Only, the subject here was not persons or their character, but their emotions. As in: all our feelings are fake; they have no authenticity; therefore our life is not worth living. — Vera Mont

:up:

It's a subtle ethical point, but as long as you look at her as helpless, with you being the strong hero, you're helping yourself to honor you don't deserve and blocking her path to freedom. — frank

:up: :100:

You may think you're being a good socialist or whatever for being so pitying, but you're really perpetuating something dangerous. — frank

:lol: :snicker:

What do you purpose? Leave the victim alone in his/her suffering and trauma?

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it?
What are you criteria and standards? — Vera Mont

If the source didn't pass through the filter of journalists and journalism, I will believe it. I tend to consider as "reliable" those sources that can be seen or read by themselves, without the interaction of others. I know it is a paradox, but when someone asks to please share information with more transparency and then it ends up in a "third authority," it turns out that the information itself suffers from reductionism...

So, one thing I have learned is that to know something, it is better to discover it by myself.

Nobody explained what 'genuine' means, or how you can tell whether feelings are genuine or counterfeit — Vera Mont

I think "genuine" rather than a concept, it is a habit. It involves some positivism towards ethics. Doing or not doing some acts is what makes a person genuine. For example: honesty and authenticity.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. — BC

Interesting.

Yet, the prohibition led us to another problem: mafia and corruption. If we remove alcohol from bars and liquor stores, it would end up in gangsters' territories, where the cost of each bottle or cigarette would be more expensive and exclusive to get. The prices would rise and fall when they wanted to, and if someone couldn't afford them, he will have ended up being beaten up by thugs. 

On the other hand, we cannot really know if the consumption of alcohol between 1920 and 1933 decreased noticeably, because during those thirteen years, the supply of alcohol was offered by mafia and they tend to be opaque and act in secret.

Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models.

- Allan Sandage, "Science and religion -- separate closets in the same house,"

What it started as a pure enjoyment of bourgeois classes, it rapidly spread around all social classes. Not matter the income of the individual, he or she is able to purchase weed, tobacco, booze or even cocaine. As you explained, those substances cause pleasing and excitement. Probably, I would sound boring but I never used drugs to increase my imagination. I am saying this because some people or music groups have romanticised the use of drugs such as Pink Floyd.

There were always been a big debate on the supply and profits of these substances. It turned out that forbidden them it is not effective at all because when those are illegal the people tend to consume even more (what a paradox!)

As I already commented to @Alkis Piskas, @Vera Mont and @Benj96: I am completely against on how the state makes profits of these "products": I did a brief research and I found out the following information regard the profit on taxation of these substances.
Spain was the fourth state that collected the most for the tax on tobacco products, with a volume of 6,513 million euros. Our country was behind Germany (14,636 million euros), France (14,319 million) and Italy (10,605 million). As regards the special tax on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Spain drops some positions. Specifically, it was the eighth country that raised the most in 2020, with 968 million euros. This time, it was behind France (3,281 million euros), Germany (3,243), Poland (2,942), Sweden (1,613), Italy (1,248), Ireland (1,203) and the Netherlands (1,166).

In Greece, they have done that in the past for both the alcohol and the cigarettes. But, although I was a heavy smoker and I also used to drink back then, I didn't protest. On the contrary, I supported it and tried to smoke and drink less. — Alkis Piskas

We all have had that period of time where we used to consume a lot of tobacco or drinks. My personal case was a big addition to alcohol when I was only 19/20 years old. I no longer consume big quantities anymore. To be honest, I think that, beyond being my fault (because no one pushed me to drink), I see a bit of bad ethics from the public administration or "bureaus" or "lobbies" of alcohol/tobacco. They are aware that those products can provoke addiction in the youngest and even affect their income because they waste money by just smoking and drinking, but they are sold anyway... It is a profitable business, and that's a fact. 
Only the courts of one state, Uruguay, condemned Marlboro for being dangerous to the public's health. A good move, but the consumption of tobacco hasn't plummeted...

I am aware that get zero consumption in alcohol is impossible. What I am against is how the states makes profit from them but at the same time they show slogans to promote health, sport, taking care…
I dont know, for me, they are acting with hypocrisy. If we accept that there always be consumption we can led this supplies to be managed by private companies.

This issue is so complex indeed. I don't understand the behavior and attitude of people. The state warns against the consumption of these "drugs," and randomly, people want to consume even more. This is one of the main issues with drug addiction. The yonkers and stoners wanted to prove drugs once because it seemed interesting to him that those were forbidden by law.

What it pisses me off the most is how the state is making revenue with them thanks to the taxes. Our governors and public servants just accepted that consumers tend to buy a big amount of cigarettes and booze, so it is an "opportunity" to make them profitable. I personally see those acts dishonest as hell...

but I didn't ask until I seriously decided to quit. The people close to me were very co-operative. — Vera Mont

Glad to read personal testimonies as yours.

But for some culturally embedded reason, alcoholics have a much harder time. I guess it's because most of them behave badly under the influence, everyone is angry with them — Vera Mont

I know what you mean. Some of my “relatives”were alcoholic and they even dead because of this. I remember them as angry and liars, stealing money from our pockets to buy booze. Whenever I saw those actions I felt pretty sad and ashamed…

If he's trying to resist the temptation, he needs all the help he can get. — Vera Mont

As a recovering smoker, I know this for a fact. — Vera Mont

I understand and I have empathy for what you have expressed. That's why I said that we have to share a bit of responsibility and kindness with all of them who needs us.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. Did you felt disappointed or upset with society when we/they didn't help you out?

Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque. — Janus

And in-between (thinking of Guernica here, one of my favorite paintings) — Moliere

:up:

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city... — Moliere

Yes, the alcoholic will find a solution to buy the drinks sooner or later.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to minors here too.

On the other hand, related to alcoholics.It is complex to explain, but I will give it a try. Our law (both the civil and criminal codes) considers alcoholics as "handicapped" persons. Years ago, they had their own regulation among gamblers, but their actions and rights are regulated generally now. One of the key aspects is what happens to the people who makes agreements or treats with alcoholics.

The articles 1265 and 1302 of the Spanish Civil Code declare null all the acts committed by handicapped or "non-capable" persons without judge authorization or legal support, and then, they put responsibility on all of them who treated with the alcoholic when they actually knew about such a problem or addiction.

We can agree with the point that the alcoholic holds all the responsibility for his acts. Yet, the people who are around him must protect him (supposedly). So, I also understand to share some responsibility in those specific cases, such as the one mentioned in this OP. An owner of a liquor store who sells booze to an alcoholic when he is aware about that person's condition.

I hope this answers your question. Healthy government = the collective imagination of what is ideal while the individual is biased and doesn't reflect the collective conscience. Not ideal. We are all flawed in the end but we hope that by sharing opinions we can establish something beyond ourselves that mitigates out individual prejudice. — Benj96

It was a very good answer, indeed. Thank you and I appreciate the effort you took to elaborate on your arguments. I always tend to take part in your OPs because they tend to be so interesting.

What do you think is the correct course of action? — Benj96

Not letting him to buy alcohol, even though I would lose money or even receive insults from him. Yet, your ethical dilemma makes me wonder about one situation: What is the role of the state in this topic? I am referring to taxation on alcoholic drinks. What if the owner of the liquor store is just doing his job and the state should be responsible for all of this?

What do you do? — Benj96

Furthermore of being an ethical issue, I think it is forbidden by law to sell booze to alcoholic if you are aware that he or she is in rehab or needs help. This ethical problem reminds me about the alcohol selling (beers, in most of the cases) to teenagers. Is the owner of the liquor store responsible for selling alcohol to those persons? I think yes. Alcohol is a drug, and everyone who is in this business should be the most responsible in the use and sale of this product.

You are right in the fact that the issue is a bit complicated.

What I see is that everything that aesthetics involves depends on the progress of societies or civilizations, and aesthetics have always been a part of social representation. You mentioned Roman and Greek poets, but sculptors and painters are important too. If we see a Greek sculpture such as The Discobolus and a Italian Renaissance painting such as da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks, we would appreciate that the concept of aesthetic has fluctuated during the centuries.

What is the big deal about aesthetics in modern times? Well, I personally think that society has lost a basic concept about art, literature, theatre, opera, music, etc... Everything has turned commercial and industrial. Only a few seem to still care about "real" art, the one that is sublime and intriguing. I guess, as an example, we can mention Banksy.

will we live to see that day? I'd have high hopes if I would live for 105 000 years. (Or would it be 210 000?) — ssu

:up:

Another line: will it be worthy at all? What if the ones who contact us want to conquer and destroy us?
This debate opens up different dilemmas.

Interesting.

I have always wondered if there is someone out there capable of interacting with us. I believe that there are, but it hasn't come the proper time yet. We have to just wait and see who would be the first to interact. Will it be they or us?

This leads to the conclusion that, not only are there probably other intelligences, there are probably other intelligences far more advanced than our own. — Pantagruel

:up:

Do we really decide what happens next, or... does the environment the one which decides on us? Because it seems that it is the latter that establishes the natural principles of life and sustainability.

Perhaps, but good luck trying to identify just what they are. — Janus

I thought the same. But I think that the OP doesn't want to identify them at all, just remark on how some groups use them in bad faith. He used the example of politicians or government agencies that "overrated" some artworks instead of valuing aesthetics.

And it's thanks to you that I had this opportunity to listen to this pearl.
(I have downloaded the video and kept the audio as MP3.) — Alkis Piskas

:up: :100:

Please, find the time to watch --actually, listen-- Russel's video. — Alkis Piskas

I just watched and listened it. I am not going to lie: this footage or tape is so awesome and with a big philosophical value. I am agree with Russell when he says that Christianity has now another concept or at least, Christians act differently to past times.
On the other hand, it surprised me his voice! I never expected such lightness. Well, it is true that old tapes tend to distort voices...

Re Boethius's "The consolation of philosophy": — Alkis Piskas

Wow! What an advanced philosophical agenda for that period of time! — Alkis Piskas

This is the book I began with. It is interesting and has deep philosophical inquiries. Another fact to consider is that the book is written in two forms: prose and verse. For example: It begins with a philosophical verse (or poem) like, "To crown with glittering office their ambitions/such blessings leave them cold/relentless greed devours those earlier grains/reopens wide its jaws." Can headlong lust be curbed by any reins, be bounded by fixed laws?... And then Boethius writes a paragraph where he explains his views on life and aspirations through philosophy (influenced by Plato and neo-Platonist)

If someone has nothing better to read! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:rofl: :100:

I understand! Nonetheless, I personally think that both Kierkegaard and Sartre are worthy to read about. :smile:

March/April readings:

The consolation of philosophy by Boethius.

Why I am not Christian by Bertrand Russell.

Christ recrucified by Nikos Kazantzakis (recommended by @Alkis Piskas)

Rereading: Fear and Trembling;The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard.

What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you? — Pantagruel

I picked empiricist. I am aware that is an "old-fashioned" (I guess...) philosophical category. Yet, I think some works, such as "an essay of human understanding" are among the most important philosophical treatises.
John Locke is one the of the main philophers of modernity, even if he is not now the most popular.

Spinoza‘s philosophy. — Ali Hosein

@180 Proof is a master on Spinoza's works and I believe he can answer your question.

Interesting.

I simply see ChatGPT as a normal program that produces "statistically plausible" answers. Yet, it seems that some people demand so much from it, like "understanding the reality."

I think feminists have been arguing for gender neutral language or inclusive language for decades already and Spanish does have a few ugly examples... — Benkei

Another example which is pretty controversial in Spain: Juez (judge). Some feminists want to switch the lexicon to "Jueza". It is a terrible mistake because "Juez" is already a neutral word and refers to both women and men.

I've lived in a student house with an exchange student who was clearly born female but still wanted to be referred to as "he". I just did it because it made him happy. My confusion (or anyone's aversion) really doesn't need to factor in a lot. — Benkei

Yes, I agree with this. If they are happy when they are called as they wish to be, there are no problems. But I think this topic or debate was so badly taken by some politicians or some activists, or whatever, etc., because rather than use it in good faith, they just use those words with political aims.

I understand and respect your views.

Yet, what I want to say is not related to civil rights, sexology, philosophy of mind, etc... and I respect the transsexuals citizens. If they want to switch their genders is not a topic which incumbent me.

What I try to defend is the lexicon and grammar. These "rules" are not based on oppresive behaviours. They just help us how to speak and write "correctly" in terms of serious affairs, for example when you write a book or Ph.D.

I only see the logic of the word LatinX when it is used by someone who doesn't consider himself a man or a woman. It is okay if they use it privately or for basic purposes. But changing every grammar rule for a brief percentage of the population would be reckless and crazy.

I just do not understand why say Latino and Latina is so offensive...

Perfectly understandable to me and I don't even live in the States. — Benkei

Do you know that for the most Hispanic citizens LatinX word is offensive, right?

Because that word has nonsense and disrespects Spanish grammar and lexicon.

restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees. — frank

Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same...

Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness may result from certain features and/or properties? — Eros1982

If they do so, what is the core of aesthetics then?

If yes, why we see all kinds of political intrusions into aesthetics: through educating kids, through promoting "artworks" and "artists" who are politically correct, — Eros1982

I don't know if I am follow you correctly, but are you trying to make an argument against all of those so called "modern artists" who are irrelevant but they think they do art because they are financed by the state? Because I think we can be agree in this point.