Can anyone defend the assertion of this intrinsic value life is supposed to have? Why is my position, that the value comes from some kind of merit rather than from the life itself, the wrong one? — DingoJones

Yeah, I think a universe devoid of life is worse. I am not sure how to prove that. But since whatever values go into 'merit' will be subjective also, then I will stand on my subjective value judgment that a lifeless universe is worse and a life filled on is better.

But when you first saw the pumas did you not doubt it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, probably I would. I was talking about after the events I listed. After I had sufficient evidence, for myself, that I no longer needed to doubt. I was not saying that in the first moment I see what looks like a puma I instantly believe.

These are the type of things Banno is referring to, things from which doubt has been removed by some prior judgement. Banno thinks that such things are beyond doubt, when clearly they are not, because all that is required to cast doubt on them is new evidence, not apprehended before. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't read all of Banno, so I don't know if you are framing this as he would, but I agree with you. Doubt can return.

At some point, we must trust others in their descriptions of their experiences because one person hasn't the capacity to experience everything. If the description sounds unreasonable we reject it, but when others explain things to us, and it sounds reasonable, then we can broaden our own field of "experience" by accepting what others say as true. Sometimes we are mislead, and that is why we must always maintain the option of revisiting the issue, and leaving nothing as "beyond doubt". — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't disagree, though I consider this a different issue from the one I was addressing. Clearly related, but different. And, yes, I do take other people's words for things. There are various factors that weigh in when I do this. I could go into that topic, but I won't yet.

Strictly speaking agnosticism dictates that the truth or falsity of X cannot be ascertained. Being unprepared to answer at this point in time (suspended judgement), is more like a form of skepticism. To me, your example demonstrates skepticism rather than agnosticism, which would claim that there is no point trying to resolve these things because they cannot be resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think either skepticism or agnosticism really fits. But I think you get what I mean. The person has made a decision, even, that patient X has a psychological problem and not an underlying illness, but they realize there is the possibility that it is a disease he or she has no encountered before. The leaving room that there may be something here the doctor is missing. I was using agnosticism a bit freely.

OK, I respect this skeptical approach, and I've encountered this use of "agnosticism" before. I believe we need some definitions to separate these two forms of agnosticism, open minded and closed minded. The close minded agnostic will enter discussions like this with the intent of disrupting procedures because the closed minded form is validated by failures in such discussions. The open minded form (skepticism) on the other hand will have a genuine interest in learning and understanding the principles involved. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I don't think it has to be a universal, timeless and/or absolute position. I don't want to call it skepticism, since this to me implies a relation only to other people's beliefs. IOW the closed minded agnostic has the belief that if there is a God we cannot know anything about that God. It may seem like they lack a belief, but actually they are taking a rather strong epistemological stand. I can't no anything about God and no one else can. That is a belief founded on a lot of supportint beliefs.

So in your example, you choose not to doubt your judgement, that you've seen pumas, where the authorities claim there are none. So your judgement is to you, beyond doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I would say that I have no good reason to doubt it. I wouldn't say it is beyond doubt for a number of reasons: 1) that is contextless. I could certainly understand why others might doubt it. I wouldn't tell Banno that 'it is beyond doubt there are pumas in New Hampshire.' I have no reason to doubt it, myself. And I would likely make bold statements about it to those I know. Oh, actually, pumas are here...I might say. I might witness even in public contexts. But I would not presume others should just go along with what I say. 2) I could doubt it. Perhaps at some point I would. Maybe I end up seeing a lynx that is enormous and I might think, wow, I didn't realize they could be puma-sized. And further I could doubt in a philosophical sense. Perhaps I am in a simulation.

But in all practical terms, I would likely spend time doubting other things and not that.

Others will doubt you, based on the word of the authorities, so the onus is on you to justify your claim if you want them to believe. If you fail they will continue to doubt you. And, they may be capable or instilling doubt back into your mind. However, if you are certain, and persist, you ought to be able to produce an agreeable conclusion. You could bring the authorities there to analyze the evidence on the ground for example. I agree though, that sometimes an agreeable conclusion is not possible, and this is due to our natural inclination to doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is often the case. Not just because humans have a tendency to doubt, but because if the experiences are different, then the conclusions will tend to be. Add in paradigmatic biases or model based biases and what is required as evidence can become enormous.

I think there is tremendous resistence to the idea that rational people can rationally reach different conclusions if they have different experiences.

But I think it is the case I given my experiences I can believe that X is the case and this is a rational, sound conclusion for me, but that person B could reach a rational sound different conclusion if he or she lacks experiences I have or has experiences I have not had. I think we could all come up with examples around racism, for example. Hopefully some degree of agnosticism is used as an option in many cases. We do not consider ourselves invincible.

To be agnostic is another choice, but I believe that this is also contrary to the natural inclination to doubt. Agnosticism is an abstinence, a refusal to take place in the debate, and the accompanied doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover

agnoticism can be this, but I am using it in the sense of 'I don't know and can't be sure.' I lack epistemological grounds to dismiss X, but I doubt X is the case.

Here's an example: I have seen many doctors tell people they are not sick. IOW the doctor cannot find an illness he or she recognizes and cannot find a physical basis for the symptoms the person claims to have. I have experienced and know countless others have experienced doctors say with great certaintly that 'you' or 'your child' does not have an illness. Often there is a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Any doctor should of course know that new illnesses arise or ones previously known arise with idiosyncratic symptoms. A more honest and epistemologically grounded response would be: I can find nothing wrong with you. As far as I can tell there is no disease or illness causing your symptoms. It is possible that it is somethign we have not encountered, but I would like you consider that it might be stress related or psychological in origin.

IOW the doctor cannot know there is no underlying physical pathology and agnosticism is both grounded and honest. Even a look at the last 30 years in the history of medicines will innumerable cases where people have been told they are not ill and then it is found out later that they are. Not just individual cases, but even large groups.

And the problem with you example of a shift in technology is that such a shift can only come about as a result of doubting the old technology. Therefore abstaining from doubt, in the form of being agnostic, with the belief that disagreements will sort themselves out in the future, is unjustifiable, because beliefs do not sort themselves out without active participation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to be seeing agnosticism as a permanent state. I don't take it that way. All I am suggesting is that people realize that there are, now, and here and for them personally, epistemological obstacles. These may or may not change.

I am nto suggesting we should just throw up our hands.

We should not assume that we can know all truths now. We should not assume that if something goes against current models (or seems to) it must be false. We should not assume that if the other person is rational and correct they can demonstrate it. We should not assume that individual experiences are irrelevent. We should not assume that two rational people with different experiences should nevertheless draw the same conclusions.

I was using agnosticism in a metaphorical sense. One decides that one cannot know (for sure) now. Some agnostics will argue that one can never know if a God exists - and this is oddly enough a metaphysical assumption that God is transcendent and therefore one cannot ever know something abou this entity. This is, of course, a response, in part of theological definitions of God, but these will be restricted to, generally, just one camp of theologians in one religion.

I am using agnosticism here as a way of saying - but perhaps I don't know enough to rule out what you are saying. I doubt (perhaps even in the extreme) that what you are arguing is true, but I realize that my limited experience or tools or my biases entail that I cannot simply rule out what you are saying. I remain unconvinced, that's all.

I don't disagree with this, but I am still working, from quite a ways back from the following....

Let's suppose determinism is true and we lack free will. However one thing is certain - we're capable of rational judgment and analysis which informs us that order is strongly associated with a designer. So, despite a lack of free will, we must conclude that the universe has a designer. — TheMadFool

It ends not with something which is beyond doubt, but with something which we see no need to doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover


I don't see this as different from what I have suggested. — Banno

I may be misunderstanding here, but here's my reaction to a possible distinction between the two. There is a difference between what I need to have no reason to doubt and what is beyond doubt. If I have experiences X, this could lead to a rational belief A that I have which I cannot demonstrate to others, but which I have no reason to doubt. This could be mundane - I see a pumas of different sizes and ages - in a state where they are not supposed to exist, I see them engaged eating a recent killing stalking prey raising young. And over a period of the last decade. I decide pumas are in this state. (like New Hampshire, say). Others have good grounds to not accept my belief. They don't know me, how good my observational skills are, if I have an agenda, what I saw, if I can tell the difference between a lynx (or bobcat, whichever one it is that's in that region) and a puma, if I am nuts, was high and so on. So they have very good grounds to go with whatever the official state and scientist position is on the demographics of pumas and ignore my belief. I on the other hand have no reason to doubt my own belief - unless I was high, or had an agenda, or am subject to visual hallucinations and so on. But I can have good grounds for ruling these out.

I think often in discussions it is as if two rational people with different experiences must reach the same conclusions. I don't think this is the case.

Now I realize this mundane example is still dealing with something scientists, in general, would say has some, extremely tiny chance of being possible. They don't dispute the existence of pumas, in fact they believe they exist, just not there - though often in practice they will speak in terms of impossibilitiy and rule out rather than remaining agnostic - the history of rogue waves is a good example of this where people were told their estimates of the waves were wrong and that such things were impossible and so on. Only later did technology shift and it was found out the scientists were ruling out something that was real and correctly interpreted and described by the people on ships at sea.

There does come a point where the side that rules out is not really accepting the problem of other minds. Their assertions come very close to: if I experienced whatever you did, I would not believe it and interpret it as you do.

but none are willing to put their own state-proclaimed "liberty" in danger! — Gus Lamarch

How are you, now, putting your state-proclaimed 'liberty' in danger?

What is it you are hoping others will do?

I am assuming that the above argument, or something very much like it, succeeds in showing that conspiracy theories are self-defeating. Perhaps others might object to it. — ModernPAS

Well, a big problem with this theory is that we know it is incorrect. There have been conspiracies. Huge ones. Effective ones.

One could look at the argument in terms of deductive problems and there are many. But empirically it fails.

So the question is, is it fair to judge everyone by your own standards even though everyone is different and has different situations? — Perchperkins

If you somehow know what you would be like if you grew up in a poor environment with all that entails in terms of parental stress and possible absence, poor nutrition (often), low expectations from teachers and peers, highly stressed environtments with greater crime, for example, and with fewer, if any role models within and near you family for what sucessful is.....and so on, and you are to say

If I were in that situation I would achieve X, so they should achieve X

then sure, you can hold people to that standard.

But the problem is

how could you possibly know?

IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. — alcontali

Does it? I would guess private schools would be at least as high on IQ. I think homeschooled children do at least as well on IQ as public school students. There are many factors in all of this, but I am wondering where you got your data and if it's true why it is the case.Or maybe you mean negative correlation.

It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. — alcontali

I know there is some truth to this, but my decades ago public school education was mostly quite patriotic with terrible pedagogy. I would guess the latter at least is still the same. Of course private schools tend to have terrible pedagogy also, but the parents tend to be better educated, so the kids have more options, grew up in the midst of larger vocabularies and less damaged parents, so this isn't a big surprise.

I guess I have a scattershot reaction. An antinatalist would, it seems, be against all procreation as consent violation. This entails a goal of preventing, if only by argument, and convincing others, all future human life, or perhaps any life that can experience suffering. These prevented lives are prevented without the consent of the potential life forms.

Second, as at least a partially consequentialist person, though actually I don't believe in objective morals, I prefer a universe with life, even life that can suffer,and I would guess that most life can suffer. IOW I do not accept consent violation as the value that overrides all other values.

Third, I think life carries with it its own consent. Life forms want to live, it is inherent in their nature. A person may change their inherent drive to live and thrive once they have been faced with experiences X and Y. We are not creating or causing a life that is reluctantly entering existance, but something that struggles with tremendous energy, the whole organism, to develop into more complicated forms, in the womb, and then to succeed at life once it is out. It may at some point change its mind, but we have no brought into existence some neutral entity. We have brought in another entity that also is scrabbling to have more life and will complain, from very early on, when anything remotely seems to be inhibiliting its development. It is not a tabula rasa, but something seeking to live and thrive from the get go.

Fourth, we are constantly doing things that potentially violate the consent of others. If we wish to remove the chance of violating the consent of other people, especially if we include the consent of people not yet existing, then we need to die. Any act of mine in the world, including putting forward antinatalist arguments, can have all sorts of unforseen and some forseen effects on potential beings and other present ones. I leave my house, I may set in motion effects that lead to people dying, even if that is not my goal If I argue against birth, then I am making choices for potential beings. If I vote, I am making decisions that will very likely affect future beings. I vote for Trump or I vote against Trump, either may lead to war or policies, in fact pretty much have to lead to some effects, that will kill or prevent the thriving of current or future children.

Of course a lot of these effects are side effects, whereas choosing to give birth - or at least to have sex - may very well entail the coming into existence of a being. But we are still bulls in china shops with all the actions we take in terms of the side effects of our continuing to live and make decisions. My being a pedestrian in a crosswalk can lead to the swerving of a car that kills a child. I need to erase myself as soon as possible to prevent myself from contributing to the consent violation of other people.

Sex and procreation are part of a flow that we desire, many of us. Antinatalism is asking us to override the desires involved. Heterosexual penetrative sex is pretty much ruled out, since pregnancy can result in a foetus. An organism now present in the world and already showing development, homeostatic regulation and if not destroyed a tendency towards becoming an independent life form. To stop it via abortion would be a consent violation. It is already here striving towards independent life. To say that heterosexuals should not have penetrative sex and potential parents should not have children, is to say that my value, if I had it, of no children being born, should override their values. Most people do this, iow most people do argue that their values should override the values of others and/or try to argue that the other people are being hypocritical. But as someone who doesn't see morals as objective, I don't see solid grounds for saying the values of people who want to have penetrative heterosexul sex or want to have children should bow down to the antinatalist value. And since I prefer a world with life and heterosexual penetrative sex, my preferences and the seeming preferences of life in general would be violated by the antinatalist meme. I can't say that it is wrong, since I don't believe in objective morals, but I prefer it not to hold reign over humans, though any individuals who don't want to procreate I don't have an issue with.

You're thinking too much like a scientist lol. I'm not considering any contingencies or potential unsurpassable technological barriers... just posing the question of whether the human mind has the potential to grasp an all-encompassing model. — staticphoton

sp. in other words could we hold all the ideas involved in an all encompassing model? I doubt it, but I think it's speculative either way.

I think Pilates machines can combine mild torture with making the criminals pay for sessions.

For good people to do evil things, that takes religion. — 180 Proof

Or money. Or good intentions...road to hell is paved and all that. Or someone lying to them. Or being in a hurry. or thinking you know better than other people. Cluelessness. Cultural biases. Following authorities.

Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up". — staticphoton

1) So, deduction first, testing later?
2) So, we have the issue of what the mind can reason and deduce itself to in terms of conclusions. But then we also must have access to whatever we need to test direclty, physically. And we would need the technology, presumably necessary to do those tests. And we would need to know what technology to create that would aid us in those tests.

There seem to be a lot of contingent factors. And anyone saying they are sure, seems to be speculating wildly.

Then I wonder about this idea 'empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with....'. What part of empiricism are you ruling out here?

#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true. — staticphoton

Well, yes. I suspect he or she is including science, but I think that facet has to be described/included, since I think this opens up more issues in deciding.

1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton

How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two.

I think one could argue that, but not I am not going that far. I am saying that once you think everything is determined, you have to wonder if the reasons you think an argument makes sense are correct and also if they are the reasons you believe something. If everything is determined, then your sense that argument A is correct is determined. Now, it might be determined by argument A making sense. But the quale that the argument makes sense is also determined. The 'this argument makes sense' quale is determined also.

That's why my reasoning is hard for Black/White thinkers to grasp. — Gnomon

There's no need to get into this kind of implicit insult. I have no problem with non-binary thinking or even seemingly paradoxical answers, but while both and thinking with determinism and randomness may create not predictable actions in humans, it doesn't add up to free will. Just as it doesn't in mutation which also has deterministic and random components or processes mixed. The mutations form has not been chosen by the mutation, nor its abilities. It is the r esult of mutation plus deterministic processes. Your sense that the two add up to free will, would mean that free will is everywhere, also. I don't think it holds at all, but if it did, it would mean that any stochastic process, in your deism, would mean there is free will present. So, Brownian motion of particles in a liquid would be free will, since there are deterministic and free will facets. Heck, even the stock market comes to life as a conscious entity, making choices. Now, I'm a panpsychist, and all, but the stock market? Anyway I am gonig to leave this here.

Thus all the whining from Americans that they shouldn't be involved in the affairs of other countries and the soldiers should come home, it's just talk. — ssu

It's just talk in the sense that those with real power are not going to listen. But it is real talk in the sense that people in general do not support global cop, regime change, regular interventionist empire type stuff, so those with real power have to do some false advertising, which they effectively did in the last few decades. But the US isn't one person talking out of the side of its mouth. It's not a democracy, so real talk and real opinions have little effect in an oligarchy.

That's based on the assumption of Determinism. — Gnomon

Well, sure. That's been the working assumption - one I do not make in general since I am agnostic regarding it - all through my discussion with Mad Fool. I generally state this or make subjunctive starts, like 'if determinism is the case....'

And Randomness does indeed allow short strings of "apparent" order, that lead to the Gambler's Fallacy. — Gnomon

I didn't say anything about randomness not allowing order, apparent or 'apparent' or real order.

Order and free will or design are not the same thing.

But long and progressive chains of order, such as the evolution of intelligent beings (novelty), supposedly from random collisions of atoms (disorder), cannot be explained by rigid Determinism, except as an act of faith. There is no novelty in randomness without the Direction of Selection, or the Action of Intention.*1 — Gnomon

I don't know what pure randomness would be like, but novelty can be created and there are many simulation type programs that do this, where you have rules plus a random element. None of that leads to something like design.

We might call it design, but it is simply unfolding, just like the pretty patterns in these programs.

The Theory of Evolution was based on a> Random Mutations plus b> Natural Selection. But "selection" requires Criteria, which require Intention. — Gnomon

No it doesn't. If having a third wing in the middle of a bat's face makes it hard for it to fly, it won't find food. There is no intention make this mutation lead to deaths and elimination. It is a consequence of the change meeting hard non-choosing reality.

So, Evolution is Freedom Within Determinism, Randomness ordered by Selection, which allows Novelty despite Laws. — Gnomon

Natural selection is precisely intentionless.

And nowhere in this did you explain how randomness and determinism lead to freedom.

Those intentions are not made by the supposed 'designer' intentions appear, determined past causes. The supposed 'designer' does not choose to intend, the intention arises just like freckles do and waves do in the ocean and a boulder finally slips loose and rolls down a hillside. The intention and the design that it leads to are caused by things prior to the so called desinger. In determinims, there can be no desire, just patterns emerging inevicatably.

Now let's say you are right and there is a random element. That doesn't lead to design or choice either. Random effects are not under anyone's control or choice.

None of that leads to anything like freedom or design.

So you agree that even if determinism were true, we'd still be able to recognize order in the universe and also be able to reason — TheMadFool

1) I don't think determinism precludes correctly recognizing order in the universe. Though if we believe in determinism, its seems to me there is always an asterisk, since we are compelled to believe it and then compelled to think X and Y are the reasons we believe in it, we can never be quite sure if we are being rational or not. 2) I don't see where order necessitates design. 3) I still don't know what design means in a deterministic universe.

It certainly wouldn't preclude consciousness nor the ability to comprehend truths - (though as a side note, if one believes one is determined, one can then never be quite sure what is making you believe X is true.) But neither of those is designing, I think. IOW you responded to me saying that determinism precludes design - and I gave a way of looking at what we produce as not design - but writing that 'how we humans design' is a truth.

I think we may be writing past each other here.

My point is if my making a pot was determined in the Big Bang, I don't think it makes sense to think of me as a designer. Nor more than a plant producing a bloom, or a could producing those beautiful, seemingly designed snowflakes.

Personally I am agnostic as far as determinism and free will. But it seems to me if one believes in determinism, design - any design, human, animal - no longer makes sense. Stuff just happens. An architect plans a house, but that plan was determined long before he was born. Atoms bash into atoms, molecules follow their paths. This isn't design, it is just inevitable unfolding.

Let's suppose determinism is true and we lack free will. However one thing is certain - we're capable of rational judgment and analysis which informs us that order is strongly associated with a designer. So, despite a lack of free will, we must conclude that the universe has a designer. — TheMadFool

I don't know if that argument holds. What I am saying is we are not designers if determinism holds for us. Stuff gets inevitably made, including the plans to make.

So I am not sure we even know what 'design' means. Perhaps God has free will. But we have no coherent model for what that is. If we believe in determinism I don't think 'design' is a meaningful concept.

I don't know what nationalist liberalism refers to. Or, I could come up with a meaning in the states, and perhaps one that would fit for Europe, which possibly like the Australian version, is much more conservative, especially economically than the US version.

OK, that makes sense. But was this European liberalism or American?

SO literal.

The left finger. — Banno

Yes, that's a very literal or perhaps concrete interpretation of my quesitons. I was asking what part of character, which is not going to be a body part, I asssume? What part of character is

Noticing someone's ethnicity makes a huge difference to how one ought act towards them — Banno

What part of their character am I noticing?

...and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character. — Banno

Perhaps a specific example would make this clear. I see a person who looks Latino, or perhaps Greek. What do I know about his or her character now?

Which part? What do I learn about someone's character from their color? What should I assume I know?

Philosophically what is of interest is the classic criticism of liberalism: that in claiming neutrality on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or ability, it belittles them. It claims that they do not matter. — Banno

I can follow this as European liberalism not as American liberalism. Could confirm it's European. Do liberals on either side of the Atlantic really say that they are neutral on ability? It seems like both are fairly meritocratic.

I agree that causation would be necessary for design. But then at the same time, determinism means, really, that things just unfold. Does a flower design its bloom. Well, not. But then we think we are fancy and free, but if determinism holds for us, then that pot we made is simply the unfolding of our genetics and experiences. It had to plop out. Our 'planning' popped out first like a bloom, then the pot we 'created' popped out like a bloom. I think determinism undermines desire, which, to me actually affects both sides of the intelligent desire debate. What are we contrasting the lack of design of the universe with? Where could true design occur, if thing, basically, just happen one thing after another?

Socrates knows that he knows nothing; further, as demonstrated by his method, nor does anyone else, since they cannot provide definitions that will stand. — Banno

Though he still manages to believe that beauty=knowledge=virtue. That death is not important. That people do evil out of ignorance. (and if he knows nothing, how does he avoid this?) He certainly seemd to have epistemological beliefs; iow he has his process for demonstrating ideas are incorrect. He seemed to know the qualities that made up virtue; courage for example. He seemed to be a dualist, since our true self was our soul - not like the Christian soul but neverless not the body, but the internal thinking and deciding self - rather than what we own and status, etc.

Of course this is all reported by others, but then so is his quote about his knowing he knows nothing.

Just to open it up even further...what do we think there is design at all? For example I think determinism fits poorly with design. Snowflake patterns, evolution and me making a bowl on a pottery wheel, it's all just dominoes falling.

Why? It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

It seems like something slid to something else here. The male, for example, who does not see sex/gender when hiring for a position traditionally held by men - iow judges on merits and does not discriminate against a woman - is a good thing, and also not the same thing as an employer who does not see the need for feminism. Being sex/color blind is generally a good thing and a good thing for the privilledged to be.

This going back to the OP....

At any rate, when I judge someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin, to the critic, I’m being racist.

I cannot understand it. Judging someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin never once involves remaining ignorant of racism, or denying anyone’s experience or history. It never once involves literal color-blindness. It’s only about affirming another as an individual, without the need of dubious racial classifications. — NOS4A2

When we have an emotional reaction of hate, whether we suppress that reaction or not, we already deny the reality of the experience. — Possibility

I disagree. And I have a guess we have reached an impasse in our positions. Of course it would help if I could feel your feeling of hate, to know if we are talking about the same thing. But then that's an impasse also. I think hate very much includes an awareness of reality and is a natural reaction to what hates us, dehumanizes us, etc. If one is comfortable with emotions, it can recede quickly and one can notice even that one has misunderstood or there is a change. And if it is necessary it can mobilize tremendous energy.

I’m in no position to judge anyone who chooses to hate. — Possibility

I don't choose to hate. Though I could choose to try to stuff it down. I think there were times in my life when I chose to keep triggering my own hate at someone or something or some pattern. But the hate comes in response to what actively hates and dehumanizes me. I wouldn't say I celebrate it and I see no need to justify it really. I would see a need to justify shoving it down. Extreme examples make this clear I think. That a rape victim would hate the man raping her just seems like a given. It is. It is a response to hate and violation. To me judging it as something that should not be there is like judging someone's immune system for imflamatory response around a wound or for violently struggling to get to the surface of water when running out of air.

We can’t change something that we refuse to accept. In order to change the hateful treatment we first need to accept the reality that it occurs — Possibility

I associate moments of hate with very clearly accepting the reality of what is happening.

And I guess part of my reaction to what you are saying is...it sure seems like you are not accepting the reality of hate in us. It is part of how we react. It is real. So often we are told to accept the reality of what is outside us, when we have strong emotional reactions,

but what this comes down to is telling us not to accept the reality of what is inside us. To try to get rid of reaction X.

If I cannot love all of my emotional reactions, I will never fully love others.

I have made it clear that certain kinds of patterns of cognitively retriggering myself can be damaging and also that sometimes we feel one thing instead of others. and use one emotion to cover and avoid one we would rather not feel. Hate can certainly become a habit this way. But so can other feellings. And other feelings can cover up hate and be habitual and this too can lead to damaging patterns.

And I will just add that many dictionary definitions define hate as, amongst other things, extreme dislike. I would use the word for a stronger emotion, but I find it a bit sad that people have less acceptance for such a basic human reaction.

I am going to leave this here. For the reason I mentioned first: it is hard to know exactly what you mean by hate and for you to know what I mean. And then in these kinds of extremely emotional issues, I think there can come a point where nothing will change the other person's mind. At root it is an intuitive choice, though rationality may be being brought in, by both of us, to make it make sense to us. So, bow out of the discussion, at least for a while.

There were two things I said: 1) that it seemed to me he was saying he was a stranger here and that's he's not. We are not strangers here. We are part of here. We are small parts of the universe. This is where we belong. (I mean, unless it is a prison or foreign place to us and we are really from somewhere else.)

Then the second thing which it seems to me you responded to. That we are as strange. This is more tricky yes. We are a part, it is the whole. Perhaps it is more problematic than us, perhaps it is stranger. I am not sure how much my making the two strangenesses equivalent is hyperbole or to be taken directly, but I will defend the latter.

Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often asked about the universe and it strikes people as odd that there is something all.

I think this holds just as much for us. That size makes no difference or even complexity. That there is anything is odd.

Then as sentient beings, I think we have many of the same contradictions in us that we feel are present in the whole. We seem to be organized, but also really at times rather random. We can be beautiful and yet can be cruel and utterly uncaring.

I think if each of us were to do a real honest introspective inventory, we would find that most of what is strange about the universe, is also strange about us.

When you consider how great and how immediate is the problem of existence, this ambiguous, tormented, fleeting, dreamlike existence — Aphorisms, On Thinking for Yourself, 12

Now here he is talking about Existence which is not quite the same as the universe. He is talking about it as, more or less, something that we experience, not as us. But not only is existance ambigious, but we are ambiguous, even with each other. We are not clear, so often, we give double messages, hide things, have body language that says one thing and words that say another. Tormented, sure, but also tormenting.

I see us as participating in whatever accusation of oddness or 'problem of evilness' that the whole shebang is.

Like a piece of a fractal saying the whole fractal is weird. When that piece of the fractal is the same as the whole.

A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.

Now I don't feel like I have to hang on to the level of degree of strangeness, but I do think that most any j'accuse or strangeness we can point at when pointing at the unverse we have and not only that we actively participate in it.

The universe isn't happening to us. We are part of the happening that is the universe.

That's close, I think, to what I meant. I am still groping towards what my reaction was even in my own head. One way to put it is that S seems to be treating himself as a stranger here. But he's not. He's part of the universe. He is as strange and likely as problematic as the rest of it.

I think my trying to understand the context between you two is beyond me. Though i do understand that you were also trying to help me understand the context in general which I appreciate.

But too often we don’t, because to acknowledge our capacity in this respect is to acknowledge responsibility. If we admit that we don’t have to hate, then we are responsible for when we do hate. It’s much easier for us to deny our capacity to choose love in the face of oppression, than to try and understand why we choose to hate instead. — Possibility

Hate is complicated, so what we mean by hate can mean something like a bitter grudge-like hate which we feed over time, remind ourselves of what they did, etc. And then there is a hate that arises in reaction to mistreatment say or hate itself. I definitely want to interfere with patterns where I am getting stuck in hate (and fear, and heck, even love ((more on that later))). But I want to actually even be more free to react to mistreatment with the full range of angry feelings, including hate. I don't want to act out on this - unless I am physically attacked - but to accept these feelings as natural and not problematic. And I can actually feel rather tremendously strong reactions of hate without coming near to acting out physically or even practically- like firing someone or sending an angry letter. There are so many judgments out there about how strong feelings always lead to actions, but this is because people tend to suppress their fears, so if they feel a lot of rage, they have no balance and can act out, especially with alcohol, for example, since this suppresses fear (and cognitive processes also). So for me it depends what we mean by hate. I don't want to have as some rule that I need to suppress my emotional reactions to hateful treatment. I may not show the other person, for a variety of reasons, but I want no more judgment in me that I should be more understanding or anger is ok, but not hate. When someone dehumanizes us, I see nothing wrong with the emotion of hate. Hatred might become for some people part of patterns that are destructive, but that's for reasons having little to do with the emotion itself.

I mentioned love above. Even so called positive emotions can be held to long, bouyed along with excuses for the other person, rationalizations, fantasy and more. But where there is love as an in the moment reaction, I also want to be able to feel that of course. And of course I am much happier when situations bring up the so called positive emotions, but I will not longer agree to contorting myself and telling my emotions (metaphorically) to be like X even if they feel like Y. I do want to stop focusing on one emotion when really I am feeling another. Or focusing on one because it makes me more comfortable. Hatred is often easier from some people to feel than fear. I am always looking underneath to see if something is being avoided. It is a process. But hate is not a problem for me per se, and honestly I think it would be problematic if most of us, who are not so wealthy we can pay our way out of everything we think is unjust or spiteful or dehumanizing, did not react with hatred now and then and in relation to, for example, some bosses. That doesn't mean we don't have responsibility to try to get away from destructive personalities, for example, but this is not always so easy to do or do quickly. I'm not going to judge my reactions to mistreatment,whatever the emotion is that arises. I may judge what I do in response to the problem - I want to learn, of course - practically. And I may judge the patterns of holding onto emotions.

But even that gets tricky. To someone else it can seem like holding on to emotions, but the person in question my simply be consistantly meeting dehumanization. African americans were often judged, when I was young, for being so angry. Like they were reacting to the air.

He called them analogous, which isn't interchangeable.

adjective: analogous

comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

But given how he has been saying hate is not bad or wrong per se and that he feels it seems a fair conclusion, it is odd for him to be saying it is analogous to evil.

I judge too. I said nothing against judgments per se. But judging hate as like evil, is, as we both seemed to have argued here, off.

I guess I'd avoid using that analogy. Loving something or someone abusive can be bad. Hating something evil can be good. It's a bit too apples and bicycles to me, and can easily lead to all the kinds of judgments both of us have been arguing against in this thread.