. — Wayfarer

I think this kind of work is non-Hindu, non-Buddhist. For at least some Buddhist and Hindu schools, remembering past lives is a special knowledge that is only possible after the person has attained certain higher abilities.

On a general note, remembering past lives is pointless if it doesn't also serve some higher purpose, such as disenchantment with samsaric existence or realizing dependent co-arising.

Would this include the hundreds of millions of middle-class Indians now employed in call-centres and high technology industries in Hyderabad and the like? I've worked with quite a few IT people of Indian extraction (one of whom always wore a bindu) and, although it didn't come up much, from time to time there might have been discussions of such topics as Hindu beliefs,

and they didn't seem all that reticent to me. They noted approvingly of my interest in Eastern philosophy.

Of course. There is something to be said about Asian politeness and indirectness ... and supremacy ...

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? — TiredThinker

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people".

While atheists are likely to dismiss this claim as religious fancy or delusion of grandeur, it actually means something to other people who also believe in God.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. This is not special. But there are only few religions that also claim ethnic supremacy.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. But some religions aren't like that. And those that aren't seem to be more likely to become the target of persecution of those who are more inclusive.

There aren't actually that many Jewish people in the world on a whole. I don't know what threat some people see.

They read at least the Bible, as the Old Testament is also part of Jewish scripture.
Just read it, no further explanation necessary.

It's like the Tool song: Vicarious — petrichor

And much more popular and clear -- listen to Bono's words

but even if you have no idea what I've just been talking about, any thoughts about the state of web applications and websites today is welcome. — Jamal

I think that before doing any of the demanding technical stuff (programming and whatever else is needed), one first needs to work out a philosophy of using technology to begin with.

See Cal Newport's Digital Minimalism for more on this.

Physics simply doesn't provide the resources to decide if you will put sugar in your coffee, or not. — Banno

It is possible to make physics do that, though.

Everytime a cognitive scientist says things to the effect "there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain" they are using physics that way.

I still remember how a learner's driving manual talked about "when the neocortex receives an impulse". It was really careful to avoid saying that it is people hitting the accelerator pedal and often doing so recklessly.

No, I'm suggesting the broader point that attempting to treat of human freedom in physical terms at all is problematic. — Banno

But doing so does away with so many problems!
It's a kind of fatalism without being blatantly fatalistic.

And one more thing to this:

My reason for not believing in any form of personal rebirth or afterlife is not that there is any definitive evidence against it, but simply that I cannot make rational sense of the idea, and I cannot believe something I am incapable of even making coherent to myself. — Janus

The unspoken assumptions in many of these discussion are that "a particular claim is being proposed for discussion" or "a particular claim is being proposed for belief".

In my experience, this is not how religious/spiritual people think or approach discussion of religious/spiritual topics.

For example, for traditional Hindus, an outsider talking about reincarnation would be perceived as an idle intruder, someone who is thinking and talking about things they have no business talking about, being an outsider (although it would take the Hindus quite a bit to actually say so). In traditional Hinduism, religious conversion is an unintelligible concept. For them, religion is something one is born into, like caste, and not something subject to choice.

I find that for many traditionally religious people, religious doctrines are something one either believes or doesn't believe, not something that would be subject to empirical study or experience. Those religious people who proselytize will sometimes offer some "reasons for belief", but at least some of them will also say that those reasons are just provisional, a "tool to help the unbelievers", and not actual justifications for the religious claims (for those claims are not viewed as needing justification at all).

being openly fascist — Jamal

You do realize how ironic it is to accuse others of "fascism", when it is precisely what the "good Westerners" are?

And it seems that we not only do not know, but have no way of determining the answer; and so we turn to mandating that it is so, instead. We make it up. — Banno

It's similar with the way atheists of the Dawkins type don't believe in God. Their atheism is an atheism of a god that no actual theist believes in. Not because Dawkins' idea of god would be a strawman, but because it's something so abstract and so general that it doesn't match any existing theistic religion.

Similarly, the kind of disbelief in reincarnation some are displaying here is a disbelief in a notion of reincarnation that no believer in reincarnation believes in. In this case, these disbelievers' notion of reincarnation is partly a strawman, but mostly it's just based on ignorance of actual reincarnation doctrines.

When I die, and that’s obviously not that far off any more, there’ll be one child born to carry on. — Wayfarer

You're so confident that you're going to get a human rebirth??

But I would hesitate to claim that all children must acquiesce to what they are being taught. — Janus

Some children acquiesce and some don't. Not all children are equally well acculturated into the religion they are born to and raised in. For some, it's a traumatic experience (like being beaten by their religious parents and teachers), for some others, it's apparently a fairly joyous one. Families and communities are different and have various approaches to the teachings (esp. in terms of which teachings they emphasize more and in the context of what particular family and social dynamics etc.). (I've known Christians who are apparently really happy about the Gospel. I think that's bizarre. I've no idea how the do it.)

Language does not strike me as a good analogy since it is a tool not a belief; one does not accept or reject it but rather one learns to use it.

I think it's similar with religious doctrines. They function as cognitive tools. The point of religious belief isn't merely to hold it, but to do something with it, to have it inform one's thoughts, words, and deeds.

My reason for not believing in any form of personal rebirth or afterlife is not that there is any definitive evidence against it, but simply that I cannot make rational sense of the idea, and I cannot believe something I am incapable of even making coherent to myself. — Janus

I don't believe in any form of afterlife (such as in Christianity or Islam), not in reincarnation, not in rebirth.
Yet I know enough about them that they all make sense to me.
I surmise that the reasons why I don't believe in any of them are:

1. Given that I am familiar enough with several afterlife/reincarnation/rebirth doctrines to the point that they all make sense to me, they very fact that this is so makes it impossible to prefer one over the other. They can't all be right, but how could one choose?

2. Conceptually, afterlife/reincarnation/rebirth doctrines (and religions in general, as a whole) are about things that precede me or contextualize me. Choosing one would be like attempting to choose my parents or the land where I was born. It's an unintelligible, impossible choice.

3. I am not a member of any religious community. I think that if I would be, this would change things for me entirely.

As you know I am not against people believing in rebirth or whatever. Obviously there can be no definitve evidence either way. — Janus

I think that most people who believe in reincarnation/rebirth don't believe it on account of "evidence". Most of those believers were simply raised into such religions, so it's never been an active issue for them. But I also know Buddhists, some of them even monks of many years, who use Stevenson's work as a basis for their belief in rebirth (which is actually very un-Buddhist).

What I am curious about is why people care about it, since it obviously cannot be understood to personal survival of death. Is it an irrational fear of annihilation?

I think it has to do with a nagging concern that can be summed up as "Is this all there is to life?"
The unsatisfactoriness and fleetingness of life makes them wish for something more.

Then there is also the question of justice. If one lifetime is all there is, then how can it be fair that some children die of cancer, while some criminals get to live long, happy lives. And if we are to accpet that life isn't fair, then what does this mean for our sense of morality? The topic of this thread is also "the problem of evil".

, I'm advocating for semantic holism.
— baker

I've been unable to see any such advocation. Perhaps if you were to set it out more explicitly, I'd be able to follow. — Banno

Notice how I talk about not taking concepts out of their native contexts?

Unfortunately including sacred cows and the existence of the dalet. If we are to treat Hinduism holistically, such must also be taken into account.

Of course.
In contrast, ask yourself why you want to even think about reicarnation at all.

Interesting. There's a tension between placing emphasis on autonomy while maintaining that one is culturally embedded, as you did in your reply to Joshs, ↪baker.

I am well aware of this tension. I actually keeps me up at night.

And yet the vast mass of humanity have no such recollection. — Banno

Indeed, and as the doctrine of reincarnation says, this is because most people are under the influence of maya, illusion, where they don't know who they really are.

We have a congenital difference, you and I, that leads me to think of you as credulous. I won't be able to show you - it's not just that the evidence is insufficient, but that it is incoherent.

To be clear, I'm not using Stevenson's work as some kind of evidence for reincarnation. In fact, I think it's misleading, I dismiss it. I think it's irrelevant to what Hinduism and Buddhism teach on reincarnation/rebirth.

Population growth also seems to be a problem for reincarnation: according to defenders of reincarnation, souls migrate from one body to another. This, in a sense, presupposes that the number of souls remains stable, as no new souls are created, they only migrate from body to body. Yet, the number of bodies has consistently increased ever since the dawn of mankind. Where, one may ask, were all souls before new bodies came to exist? (Edwards, 1997: 14). Actually, this objection is not so formidable: perhaps souls exist in a disembodied form as they wait for new bodies to come up (D’Souza, 2009: 57). — IEP Immortality

That's a good example of what happens when a concept is taken out of its native context.

In Hindu and Buddhist teachings, the "number problem" is addressed thusly:
a living being is reincarnated/reborn
1. across various species (sometimes as a human, other times as an animal, yet other times as a deity, etc.)
2. also sometimes on other planets, not just on Earth.

I absolutely am not drawing a parallel between ancient Israel and the modern world, but The Final Solution was also intended to root out future generations of the hated Jew. — BC

A study of Jewish scripture is in place, to get to know whom you're talking about.

Of course, barely anyone is going to do that now, conveniently polarized and fixed in their stance.

Such justifications can only fool their like and not atheists like me — universeness

Oh, you did get fooled.

@universeness

You seem to think that Israel is doing what it is doing (the overkill) as a less-than-wise reaction to the terror/horror they feel because of Hamas?

Is this your stance?

It's doubtful any involved party believes there is such a thing as "innocent civilians". Warfare is essentially tribal: any member of a tribe will do.
— baker

I don't think this is true at all. — universeness

It's not like the civilians get to decide. The people who order the pulling of triggers do.

I am an atheist. — universeness

Irrelevant to the wars at hand.

Perhaps a better question to ask you is why do you think some in positions of authority/power choose to use/fully sanction, butchery and torture, horror and terror, against their enemy? — universeness

This is where the taboo sets in. But you can read the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, to get some ideas.

So, do you think that we can develop responses, that will prevent a group like Hamas, from EVER achieving such a goal, by using the kind of horror and terror tactics they have employed here?

That would require that some religio-ethnic group gives up its claim to a divinely special status. Which is not likely going to happen.

It's telling how the theme of religious exceptionalism is barely ever brought up in discussions of war. Even though it is this exceptionalism that so often drives the conflict, provoking it in the first place.

Horror and terror, imo take on a much deeper and far far more nuanced sense of morality and injustice, when it is contemplated or applied to other members of the same species. — universeness

The relevant unit here is tribe, or at most, nation, not species.

You keep jumping to these extremities of possibility, in an almost knee-jerk manner imo.

It's not rocket science.

In this under 2 min clip from Babylon 5, the character Marcus, talks a little about his Minbari training.
What do you think of his brief mention of 'terror'?

Fear is a tool. Parents and teachers have used it for a long time.

How can we better defend a population against the nefarious use of horror and terror?

People are more reslient than official psychology and the media give them credit for.

I think the answer lies in learning how to be much better at surgical removal, as opposed to being very good at using a blood axe or a large bludgeoning war hammer, on anyone who has the same or similar religious/race/societal etc, profile, to your perceived 'enemy.' Is this not happening in Gaza right now?

But for that, people would need to give up their religious or national identities. Which isn't likely going to happen.

As a classroom teacher, of over 30 years, I had many such positive 'mutual trust' experiences with individual pupils.

Really? They didn't mostly just suck up to you in order to get good grades, recommendations, etc.?

Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
— universeness
And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans?
— baker

There was no notion of nationhood in the Island of Britain, during the days of Boudica. She is described as leading the Iceni. I doubt that is what they even called themselves. Iceni is a Latin/Roman name.
Many other local tribes joined her resistance against the Roman invaders, yes, probably to protect their own areas, resources and people, but, the fact that their tactics were ultimately totally defeated by Rome, for me, demonstrates not that they were wrong to resist Rome but that their method of doing so, proved wrong headed.

Wrong how exactly?
And you didn't answer my question.

I speculate here, but it seems the natives decided they were in a position of "live on your knees, or die fighting" and they decided that fighting to the death was better than living subjugated to the Romans.

That's the main point I am making, and the main question I was asking, is, did Boudica make too many mistakes, because her leadership was blindsided by her need for personal vengeance against Rome? Is there not an important lesson for us all to understand about such stories, even though they are mostly mythical and based on the unreliable reports, produced mainly by historians, who came from the side of the victors?

What lesson might that be? That's it's better to preserve the life of your body than your identity?

Can we not establish a better way to combat these abuses and deliberate attempts to manipulate human fear? — universeness

As long as natural resources are limited and hard to obtain, probably not.

It's not like people are living in a land of plenty and fight over nothing other than honor.

You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo. — universeness

It's doubtful any involved party believes there is such a thing as "innocent civilians". Warfare is essentially tribal: any member of a tribe will do.

I have heard people describe what they would do to punish those they hate most. It normally lies somewhere on a rage from slow vivisection to tortured every moment of every day, ETERNALLY, in hell-style imagineered manifestations. Has such intent, ever been sated? Those who have tried, always end up destroyed themselves, after they have achieved their vengeance, or during the pursuit of such. They never achieve 'closure,' do they? — universeness

As for statement of intent:

Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.
As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
He hath delivered my soul in peace from the battle that was against me: for there were many with me.
God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/55.htm

And then there are other ones about wanting to wade knee-deep in an enemy's blood and such.

One can learn and unlearn horror.
/.../
Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal.

Terror and horror can be similarly bad experiences, except that horror does not normally involve actual physical threat. Terror IS threat, both physical and psychological. — BC

How do you comment on the use of horror and terror in this psalm?

Listen to my prayer, O God,
do not ignore my plea;
hear me and answer me.
My thoughts trouble me and I am distraught
because of what my enemy is saying,
because of the threats of the wicked;
for they bring down suffering on me
and assail me in their anger.

My heart is in anguish within me;
the terrors of death have fallen on me.
Fear and trembling have beset me;
horror has overwhelmed me.
I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!
I would fly away and be at rest.
I would flee far away
and stay in the desert;
I would hurry to my place of shelter,
far from the tempest and storm.”


https://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/55.htm

Are we always doomed to respond to the nefarious use of horror and terror tactics, by resorting to the same or similar horror and terror tactics, in our pursuit of vengeance? Can we do no better than that? — universeness

Where then would be the drama of life ...

What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? — schopenhauer1

It seems they weren't just "okay with being horror-ible", but that at the time, being that way was considered being manly, or even just a proper human.
And much later, too.







The problem with this topic is that it is mostly tabooed in modern society, and only a superficial discourse is allowable. Trying to discuss it anyway is a high tightrope balancing act.

How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? — universeness

The problem is when we don't have a philosophy of life worked out.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

And most people seem to stick to the level of discussing people, or at most, events.

All the facts of a situation aren't likely to be known; this is simply the nature of events and people. I don't think there is a media conspiracy, or even a political one.

In order to get peace of mind, we'd need to address things on the level of ideas, which are largely independent of the facts of a situation. (That's why we have philosophy.)

I didn't advocate for health and happiness - of course I would, if it were a question of advocacy. But I do think they're more worthwhile goals than wealth and power, if those are the available options. — Vera Mont

Health and happiness are impossible without wealth and power.
Especially if worldwide economic disparity is to be ended, it seems this could only be done through wielding wealth and power.

As previously noted, this is an opinion. If you believe that being ill, anxious and miserable are preferable, that's also an opinion.

That's a false dichotomy, focusing only on the extremes.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

Since I don't believe life has a purpose beyond itself, or that quality of life needs justification, that question simply has no meaning for me, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Societies that focus on health and happiness go in a well-known direction:



This same trend can be observed in modern societies (which also tend to be "more equal") where health and happiness are held to such a high standard that the state has legalized ways for people to be eliminated from society if they can't live up to that standard by giving them the option of "euthanasia" or "assisted suicide".

Don't forget that the Nazis started off their murdering spree by killing their own people whom they deemed "unworthy of life" -- and it was all fully legal.