Would you choose moral restraints upon the dynamic leader of the people over unrestrained vitality as their motive force? — ucarr
(There is a proffered escape clause, but nowadays that business is too controversial, so I’m leaving it out.) — ucarr
Very interesting post but you should've left this out if you don't want us to ask what this controversial escape clause is. — Nils Loc
The escape clause is either receiving a free ticket to The Louvre, or being granted a confession at the Vatican. — ucarr
Pain (war) is another instrument of revelation. — ucarr
...I still don’t see war. — praxis
Still missing the point. — praxis
Well said. We're agreeing interest arises when human life within an existing world passes time with adventures — ucarr
how much humans can get away with in their behavior. — ucarr
Love and war are the two big adventures. — ucarr
Everyone who lives pushes against moral boundaries in their effort at living. — ucarr
are nothing but our personal attitudes. There are no boundaries you could possibly point me toward that could fill that spot, for your utterances. Do feel free to try!out of moral boundaries in life, — ucarr
And thus the church shows its wisdom when it declares human nature corrupt from the git-go. — ucarr
When the slithering demon comes on stage, that's when the interest begins. — ucarr
You say we humans aren't sinful by our natures and that our art likewise -- though sourced from us -- is not sinful. Have you not found that a movie depicting a beautiful sun setting its glow over a vuluptuous woman with soul-stirring music on the soundtrack puts you to sleep after ten minutes if something doesn't go wrong, thus threatening the woman's happiness? — ucarr
This is one of my best forward passes with the lance of my wit. It is another one of my central points of focus: the artist wants to threaten the beautiful woman with something of interest menacing her composure. If a man doesn't take delight in this rousing of the feminine will to survive, that man belongs in the vestry with the robes and the sashes. — ucarr
The term 'adventure' here is nothing to do with what I've said, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. — AmadeusD
What do you mean 'get away with'? How 'much' of what? What do you mean by 'much' even here? — AmadeusD
Love and war are the two big adventures. — ucarr
This seems to be so obviously false It's hard to respond to politely. Suffice to say: No, they aren't. — AmadeusD
Everyone who lives pushes against moral boundaries in their effort at living. — ucarr
No. Morality is within each person who lives. It isn't something that can be pushed up against. Your attitudes guide your behaviour. That's all that can be said. — AmadeusD
This attempt to lie, cheat, slip and slide our way out of moral boundaries in life, by my observation, is necessary, and that's what I'm trying to focus on here. — ucarr
...are nothing but our personal attitudes. There are no boundaries you could possibly point me toward that could fill that spot, for your utterances. Do feel free to try! — AmadeusD
And thus the church shows its wisdom when it declares human nature corrupt from the git-go. — ucarr
No, it doesn't, in any way that could be conceived by a rational thinker. — AmadeusD
When the slithering demon comes on stage, that's when the interest begins. — ucarr
Nothing in this or hte previous part of your reply has any bearing on the concepts you're trying to discuss. — AmadeusD
Have you not found that a movie depicting a beautiful sun setting its glow over a vuluptuous woman with soul-stirring music on the soundtrack puts you to sleep after ten minutes if something doesn't go wrong, thus threatening the woman's — ucarr
I have to say, this sounds somewhat unhinged, in terms of trying to make any kind of point. — AmadeusD
There is no 'sinful' in nature. — AmadeusD
If a man doesn't take delight in this rousing of the feminine will to survive, that man belongs in the vestry with the robes and the sashes. — ucarr
This fails, entirely, to answer the questions I put to you in clarifying what it is you're talking about. — AmadeusD
By "adventure" I mean taking action in the world towards a goal and gaining experience as a result. — ucarr
from the state. — ucarr
I mean love is building marriage, home, family and community; I mean war is taking a partisan stance on behalf of one society of marriages, homes, families and communities in opposition to the same interests held by people in another society. — ucarr
Don't be polite. — ucarr
why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false. — ucarr
We don't always want to do the right thing. — ucarr
Are you claiming never to have gone back on your commitment to do the right thing? — ucarr
I mean to say that the moral guardians of the church are right in their expectation that humans will sometimes fail to faithfully carry out all of their moral commitments — ucarr
Part of my effort in this conversation is defining "interest" as a kind of bias, or partiality towards one particular choice over another choice. So, when I say the slithering snake arouses interest, I'm talking about how the presumed evil of the snake is a type of bias away from the peace of equilibrium towards excitement and, unfortunately, murder. — ucarr
I'm trying to say that either jeopardy or joy are necessary to interest because either state is far from the equilibrium - and dullness - of peace and stability too prolonged. — ucarr
Are you saying you believe crimes such as rape and murder have nothing to do with sinful perpetrators? What do you suppose motivates rape and murder if not being sinful? — ucarr
why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false.
— ucarr
Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous. — AmadeusD
Don't be polite. Tell it to me straight why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false. — ucarr
Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous. — AmadeusD
Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war... — AmadeusD
"Piety" refers to a deep respect for and devotion to religious practices, beliefs, or duties. It often involves a reverence for the divine, as well as a commitment to moral and ethical principles associated with one’s faith. People who exhibit piety typically demonstrate their religious devotion through regular worship, prayer, rituals, and adherence to religious teachings.
In a broader sense, piety can also encompass loyalty, respect, and duty toward one’s family, community, or country, reflecting a sense of duty and honor in relationships and responsibilities. The concept is commonly associated with virtues such as humility, reverence, and obedience to higher moral or spiritual authority. — ChatGPT on Piety
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
oftentimes — ucarr
A singular person who enlists in the armed services during wartime finds home and family within his platoon; he finds marriage through his belief in his country for which he jeopardizes his life; he finds community within the fellowship of related armed services divisions, and he finds community within the localities he protects as a soldier. — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. Can you choose one? Is it love and war, or the series of personal opinions on marriage, home , family and community? — AmadeusD
As I've already stated, love and war are both about marriage, home, family and community. They share a large region of common ground — ucarr
They stand apart on the issue of their approach to fellowship; love does nog partition fellowship; war partitions fellowship into good and evil, with both sides demonizing the other. — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. — AmadeusD
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
Example: When America went to war with Germany in 1942, both countries were fighting for the best quality of life for its citizens, and both sets of citizens consisted of married couples, their homes, their families and their communities. Both sets of citizens did similar things in the four categories. However, unlike during peacetime, which in our context here can be likened to love, during wartime, the similar ways of life of the two countries were partitioned off from each other as each side tried to slaughter the other side. — ucarr
So, love and war and the quartet (marriage, home, family, community) cannot be in a relationship of: If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former because they have much in common and thus there is no mutual exclusion. On the contrary, there is mutual inclusion because both sides have scarcely any important distinctions between them at all: American marriages_German marriages; American homes_German homes; American families_German families; American communities_German communities. The bone of contention creating the war consists in each side wanting to destroy the other side, and that too is something they have in common! — ucarr
If ucarr is transgressing the bounds of implicit/explicit virtue/etiquette as an artist contra the philosopher, maybe he is the evil artist.
He must run back to church to give what that unanimous crowd demands, in an alignment of the sensible wills of such a peer group: good, clear, hygienic, rigorous and rational sense in selfless service. — Nils Loc
2. "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (1861) – Julia Ward Howe
Context: Popular during the American Civil War, this song became associated with the Union Army.
Message: Its lyrics evoke a sense of divine justice and righteousness in war. It glorifies the idea of fighting for freedom, equating the Union's cause to the will of God. — Chatgpt
Art can be a weapon, an olive branch, a medicine, whatever, or merely aesthetic. — praxis
In the above quote you make a claim about my statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have — ucarr
Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
This would be an argument supporting your claim. — ucarr
it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example: — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have — ucarr
Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD
Art and morality within the context of this thread reduce to four elements:
Love | War
Love -- Marriage, home, family, community
War -- Power & Money in service to Partisan: Marriage, home, family, community — ucarr
I'm asking you to take the words in my statement and arrange them into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction. This would be an argument supporting your claim. — ucarr
You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD
Here's my argument; it invalidates your logic with an alternative interpretation establishing my example as a counter-example: — ucarr
So, love and war and the quartet (marriage, home, family, community) cannot be in a relationship of: If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former because they have much in common and thus there is no mutual exclusion. On the contrary, there is mutual inclusion because both sides have scarcely any important distinctions between them at all: American marriages_German marriages; American homes_German homes; American families_German families; American communities_German communities. The bone of contention creating the war consists in each side wanting to destroy the other side, and that too is something they have in common! — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.