Lots of hard working dumb asses and lazy ass genuises. Nerds hanging out pissing around playing video games while migrant workers reroof their house.

Fred is the supreme leader.

My rule is sexually abhorrent. Let me know if you're interested in hearing it.

Volunteering in the U.S. Peace Corps is one--one--goal I have had that whole time. Is that asking too much? I — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What is the status of your application?

I agree with much said here. I have noticed two types of love, the first being a neediness, a possessiveness, something filled with expectation and obligation, something that is measured, scored, and constantly being tested and evaluated. It's critical, demanding, and corrected by retaliation, manipulation, and withholding of affection. It is a type of love that seems to me to bring nothing but misery to both parties, yet I see people cling tightly to such relationships, I guess for fear that they might have to eat their lunch all by themselves.

The other is altruistic, accepting, caring, and to a point unconditional, causing tremendous vulnerability. It is the love a parent (a good parent that is) has for his or her child, and if it can be extended to another person, the rewards are limitless. Consistent with that personality profile would be someone who is likely involved in service projects, volunteerism, and who watches out for strangers. I don't know, but there's a clear distinction between the two. And I don't pretend that this altruistic profile is masochistic or involves self-suffering at the expense of other's happiness. It is in fact the source of happiness and contentment, meaning that selfishness ironically is one of the surest paths to self-destruction.

I stated in another post that I believe a significant amount of unhappiness is caused by bad parenting, and I really believe that. I think we have kids out there who really don't know what real love is, having never experienced it, but instead being bounced between mom and dad and watching and hearing their hatred towards one another. Of course, mom and dad probably know no better either.

We live in a society that has automated and systematized most jobs, so that the average person is relegated to mindlessly pushing buttons and being measured against some standard, never being motivated by a manager, but instead only being audited by him with productivity charts and graphs. And when he or she arrives home, he or she is measured by his or her spouse against the time of arrival versus the time of expected arrival and perhaps against all sorts of other metrics. Obviously, should both know true love, the failure to live up to the various concrete standards wouldn't be of as much concern as would be the concern for the other's suffering. That is to say, I never needed a reminder to feed my child, and I never asked myself whether his contributions warranted his being fed, nor did worry about whose turn it was to feed him, or whether I fed him disproportionately. My only concern would be that he not be hungry. Should I feel my contributions were significantly greater than my spouse's, it wouldn't be anger that I felt in having the excessive workload, but it would be concern of her lack of concern over me and our child, which would be a signal of her lack of love, or perhaps worse, that she is of the former type I described that does not know what love is.

The Cure is Change, and let me be the first to admit great difficulty achieving the kind of change that I really needed to make. — Bitter Crank

I was disappointed to hear the cure, but then not to hear the specifics. I'm not being sarcastic. You pointed out that unhappiness seems to be linked to being stuck with prior bad decisions, perhaps to be in a rut, to be living out a monotony. What specifically were the changes that freed your from your depression?

I've been situationally depressed from family deaths and personal life issues and things like that, but I have very fortunately not been subject to what I hear others describe, which is a depression that seems to linger, to have no specific cause, and therefore no specific solution. For that, I think people turn to drugs (Rx and otherwise) to help alleviate the pain because it's not clear what else to do. But I'm wondering if you're suggesting that the stimulation of variety is perhaps a solution to even long term depression..

I was never taught anything religion and growing up alone, my enthusiasm for biblical exegesis is completely independent, but I usually avoid discussions of such a kind because lacking such bias, it is difficult for those who did grow up with a religion to understand how I interpret the parables and symbols within them; their interpretations are usually legitimised by either dogmatic values or the lack thereof and thus it is more about the institutional practice and less about the subjective quality in the meaning. — TimeLine

You needn't struggle with it, the work has already been done for you. Here are the 613 commandments of the Old Testament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

As for the latter part of your idea, there is a schism of this feminine in both Proverbs and the Book of Revelations, which I think serves as a warning for the desire that compels one to become wayward from moral virtue. — TimeLine

And bringing us full circle, it was a woman who brought about the fall of man by having him eat the apple. The woman, like Satan, is often portrayed as one who tempts, or a temptress.

I'm disappointed in the USB ports and earphone plugs on the front of the radio. It's faux retro. I like the hum of real vacuum tubes.

As you correctly pointed out to others, I was referring to Nietzsche who denied any universal morality due to the limitations of our capacity, unless we are able to transcend those in power who drive beliefs. It is the strong who are the drivers of change, including any understanding of morality or of good and evil — TimeLine

I would think democracy, to the extent it's truly practiced would ameliorate the oppressiveness and injustice of a master morality. I also don't think that Nietzsche really laid out an ethical theory as much as he simply described what he considered to be the state of things, and I'd like to think it best described how things were more than how they are. The concept of no person being above the law, where even the most powerful are subject to the same rules and as the common man is the ideal. I'm not naïve in thinking that happens, but I do believe that is system we strive for.

But, back on topic. The tree story is central to Christianity. It describes the fall of man and original sin, and posits the depravity of man, leaving a single path to salvation to cleanse one of this sin through Jesus Christ. Original sin is antithetical to Judaism, on the other hand, as it posits that the ethical life is achieved through one freely choosing to live one's life by the biblical commandments, creating no need for salvation and no suggestion of the inherent sinfulness of man and placing the burden on the person's free will. It's for this reason, and many others, that I objected to Agustino's (and others) suggestion that religions were all reducible to the some central common essence. I find them very different in worldview.

I also did not mean why God planted the tree, but what the other trees in the Garden of Eden were (other than life and knowledge of good and evil) and why we could eat freely from them. — TimeLine

I'd assume that the writers of the bible simply recognized that humans alone seemed to live by ethical standards that the lower animals didn't (or primitive peoples didn't appreciate animal social structures), and to have this divine knowledge of what truly was good and evil was something that must have been received by man through some special means. I'm just guessing. What I am pretty sure of though is that Genesis was not written with the thought of the tree representing original sin that could only be cleansed by the son of God thousands of years later.

I grant that you are correct in pointing out my sloppy writing, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to why divine command theory requires any merit in the first place, especially considering the difficulties of interpretation. Kant would likely agree. — TimeLine

Divine command theory deserves consideration because it historically has been and continues to be a primary justification people give for their behaviors. What it likely represents is a recitation of what our ancestors considered to be right and wrong and then it was attributed to the gods to make it holy. As far as this discussion goes, divine command theory is central because it informs us of what constitutes the "good and evil" that is found in the flesh of the fruit of the tree we keep talking about. I don't really think deciphering the commandments laid out in the Bible is all that difficult. It's easier to follow than Kant actually. I think the problem people have with the biblical commandments isn't that they are hard to decipher, but its that they represent an outdated morality that is sometimes hard to make applicable in a modern world.

In the Book of Revelations, the 'New Jerusalem' is symbolic of a woman who is a newly married bride, but she is based on a location (Ezekiel describes this) and it is there that the Tree of Life is referred to as a her. "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Rev 22, and when you read it, the "twelve" is the same woman with twelve stars as a crown on her head, the twelve precious stones that is also referred in Isaiah 54 (where the New Jerusalem is weeping but eventually grows strong) and in 2Esdras 9:38 (crying woman who turns into the city of New Jerusalem). The feminine qualities are a language of peace, of producing fruits of righteousness and healing from the hunger of oppression. I think that is quite clear in Proverbs 3:18. — TimeLine

So, they didn't teach the New Testament in the school I attended, and so I never took that rag seriously. It is likely the Greek pronouns work the same way with Greek being a masculine/feminine language like Hebrew, but I don't know. I agree with the basic notion that womanly qualities relate to maternalistic nurturing and manly qualities can relate to paternalistic disciplining and control. But that's not to say that the bible has only positive qualities to say about women: "It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman." Proverbs 21:19. . וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל-הַקָּהָל אָמֵן
And the congregation says Amen.

From a drug induced poem, not real.


www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43991/kubla-khan

My dog in Xanadu traipsing the River Alph:

Trail option in Whitefish, Montana:
Found it. Finally!

I think each user should be permitted to turn on or off the ability to receive up/down votes in their profile so it'll be up to the member to decide if he wants to be subject to the scrutiny of his fellow posters.

I also think we should have an auto up vote feature where it automatically sends an upvote to every post for those posters we like and just know in our heart of hearts only has upvotey things to say.

And of course TimeLine would sheepishly upvote everything by Hanover, despite denying it all. — Akanthinos

Don't you dare talk about TimeLine that way. She would never lie.

That's so insightful. Love, beyond good and evil.

The really boring way to understand your statement is All is fair in love and war. I mean moral considerations are demoted to a lesser concern where love is involved. — TheMadFool

Although TL is insightful as well, that statement belongs to Nietzsche.

In BoR and the Proverbs, this life is referred to as a woman who produces righteous fruit; she is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. — TimeLine

What other support do you have other than Proverb 3:18 that the tree is a woman? In reading that proverb, the pronoun "she" references wisdom and then refers to wisdom as a tree. Wisdom (חָכְמָה) referred to in 3:13 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2803.htm) is a feminine noun, which might explain the feminine pronoun, due simply to the lack of the neuter in Hebrew. Where does it explicitely say the tree is a woman? At most, it says it's female.

EDIT: It's also significant that the author credited with writing Proverbs was Solomon, so it's not clear that Proverbs can be used for determining the meaning of Genesis, a much older text, and one that is attributed by some to have been written by God herself.

There is no inherent meaning in good and evil except for what we create, but is there righteousness — TimeLine

This is no longer textual interpretation, but instead your relativistic view. Good, evil, and righteousness have specific meanings in the biblical context.

That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil. — TimeLine

I thought we were trying to determine why God planted the tree, which would require a textual analysis, as opposed to asserting the views of a philosopher not terribly receptive to the divine command theory of the bible.

Your relevance objection is noted, now please answer the question.

Whether or not anybody believes science is to be relied upon, is irrelevant; for science is demonstrably thus far mankind's best tool, regardless of what anybody believes. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Define "knowledge." How can you know what you say is true without believing it?

Is English your first language? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Here's what you said: "Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism"."

Explain how scientism underlines and how belief takes the possessive. As best I can decipher, you believe science ought be relied upon and not faith. Your view might be different but your writing is poor.

#1 - that it tires you is unresponsive and irrelevant. #2- is an incoherent comment. It offers nothing and means nothing.

But is this a chair?
Suppose I told you it is a dollhouse chair, incapable of functioning as something you sit on?

Summarize this for me. As far as I can tell, "belief" is being used to mean "faith," which is being used to mean "reliance upon something other than empirical evidence." And as a result of conflating belief with faith, 12 pages have been spent trying to explain how you can't have an epistemilogical system without belief.

Did I get it right? Is the OP just a butchered form of scientism, both unaware of its existence and of its limitations? I ask because I didn't find the text of the OP or the explanations of PGJ at all helpful.

Wherever they go, you go.

Every vote counts: http://www.kcra.com/article/gop-incumbent-wins-random-drawing-in-virginia-house-race/14727483

I'm referring to the sort of situation where a woman hugs you and you think it's OK to have a feel of her breasts. — Michael

Yeah, but that's hardly ever the case, and I can't imagine a "hey, now that we've hugged, can I grab your breasts?" would be in order. I suppose it's better than just reaching out and seeing what happens, but the question itself is fairly rude and inappropriate in itself. And from there I'd go on to say that if you are of the 99% of the population that understands when a sexual advance has become appropriate, you don't need all this instruction and you don't need rules imposed upon you that were motivated by the behavior of the socially retarded or criminally inclined.

The truth is that all this asking "can I kiss you" or "can I touch you now" is in itself socially inappropriate behavior from a romantic perspective, and it tends not to show respect as much as it does inexperience, uncertainty, insecurity, and awkwardness. It's also a standard I seriously doubt you ever adhered to, probably considering yourself sophisticated enough not to be burdened with it, which is sort of the reaction you're getting from others when you say that standard ought be standardized.

What you're describing is a very prescriptive language system where communication is dictated by political considerations without allowing the communication to occur naturally, as would be the case if you allowed gestures, behaviors, and non-verbal cues to determine meaning. Although I like the idea of giving more work to lawyers, I can't accompany people on dates to make certain proper legal consent has been obtained, although I could be swayed given the right compensation.

I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation? — Michael

As in "can we now has sex?" as If that's how it ever happens. When did verbal communication become more reliable than any other form? A robotic "yes, have sex with me" response is less convincing than her physical expressions may be. I'd find it more troubling if she signed a consent form than if she didn't.

Woman versus man physical aggression is less threatening than the opposite because the man wins that fight 99% of the time. The other 1% ends in a tie that must be decided by lot.

Obviously actual assault isn't funny. Actual.

Straight men can be victims of assault to, and it's not something to laugh about. — Michael

Jelly.

I heard my name, so I'll respond. This girl at work wrote an anonymous post-it note to me and stuck it on my desk. I determined it was her by comparing it to her handwriting after everyone left. It said, "I want to suck your dick til your cum is all over my tongue."

The request was truly unwanted, but I did enjoy the attention, but I'm disappointed it wasn't Baden, and you're jelly.

No go back to enforcing your decency standards in your humorless cubicle where no one sexually expresses themselves in entirely inappropriate ways that ought to lead to immediate termination, but instead ended in me laughing because I have a sense of humor, although it was very fucked up even by my "standards." Know your audience I guess.

Well that's how hypotheticals work. You limit the variables; otherwise everyone just chooses utopia.

If we live in a world that unjustly oppresses to the point where death is better than life, then death is better than life. That's just the way it is. I agree that we ought to fix that screwed up society, but in the meantime, allow the relief valve.

SO the state ought not suport euthanasia as an answer to social issues that have other solutions. — Banno

But this exacts a consequence on the state for the state's bad conduct, yet it's the innocent citizen who's actually punished.

Society A: You are shot dead.
Society B: You are tortured and beaten and forced to watch your loved ones tortured and beaten for the rest of your natural life.
Society C: It offers you the choice of Society A or B.

There is no other society. I'd think C is the most fair. That all Societies are bad is obvious. That all should end all oppression is obvious. To claim, however, that Society C should be forced to eliminate immediate death as an option to teach it the lesson that state assisted suicide ought not be given does nothing for the suffering citizen and it does nothing to correct Society C's behavior.

Assuming informed consent, perhaps yes to all your questions. A state that enforces slavery and further forces the slaves to live in their oppression without the right to die isn't more progressive than one that doesn't. Bizarre hypotheticals no doubt, ignoring the obvious fact that it is the slavery which is the real evil, but it doesn't follow that suicide ought only be permitted when the pain isn't the result of injustice. Pain is pain, whether justly created, the result of prejuduce, or just divine created bad luck, and it's always subjective.

In summary:

The repugnant argument is that state assisted suicide should be permitted for the disabled because life with disabilty is not worth living.

The reasonable argument is that state assisted suicide ought be permitted for those who have reasonably determined life isn't worth living.

The implicit argument is that people ought be reasonably informed of what life with disability is before making a decision about suicide (i.e. informed consent).

Fair?

You're saying I've been hiding? — Wosret

I was told that the whole topic was questionable as philosophy because it was about the soul, and that's fucking ridiculous, you guys have the views of every average high schooler in western culture, if this were 1930s Germany, you'd all be fucking Nazis. You're just echoes for populism and fads, with no substantial knowledge of the history of philosophy. — Wosret

I get you're mad, but I'm pretty sure had I been around in 1930s Germany my fate would have been different than you're suggesting. But, why be literal, which is what this whole debate is over? My understanding from our very lengthy discussions, where I was certainly not hiding from you or hiding behind my lofty status, was that you felt that your writing style was being rejected because it was outside the analytical norm, specifically that it injected personalized experience into the posts without which would make your posts hollow and lacking true meaning. You also questioned the literal/metaphorical distinction, claiming, I believe, all were varying forms of symbolism.

I admit that I might be wrongly or poorly summarizing your position, and, when we talked, I suggested many times that you make this debate not something between a few mods, but that you discuss it publically, considering it's an issue of philosophical value, and who knows, it might be correct. It's also quite possible that your posts are in fact ramblings devoid of value. I do believe, that whatever your posts are, their deletion was based upon an honest evaluation of incoherence and being off-point. I do believe that's a reasonable evaluation a reasonable person could hold, and perhaps a reasonable person could hold otherwise. There has been no malice towards you. I am and we all are truly disappointed that you're saying you want to leave.

However, my issue is not with what you and Hanover said. I'm talking about the moral ambiguity of the consequences of our actions. As the story clearly demonstrates. Any action can be good AND bad in so many different permutations that it's impossible to use it as a principle to guide our actions. Again, you did say that we're only responsible to the extent that an effect is foreseeable. I agree but my point is that the moral consequences of an action are just not foreseeable and so we should, by that reason, give up on consequentialism. — TheMadFool

The "story" cannot be used to demonstrate anything. It's not empirical evidence. It's a made up story. As I said, if the story were an accurate portrayal of the typical course of reality, then we could consider it as evidence of the futility of making any plans for the future due to the absolute unpredictability of it. Fortunately, the story describes an extreme, but not something we should typically expect.

The point of the Taoist story seems to be that there can be no workable moral theory based on consequences no matter how we may try to find one. Consequences are simply beyond our control. — TheMadFool

I didn't read the story as having anything to do with morality or moral theory. I also don't think it's a rejection of science generally, which would follow your same logic since science depends entirely upon reproducible results.

If the fable were an actual representation of a typical course of events, then we'd have really big problems navigating our world, sure. It's not though. It's just a fable. It's not even an actual counter example of an predictable world. It's a made up story.

If you told a rocket scientist he shouldn't expect his rocket to make it to the moon because according to the "maybe" story a gale force wind might divert it, I think he might point out that he makes his predictions on actual prior results and not ancient fables.

I majored in philosophy long ago and then much later I started debating philosophical topics online. One thing that I've noticed about me in contrast to other posters in this thread is that I've found that for each day I've participated in these forums, I've grown stupider. I think that what's happening is that over time everyone moves toward the average, sort of like how long time spouses begin to look like one another over time, and since I was an outlier of intellectual superhero proportions, it was inevitable that I undergo stupidification by remaining present.

There is also little evidence that clinical psychology is at all effective compared to talking with friends, or talking to someone who is pretending to be a psychologist (but does not have a degree). — RepThatMerch22

Do you have a cite for the study you're referencing?

Obviously "soul" carries religious meaning, but the Cartesian mind seems distinct from the body, even if we concede it is composed of the same substance. There does seem something meaningfully distinct in critical ways between rocks and perceptions of rocks.