the rejection of both faith and nihilism being the core if my entire philosophy. — Pfhorrest

So you have no faith in your philosophy?

Dawkins' "selfish gene" hard-wires the species that carries it to go out and find a way to flourish. — Thomas Quine

The point is that, as the term implies, it does so ‘selfishly’. This selfishness is expressed in your own theory that morality is based on human flourishing. Why human flourishing? If a morality that’s based on a narrower or more selfish scope is flawed in some way then a morality that’s based on human flourishing contains the same flaw because it‘s also limited. Why isn’t morality based on the flourishing of all life? Given that human life is inextricably dependent on other life, that would seem to be a wiser perspective.

Human beings have developed highly complex societies and highly complex methods of raising our children to adulthood, and mere survival is the least of it. As a result we are the dominant species on the planet.

And we’re currently engaged in the mass extinctions of other species, which in all likelihood will eventually effect human flourishing negatively.

Yes, genes propagate when the species that carry them flourish. — Thomas Quine

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. Our species is a significant line differentiation, but it’s only one layer out of many possible distinctions. We’re naturally more concerned with human flourishing than that of chimps, and then closer to home, we’re more concerned with national flourishing, then perhaps regional, religious, or political party flourishing, and then family. Does anyone regard all of humanity as they do their own family? Maybe some do ideologically but when push comes to shove genes always win favor.

It’s touching but for me not as haunting as similar films I’ve seen. It actually felt a bit formulaic.

Of course some primitive tribes might have a narrower view of human flourishing...
...
I also read a lot about chimp wars and chimp justification for war, and what you might call universal values of chimp society are simply this: might makes right. We are justified in wiping out our rival troupe because we are stronger than they are and we need what they have. It is just and right that we should flourish and they should not. So even among chimps, what is just and right is grounded on what serves chimp flourishing... — Thomas Quine

We’re all prone to tribalism and the primary function of moral frameworks is to bond the tribe, in whatever form the tribe may exist. It’s a very successful survival strategy and based in gene propagation. It has little to do with human flourishing.

I suggest that you read Dawkins or the like.

I am saying only that those communities who considered these sorts of behaviors to be moral, ethical, right, and proper, held that belief because they were convinced (rightly or wrongly) that they ultimately were in the best long-term interests of human flourishing.

Am I wrong? — Thomas Quine

You couldn’t be more wrong. At best, they may have been convinced that they served the immediate goals of their tribes. How else to explain the current human condition?

Morals are grounded in intuition, and then whatever moral framework we’ve been inculcated with.

If I follow your meaning, no and no.

What you're talking about are sense patterns or mental representations. We couldn't recognize sandpaper or a particular sound without mental representations of them. If there were no mental representations to simulate then there would be nothing to mentally simulate.

i find that the mask finger-wagging is largely done at the expense of other preventative measures, which rarely enters the discourse around the topic. — NOS4A2

Well, it’s kinda hard to tell how often others wash their hands, touch their faces, social distance, etc. from just looking at them. A mask, on the other hand, is quite obvious.

People can wag their fingers and do... other preventive measures? at the same time, btw.

I think that’s why he used bold type, trying to make it appear meaningful.

This darl'n should be fired for not keeping up with the party-line. Trump loves masks now.

He probably doesn’t have a choice. Gotta stand by your partners in crime or they’ll take you down with them.

Ultimate truth is the worst thing one could reify, in my opinion.

Btw, I didn’t recognize you with the Frida avatar until just now when your thoughts/manner felt familiar.

If one looks at that funky jazz objectively, the reason why those sages taught silence and stillness, was because it was a meditative technique with the aim of developing a state of mind, body and the various spiritual states of consciousness. It wasn't because the answers of the universe were nothing, or unspeakable, unknowable etc. — Punshhh

You’re right, it’s rather uncool of the wayfarer to hypocritically reify the ultimate truth.

to the initiated there was generally an understanding that there were ultimate truths, or narratives, but that they were unintelligible until certain exalted states had been achieved, if at all. — Punshhh

This is an essential aspect of religion. After all, what good is a religion that doesn’t promise ultimate truth? And just as significantly, what good is a religion that delivers it? Zero, on both counts, because the point is social cohesion via social hierarchy. Worse is that religion doesn’t actually promote the development of virtue because that leads to independence from the group and hierarchy.

As far as I'm aware, "realization" in Buddhism (the perspective that I assume you believe in) refers to the realization of emptiness, so what other ultimate truth do you think is realizable? Oh, I see, anything that you might say would be a reification so, once again, you've been rendered silent. "He who knows does not speak" and all that funky jazz. Cool, super cool. :cool:

I believe that scientific naturalism is incapable of reaching an ultimate truth, on the grounds of its constitution. To reach that, requires what the sages describe as 'realisation'. — Wayfarer

Emptiness is the ultimate truth? Not much practical value, you must admit, other than stress relief and perhaps something to build a religion around.

I read a story yesterday about a poor slob who lost his job because of a tantrum at Costco. I mean, who hasn’t occasionally lost their shit at Costco. :fire:

Does anyone else use koans out there? — Gregory

Mu

A few things that can immediately promote a more relaxed mind:

• Breathing - Through the nose, slower, and with the diaphragm.
• Diet - Enough fiber and no sugary or processed foods.
• Exercise - Even just walking.
• Hypnosis - For relaxation (download an app or whatever)
• Meditation - May take some skill-building before you see a benefit.

There used to be something called the ‘man in the house rule’. Not sure if that impacted family norms beyond its termination.

The nuclear family was a reaction to a requirement for mobility following the industrial revolution.
Prior to that families were what we would call extended, including grandparents and near relatives in a more or less settled household. The move to a smaller family unit left the elderly to care for themselves, resulting in the aged care industry we see today. — Banno

I've recently learned what a horrifying chapter in history this is for the elderly. Fortunately, there are efforts to return the elderly to a 'settled household' lifestyle, though they may not gain widespread adoption any time soon.

The president calling BLM a symbol of hate doesn't help matters.

A group not affiliated with BLM was chanting the pigs in a blanket thing, if facts matter.

I was irked by it the first time I read or heard the phrase (probably after (or maybe just before) the Eric Garner lynching by unindicted NYPD); the activists missed - dropped? - the obvious and necessary qualifier "also" from their anti-racist cri du coeur which should have been, more aptly, BLACK LIVES ALSO MATTER. 'BLM' is ripe for co-option and parody because it's a categorical, or unconditional, assertion. Cat's out of the bag, so to speak, we're now stuck with more of a slogan than a thesis. — 180 Proof

Hard to believe that anyone inclined to willfully misinterpret BLM is interested in a thesis, regardless of how well reasoned it may be. Also, BLM is a strong statement, whereas BLAM sounds weak.

Is that so simple? — Number2018

It's always been that simple, read your Freakonomics.

How on earth do you think it came about that the manufacturing capacity of the American heartland got sold out to China while the residents ended up on fentanyl? — fishfry

In two words: cheaper resources. The cost of economic success is always paid by the working class. The millions lifted out of extreme poverty in China may pay the same price eventually, or a higher price.

The estimates I've seen tell me that the alternative oil extraction methods are not only unacceptably detrimental to the environment and use unsustainable quantities of water, draining and polluting aquifers, streams and so on, but that just to break even they need oil prices to be $50-100 dollars a barrel. — Janus

There's also the additional cost of accidents, such as the Deepwater Horizon spill, as drilling is forced to harder to access and risky sites.

Is there a culture war in the US right now? — Number2018

Yes, and the rich and powerful are winning. They always win. :sad:

Besides, coal powered ships and trains aren't a problem, perhaps only aircraft are the one transport type that has really needed gas engines. — ssu

The problem with coal-powered ships and trains is the bulk and expense to transport and use, not to mention the environmental impact. And no air travel? Imagine the scale involved. I asked if coal could have fueled the economic growth that developed with oil and so far the answer appears to be no.

From the below you can see the energy production from 1830 to 2010. You can observe the transformations that have happened: first it was biomass (burning wood etc), then came coal, then oil and gas, then nuclear, then renewables. — ssu

The renewables and nuclear are still a tiny portion. If the cost of oil increases (because of peak oil) to the point where renewable substitutes are cheaper, that will entail a general economic downturn. The graph of energy consumption pretty much underscores the point.

Still have what's left of my brain cells. :up:

The Infinite Game, by Simon Sinek

Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America, by Adam Cohen

Contrary to the popular belief that the Supreme Court is a champion of justice for the people, according to Cohen, the Supreme Court has always supported the rich and powerful except for a relatively short period around the 60' known as the 'Warren Court', when it had a liberal majority. Nixon somewhat underhandedly ended that majority and conservatives have been strategically maintaining it ever since. For some reason liberals look at it like a game of chance or something, and conservatives are playing chess.

It was lazy of me to not get my facts right. Anyway, coal couldn't have fueled the economic growth that developed with cheap oil, yes?

Never forget that there are always alternative energy resources to oil. So if to produce a barrel oil would cost 10 000$ dollars, only some very rich car collectors would dare to run their combustion engines. But we still would have transports. — ssu

The point is that increased efficiency and substitution can't ever match the cheapness of oil, and if we've reached peak oil then 'American will never be great again'. Reckless consumerism and the stupid American dream should be, thankfully, forgotten.

daily walks/hikes — 180 Proof

Rousseau and Nietzsche walked to think. Kant walked through his town at the same time daily to escape the “compulsion of thought.” They say that you could set your watch by his passing.

I've walked our dog 2-3 miles daily for probably around a decade, rarely missing a day. Listened to a lot of books on tape while walking also. They say that the physical activity and environment can be both calming and stimulate the mind.

The only thing that oil basically has is it's very cheap price. — ssu

You say “the only thing” like is was a small thing, as though the economic growth the world has seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution weren’t entirely dependent on it.

I imagine that because of the money and big players involved it's difficult to know who's telling the truth about peak oil, climate change, and the like. Capital favors a rosy outlook, that much I'm sure of.

The fact is that it hasn't been overrated or short sighted what the Chinese have been able to do. — ssu

Wasted infrastructure is the result of an overestimation. Endless economic growth is inherently short-sighted because it's unquestionably unsustainable. The economic growth of China and other countries will inevitably fall to the rates of developed economies and by that time global resources or in particular cheap energy, the backbone of economic growth, will be further diminished. Economic downturns will become more frequent and longer lasting, in fact this may already be happening.

The existence of China's never inhabited ghost cities may indicate that the promise of economic growth to lift populations out of extreme poverty may be somewhat overrated, or at least shortsighted.

Because he was being taunted with "where's your white hood?"
— praxis

Right and so of all comebacks and possible satire why would you validate a heckler’s claim by saying white power? — Anaxagoras

sar·casm
noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

i·ro·ny
noun
The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

"Where's your white hood?"
"Where's your white hood?"
"Racist! Racist!"

"Yeah, you got it, white power! white power!"

But let’s focus on why some anti-Trump protestors feel this way. — Anaxagoras

I agree that Trumps populism contains an element of racism, by design. I don't think that yelling at his supporters that they're fucking nazi fascist pigs and racists is the best approach to dealing with them. If nothing else, it plays into the hands of whoever benefits from a divided nation.

The Miami Herald is not the only news outlet — Anaxagoras

I've noticed that. I've also noticed that you didn't answer my question, which is fine.

mental health is not taken as seriously as biological health — Anaxagoras

The two are interrelated, and it's a dubious claim that biological health is taken seriously to begin with. Around half the nation is overweight and on prescription drugs (for conditions that could be better addressed without drugs). Only 23 percent of American adults meet leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) guidelines, according to new research data from the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics. Americans typically also have a poor diet, high in processed foods, sugar, and fat.

A unhealthy physical lifestyle leads to an unhealthy mind.

Because he was being taunted with "where's your white hood?" and whatever else. Why does the Miami Herald suspect that he may have been sarcastic? Is the Miami Herald racist? :scream:

And what if it turns out that Stokes was being sarcastic, would the probability of me seeing racism improve at all? Sorry if that’s an awkward question but your logic is still unclear.

You're probably one of those people who don't think racism exists because you don't see it. — Anaxagoras

How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Wait, don’t tell me, it might require you to rationally consider the issue.

It’ll probably come out eventually but for now...

The Miami Herald tried to reach Stokes Monday to ask whether or not he was speaking with sarcasm. A home phone number for Stokes had been disconnected by Monday afternoon. A message left at a cellphone number hadn’t been returned as of early Monday afternoon.