How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac

There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.

It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them.

In other words, good reasons. — Pfhorrest

Who decides what are "good reasons"?

And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake? — Isaac

Awww. You're trying to clearly delineate a philosopher's efforts that testify of his love of wisdom, you're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?

So let's try with this one:
A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.

This distinguishes him from the wannabe and the juvenile who has not set such boundaries and limitations.

Many charge that god can't create a stone he can't lift, therefore he is not omnipotent. — god must be atheist

And if God can't draw a square circle, then he's not omnipotent, right?

Resorting to the illogical and the absurd is lame.

What is the aim for trying to prove that God is not omnipotent? Probably the aim of such is to find a justification for not believing in God.
Guess what? You don't need a justification for not believing in God. You simply don't believe, period.

But one has the freedom to not opt into that. — Kenosha Kid

And doing so comes at a cost. It's not free.

would like to be able to convince people of its soundness. But my priority is to find out whether it actually is sound. After all, it is irresponsible to try and convince people of a view whose truth one is unsure about. So the priority should be to check if a view is true - which one does by careful rational scrutiny.
It can often be hard to appreciate a good argument - hard to recognise just how much probative force it has. Most people prefer soundbites and simplicity and don't have much time to give a view the amount of thought it needs to uncover its problems or to see its truth. — Bartricks

An argument in favor of not having children is specific in that it is aimed at people making an important change in their lives.
This means, among other things, that such an argument needs to be formulated in such a way that people of all walks of life can accept it, and with minimum effort, at that.
IOW, you need an argument that will convince even the average Joe and Jane, in a commercial break while they watch tv.

R-i-g-h-t! When a woman gives offence in those cultures she's burned, stoned, beaten to death, hanged - what else?. The offence? The sensibilities of some man were offended. — tim wood

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.

It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack. — Kenosha Kid

Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard, or no man will want her, and she will be ridiculed for being an old spinster. Well, at least she can take solace in not having acid thrown into her fce!

During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base. — tim wood

???
Their country, their rules.

But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. — Kenosha Kid

It's politically correct to call it a "choice".

How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.


Clearly, this doesn't compare with having acid thrown into one's face. But one would think that "civilized" countries would be more inclusive about a person's appearance ...

I think most people who think are not moral realists because they also think science defines the world and science cannot discuss morality; therefore, it is assumed morality has no meaning. — Constance

I think that most people who think science defines the world are proponets of scietism, and therefore, very much assume that science is the one that has all the answers to moral questions.

most people who think

And you think there are people who don't think?

I don't see why you are averse to Kierkegaard. He "speaks" (thought he does it with style, with far too much style--the extended metaphors are maddening) what meditation IS.

I've been around Buddhism for some 20 years. In this time I have encountered so many ideas about what meditation "truly is" (and the supposedly peace-loving Buddhists and proponents of mindfulness viciously fighting over it) that by now, all of these ideas seem equally valid/invalid. It really depends on whom you ask.

I had turned to Kierkegaard to help me solve my problem with theism. It didn't help. All in all, he struck me as yet another theist basking in his faith. A faith I had no hope of obtaining. The idea of a leap to faith is to me like a spit in the face -- like someone telling me, "See, I can do it, but you can't!! Shame on you!"

if we care (which I don't). — Kenosha Kid

Why don't you care?

"The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: "Do this and that, refrain from this and that--then you will be happy! — deusidex

I wonder where Nietzsche got that idea from.
I grew up in a religious country. The idea above is entirely foreign to me. Where I come from, nobody cared about happiness. People were supposed to "do the right thing" for the sake of "doing the right thing". Happiness or misery never entered the picture.

So how are you judging it to be 'the best' explanation? — Isaac

Relative to my current state of knowledge and understanding.

As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it — Kenosha Kid

And how do you propose to do that??

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? — TheMadFool

Do Christian nuns _want_ to wear miniskirts? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.

Have you ever thought about how revealing Victorian dresses actually are?

Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.

(I tried to find the news article about it, but it's been awhile.) When Madeleine Albright was in her official capacity talking to women from Muslim countries (I forgot exactly from which country), she spoke to them on the assumption that those women felt oppressed and Albright saw herself as some kind of savior to them, or at least, to commiserate with them. But those Muslim women clearly told her that they didn't feel oppressed.
I don't feel offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors, nor about the habits of Catholic nuns.

It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.

No doubt such people exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was "why must lack of objectivity preclude commonality?", not "why may it do so in some circumstances?" — Isaac

Because to begin with, people, unless they are pathologically narcissistic, have an existential need to believe there is more to their preferences than just subjective whims and molecular chance.
This need becomes pronounced when interacting with others: people must believe that what they have in common are more than subjective whims and molecular chance, or else they'll have a sense that what they're doing together is wrong or at least not worthwhile.


I don't have a study to support this, but it seems to me that this sketches out best an explanation for why people are the way they are when they are together and how they can take their joint pursuits seriously.

That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. — TheMadFool

This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.

And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.


Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or opressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.

Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.

The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.


The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.

So you seem now to be saying that a philosopher is not, after all supposed to give all ideas a fair shake, but rather only those which would be neither a rehash, nor fruitless? — Isaac

There comes a point when it's important not to be an ass, Buridan's or otherwise.

"Fairness" is relative to one's situation, as it is, on the spot.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have an idiosyncratic idea of what politics is. — Kenosha Kid

What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me!

Paul, on the other hand, did indeed suffer - so what, exactly, is the suffering for, and for what purpose if it is necessary? — tim wood

The point of the commandment of having no other gods before Jehovah is that the believer is willing to have no other gods before Jehovah even when it's not particularly convenient or popular to do so.

Meaning, he should be prepared to face some trouble when he makes an effort to be true to the commandments of God. This trouble is because he himself may have some evil inclinations in him which he will have to overcome in order to be true to God; and because the world at large isn't interested in being true to the commandments and is trying to lead the believer off the straight and narrow path -- which is something he will have to resist and also expect to be punished for by people.


The way I see it, the salient point of Christianity is that in order to be a Christian, one has to go against the ways of the flesh, against the ways of the world. And this going against necessarily entails suffering.

The Christian will feel turmoil as he, as a Christian, goes against the ways of the flesh (such as when he restrains himself from masturbating, adultering, stealing, etc. etc.).

Other people will seek to persecute and punish the Christian for not following the ways of the world, and instead following God (anything from atheists making fun of Christians to Romans putting them in gladiator arenas with wild animals).

Oh, and you don't have to convince people - something doesn't become true just because people are convinced that it is. — Bartricks

If you have no aim to convince people of the truthness of your argument, then why on earth are you developing it?

Some ideas must surely be ideas we've already heard, no? When we re-hear those ideas, must 'philosophers' give them due consideration on each occasion, or may they say "I've already heard this one, and disagree". If the former, then it somewhat gives the floor to whichever ideas are repeated most, which seem inefficient at best. — Isaac

Must must must. What is it with this must??

Presumably a philosopher, as a lover of wisdom, will act wisely with his time and resources and won't rehash stuff. Nor get himself into exchanges that he reasonably predicts will bear little fruit.

Unless he has some good reason to do so. Like if he's uncharacteristically unexuberant, or he finds some old idea presented in a new context.

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac

I suspect that commonality has to do with more than just some moral and epistemic egoists/narcissists discovering that they have something in common. No, I think they firmly believe that there is more to them considering some film to be the best one; that they don't think it's just a matter of their subjective preference, but that there is more to it: that the film truly, really, inherently, objectively _is_ the best one.

One indication for this is how they talk about it. They don't say, "This is my favorite film" or "This is the best film I've seen so far." No, they say, "This is the best film". And when pressed or faced with opposition, they say something like "You're entitled to your wrong opinion" or "You just don't don't know what a good film is".

Yep, probably. But not all ideas are in this category, surely? — Isaac

What do you mean?

My grandmother was a Catholic her whole life, and then renounced it in her 70's. Apparently, some idea had become so prominent to her relatively late in her life that warranted a dramatic change in her beliefs.
People can change, even dramatically, even late in life.

You don't need to believe that any differences between yourself and others must inevitably be their moral failures in order to negotiate with them. — Kenosha Kid

How does this refer to anything I said?

For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good.

Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay!

To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality?

There is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that?
— baker
That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine. — Harry Hindu

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?

I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together.

I wasn't really referring to 'new' ideas. Very few ideas are new. The vast majority have been expressed before. So what about those? OK to categorise them, or do we have to remain open to them indefinitely? — Isaac

Presumably a philosopher is still a human and still in the process of learning, so to him, there are ideas that are new, even if someone else might have known those ideas for a long time.

You are a moral realist?? As am I, and I argue for this frequently. There are few takers on this as it requires a break with the familiar world. Unfortunately, what I consider the most penetrating reading is the least accessible.

Why are you a moral realist? — Constance

At this point, I am moral-realism-adjacent. I think most people are moral realists, but are aware that it is taboo to actually declare oneself as such, so they devise other moral theories in order to mask their moral realism.

For all practical intents and purposes, moral realism (in the form of moral egoism) seems to be the only viable way to be.

there is no such thing as an objective morality — Harry Hindu

How can one do politics if one belives that?

Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by that?

Permanently? Are they never allowed to reach conclusions about said ideas? — Isaac

Presumably a philosopher will stay open to new ideas indefinitely, so that any conclusion will, at most, be just temporary.

? Seems to be right there in the OP.
— Isaac

I'd say it is more a fundamental premise which contradicts the reasonableness of some of the other categories. — Pantagruel

Indeed, this is why a philosopher cannot be a politician, nor a politician a philosopher.
A philosopher is supposed to "give all ideas a fair shake", whereas a politician is supposed to take sides and work toward a particular practical outcome.

The topic of this thread isn't determining which is which, but just what's a good way to address people relative to their place on a spectrum of (dis)agreement about which is which. "A good way" both in the sense of a kind and respectful way, and also in the sense of a productive and effective way. — Pfhorrest

How can political discussion on an internet forum be productive and effective?

Political discussion can be productive and effective in, for example, a parliament or a board meeting, where the people involved actually have tasks to accomplish, their political discussion is supposed to lead to some goal (such as passing a bill, voting an official into or out of office, etc.).

But on a forum like this, political discussion is bound to lack this practical element, which, arguably, renders a political discussion into a philosophical one, so different rules apply.

Ok I see now what my difficulty with the categorization may be. You're looking at it from an American perspective for the most part I guess. In my country, and most of European Countries, we don't have a two-party system. We have 5 "main-stream" parties and a couple of extreme parties at either end, who have to form coalitions to form a government. So "agrees with you politically" is not a simple black or white matter usually. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, absolutely. In European countries, things are not so either-or or black-and-white as in the US. Although there is a less or more visible trend toward such a simplification and polarization of political life in Europe as well.

Putting people.that you don't know into groups. — Harry Hindu

At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily.

In order to understand capitalism, you need to put aside your socialist sensitivities.
In capitalism, people are expendable. It's about living for an idea, even if the person living for that idea dies in the process.

No because this is a question of the origin of the intention to punish. If a parent punishes out of loathing it is toxic but if they punish out of protection/ fear or concern for their child’s wellbeing - ie loving punishment then it may be appropriate. — Benj96

Parents and teachers can come up with all sorts of justifications for beating kids up ...