You are being a bit cryptic or you are saying something very simple.
If your hungry and you eat food then the reality becomes 'I'm not hungry any more.'
If you burn the food then the reality becomes 'Still hungry but have some ashes beside me.'
Is that all you mean by using different instruments results in different realities?

From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences. — T Clark

Oh, I don't think I have ever suggested to you that individuals should not employ pragmatism in general terms, whenever they are able to. My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority. You said earlier you did not like labels. Philosophy is built on labels. They then debate the validity of each and every label, exhaustively and then they come up with a whole bunch of new labels to replace some of the ones they think don't fit well enough. Philosophers LOVE labels.
I know you will probably answer with....but I'm not a philosopher...and I accept that but. They do prioritise labels based on their importance and I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority. But its just my opinion.

I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention.. — Tom Storm

This is a bit of an aside to the OP but I have some commonality with you here, I think. In the sense that my natural territory would be science and politics and I do understand why the 'philosophers' would get a little impatient with me at times because I don't have the depth of knowledge of the philosophical theories which are presented in some of these threads in quite 'flowery' terms. I suppose every field of study has its language and those outside may consider such terminology, 'elitist.'
I am just interested in the philosophical aspects of science and politics. Hence my presence on this site.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism — T Clark

I was just trying to give a little more on my understanding of Peterson. He may well laugh at how far away I am from his actual psyche, I don't know.

Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about. — T Clark

Ok. Here they are again:

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's

I've flagged you post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision." — T Clark

I agree, the comment from HKpinsky is a concern and the reason for using it as an example should have been clearly explained. Nazi hatred was effectively responded to, as they were destroyed.

In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses — T Clark

Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic.
I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making. — T Clark

Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave?

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one? — T Clark

Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are?
Does such not provide you with the personal judgments that you make before you act?
I am not a Peterson advocate as he is a theist and I am an atheist but I find him interesting when he says things like "it would take me 10 hours to even start to explain to you why I believe in God"
Peterson often tries to 'put himself in the shoes of another,' and is correct in that he does not consider the 'easy' shoes.
I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on.

I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me. — T Clark

Ok, but pragmatists accepting the existence of emotional extremes was not my issue. I was suggesting that a purely pragmatic approach to finding a solution or even a coping mechanism when dealing with extreme emotions from others is a poor strategy.
Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. The instinctive reaction will probably save you much more than pragmatism will.

Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse — T Clark

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's

I received a math BS in 1958 from a large state university, went into the USAF and studied meteorology, becoming a weather officer, then went back to school for an MA in math, taught for three years at a small college, and finally a PhD in 1971. — jgill

I retired as professor of mathematics at a branch of a state university over twenty years ago — jgill

I only felt like a real mathematician when I reached the point where I could actually explore ideas that intrigued me and do original research. — jgill

You have achieved a great deal in your life and I'm sure you continue to do so.

I think your comment, just about covers this, for me.... :grin:

I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. Its an important aspect of who I am but descriptors like humanist, socialist and athiest are more important.
Most fields of study, especially science based fields have well established methodologies.
Some are top down others are bottom up. One from software development is 'the waterfall method' or ADITDEM. A cyclical methodology.
Analyse-understand the problem
Design-plan a solution
Implement-code your solution
Test-test your solution, error report, return to previous stages depending on the nature of the errors found
Document-memorialise every stage of the project
Evaluate- assess the success/impact fo your solution (be pragmatic)
Maintenance-apply corrective, adaptive and perfective maintenance techniques.

ADITDEM can be used to deal with day to day problems an individual might face in their life and it has a pragmatism, built-in, in my opinion, but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day.

I only did two years of university maths and then my focus became computing science. There wasn't much pure maths in my course mostly applied maths. Learn the formulas, learn when to use each one. Substitute the correct values for the variables involved and get the correct answer. You probably don't have to know the equations from first principles until 3rd year. My general advice would be work hard and work often. Cancel your social life or reduce its flame to a small peep. Focus on the main goal of getting the best grading possible in your degree. Then after your sacrifices, and after you have the qualification you want, go have some fun.

and remember, in war, truth is the first casualty.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions, goes the old refrain. The belief we can force society to resemble some utopian vision is the problem to begin with. It isn’t long until even the most well-intentioned socialist is tossing people in a Gulag. Just say “that isn’t true socialism”, try again, kill millions, rinse and repeat.



I fully understand the concerns you raise here and I think your complaint and exasperation are fully justified. I feel the same way and I despair when every attempt at true socialism fails.
I would suggest that the recent attempt in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez had these same 'good intentions' you describe. The attempt was again destroyed by those in power elsewhere. The intelligent rich know that true socialism is the greatest threat to their existence. This was true even in the days of Spartacus or even way before him. The intelligent and organised rich are very very powerful and have every advantage at their disposal, including technological advancement. I am amazed that the poor have been able to make the significant in-roads they have in the past few thousand years. But no matter how many times they kill us, they leave enough of us to spit in their faces again at some point in the future. This is because there is no point in being a King or a God if you don't have a large amount of inferior subjects. That's the reason they will be defeated in the end. There are many hope quotes from the past.
From 'you cant fool all of the people all of the time' to even Hollywood quotes like one in the spartacus movie.
Spartacus says to Crassus, after Spartacus kills Antoninus (to spare him from crucifiction)
"He'll be back and he'll be millions"
Gandhi said "The British empire cannot dominate 200 million Indians if they refuse to comply"
and so on....
I think if socialists start tossing people in Gulags then they forfeit their socialism.
I dont even care if you want to drop the word socialist and adopt another, such as humanist.
I just think we cannot lose the will to fight for full equality, not ever ever ever!

Yes, and get rid of Social Security and Medicare while you're at it


Typed in the true 'Trumpian' spirit. It's always fun to hear the Trumpians blow. Just like the apocalyptic TRUMPets in the book of revelations. Does that make Donald Trump the predicted anti-christ prophesised? or is that just another fable-like idea in a similar vein to the stories for scaring infants, available in revelations.
I think the trumpians give the rest of us good warning of who and where they are by the noises they make and by doing so allow us to flick them away without too much effort so we can concentrate on improving the lives of the majority of people. Perhaps you should pick up your ball.

Which socialist society appeals to you? Kampuchea, Cuba, North Korea? Eritrea? East Germany?
Resist falling under the spell of socialism, if you can. The world is still recovering from its lies and ruin


I would suggest that your knowledge of the tenets of socialism are flawed at best and dead wrong at worse.
If you think what happened in the 'Killing Fields' of Cambodia or 'Democratic Kampuchea' under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was socialism then you are dead wrong. Can you give me an example of a political decision made by the dictator Pol Pot that you consider 'democratic'. Democracy is an essential tenet of socialism. That single tenet alone shows that socialism is therefore also not the system employed in the totalitarian dictatorship of North Korea. The party-based dictatorships practiced in the USSR and therefore East Germany were not true marxist based commune....ism, never mind socialist.
You cannot have socialism in a one-party state.
The current government of Eritrea is also a party-based, presidential dictatorship and therefore not socialist.
Cuba I have less problem, with but it's still not socialist. Its dictator was (in my opinion) more benevolent towards the Cuban people compared to your typical dictator but he was not a socialist.
People may claim and use the title, even the nazi's used 'National socialist' in their title but they were known liars to. No different to the priests who call themselves Christian and then some of them engage in child abuse. Are they still Christians in the actions they demonstrate?
To be a socialist, you must demonstrate socialism in your actions and in your policies, and not just in your party name or as a word on your favourite tshirt.
I think you have been reading or listening to American propaganda on what Communism and Socialism are. Do you think McCarthyism was correct?

As I noted, it isn't my job to make the case, and you haven't done it. You've made claims about the way things happened without any references or backup other than the book you're discussing — T Clark

It's only your opinion that I haven't justified my claims. I will cite more exemplar-style evidence of my position as I read comments that I think, warrants a response containing such. The book I mentioned is a perfectly good beginning, in my opinion, and I have also offered anecdotal evidence of general historical events or least, I have made the attempt to image important historical actions which have resulted in our current civilisation and its political doctrines.

You've misunderstood the purpose of philosophy and of the forum. Criticizing your ideas is part of the game. It is playing. If you want me to pick up my ball, I suggest you don't respond to this post. If you do respond, that's an invitation for me to continue. — T Clark

No, I haven't misunderstood the purpose of philosophy or this forum. Philosophy described as "to question assumptions made about our lives and go into the details of why we think what we think and why we choose to act as we act" fits in with my intentions for this thread. This forum is discussive in intent so again your 'misunderstood' claim is nonsense.

Criticizing your ideas is part of the game. It is playing. If you want me to pick up my ball, I suggest you don't respond to this post. If you do respond, that's an invitation for me to continue. — T Clark

Please continue to criticise my ideas, as you are absolutely correct, that doing so, is part of the intent of the forum. I invite you to say as much as you have a mind to and as often as you like and I will respond accordingly. I merely suggest you pick up your ball if you no longer wish to contribute to the thread.

when examining yourself and your goals you realize that wealth and power are not as good as you thought, they are merely tools that can be used for an end, and they can do great good and evil. Perhaps if people were taught how to think critically, they’d think twice before they start committing evil in the name of some personal desire.


Couldn't agree more...:clap:

I have often asked friends and even pupils during my career, the two questions, 'Who are you?' and 'what do you want?' Most people struggle to answer them honestly. For me, the answers given, provoke lots of other follow-up questions. You should use these two questions with your own friends, the resulting conversation can be a very interesting one.

The questions came from J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the Babylon 5 sci-fi series.
I doubt he is the originator of the questions but I don't know their origin beyond him, perhaps they are too obvious to have a particular origin.

In Babylon 5, the two most powerful species are the Shadows and the Vorlons. The shadows believe in chaos, war, hate etc and that strength comes from learning through conquest and suffering and rebuilding again and again, becoming stronger and more advanced after each cycle of war and chaos. They always seek allies by asking the initial question 'what do you want?' They then do their utmost to help a race gain what they want, especially if it's 'kill all the.....whatever's.'

The Vorlons believe in order and that strength comes from cooperation and, love (especially acceptance and love of them as gods/teachers/guides etc) and working together for common cause etc.
They seek allies by asking the initial question 'who are you?'
All the other races in the galaxy, including us humans are asked to choose between 'order' and 'chaos.'

It's just very interesting to me, how human dilemma or just dilemma is presented to us via dramatic license etc. I think that such mediums, greatly enhance our conversations but can also be used as powerful manipulators. I think the human 'storytelling' tradition is where all religion comes from.
It's just unfortunate (in my personal opinion) that the religious stories have been so strongly skewed due to the affect known as 'Chinese whispers.' If the Babylon 5 depiction of the Vorlons and the Shadows had been written down in ancient text then I reckon we would have another two religions today. This is further evidenced by the fact that the 'Jedi' religion is the fastest-growing religion today. Whether you consider it a tongue-in-cheek(to The Opposite: look! I hope you credit me here with my attempts to use hyphens correctly) religion or not. The fact that some such fables have been accepted by some human groups as literal fact, has allowed the use of such, by some members of the rich and powerful as an 'Opiate for the masses.' It's a deception on a global and historical scale, which makes it worthy as a methodology that the Shadows might employ but perhaps the Vorlons would make their own use of it also.

There is no such hyphen in the title of the cover on the actual copy of the book I have but my knowledge of English grammar is limited. In fact, the spell-checker just corrected my error of 'grammer.' So it looks like I don't excel in that area either. Hey ho!
But I'm sure Robert Noonan thanks you, from his grave.

"I think it important not to promote the myth that the biggest bastard always wins. It isn't so, nor is it true that violence always wins."

Well, I don't think I am doing that, but it is not a myth to suggest that evil or perhaps it would be less emotive to say injustice often wins and that overall, in our current world, there is more injustice than there is justice. There are many more 'unfair' situations than 'fair' ones. I also think that it's unwise not to give enough attention to such, due to the very important (in my opinion) adage, "All that evil needs to survive, is for good people to do nothing."
I do not offer myself as a champion of the people, far far from it. In fact, I regularly accuse myself of being an armchair warrior and I ask myself 'well what the hell have you done in your life to help alleviate the suffering of others, as compared to anyone else.' I try to answer but I am rarely satisfied by my response.

I think you have it backwards. You're the one who made the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence that they are correct. Everything you presented in your original post is what I call "seems to me" history, anthropology, political science, and economics. I know enough history and anthropology to know it ain't so. — T Clark

I have provided evidence in my loose historical references to actual historical events and suggested conclusions that other readers may consider as valid/invalid.
So based on your to know it aint so comment, let's exchange examples and others can decide which points are the most convincing.
You may choose to explain or exemplify the origins of 'leader', 'boss', 'Chief', 'King,' 'God' and how such concepts may or may not compare with 'Alpha male,' within the animal kingdom.
You may choose to offer your explanations of why the rich, poor range exists, whether or not you think it's a good system and what you think should be done to maintain/enhance/change it.
You may also choose to describe your origin story for the invention of money and its subsequent effects on human civilisation and you may also choose to compare it with earlier 'barter' systems for exchanging goods and services or offer your own ideas of a 'better system.'
Present your case in whichever way you like.
It's also perfectly fine for you to choose to pick up your ball and remove yourself, if you don't want to play. You can move on to other threads or read the comments of other contributors to this thread and gain whatever amusement or insight you might garnish by doing so.

I meant ask the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want? regularly not the two questions
Why does one human want power over others? Why do most people want to be rich?

I think all the points you raised are valid.

Consider two fundamental questions, 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?'
If we only knew the answers to these questions for each individual and we could ask and have them answered relatively regularly to find out if anything has changed then perhaps we could apply 'balances' to try to protect others from the imbalances that they have.

Why does one human want power over others? Why do most people want to be rich?
You might say that the answers to such questions are well known and are varied but I think the answers to many of the societal imbalances we currently have do lie in gaining a much better understanding of the human psyche. Perhaps discussing the human psyche should be a core subject in every school.
I do understand the obvious danger here. I am not suggesting we mould children from birth to be nice little automatons but I think we should discuss the two questions above, regularly, at school level.
I do think that if the majority of people could study their own psyche in a very open and honest way, they might change a lot of their priorities but perhaps my thinking is too simplistic here and a little naive.
But maybe it would be a starting point, to ask these two questions of everyone regularly to encourage more self-analysis.

How on Earth could he be elected? The guy is a total joke! — Raymond

Couldn't agree more. A clown in charge of the Circus. Bo Jo the clown. RESIGN CLOWN RESIGN!

On the issue of gods we'll never agree, I guess. Sorry for you... (just kidding!) — Raymond

I prefer to receive sympathy from any individual compared to receiving some of the less palatable emotions such as hatred.

It doesn't always work like that. If the "toughest" is a bit of a dick, the others will gang up and throw him out. Happens in chimp and gorilla tribes, too. — Banno

There are many examples of leaders being replaced and sometimes the one who takes over, proves to be worse than the one who was overthrown.
I agree there are many subtleties. A leader today is 'elected' in most systems rather than taking power by force. Unfortunately, the education level of the majority is still too low to prevent the election of horrors like Donald Trump in the USA or Boris Johnston in the UK. There are many other examples.
Whatever subtlety you care to exemplify does not change the fact that the cumulative effect of all human decisions made since we left the wild, has created the states of rich people and poor people. An economic range, rather than economic equality. This has allowed imbalances of power to exist in all levels of society. In the UK and in many other countries there are UBI movements. These are growing and suggest that until we get rid of money all together. A Universal Basic Income should be given to everyone on the planet. A weekly/monthly income given without any form of means testing which would take care of everyone's basic needs of survival. Food, shelter etc.

You would have to elaborate and use examples to evidence your point of view. Otherwise what you have typed is mere simplistic opinion.

There is one episode of Star Trek, with the female captain, I can vividly remember. They arrived near a planet and saw the planet developing in a crazy pace. They could see history of ages in hours. From the surface of the planet the Enterprise was a static appearance in the sky. Contact was difficult. Can't remember the details but it made an impression! — Raymond

Yeah, I remember it well, I cant state the title, director, date first released etc. I don't have those geek level credentials (I don't judge those that do) but my geekness does remember the main points of the 'episode'. The species below considers the arrival of this new 'star' in the sky as 'from the gods' or 'is god', so its a parody of the 'star of Bethlehem fable' The Voyager crew are very concerned that this compromises their prime directive, not to interfere with the natural development of emerging species. The episode then goes through the various moments of when the emerging species first 'discover that Voyager is not a star or a god but is a vessel or a 'skyship.' Then the species develop rockets and try to shoot down the skyship. Then they visit it and two of the species communicate with the Voyager crew. and eventually, the species help Voyager escape the planets hold on them and they go merrily on their way. I think the overall message of the episode, relates to assuming that what you don't currently understand must come from or be a god, is a bad idea.

let's hold hands and ask that MF to just leave us alone! Let's...etc."

How can a claim of the (a)theist be proven right or wrong? — Raymond

No need to hold hands and ask it anything as it doesn't exist and the way for a theist to prove themselves correct is for their god to show up physically, somewhere like Central London on a busy afternoon, announce themselves as our creator, and prove to us that their claim is true. How they prove it should be easy for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creature. If it can't do that then it's not god.
The way an atheist can prove themselves correct is that fact that the scenario I have just described has never and will never happen.

Thanks Earther!

"Lord of The Flies". I'm not sure if children in reality would be like that — Raymond

Another great book and a great story. I think such stories suggest how humans will 'most likely' behave (based on past evidence and what we see when we watch animal behavior, in David Attenborough programs,) when they are placed in situations where individual survival, is at serious, immediate, and continuous, risk. This was the situation in early human settlements and is even still true for many people today.

Almost all our fictional stories, since we left the wild, consider human dilemmas. even those which were placed in divine frameworks.
The classical philosophers in Greece probably based their musing of life and what they proposed would encourage more civilised behaviour based on their reading of similar dilemma based stories.
The concept of 'civilised' versus 'savage' has always been a main battleground for humans.
Its just a pity we made the wrong decision in the early days that we would accept the rule of the few.
The majority in those days could have overthrown every attempt to establish this but it seems they were unable to. Maybe it was simply because an educated minority was always able to subdue an ignorant majority, in the same way, that one Shepard(and not a benevolent one) can control a multitude of sheep.
The current rich and powerful better be very careful however as this malignant shepard/sheep reality is being eroded more and more.

The way you describe the rise to power of the capitalists seems a true description. Once they have power its easily maintained by the weapon. Nowadays the loan slaves are kept satisfied by offering a small part of the cake. Enough to keep them alive, and they are even supposed to be thankful for this — Raymond

Cannot agree with you here, strongly enough Raymond. I would shout a very loud but atheist hallelujah brother but....oh....I just did.

Coincidently, I saw Star Trek "Into Darkness" yesterday evening. I'm not sure I want to live in that society. You only see interstellar bars with a wide variety of creatures having fun, battles, the extensions of the final frontier ("made in a Hollywood basement"), or political gatherings of the federation leaders in defense of the Klingon threat, which is always present.
But how do people on Earth actually live? What's the role of Spock? Why didn't he join the Klingons? Should religion be forbidden? — Raymond

Yeah, i like the new star trek stories, especially star trek discovery but I prefer the universe as presented in the original...TNG....Voyager...etc
Anytime the people of Earth or life on Earth has been referenced in Star Trek, it has always been described (by humans at least) as a paradise. Spock is a logician, the Klingons would be far too emotional for him.

No religion should NEVER be forbidden but its tenets should always be challenged and its claims must be proved before accepted.

I have serious doubts about our ability to love ourselves. In our particular universe — ucarr

I think the problem here starts with that love label. It's such an umbrella term. I don't know when aspects of love are present enough to be able to aggregate some combination of them into a declaration of the term. When do aspects like 'respect', 'familiarity', 'lust', 'need for companionship', 'natural compulsion to reproduce', 'sense of wonderment', 'humour', 'friendship', 'purpose' etc, etc have enough variety and intensity to combine into the label love and how long is such a construction likely to hold, within an entropic time frame.
Can any 'quantums of love' combine into a 'love of self?' I think it must be possible for some people.

When the sentient being inhabits the universe of self, don't we call this solipsism? — ucarr

Well, I think it's probably more accurate to call such narcissism rather than solipsism.
You move in this direction yourself with:

Otherwise, self-love is a nasty trek through delusional narcisscism. — ucarr

Solipsism is described as the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist and anything outside of your own mind is unsure. I think it's a posit about the nature of what reality is from the standpoint of self which does seem to fit with your quote above but I think you are trying to suggest solipsism has an emotional flavour to it, perhaps it does. But Like Atheism, I take solipsism in cold logical terms with no emotional connotations.

So then, the crux of adventure is flinging oneself into the gaping maw of the unknown, which is to say, the embrace of otherness. Well, as we've seen in Sigourney Weaver's sci-fi adventure Alien, the leap of faith sometimes ends badly. — ucarr

From this, it seems that you yourself see the difference between 'healthy requited love' and unhealthy, dangerous, often self-destructive love/obsession/addiction. Is love of alcohol/drugs etc a true love form? even in the 'addiction.' sense? Love 'addiction' towards others can be truly pernicious.

I don't relate to the idea of loving another human being (as pleasant as that can be) as 'the greatest adventure in the Universe' but if you are including love of pursuing knowledge in your words

Falling in love with the other, — ucarr

then I am more inclined to agree.
Only creatures who live short lives can think that human love is eternal. I think such belief has been described as 'a magnificent illusion.'

Overall, I think Atheism has very little relationship with solipsism.

:up:

Based on your last comment to me, I am left with one of my own strongly held convictions that as long as someone is not inciting violence then:

"I might not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life, your right to say it"

Thank you for your honest responses to my comments.

So are you basically suggesting a 'reincarnation' wherein your previous life experience is present but hidden but it acts as a depository which may/will influence decisions you make in your new incarnation?

ok, based on the advice of jamalrob. My second attempt:

Ah? ok, thanks for this example of the good side of the skills of a moderator....:joke:

ok so I clicked on the image icon and entered a web address to the page containing the image.
Am I missing something or is it that as this is the first image I have uploaded to this website means it has to be moderated first?

Hello everyone,
Since taking early retirement I rekindled an interest in oil painting. I have a computing background and
the extent of my academic qualifications in art is a C grade in art Olevel when I was at school.
I just wanted to post one of my efforts here to see if there is anyone willing to point out where I might improve. I am not looking for, 'well you should get .....book or take......course etc,' more perhaps opinions like 'it looks a bit pedestrian to me' or 'its not very provocative' or 'boringly conventional,' any positive comments would also be gratefully received.
Any tips, like 'you could get more convincing eyes if you......' etc.

I one watched a program on sky arts about a rather pompous artist (I personally didn't like his work) who said something like the following and i am paraphrasing:

"Good art provokes, it inspires or angers or invades or saddens, I am not a copy machine or a producer of facsimiles. I do not just sit down and paint what I see if front of me, thats not art!
I am an Artist!!

Although I thought he was pompous I also thought is this a valid description of what art should do?

Anyway, here is an image of one of my paintings:

Ironically.. perhaps aliens don't "exist" because they already figured out antinatalism a long time ago — schopenhauer1

I always accept conjecture as a 'fair' position as it allows opinion and its part of my own epistemology even if we all recognise it, as a mere beginning, in a quest for 'knowledge.'

I have no duty to a natural mechanism like evolution, only to people, and not creating their unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1

Well you may reject such a duty but that process is why you are here. Perhaps based on your viewpoints, it's that fact, that upsets you. I accept my suffering as a 'teacher.' and I reject your unhelpful solution to my suffering. I wish to alleviate excessive suffering but my cure is not the equivalent of killing the patient or disallowing their birth in the first place.

Obviously and as I am rational, I withhold my consent to AN, for my lifetime. As long as anyone, with the same view as me, lives, AN can never be realised, in its ultimate goal, unless our species is wiped out for other reasons, because consent is required. This encourages others of your ilk, perhaps a more extreme flavor to consider removing the need for consent. Do you have a duty to stop such people?

I think it seems extreme, but so do a lot of new ideas — schopenhauer1

This is not a new idea, its a very boring, very old idea that was part of early greek musings and was posited within the words 'better not to have been born in the first place.' It was rejected by the majority of rational thinkers then (The proof being that we are still here with an ever-increasing population since the times of Ancient Greece) and it will continue to be utterly rejected by the majority of rational thinkers now.

That's harder to say.. You can still believe life was not worth starting but also believe that once begun, since humans have connections to their own endeavors, interests, etc. it may be worse off to be dead. It doesn't mean that one equals the other.. Birth and death are changes of states of existence, but the decision to procreate another and a decision to kill yourself are not equivalent decisions. It can be said, that to put someone into suffering is bad, and to put someone in a bind that death is part of their equation of living, is also a part of this — schopenhauer1

Ok, if that's the level of your Antinatalism then you are harmless. The result will be that you will have no kids. I have no kids and will not have any because I am now too old to do the nurture part as effectively as I think it needs to be done. So we are a gentle assist to the current global over-population problem.
I would just like confirmation from you that any time an Antinatalist group or individual raises its head and declares that consent is no longer required, that you will be helping me and folks like DA671,
stop them from achieving their goal

Thats just a viewpoint held by you and some others and not one I subscribe to.

Thanks Earther!!