He is hypericin.
We posted this question together. He is the cohost. — YiRu Li

What? A cohost? So is the OP question yours or not? Are you are real person? :wink:

If you posted the question together why did he respond to the question with this?

This is a very broad view of "inequality".

What you call "inequality", I call "perception", and "thought". — hypericin

Something seems off to me.

If you are unable to define inequality then this is a pointless conversation.

I know when talking about inequality, in western philosophy, political philosophy is more famous.
Glad you'd like to identify it.
I'll let my friend reply to you.
He knows better about philosophy. — YiRu Li

Huh? Who is your friend?

You asked the question in your OP so you must have a definition, right? Why else would you pose the question?


You asked a question about inequality- you do not need philosophy to define it. Surely you had something in mind you can share?

I am not American and don't live in America. I am referring to human history whether Chinese, Swedish or Australian.

But let's come back to the question above.

Chinese has 5,000 of years history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago.
It's not legends, it's history. — YiRu Li

No. As Henry Ford use to say 'History is bunk'. History is written by the victors, is full of myths, legends, half-truths and self-glorifying factoids.

For Chinese medicine to be true or not, this probably needs using your own body to try it. No one can tell you. :sweat: — YiRu Li

I was not talking about Chinese medicine - I was talking about whether legends were true. E.g., People living to 100 without showing signs of aging.

I'm asking you as the writer of the OP what do you mean by inequality?

What is inequality. Can you define it so I understand where you are coming from?

The best answer so far may be this.

Democratic socialism would be one answer. — Wayfarer

But I am till waiting to understand what your definition of inequality is because I fear we are talking about different things.

and eating Cheetos to moving to the recliner watching cartoons and eating potato chips. — Fooloso4

Given your background in the classics, I recommend you swap these for figs and dates. The cartoons are less problematic, Looney Tunes and Rocky and Bullwinkle, say, might well pass for philosophy in some parts.

Chinese medicine says about 5,000 years ago, everyone lived one hundred years without showing the usual signs of aging. — YiRu Li

There are lots of legends in many different cultures about all kinds of golden eras. Are they true? Probably not.

But I don’t think I know what you mean when you say inequality. Perhaps you can list a few examples?

Ha! I guess for those untrained in philosophy the delineation of what is physical is difficult. I like your earlier reference to grammar.

I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the argument may be made that traffic laws are created by minds behaving according to natural physical processes - solving problems, expressing preferences.

I'm curious and forgive the awkward wording - is it hard to get a useful reading of Nietzsche? How often do you think his work is taken into 'bad reading' territory?

I can't make much sense out of Nietzsche's writing - I find the often histrionic prose style close to unreadable, even the Kaufman translation (but that's on me).

One main difference I guess is that Rand attaches her notions in a more traditional milieu. Basically these people are just idealizations of the "Great Men" of history.. Where Nietzsche might entertain a Napoleon, she emphasizes industrialists and the like. To me it's just a different mode of the same idea. Nietzsche's can be applied more universally perhaps.. — schopenhauer1

I think I agree with this. Jack London was another writer who sometimes thought of himself as a Nietzschean, but his account was via Herbert Spencer fused to what he called Nietzsche's 'blonde beast'. London's own journey from homelessness to best selling author of muscular fiction he often dramatized as a journey of personal self-transformation (which it was). London was probably more in the Rand mold, although he (ironically) saw himself as a socialist.

Nietzsche was right. I won't take the time to tell you who Nietzsche was, but he was right. The world belongs to the strong - to the strong who are noble as well and who do not wallow in the swine-trough of trade and exchange. The world belongs to the true nobleman, to the great blond beasts, to the noncompromisers, to the 'yes-sayers.”

― Jack London, Martin Eden

Perhaps a step form London to Rand was HL Mencken, who was also a Nietzsche enthusiast:

He (Nietzsche) believed that there was need in the world for a class freed from the handicap of law and morality, a class acutely adaptable and immoral; a class bent on achieving, not the equality of all men, but the production, at the top, of the superman.”

― H.L. Mencken, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Otherwise, Plato was right, and nobody wants that. — Banno

That made me laugh.

the evidence points strongly to non-physical mental content driving these unfortunate conditions — Mark Nyquist

Can you provide some references or details for this?

So the only choice is between the irrationalism of physicalism and the irrationalism of mysticism and fundamentalists? — Banno

It was a joke. A summary of what we often seem to find in these threads... Hence the :razz: emoji.

:lol: Of course you're now providing an opening for the ersatz mystics and fundamentalists. If physicalism can't account for our entire experince, this gap can immediately be plugged with magic or gods. :razz:

Albino ravens are apparently a thing. — Janus

Worth a mint too I imagine. I think I prefer albino blues guitarists.

If physicalism is bereft or trivially true, what account of the world do you give when talking to an average person with some philosophical interest?

I'm just giving a concrete example of Hemple's dilemma. But further, physicalism is itself not a physicalist doctrine, and hence denies itself. — Banno

I get the performative self-refutation part. What's the Hempel's dilemma aspect of the traffic light e.g.? I understand that all non-black things are non-ravens.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the Nietzsche's Last Man to that of the Übermensch. Comfort, routine and the mundane sound pretty good to me. Needless to say, the inherent complacency it might lead to might usher in our doom (climate change, Trump, etc) but there's no reason to assume that basic quality assurance couldn't be built into our mediocracy? :wink:

Where is this heading - convention and behavior?

Yes, they are a separate matter. It's a question I have.

I am agnostic, but interested in reading about either positive or negative arguments for the proof of existence. — Corvus

Are you confident that arguments can establish whether or not gods exist?

Please help check if this classic allegory is inspiring for your question? — YiRu Li

No, I'm sorry I don't understand your point.

This is good stuff. Beautifully laid out. I’ll read it again and perhaps pose a question or two. Thanks.

Take religion. Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud also developed explanations for religion around the same time as Nietzsche, explanations that also nicely happened to support their particular overarching message. How do we judge between these, in some ways mutually exclusive, versions of history and why wouldn't they be subject to the same charge of "working towards a pre-existing conclusion?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see your point. Could it not be said that most thinkers work towards a pre-existing conclusion? I would have thought most philosophical argument is a series of post hoc justifications.

Inequality is a thinking issue. It's about how people see the world.
Will the focus on social policy block out the time for people to practice thinking about it? — YiRu Li

Social policy is a 'thinking issue'. You don't get to robust social policy without lots of thinking and conversation/discussion.

Policy is made by complicated processes and not all the people are qualified to get benefits.
But the inequality issue is serious for everyone's life, in all kinds of areas, and we often are not aware of it. — YiRu Li

Good social policy saves lives. So I think I disagree with you.

Perhaps you can provide a few examples of inequality so that we know what you mean. I am talking about poverty and lack of access to vital resources and services. What are you referring to?

The feeling of tedium... — Joshs

I've felt bored since I was a small child. The feeling has never left me...

But if we are taught that the way of moral, spiritual and empirical truth involves chaining ourselves to fixed, foundations, we will consider overcoming to be a mark of immorality, irrationality, madness, nihilism, infidelity. — Joshs

Maybe my problem is that I've always felt everything was contingent upon culture and history and that there is no foundation or immutable point of reference for humans. Perhaps I need to become a Christian fundamentalist to self-overcome.

You overcome the tedium. :smile: — Count Timothy von Icarus

I suffer from incurable ennui.

The second, more popular explanation is that "strong" have allowed their hands to be tied by a "false morality." It's here that a relation to Nietzsche's ideas is more obvious. Generally, the claim is that economic elites, the "neoliberals," or simply "the Jews," have tricked the strong into a false morality. Once the strong "wake up," and form their own morality, this age of evil will be resolved. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, we're certainly hearing variations of this one.

The other one we hear is that the silent majority is being controlled by the woke mafia.

I think it means not constantly wanking in public — bert1

Well, that is tedious, as I suspected. Why should some sickly, proto-incel and misogynist tell us what we can do and can't do in public!?

By ‘strength’ Nietzsche meant a will to continual self-overcoming ( not personal ‘growth’ as in progress toward self-actualization, but continually becoming something different). — Joshs

I've never understood the point of 'continual self-overcoming'. What does this mean (or look like) in practice when you are going about your daily business? It sounds kind of tedious.

...the supremacy of proportional logic. — Joshs

Do you mean propositional logic?

:up: The argument from contingency remains a firm favourite, even with the more refined apologists.

Interesting. And I don’t think we know enough about the entire universe to know if ‘everything’ has a cause.

Oops, I typed Morons for Mormons. Fixed. Apologies to our latter day saint friends.

I guess Jesus was hired by those missionary merchants at his age 13, to help merchants do mission works all along the silk road. — YiRu Li

The spread of Christianity along the Silk Road likely occurred through the efforts of early Christian communities, missionaries, and traders who carried the teachings of Jesus with them as they traveled. There is certainly no reason to think that a Jeshua Ben Joseph ever taught outside of Judea. It has not been established that Jesus was a real person and the gospels were written anonymously many years, decades, after the events. The Mormons beleive that Jesus settled in the Americas after the resurrection. Mythological figures can do anything.

Inequality is the root cause of dishonesty. — YiRu Li

I disagree unless you mean that inequality is caused by dishonesty. Unless you mean that rich people dishonestly help keep the poor in their place through measures like not paying tax and disparaging public services.

This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally. — YiRu Li

What does this mean? I would have thought that robust social policy (an external approach) is central in building a more equal society.

Everyone desires some advantage, some way to be better, smarter, faster, stronger, more talented, more charming or more beautiful than others of of our species. But we're not all willing to pay the same price or make the same amount of effort or take the same risks to achieve it. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure 'effort' comes into people's biological and social advantages - position, IQ beauty, charm, etc. No matter how hard most people try, they won't ever be George Clooney. It's not always possible to work your way out of disadvantage.

Many people are simply dealt a bad set of cards. I do not believe that there is much they can do without some external power (society/government) assisting them. I have had many advantages and privileges in my life. None I worked particularly hard for. It's largely a function of being born in the right zip code.

It's just that for Harry, Dick is a cunt, and for Dick, Harry is a cunt, and neither of them think of themselves as cunts. Now what? — baker

I think that's often, but not always, the case. But there's no magical pathway out of a values clash, is there? I remember talking to an old Nazi 30 years ago, "We were trying to improve the world and create a golden era. The bad guys won," he said.

Do we take the above to mean there is no point in trying to improve our moral behavior since everything is just a maelstrom of personal perspective?

Yes, you put it that way and there's a much more substantive, purposeful and, shall we say, 'objective' dimension to it.

More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'. — 180 Proof

Nice. I might co-opt this one.

As I've already pointed out ...
Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof

The role of judgement in this seems critical. I have been mulling over this for some time. In work I sometimes have to make fast decisions around a person's care. Sometimes a colleague will ask me what policy I followed. I tend to answer that I used my 'practice judgement'. Of course, my intuitions here are merely part of a web of intersubjective practices that most in my field would employ, so I can't claim innovation or any paradigm shifts. Someone from another area might form entirely different intuitions. Which goes to @joshs point.

Insofar as an animal is harmless – is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed. — 180 Proof

One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. I have asked for my team to not practice retribution or punishment in their approach to violent or aggressive clients. We understand that such behaviors make sense to people and that in a subculture where violence is the norm (on the streets, prison, etc) we must make some form of allowances. While we can exclude people for violence and aggression for a period of time (our cultural expectations), I generally hope we avoid a blame or punishment ethos to consequences.

Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless. — 180 Proof

I like the idea of being able to crystallise moral thinking in the way you have done. I'm not sure about the 'do not do to the harmless' part of this principle. Does this mean you can do what you want to those who are harmful?

Hillel's original formulation works fine for me as a personal code. I see Josh's point about its potential failings, but it's not a perfect world. I'm not convinced that people will look at Hillel's maxim and take from it that genocide or stealing is permissible. And the kinds of folk who do wish to support such actions are probably not amenable to any principles. And yes, I make judgements about the behaviours of others and sure, these come from my own imperfect understanding of the world.

Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?'

It seems that this position supports the claim that the material world would cease to exist had human consciousness ended. — Showmee

That's not quite right for most versions I am aware of. The problem with idealism is it requires some serious reading up on and can't be readily parsed in a few dot points by me. Also, I think it is possible to break down the notion of physicalism to where it seems incoherent and this appears to leave us with just consciousness to make sense of. I am no expert in this area. The fact that perhaps we don't know how it all works is a separate intellectual problem. Incidentally, I am a big fan of 'I don't know'. I see no reason why I need to arrive at a fully coherent system for making sense of my world.

Does it depend on individual consciousness (without me, the world may cease to be) or on the collective consciousness of humanity (without humans, the world may cease to be). — Showmee

As I understand it, a common account is that there is cosmic consciousness (or mind at large) of which we are all dissociated alters. No risk of solipsism, since we are all a fragment of a larger field of consciousness which is all there is and 'holds' the reality we experience. I do not subscribe to this account, but I am trying to understand it better.

So in short, your view is that we are to be content with dwelling within the subjective interpretation we as a species formulated, whilst simultaneously recognizing that the true/objective nature of the world is incomprehensible by not claiming neither the world has a meaning nor it’s devoid of meaning? — Showmee

Yes, I think that's essentially my position. But philosophy is not about 'being content' and I recognise that intellectual restlessness will always have people prodding at the 'unanswerable' questions.

My view is that language, values and beliefs are contingent - they are culturally and historically constructed. The search for foundations through one metanarrative or another is likely to be pointless and is probably a remnant of Greek philosophy. All our truths and our moral positions are products of human conversations and conventions and are not grounded in some objective reality. I also think we can continue to have conversations which can test and modify beliefs to improve them subject to our everyday goals.

On the other hand, does there exist a possibility such that consciousness has its own existence outside of nature, albeit the former has its root in the latter? — Showmee

Is nature a product of consciousness, or is consciousness a product of nature? For many philosophers, this is one of the big unresolved questions.

I'm not confident that we can point to anything existing as outside of nature.

Have you explored idealism? (It comes in many flavours, some more convincing than others.) A currently prolific thinker in this space, Bernardo Kastrup, spends significant time debunking physicalism and asserting that what we seem to take as the material world is essentially consciousness when seen from a particular perspective.