My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all.
— baker

Interesting that you have already chosen a gender for your imagined child and suggested a singular ownership rather than joint ownership with your imagined partner in procreation. — universeness

It's no good being female in this world; and men cannot be relied on.

Can you give a clear idea of exactly which harms you might be unable to protect your imagined child against?

Illness, old age, disease.
Not being able to satisfactorily answer his existential questions.

Are you ok with, accidental bumps/bruises/scratches/throwing up/nappies containing something akin to nuclear waste?

Sure.

would you also not have a child because it might become a drunk or a junkie or even worse, a UK tory or a US Republican later in life?

Are you concerned your imagined child might become a serial killer or be the antichrist?

No.

What actual list of harms/learning opportunities do you want guarantees against?

Growing up, I had existential questions that the adults refused to answer, or gave useless, or worse answers to.
Such as, "When you'll get older, you'll become numb, and then life will be much easier."

Early on, I swore I would rather not have a child at all than to give him such answers.

Good points.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive. — Tom Storm

The right-wingers have a plebeian mentality, regardless of their education status and wealth.

I agree with both your answers, but the question seeks a deeper answer; why do they want to overthrow the Government, what motivates their participation in a "culture war". — Janus

They probably don't see it that way, but more in terms "so that the truth may prevail".

this taste for revolution is coming, it seems, from the disaffected working class; those who you would expect to be more aligned with the left.

No, I think the disaffected working class align themselves with right-wingers, because their focus is on material wealth, it's that plebeian mentality.

So, Trump seems to have played on this disaffection and duped people into thinking he is all for the worker, the 'every woman and man'.

I don't see it that way. People are eager for wealth, so they look up to the wealthy; but only to those wealthy they can already relate to, ie. those with a plebeian mentality, ie. the right-wingers.

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!! — creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do?

If you look at the core teachings of Jesus, you have things such as
Love God.
Love your neighbor and enemies.
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Don’t judge others.
Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. — Paulm12

Show me someone to whom those teachings "appeal", and I'll show you someone who expects, even demands, that _other_ people should behave in line with those teachings, while they themselves absolutely abhor being expected tobehave that way.

For most people, morality is all about how _other_ people should behave.

Furthermore, there are many parallels to Jesus's teachings and the teachings of Buddha

If I had more time, I'd take you up on this.

When I say Christianity speaks to the human experience, I mean that whenever people appeal to a "common humanity," they are usually doing so under the influence of Christianity, especially in western society.

That's a claim that esp. Christians and those Christianity-adjacent people like to make, but a study of cultural history suggests otherwise. (As has been already addressed in this thread.)

Either way, the fact that these ideas are still around are either a testament to the influence of Christianity or a testament to how Jesus's insight/the teachings of Jesus do resonate with many, perhaps most, people on a fundamental level.

Jesus brought the sword. Yeah, that really resonates with many many people, on a fundamental level.

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

Oh, does it? Or are people just thinking hard how they can capitalise on the backwardness of others?

The drop in crime that began in the late 1980s was (at least in part) a result of R vs. W. The unwanted children who were not born did not become problem youth. — Bitter Crank

Yet the exploitative nature of the relationship between men and women never changed.

As long as men get what they want, it doesn't really matter whether abortion is legal or not, right.

Both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance treat women the same way: as sex toilets for men. In the same way men use toilets to urinate and defecate, so they use women's vaginas to excrete semen.

And both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance train girls from early on to accept this order things, and to even be proud of it.

The best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool.

1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence? — Tate

Chronic pain, among other things.
Social ostracism, disenfranchizement.

I'm happier now than I have ever been. I'm busy, I'm reading a lot of history. I listen to great music on the radio and internet. There's the small house and weedy lawn to look after.

Death, like an over-flowing stream
Sweeps us away; our life is but a dream,
an empty tale, a morning flower
cut down and withered in an hour. — Bitter Crank

A view suitable for people who have pretty much ended their worldly efforts and are now just waiting for death, pleasantly.
But it's not possible to live with such an outlook when one still has a long way to go, because then such an outlook is counterproductive.

I've always taken the view that living life is the point. Making meaning. Why do we need a foundational guarantee for purpose? — Tom Storm

For when the intutitive optimism like yours wears thin.

* * *

It's just we've solved the issue. It's not our problem you don't like, or understand, the solution. — Harry Hindu

But you can't, don't, won't teach others your solution. You simply blame them. (So typical for religious/spiritual people and optimists.)

It's called a dictator. — Tate

No, it's called scapegoating.

First, to set the tone for discussing "individuality".

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation — ucarr

I don't consider them to be "enemies of individuality" at all. One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation.

I exist, you exist, others exist, that's not a problem.

It seems you have an underlying assumption here, but it's not clear what it is.
It seems you're after a universally applicable explanation of gratitude that will hold for every person, regardless of said person's specifics.

Not sure what you're asking.

It seems that for most people, their intuitive response to an experience of lack is not gratitude, but sadness, contempt, or anger.

No doubt support for Ukraine is prolonging the war, but the primary cause of its duration is Putin. The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin.
/.../
That the US is responsible for Ukrainian deaths? I disagree. I believe the cause is Putin. — Tate

Such extraordinary powers ascribed to one man. Talk about the cult of personality!

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing.
— baker

At least, our modern Hitler failed his Anschluss. That's something to celebrate. — Olivier5

Sadly, you're thinking of the wrong "modern Hitler".

He said

In fact it seems that all virtues can be turned to evil — Gregory

If something can be turned to evil, then it's not a virtue to begin with.

*sigh*

Go back and reread the discussion. How does explaining things the way Gregory did help you in any way?

No, you’re not. — Xtrix

Oh, for crying out loud.

It has no explanatory or didactic power.

Love can be bad when you only love your country, humility can be bad when you have no self respect, kindness can be bad when severity is required, ect. They are not virtues at that point, but neither is faith still faith when you use it to blow up schools ect — Gregory

This sounds like a worldly understanding of the matter.

Why isn't religious talk about religion? — Jackson

It is; but to religiously talk about religion can only take place in an actual religious setting (e.g. a church, the living room of a religious person, a religion forum), where the people involved actually are religious.

Typical for philosophical talk about religion is that those philosophers are typically religiously unaffiliated, and the discussion takes places in a non-religious setting.

Why do you believe philosophy is for talking about religion? — Jackson

For one, because many philosophers do just that: They use philosophy to talk about religion.

Why do people come to a philosophy forum to talk about religion?
— Jackson

Because that's what philosophy is for. — baker

Religion is philosophy? Do you think art is engineering? — Jackson

Read again.
Philosophy is for talking about religion, among other things.

Gratitude, it seems, is an attitude from/of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus.
— skyblack

Actually, it should come from a sense of lack, from a recognition of one's insufficiency and indebtedness. — baker

What you seem to be objecting is to my usage of the words "of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus". You are instead saying it comes from "a sense of lack". So abundance vs lack is the issue? Go ahead. — skyblack

One cannot provide for oneself. The default is lack. One is left to the mercy of millions of other beings. Starting with plants which make breathable air. All the people who produce the food we eat, who make sure there is electricity in the power sockets so that we can plug in our devices, etc. etc. etc.

If any person or other entity in this vast system of production and consumption doesn't do their job, we're left with a lack, we're left wanting. And we cannot make up for it on our own. Without plants, we have no air to breathe, and we can't make it ourselves. Without someone to process raw oil or make electricity, we can't drive our cars. And so on.

Fulfillment, abundance, surplus imply that there is a baseline that is provided by default, that we can take for granted. I'm saying the baseline is zero, a dead universe which isn't conducive to life. Everything that is more than that is not a given. Hence this is where gratitude should be directed.

I wonder which gratitude is most important. If I were perpetually grateful I'd be exhausted and feel unworthy of everything and start to stop driving my life in any particular way. — TiredThinker

Hence gratitude requires a metaphysical framework in order to be meaningful.

So, Trump supporters' belief that the election was stolen is not based upon evidence. What grounds their belief? What is such belief based upon? — creativesoul

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Why are right-wingers right-wingers?

I think the two main reasons Christianity spread was 1) because of Jesus and 2) (whether or not Christianity is “true” in the sense that Jesus rose from the dead) it speaks to the human condition/experience. — Paulm12

How does Christianity "speak to the human condition/experience"?

I don't feel addressed by it at all.

All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice. — creativesoul

Isn't Amurica great?!

Do drugs, or can drugs, engender a frame of mind which is conducive to insight, or even enlightenment? — hypericin

Depends on what one believes "enlightenment" is.

Wouldn't it be an error to ascribe privileged status to the sober state of mind?

Aren't both the sober and high states, both simply states, and so coequal?

And so why should I privilege my sober evaluation of my high thoughts?

In that case, it makes no difference whether one is enlightened or not; in which case, why bother.

We cause harms to others to achieve what we think is right all the time. So long as we feel satisfied that the harms were the minimum necessary most people consider this quite ethically unproblematic. — Isaac

Except when one finds oneself on the receiving end of such harm and cannot reciprocate.

As with all antinatalist arguments Bartricks starts with a bizarre premise with which no-one else agrees and then proceeds to show that it yields bizarre conclusions with which no-one else agrees. — Isaac

That's not true. I think the innocent deserve that no harm befall them, and that others, those who exist already before the innocents, have a duty to prevent such harm. I know a few other people who think this way.

It surprises me in these discussions how little value people place on their own children, already born or potential, and how little value people place on their own ability and resources for procreation.

My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all.
The only condition under which I would have a child is if I could guarantee he would not suffer, or at least if I were sure he would become enlightened, in that lifetime.

They don't deserve harm but rather need "harm" (trials) to grow — Gregory

What a sadistic method for improvement.

We cause harms to others to achieve what we think is right all the time. So long as we feel satisfied that the harms were the minimum necessary most people consider this quite ethically unproblematic. — Isaac

And another one.

Well, Fred's dead, but there is such a thing as assuming too much familiarity.

And as for being masters: If that were true, Mr. Proof wouldn't have trouble with people believing things that he thinks are nonsense. Aquila non capit muscas and all that.

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense. — ucarr

Not sure where this is going ...
I don't have much time for the forums. I don't even turn on the computer every day. I keep up via smart phone, but posting from that is too tedious. I think about the topics while washing the dishes or working in the garden, and think of the most concise way to address a point.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word.

Actually, given your authoritarian attitude, you've got the makings of someone who can get to the top.

I really am interested in how plutocracy can be abolished or at least minimized and how democracy can be strenghtened. But I don't see any realistic solutions. And neither do you, apparently:

But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon. — Xtrix

But since you aren’t really interested in any solutions (all “pipe dreams”) and apparently just want an opportunity to display your very-superior-cynicism, I’ll leave it there. My mistake for engaging. — Xtrix

*sigh*

And this is how you're actually helping those at the top stay there.

I'm saying you're idealistic to a fault, to the point of ineffectiveness. And nobody's there to stop you ...

Yes. I think that process of erosion is more in one's control than is immediately apparent perhaps. One can lose faith st every setback, or one can retain it despite failures.
---
No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.
— baker

Yeah, I'm disputing the existence of those states. I'm saying that such states only appear to be impossible to bring about because we erroneously assume that the state they are intended to replace (our first thoughts) is arrived by some more 'natural' process. It isn't. — Isaac

I'm not disagreeing with either point. In fact, I agree. However, I have found that by being more deliberate, innocence and passion are gone. Many people aren't deliberate like this, so being this way has a psycho-socially alienating effect, which isn't to be underestimated. By being more deliberate, much folk wisdom becomes unintelligible, "Have faith", "Believe in yourself", "Just listen to your heart" mean nothing anymore. Add to this active derision and even ostracism (I've been accused of being a "cold bitch", a "troll", that I "never put my heart into anything".)

Like any narrative, there are limits, it has to work (predictions made using it have to turn out), but there are multiple narratives which work no better or worse than each other. We're free to choose between them.

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?