Traditional, in a word, or emphasizing the moral senses of sacredness or purity, loyalty, and authority/subversion (to ultimate authority).

Is Stoicism a suitable alternative to traditional Christian moral values for a modern pluralist society? — Ross Campbell

No. Religious moral values are not about developing virtue, they’re about binding a group with a common creed, values, purpose, and so on.

There is no replacement for a sky father. We have to simply grow up.

I would have thought carrying the bricks would be the curse and finally questioning why you're doing it would be breaking free of that curse. — Harry Hindu

Every day you breathe in and out, over and over again, but eventually you’ll stop and that will be the end of breathing. Is realizing the ultimate futility of it, or the option to not breathe, liberating? Or maybe you feel free in realizing that you can breathe, when you know that others are not so fortunate.

Selfish genes seek to reproduce into the next generation. — Thomas Quine

They seek to reproduce genes that are most like themselves and that’s why the term ‘selfish’ is used. They do not seek to reproduce genes that are unlike themselves.

They do this by helping to create species that flourish.

As I’ve mentioned already, it’s a matter of degrees of likeness, and that includes intraspecies likeness. Genes don’t seek to reproduce a specific set of genes, like all human genes, they seek to reproduce that which is closest to themselves.

As someone who appears to value science I don’t know how you can ignore this.

:yikes: I neglected to realize that the Clinton administration was in the 90’s, two decades after you say term ‘identity politics’ was coined, and two decades into the working class becoming less expensive to capital class/government.

... morally speaking we should all accept a diminution of our prosperity if that would afford equal prosperity to all others. But we are not sufficiently morally motivated. I would say most of us only care about what affects, or would be likely to significantly affect, themselves and those they may be more or less intimately involved with. — Janus

Closer to home and therefore more likely to share genes. This indicates that the foundation of morality is ‘selfish genes’ and the intuitions and moral frameworks that arise from them, and not human flourishing.

The fact that we must learn and practice well-being, and that it requires discipline, also indicates that it’s rather against the grain of our base nature.

the slack of the nuclear family's childcare has to be picked up by close relatives and the state. — fdrake

On the other end of life, things aren’t looking good for eldercare, with the working class losing ground in recent decades and entitlements or “free things,” as some conservatives say, being cut.

Can you show any evidence of that happening in the 70’s? Evidence would be convincing.

I would freely divulge my conscious insecurities but I don’t want to bore anyone, and we’ve stayed far enough from the topic as it is.

You shouldn’t be ashamed of your condition, I will add. Many of us have been there and worked through it. The trick is learning how to relax.

Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space. — MadWorld1

Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal.

Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you?

I doubt anyone would claim that Americans are among those with the greatest lack of well-being, at least not in the material sense. Millions of children die of malnutrition each year in other parts of the world. Basic needs come before grand eudaemonic schemes.

Is it because human flourishing is the foundation of morality that makes it so easy to turn a blind eye to human suffering? We are moral, aren’t we?

It is not generally regarded as immoral though. The so called American Dream, for example, is highly praised by much of the world.

A good point among others is made by Weinstein (starting at 17:52) that under Clinton the left's traditional voting block, organized labor, was replaced as it made some quite expensive economic demands. And it replace was with identity politics was cheaper, or that you could get people with very little relying on identity politics. I think Weinstein's insight is great to answer why identity politics, rights of minorities (sexual or racial) have become the focus rather than the working class in general. — ssu

To enact this replacement they mention three bases of power or influence: the media, education, and the courts. Somehow these were used to convince organized labor to care more about identity politics than their rights and their paychecks. Courts tend to be more judicial than persuasive so I think we can rule them out of the convincing part.

The media, as Weinstein says, tends to report news that aligns with whatever political narrative an outlet favors, and they tend to not report what doesn't align. I think what he means is that news outlets cater to the interests of their audience, because they're interested in maintaining and growing an audience in order to make money. That being the case, organized labor was more interested in identity politics than news about what effected their rights and paychecks?

Identity politics thrived in academia around the 70', I imagine. It's unclear, however, how academia so readily convinced labor to care more about identity politics than their rights and paychecks.

Getting back to the courts, Weinstein claims that the Warren Court overreached and much of their decisions had to be rolled back. That's fascinating because the Warren Court is famously known as the only court that tended to support the interests of the working class, shortlived as it was.

Well-being usually refers to a brain state and thus is a subjective measure and a measure of how well an individual is doing. — Thomas Quine

It’s not entirely subjective, for instance, there ways to physically measure stress and serotonin levels, which correlate to mental well-being.

The modern urban lifestyle is typically regarded as being high stress, incidentally, which would be odd if the foundation of morality were human flourishing, or it’s an indication that the modern lifestyle is generally immoral?

What country are you from?

Scaremongering isn't limited to one side, — ssu

You mean like that the-shy-is-falling climate change bullshit or that Trump is Hitler reincarnated? The latter is definitely true. :scream:

defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem — MadWorld1

I was merely attempting to simultaneously explain your aversion to them and amuse myself. Only questionable stories need defending.

why should I do anything when you've...

You choose to whine instead of dispute, how unsurprising.

What makes it an issue is our glorious leader saying things like the following at campaign rallies:

Virtually every Democrat candidate has declared their unlimited support for extreme late-term abortion, ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up until the very moment of birth.

Such comments are designed to appeal to the conservative moral framework, and pathetically, they actually work.

If your mental gymnastics were more entertaining I might engage with more of them, but I haven’t completely disengaged.

I don’t know what to make of your irrational aversion to narratives. Did your mother only read unpleasant stories to you as a child?

And if you don’t want to dispute my assertion about the Trump administration favoring the rich and powerful over the working class that is your choice.

But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion?
— praxis

This is false. — ssu

So why would Madworld be inclined to vote for a candidate based on the criteria that they support late-stage abortion restrictions?

We need a better class of trolls around here.

Come on praxis! At least be original! — MadWorld1

I seriously have no idea of what you’re babbling about with that.

If you think it through you'll see that it makes no sense.

Working class Trump supporters working against their own interests is entirely senseless.

You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way.
— praxis

What is there to even respond to?

Exactly.

Not good enough

But you would still vote for a candidate that under performs. Anyone who supports Scanexit, aye?

I am interested to hear what you were referring to there- how/where/when did Nietzsche "falter in his rejection" of either faith (in the relevant epistemic sense- i.e. faith-that certain propositions are true, not faith-in) or nihilism, and what do you think follows from this? — Enai De A Lukal

I wasn’t talking about Nietz and the faltering was hypothetical, a review of the posts above will reveal. Also, I couldn’t answer because I don’t know the philosophy in question, the core of which rejects both faith and nihilism.

Incidentally, like Pfhorrest I’m not religious or nihilistic. I believe that I understand these things, how they fit in human development, but it would be awkward to say that I reject them and especially that the rejection was core.

... is also based on more than mere faith. — Enai De A Lukal

I doubt that Pfhorrest’s philosophy is based on mere faith.

so what?

So don’t be hung-up with the notion of faith. It’s not only about religious belief.

Well sure, but utterly unquestionable/infallible vs. a matter of faith strikes me as an obviously false dilemma- there is ground in the middle, right? — Enai De A Lukal

I suppose the middle ground here is faith in one’s reasoning.

And being faithful to a given endeavor is a different matter than having faith in this or that proposition or belief.

Pfhorrest spoke of rejection, of two things, and it being core to his philosophy, so if he faltered in his rejection wouldn’t that show a lack of faith?

I imagine most would agree that good philosophy should involve sound reasoning, no? And sound reasoning renders faith superfluous/unnecessary (faith comes in precisely where/when we lack a sound rational or evidential basis for something). — Enai De A Lukal

Sound philosophical reasoning is still questionable, right? and a pursuit, of truth or wisdom or whatever, and one can be faithful to that pursuit.

I think it’s more a question of valuing sense pleasure/immediate gratification vs something more eudaemonic, which may be why I find this discussion a little frustrating or too one dimensional. Thomas seems to be claiming that we all seek well-being and that with the help of science, of all things, we could readily achieve it. Science cannot change our values, at least not until neural implants with mind control is invented.

No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults.
— praxis

Oh, come on praxis! Both r/woosh and projecting at the same time? Must be some kind of record. — MadWorld1

The r/whoosh continues. :yawn:

You're literally changing the spinn on what you said before, literally proving my point in the process. What did you think I meant by "Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial)"? — MadWorld1

My stating that I was parroting a narrative is indeed an admission of narrative recitation and proves your point, such as it is. Your reading comprehension is excellent.

You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way.

decreasing immigration — MadWorld1

Just did a quick search and it looks like they’ve managed to reduce legal immigration by about 11%. Good enough? I assume you’re cool with bungling illegal immigration, appropriating billions of tax payers dollars (no pesos :sad: ) via executive order (because a minority support the effort), and the longest government shutdown in American history. I’d mention the issue of separating asylum seeking parents from their children if I thought it might register with your moral framework at all.

consolidating the nuclear family — MadWorld1

Nuclear families in Scandinavia are disintegrating? Do you guys send your old folks to care facilities also?

restricting late-stage abortion — MadWorld1

Why do you think Trump would be more successful at this than Biden? But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion?

you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial). There's nothing inherently wrong with narratives, but for a more nuanced discussion it's often not the way to go. — MadWorld1

If anything I’m parroting a Trumpian narrative. He prides himself on cutting taxes, deregulation, installing conservative Supreme Court judges, and the like. It is a fact that this works against the interests of the working class in many significant respects. It may have helped lead to the recent level of unemployment, but we’ve seen how tenuous an achievement that is, built on a model that’s bound to periodically fail with ever increasing regularity.

I did actually put forth a counterpoint. — MadWorld1

No, you put forth a related point.

Do you want to know why I would vote for Trump if I where an american? — MadWorld1

No, you admitted ignorance of American politics. I would like to know why you would support a “leader” like Trump in your country rather than a leader like Biden.

Sorry, my bad — MadWorld1

No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults.

I’m pretty sure that science informs us that processed food, refined sugars, fat, overeating, drinking, lack of exercise, smoking, drugs, etc etc, isn’t conducive to humans flourishing, and yet we indulge ourselves anyway.

We’re not an entirely rational species.

That was your assertions, not mine. — MadWorld1

They’re not controversial. You haven’t contested them yourself, in fact, which lead me to believe that you accept them.

Why so hostile? It's not good for your chakra, you know. — MadWorld1

Let’s keep my chakras out of this, shall we?

Do you know what a contradiction is? — MadWorld1

I do believe this is a hostile query, good Sir. Shame on you.

You’re contradicting yourself and in that way I can see a Trumpian affinity, but in reasoning, you say that you’re not a fan of that which you would choose to move towards.

Did I hit a nerve?

My nerves were shot years ago.

There's a saying in my country that whatever happens in america will happen here ten years later, so many of us look to america with great concern. — MadWorld1

So you hope for a Trump-like win in your country in ten years? Tax cuts for the rich, a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful, deregulation and the associated degradation of environment, a severely polarized political body, etc? Good luck with that.

Eastern European, right? like where NOS’s employer is from.

I can't see a difference between the injunction to do the right thing, the injunction to do your duty and the injunction to be virtuous. — Janus

The right thing, in certain circumstances, could be considered a dereliction of duty, where the difference is between a moral sense of loyalty or responsibility and some other moral sense like fairness or care.

I find myself moving away from duty and happiness, towards virtue. — Banno

The stoics believe that eudaemonia is achieved with the development of virtue because, if for no other reason, it’s the one thing that we have complete control of and will therefore be satisfying and something that can’t be taken from us. Responsibility and loyalty are virtues, btw.

I don't think following the commands in the Holy Books written by an imaginary God is more conducive to human flourishing than following the advice of science. But lots of people do. — Thomas Quine

It’s a very big mistake to assume that people are rational, or that we’re not all prone to social influence.

I was a little surprised recently to read about some politically fat-right and religious folks condemning the the Pope for supporting efforts to reduce climate change. Apparently, political identity can trump religious identity, in this day and age.

Moral systems tend to, or perhaps inevitably, become a group identity, and when that happens the group becomes primary and actual moral behavior secondary. The development of virtue is discouraged because that leads to independence from the group.

I thought ‘well-being‘ was a more common translation for eudaemonia. I’ve read several books on stoicism recently, btw, and don’t recall ‘flourishing’ being used.

That’s what I suspected.

No doubt many of the Trump culties believe that they’re somehow already paying half for their Benzos and such, so, mission accomplished as far as that goes.

The idea of 'flourishing' comes from eco-philosophy and Arne Naess in particular. — unenlightened

Isn’t that the deep ecology guy? If memory serves, he calls for a greatly reduced human population.

Just teasing, I imagine he meant religiosity.

:razz: And by executive order, no less.