Pretty much everybody gets it and is trying to do what they can (believe it or not). — synthesis

Silly me. You should have informed me of this from the start.

Then you’re not really talking about individuals but some abstract idea or collection of units, like ‘human beings’. In that case you have a lesser concern for units that are not human. I suppose that’s why oppressors dehumanize the oppressed.

You've got to leave the past in the past. — synthesis

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons, refusing to sacrifice a single one of them for some collective. — NOS4A2

If I were the primary unit of concern, for example, why would I necessarily have concern for all units?

And may I assume you don't view the woman in my example as either a freeloader or a traitor? — Tzeentch

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal.

Oh yeah, and written by people who owned other people.

Try reading it. — god must be atheist

17 days and not a whit of interest. Perhaps morality is not your thing.

Chill-out wonderer, I’m just bust’n balls. My new favorite pastime.

I say that we wait for someone to post something that is actually relevant to this thread now and just carry on like nothing happened. — thewonder

Trump isn’t completely irrelevant at this point, I suppose.

I have merely been attempting to play off an instance of internet bullying. — thewonder

You’re the first to claim insanity that I’ve seen. Good work :up:

I think the philosophical issue is that of the atomised individual ego becoming the locus of meaning in a universe that is now understood to be devoid of it. Whereas in earlier times, individuals were situated in a matrix of social relationships, underwritten by divine law, with the advent of modern liberalism, the individual conscience assumes more of the role or arbiter of values at the same time that the advent of modern science declared that these have no real foundation in objective reality. — Wayfarer

Have been binge watching A Handmaid's Tale and in the tale the US is taken over by a group with a "matrix of social relationships underwritten by divine [men] law". Thinking about this today while driving it occurred to me that such a society may necessarily have to be patriarchal, because otherwise a family unit could be united against any oppression from the ruling class. Women would need to be an underclass in society in general and in each and every household. In the handmaid's tale women aren't allowed to read, even the Bible, or rather especially the Bible.

As it concerns NOS4A2, what I am saying is that it is just nihilistic to continue to have a go at him. — thewonder

He's not God.

If restricting means limiting the power of governments and corporations, then restrict away. Increase the power of the individual. It's the only way to unleash the productive powers of a society. — synthesis

Individuals would have dominion over governments and corporations in your dream society? If so, which individuals?

It’s OKAY, NOS.

Yes, it's called freedom. — synthesis

Restricting what folks can and can’t do isn’t freedom.

The old child proverb “sticks and stones” still holds true, in my mind. — NOS4A2

So your trauma dates back to childhood. I’m sorry to hear that.

I see the attempts at insult and belittling as little more than group think and ideological back-patting, the basest form of propaganda. — NOS4A2

The fact that you work so hard at rationalizing practically screams your pain.

It’s okay, you can be yourself.

you do that through getting out of the way and allowing people to do their thing. This means limiting the power of the few to control others. Minimize governments, get rid of corporations, so on and so forth. Go small and de-centralize. — synthesis

“Allowing people to do their thing” by forcing them to “Minimize governments, get rid of corporations, so on and so forth”?

I feel zero pain from the digs—they’re as soft and brittle as imagine their chins are—and I just dig them right back anyways. — NOS4A2

If they were so painless you wouldn’t be so inclined to “dig them right back”. It’s okay to feel hurt, NOS. It’s okay to accept concern for your mental well-being. You don’t have to pretend to be the tough guy anymore. You can be yourself, for once. I for one give you permission to be human.

The problem is that the Left desires equality of outcome — synthesis

Okay, synth, two can play your stupid game. If the left desires equality of outcome and you're against it that means that you desire inequality of outcome. Why do you want that? Is it because you're successful and want others to be unsucessful so you can feel good about yourself? That demonstrates insecurity. Why are you so insecure?

I can go on painting a silly caricature of you and pretend that I'm having a worthwhile discussion, if you like.

Would you feel better if I joined you guys and was completely miserable? — synthesis

I'd feel a better if you took the hyperbole down a notch or two. It's way past tedious.

I'm a white guy living a nice but modest life in S Cali too, and unwoke as well. You don't need to be woke to care about equal rights and the like.

I’m rooting for you. — NOS4A2

Then I'm in poor company (with Trump his ilk).

At stroke of midnight, Trump shall win.
I am certain that it is just a matter of time before Trump or his children win the presidential elections. — baker

Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying.

Me too. Not yet to NOS's satisfaction though. :cry: :razz:

Also we're naturally endowed with the capacity of reason and can override baser instincts and condition ourselves in particular ways.

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone.

Life was really difficult for everybody, not just the working class.
— synthesis

No, the wealthy lived large. Weird that you don't acknowledge that.
— praxis

Most people died before they were 40. — synthesis

Still denying that the wealthy lived well? That your prerogative I suppose.

Whereas you see equality as a utopia, it is in reality the ultimate dystopia — synthesis

From what I understand wokeness is majorly about equal justice and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to get as close to that as possible. Perhaps you wouldn’t be so content with the current state of affairs if you weren’t a white male living in Southern California.

Life was really difficult for everybody, not just the working class. — synthesis

No, the wealthy lived large. Weird that you don't acknowledge that.

No such thing as equality. Not even close. — synthesis

There is such a thing. It's just that those with an advantage don't want it.

Look at the 19th century if you want to understand efficiency. Prices were cheaper in 1900 then they were in 1800! — synthesis

Conditions for the working class were notoriously bad during that period, with long hours, low wages, hazardous and unhealthy conditions. Child labor wasn't outlawed until 1920. You're a real humanitarian, Synthesis.

An inefficient economy will eventually produce no profit and things will spiral down and out of control as happens every time some dufus attempts to implement socialist "solutions." — synthesis

Funny you were just praising "a time when most Americans knew how to take care of themselves" (an extremely inefficient time compared to now) and now seem to be claiming that they could never achieve what's most important in life: profit.

Why exactly is efficiency so paramount?
— praxis

In economics, efficiency is EVERYTHING. It's what drives the entire system. The more efficient, the more productive. The more productive, the more profit (which can be used to pay higher wages, invest in technology, or saved for other purposes). — synthesis

Right, even so, couldn't an inefficient economy provide for basic needs, and perhaps some of the extras we're so accustom to and dependent on?

Also, if we're all about efficiency and profit, then it's good to outsource labor to where it's cheapest and automate whenever possible, right? Screw the American worker if they can't compete. And let's make higher education as expensive as possible to help keep them down.

To live for profit is a rather meaningless way of life, I'll add.

I know that Americans don't seem to like to do much of anything anymore (except eat and watch TV/stare at digital devices), but there was a time when most Americans knew how to take care of themselves. Now, people are massively dependent. — synthesis

I doubt even old Davy Crockett would’ve turned his nose up at indoor plumbing, a new washer/dryer, or KFC chicken fingers.

The more distortions you introduce into the economy, the less efficient it becomes. — synthesis

Why exactly is efficiency so paramount?

I recall you mentioning that you’re a physician. I was talking about things more physically demanding than giving a prostate exam or hitting the gym for an hour.

To be fair, it could well be that young Synth didn’t do anything terribly physically demanding, in which case old Synth could be a champ in comparison.

I can still do some physically demanding activities that I did as a teen, and in some ways better because I deliberately train for them, but things like stamina, susceptibility to injury, and recovery times are significantly different.

I certainly believe my own thoughts on religion and politics are based on my life experiences rather than any other factors. — Jack Cummins

To clarify, do you mean cultural life experiences or personal experiences not influenced (if that’s possible) by culture.

I think I’ve seen a pastry like that on the British Baking Show or something. Don’t think it’s called an Ivory Tower though, unfortunately for the witticism.

Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. — FrancisRay

The article or content wasn’t eight grade level, the writing was. Also, you said it could be “as good as any” and now you’re saying that it was selected for its simplicity. This makes you appear lacking in both discernment and honesty.

Yet it seem to have gone over your head. — FrancisRay

So you believe that it’s not a more nuanced version of the 1st NT? The article is titled “ What the Buddha Meant by...” What’s it about then?

Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. — FrancisRay

Thank you! Was that so hard?

That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. — FrancisRay

Of course the difference is that we’ve all experienced the sun, and even if we hadn’t there’s mountains of evidence and scientific explanations for its existence.

Is there any evidence for the cessation of dukkha? Any Buddha’s alive today? Looks like all we got is some crusty old sutras and crustier old men in robes and painted smiles. Nothing wrong with that, it fulfills its purpose.

Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. — FrancisRay

So is the odd anti-intellectualism that some Buddhists seem to fall into.

Relationships work both ways. A group, or rather the leaders of a group, can take advantage of or abuse individuals. Individuals can freeload or betray the group. People can cooperate for mutual benefit or compete for resources.

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors.

Exactly.

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness?
— praxis

I mean that the elite is totally OK with the "woke" agenda and discourse being on the center stage of the public discourse. That corporations and organizations are keen embrace it and not dismiss it and especially not to be against it is what I had in mind when talking about "giving room". The reason is that the woke agenda doesn't actually threaten the corporations or the power elite. — ssu

Not a good idea for corporations and organizations to be against equal justice and the like, unless they're branding to backwater rednecks, so secret meetings of the elite class in their hidden volcano lairs to reach agreement on methods to distract the poor folk is probably unnecessary.

I get your general meaning though.

I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. — FrancisRay

I read it and charitably described it as "A more nuanced version of the 1st NT". It's only about a page long, written at the eighth grade level (middle school), and by a lay zen student with a bachelors degree in journalism. Worse still, in your opinion this explanation could be "as good as any".

your objection is misconceived — FrancisRay

If you were interested in the truth, and capable, wouldn't you be willing and able to explain why my objection is misconceived?

Again, I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

Your article concludes with a quote from the Buddha promising "the cessation of dukkha". If this is not your experience then for you it is a belief. Only you could know if it's your experience, and there's no sense being shy about it. The Buddha wasn't shy about it.

Ugh, you’re trolling skillz are getting embarrassing.

Can you be banned for low quality trolls?