I think Omicron ended up being the universal immunity maker.

Where I am, covid is practically gone. A few stragglers is it. Everybody's heads are spinning from it.

What's left is that people who are vulnerable still need to get vaccinated. Cancer patients, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and people of color definitely need to be taking D3 supplements.

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things? — Fooloso4

And that's an important question. What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection.

That’s one reason to respect opposing views. Another is that it allows a diverse population to exist peacefully. Acceptance promotes recognition of humanity. That's a value from our time.

There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. — Fooloso4

I agree. I think an important point alluded to in the OP article is that the remnants of religion are all around us. We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. So religion isn't over there somewhere in those people. It's here. Within you. In the way you speak, think, and act.

This is the main reason religion is hard to define now.

Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role. — Fooloso4

Our concept of goodness is complex because it's a fusion of a number of different cultural attitudes. It can be about duty, progress, victory over adversity, etc.

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here.

You have the arrogance of the lucky. :grin:

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while.

then the "ritual" is non-religious. — Harry Hindu

And since there are non-religious rituals, and religions that don't have specific rituals, ritual is not the essence of religion.

It shouldn't be surprising that after 5000 years of drastic change in world views, the word "religion" is hard to define.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.
— frank
So practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

Yes. Plus it lessens your chances of food poisoning.

Washing your hands before you eat isn't necessarily a Jewish ritual — Harry Hindu

It actually is. It was a whole thing.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.

As ssu says: learn history.

Isaac Asimov despised Alexander.

How about the Jewish ritual of washing your hands before you eat? Effective or not?

Don't you think the Chinese, being human beings, will judge for themselves if unleashing death and destruction on Ukraine makes President Putin a hero — FreeEmotion

A few will. There was a time when Russians and Chinese tried to face the truth about what communim did to their countries in the 20th Century.

It's incredibly hard to face that kind of thing. There's a strong impetus to turn away from it and say it didn't happen.

I'm afraid that lauding Stalin as a great man is is line with denial.

Right. I think it is the motive behind the ritual that makes it religious or not. If the motive is to achieve some goal where there is no evidence that such rituals achieve such goals, then that is a religion. — Harry Hindu

Shaking hands is a ritual. Is there any evidence that it achieves its goals? :lol:

From the NY Times;

"While Russian troops have battered Ukraine, officials in China have been meeting behind closed doors to study a Communist Party-produced documentary that extols President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a hero."

"The humiliating collapse of the Soviet Union, the video says, was the result of efforts by the United States to destroy its legitimacy. With swelling music and sunny scenes of present-day Moscow, the documentary praises Mr. Putin for restoring Stalin’s standing as a great wartime leader and for renewing patriotic pride in Russia’s past."

Disgusting

So far as the topic goes, do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion? — Banno

Human life is pervasively ritualistic. Much of it is non-religious, so no.

In this case, many oil companies are very very happy. Not to mention Lockheed and company.

And seeing as this war may escalate again, they are even happier. It's savage. — Manuel

Yep.

think one can make a case that there is a certain "ideal" element to this, who is against "democracy" or for Nazis? But more often than not, the arguments are bs or vastly exaggerated as is the case now . — Manuel

Definitely. I think with any war, someone who's making a profit off of it is facilitating it.

Maybe sometimes those facilitators tip events toward war, so the real reasons for it are many and sometimes not known far and wide.

The late Christopher Hitchens, most of the Bush Administration. The Kremlin now. — Manuel

I think Christopher Hitchens was a piece of decaying fungus shaped like a human.

The Bush administration didn't invade Iraq because they had romantic notions about war.

The Kremlin now? I really don't know.

Just like those who love war (or romanticize it) are willing to shout and support it till' the end of other people's blood. — Manuel

I don't really know anybody like that. Do you?

Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno

As we noted before, science has been an aspect of religion for longer than it was separate.

So maybe we could back off of religion in general and specify a particular religious group.

I'm guessing the people who endorse sanctioning are those who couldn't tolerate being sanctioned themselves.

I'm wondering if the harsh sanctions may have been a mistake. If it just closes Russia off to the rest of the world, that's unfortunate.

So we'll probably see a wave of assassinations?

But I would expect the average Russian to accept that the West is attacking them. I may be wrong.

Yet did Putin need to consolidate his power? I think after over 20 years he has consolidated power quite well. Of course, now after starting a large war, he can go against anybody on the basis of them being a fifth column. — ssu

You know better than I do, I'm sure. There was one biography of him that said there is the perception of a legitimacy problem.

Ostensibly, there are elections, but they're overtly rigged.

In the old days, he'd be the top of an aristocracy ruling by divine right, but he doesn't have that either.

So it was an unresolved issue. The war gives him a way to finally resolve it. He's dictator for life because Russia is being attacked by NATO.

The bullshit wins.

It wasn't. The economy was healing when Putin entered the scene, and then he consolidated his power over the course of 20 years.

That "we don't know if it would have been healthier today" is not a counter-argument really. We know the result of the corruption and despot move of Putin to consolidate his power. — Christoffer

I've seen that story bandied around, but it's not true. Yeltsin was corrupt af, and he chose Putin as his successor so he'd have protection from prosecution.

Putin has the same problem. He can't step down unless he has a successor who's loyal and corrupt.

So what is your actual conclusion? That "we don't know if it would have been better"? What's your inductive reasoning? What's the most probable conclusion? — Christoffer

It's possible that converting from socialist disaster to hot burning capitalism would have been too much of a shock. In Russia, there were places where people thought they owned the factories they worked in. They thought it was immoral for one person to own it.

What you're saying suggests that Russia would be healthier today if it would have taken a more western looking route.

I understand why it seems that way, but we don't truly know because we can't see an alternate history of Russia.

It's possible that profound corruption that leaves most of the population destitute was the only way to achieve stability.

Another effect of Putin's war: the GOP goes to war with itself.

That favors a Biden win in 24 if the effect has legs.

The NY Times says that though he isn't going to end up taking over Ukraine, the war has consolidated his power in Russia. The sanctions have also done that: isolated Russia from the rest of the world in a way that Putin wants.

So it could be a success for him in ways other than militarily.

I guess they could. It's a big city, though. It's bigger than New York. That's a lot of bombs. And to just inherit a pile of blood and rubble?

Didn't mean to come across as hostile. Sorry.

The NY Times says it would be very difficult for any army to conquer Kiev, but an inexperienced group like the present Russian army would require a long drawn out seige.

My belief in the value of the convention of approaching belief in terms of tendencies toward various public actions will itself plausibly be 'cashed out' publicly not only in further speech acts but also in which books, friendships, and careers I pursue or fail to pursue. — jas0n

So you're saying you don't really know what actions are determined by your belief, but you're sure some will be. Why are you so sure?

Just exploring the issue, that's all.

Immaterial? If you think about P, is that not a concrete event in the world? If not, what is it?
— frank

How many angels fit inside an intention? What is the square root of coveting your neighbor's ass? — jas0n

So thinking is immaterial? Or there's no such thing as thinking?

At least you have some vague idea what the word means. That's an improvement over some around here.

I'd say it could/does inspire/constrain psychological research (eventually in actions which are not 'just talk', like this or that researcher getting a direct deposit or a chair being set up in a room.) — jas0n

But what about in your case? You believe it (we assume, since you asserted it). Does this mean anything other than that you'll utter a particular sentence at a certain time?

It should be stressed though that talk/writing is a kind of measurable action (as opposed to immaterial thought), — jas0n

Immaterial? If you think about P, is that not a concrete event in the world? If not, what is it?

. It is a prescription for specialists, not a definition of the word used in the wild. — jas0n

So it's a stipulation, not any sort of analysis?

Belief is only interesting if it determines action in the world. — jas0n

I assume that since you assert this, you believe it.

How would you say this particular belief determines action in the world?

I think you're wondering if some ontology is being smuggled in with the concept of a proposition. There isn't.

I will say, I've been surprised since I've been here how many posters have the same misconception about what analytical philosophers mean by "proposition."

Look it up if you're interested. It's not really an issue for debate.

beliefs are not necessarily bearers of truth. — Harry Hindu

That's the prevailing philosophical view, yes.

What form does a proposition take as the content of a belief? — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by "what form"?

The SEP has a lot of good information. One good article about belief and propositions is the one on truth bearers.

That's the shortsighted view of a slave. — Olivier5

Maybe the human species evolved to have some of that? Fear of thwarting authority?

I think the attitude that you have to stand up for yourself has a slightly suicidal side to it:

"My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

the US is constantly threatening Russia and attacking and undermining it's defensive capacity since decades, — boethius

The cold war is over. The US hasn't been particularly interested in Russia for decades.

It's China, guys. Climb into the present with the rest of us.

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty.
— frank

Another person who can't read. I never said the first par — Benkei

Actually you did:

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia).
— Apollodorus

And a multitude of other cases
-ssu

Why do you disagree with this? I thought we already established the proxy war fought over the Ukraine since well before that? The strategic importance of Crimea and therefore the Black Sea seems obvious as well. Moscow being pincered by the baltic states and Ukraine in a sort of "C" around Belarus would be strategically worrying too. — Benkei