I'm saying there have been no cognitive therapy successes administered by philosophers.

Why we should be motivated to live another day is a psychological problem, not a philosophical one. No one has ever been persuaded or argued into happiness.

There are no objective criteria. "Objective" doesn't refer to agreement. That confusion occurs because people take agreement to be an upshot of something being objective. And saying that agreement gives weight to something being true or correct is an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station

No, you've just offered an impossible definition of objective, which implies a view from nowhere, where there is no viewpoint of the observer. Unless you're willing to dispense with the entire enterprise of offering awards for literature because at some point the award will represent only the viewpoints of somebody (whoever that may be), then you've got to accept at some level that one artist is better than the other.

If you believe that a 3 year old's babble is as artistic as Dylan's, I do think there is adequate basis for saying that you are wrong. If not, then why not award the 3 year old?

The whole enterprise of categorization of emotions as this that or the other is problematic because there are just far too many exceptions.

As in the Nussbaum quote about anger being the source of payback or wanting to see someone get their comeuppance really sounds more like vengeance. The purpose of law is to exclude emotion from the equation and to offer fairness, which might equate to payback in some form. We consider a good judge to be a tempered one, not one that is fiery and spewing venom. In fact, we'd exclude a potential juror from hearing a case if he expressed hostility. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the sociopathic who can with a calm heart and cold blood commit all sorts of heinous acts, not motivated at all by anger, but simply carrying out their will.

And I'd think that anger is a very good thing in certain contexts, not leading to vengeance, but leading to something productive. The anger over injustice has led plenty to pass laws and start humanitarian organizations for example. Passions can be channeled to good or bad, whether the passion be love, hate, anger or whatever.

It just seems that Nussbaum is criticizing vengeance, which is hardly controversial, although to what extent this tramples on Kant's just desserts is another issue. That is to say, if the justification for giving you your just dessert is out of a respect for your autonomy and choice, then we've arrived at an alternative explanation than simply saying that we're punishing you because we're good and pissed off about it.

I see emotion as just that which moves you to action, thus the root "motion" within it. If we were emotionless we'd be as computers waiting for someone to offer a use for us. And so I'd submit that if anger over injustice moves us to feed the hungry, then it is a good thing, and if love of our country moves us to open fire into a crowd, it is a bad thing.

Catagories schmatagories.

I wish to retain my anonymity, so I won't post a photo of myself, but a picture of me would be an example of a non-douchy philosopher. So you know, I'm a cross between Tom Cruise, Baden's mom, and Satan. Odd yes, douchy no.

I wasn't suggesting that a personal attack on French POMOs was appropriate or suggesting it wasn't properly deleted. I was only suggesting that a consistent application of that standard would have resulted in the deletion of the commentary on the post that deleted it, specifically with regard to the attack on American adolesents.

It was me. It was a serious discussion, so you don't get to twat on about how much you think French intellectuals look like "douches" and how much it upsets you that they smoke pipes. I didn't find your posts funny, and I didn't realize they were meant to be funny. I just thought it was the typical, insufferable, adolescent American shite we have to either put up with or delete, every single day. — jamalrob

I didn't read any part of the thread in question, but I wonder why ridiculing French intellectuals is off limits but ridiculing adolescent Americans isn't.

Rigor yes. One doesn't get the feeling that Morrison spent long hours getting his lyrics just right as you get with Dylan.

Your comments about the subjectivity of aesthetic evaluation go only so far. Obviously Dylan is better than me and I'm better than a 5 year old. While it certainly has a subjective component, there are clearly some objective agreed upon criteria, else the category itself would make no sense. If we can declare certain BBQ and certain beers superior and even the best, surely I can meaningfully say Dylan is superior to Morrison.

Morrison's poetry wasn't very good. It tended toward drug induced rambling, although he was able to create interesting but disjointed imagery. That was at least my assessment and consistent with his persona of a rebellious, anti- establishment, counter culture icon. Had he won the Nobel prize, the objection wouldn't be that he wasn't properly a poet, but it would be that he's just far to weak an artist for consideration.

The fable of the 60s was personified by Morrison and his music, but he is dwarfed by Dylan in talent, rigor, intelligence, and significance.

The biggest disgrace regarding the Nobels was with the peace prize going to Obama the moment he took office and prior to his doing anything. Obama then proceeded to engage in all sorts of wars while in possession of the Peace Prize. The point of giving it to him was to try and dissuade him from continuing fighting various wars and to distinguish him from Bush. Regardless, the award was used for political purposes and it lost significant credibility IMHO.

Regarding Dylan, I'm not sure he's a poet per se, but he's credited with generally elevating popular music to another level. Dylan's music did everything from protesting wars to advocating for civil rights to meaningfully describing the human experience, which was a far advancement of the doo wop era of 50s music. Surely Dylan wasn't the first to do this, but he was one of, if not the most, important person to do that. Why he's being giving the award now is odd, considering his best days are behind him and this appears more to be a lifetime achievement award than in something he's done currently. It might be that those on the Nobel committee are old hippies who now have the authority to promote their favorite son.

Jim Morrison, while on my avatar, is no Dylan. While Dylan represented a headiness and a change in the mindset of American culture, Morrison represented excess and carpe diem ("I woke up this morning and got myself a beer. The future's uncertain and the end is always near."). I'm a huge (and I mean huge) Doors fan, but Dylan runs circles around Morrison any day.

What is interesting is that every conceivable argument against racism, sexism, or homophobia can be applied to speciesism. Appeals to nature are ad hoc assertions that use the naturalistic fallacy. Appeals to divine law either fail to resolve Euthyphro's dilemma or conflict with independent moral intuitions. Might=right arguments are straight up totalitarianism, as are appeals to cognitive abilities or any other sort of "fitness". Speciesism cannot be held up without leading to a slippery slope. — darthbarracuda

The slippery slope is in assuming that because we believe racism, sexism, and homophobia wrong that we cannot discriminate against anything ever. Why can we eat vegetables, use rocks to build buildings, imprison murderers, own pets, kills roaches in our house, etc.? The difference between rocks, roaches, pigs, and people relates to degrees (or lack of) consciousness, ability to comprehend, and intellectual capacity.

Most millionaires I have met have experienced their fair share of failures on their way to the success they enjoy today. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Excellent! I've gotten my failures out of the way and now I'm primed for my millions.

Gamers are stupid.

I found a variety of lovely castles in Edinburgh for sale. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Edinburgh/houses.html/svr/3107;jsessionid=968B82BD29BE271F20BBAE3899EF3229

There actually was one townhouse on the first page that looks fairly reasonable in light of where it was. The prices weren't too dissimilar for what you'd find around where I live, although we have very few castles, considering our lack of kings and princes.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth. — m-theory

That may be the case in the UK, but it's certainly not the case where I live. In fact, when the housing bubble burst, many homes remained unsold. Supply was way beyond demand. I realize that the Atlanta market is not representative of the world. It is likely that European land use regulations limit housing significantly and that is causing the problem.

Populations have been stable though in Europe, so I don't know if that's a major part of the problem.

I can say that housing costs dropped dramatically when the housing bubble burst and there remain large areas where investors bought up homes and turned them into low rent rentals. Low rent housing is not attractive economically for many reasons: poor schools, transient neighbors, high crime, etc. It's not as if people are living in the street for lack of housing, but it's that poor housing sucks and no one wants to live there. It's less a question of finding affordable housing than it is in finding quality affordable housing.

So, at $450 a day average, you're pulling in over $110,000 per year roofing houses. That is an amazing achievement, and something to be proud of. If sister and dad contribute at some point, you'll even be in a better situation.

I know you feel a great obligation for your fam, and that is admirable. I suspect at some point our young and now over-producing Wosret is going to find himself someone special and how extended family fits into this picture will be a challenge, but that's the next chapter of this journey.

So, even if I got a better paid job, the problem wouldn't go away, it would just go away for me - after a successful application, that is. — Sapientia

You do make a valid point here, which is that your resolving your problem won't resolve the overall problem. I will say, though, that a major part of the public assistance problem is that many (maybe you, maybe not) do not do all they can for themselves but instead find public assistance (which would include housing subsidies) an easier way out and a disincentive to self sustain. As I've noted, I have little problem providing for those who truly can't provide for themselves, but once those who really don't need the help start requesting it, everyone suffers because the resource is limited. What then happens is that there are demands that the rich give more, which is certainly something I've read on this board.

And so while I can't resolve THE problem, I do think it's reasonable to resolve the best I can one person at a time, with the understanding that eventually there'll be some that really need aid and then we can deal with them one person at a time.

Problems finding affordable housing usually occur in very high demand areas. Taking Atlanta as an example, if you want to live in the gentrified intown areas or the traditionally high rent areas, you're not going to find affordable housing. There is, though, plenty of affordable housing not terribly far from the city that is on the public transportation system. Of course, what holds for Atlanta does not hold for Manhattan or San Francisco and probably not many European cities that are densely populated and have limited land they're willing to develop. The solution from a free market perspective (which I would advocate) would be to increase supply, which would mean allowing greater development of currently undeveloped land.

The point of this discussion is to discuss why this is, what can be done about it - particularly what the government can do about it - and why this hasn't already been done.

Frequently reported in the news and mentioned on political programs is the severe lack of affordable housing. At least here in the U.K., but I expect it's a similar situation elsewhere as well. In recent years, house building in general reached its lowest level since the 1920s (in 2010, with 112,000 homes being built across England and Wales), and hasn't improved by much since then (in 2015, this increased to 149,000). — Sapientia

It seems the problem is the government, having severely limited the construction of new homes, thus making demand high and supply low and thereby creating increased prices.

The other solution is to get a better job. I know it sounds so American of me, but when there's a problem, how about looking within for the solution instead of asking for help. I'd have sympathy if you had one arm or half a brain, but you're fully intact, fully capable, just unwilling. Take a job that stresses you, annoys you, pains you, challenges you and your reward is a two bedroom apartment as opposed to a one room flat. If you don't want the job I've proposed, at least accept your one room flat as what you earned.

Did anyone here actually grow up with a real father figure in their lives? Doubtful.

I would add as a time for pessimism any ménage à trois involving you, me and Banno. — Baden

I anticipated sleeping. I'm not sure what you had in mind, although your interpretation is very telling.

From a business perspective, neither Paul nor Porat ever made any sense, so I never thought of it as a business at all. To work decades for a $20,000 pay off makes no sense except as a desperate act when in need of a quick payout. Paying $20,000 for a site that was being hung together by donations of money and server space and then trying to pay people to run it also made no sense. Anyone could do the math and realize that the ads wouldn't cover the cost of labor or server space, much less lead to recovery of the initial investment. And, let's be honest, anyone who sees philosophy as a way to make money probably knows little about business or philosophy.

But to those disappointed with the whole episode and who expected a better outcome, I offer you a little hyperbole with this holocaust saying: The pessimists went to America, the optimists to the gas chamber.

Let's buy it back on the cheap.

How do 3 people sleep face to face??...Oh... :-O — Baden

Alright, I sleep on my right shoulder, you on your left shoulder, and Banno face down on top of us with his face wedged in with all three of our noses touching. Please don't put your lips on mine. That would be soooooo gay.

To be fair, I'm not all that young anymore (26). — Question

Good one.

What I'd propose is that we all plan to meet up one day at a central location, somewhere that might have the largest international airport in the world so that it would be accessible to everyone. Coincidentally that would be Hartsfield Jackson airport here in Atlanta. Let me know when you guys will be in town. I have a king sized bed, so I can fit 2, maybe 3. It's not weird as long as you sleep face to face like I insist.

I did point out the Scottish r distinction, but wasn't aware of SW England. How long Scotland will be British is another question.

The greater the isolation, the more variation from the general population. Atlanta accents are usually not terribly different from what you hear on tv, but Macon, Ga accents are. However, even the most worldly have hints of where they're from. Trump sounds like a New Yorker, but not a working class guy from Brooklyn. Hillary, however, has no hint of Arkansas that I can detect. Wosret has no idea what he's talking u-boat when he says Canadians are accent free though.

The "r" pronunciation gives much away. Think the word "car" for example. The mid west r is very hard (carrr), the plantation south r is silent (cah) as is the New England r (caa). The British r is close to the plantation south. The Appalachian south r is harder, although pronounced with a twang (core). Standard English is a lighter r (car). The Scots roll their rs because they're usually drunk.

My cat speaks very proper and controlled, being an aristocat, unlike the alley cats, who purr with such abandon you'd think they were in a drunken orgy.

The standard accent, the one I speak.

I'm in favor of this, but I think we should dictate that the American standard accent be used for all communications so as to not be required to endure the various pompous yet uneducated European accents some are burdened with.

What about China's shit ass space station probably going to fall out of the sky and hit Canada next year! I say world war three is in order. — Wosret

The mounted police going to go to Beijing eh? Do what, apologize for having not provided a comfortable enough landing spot?

think this happens to most people at least a few times in their life, but many years ago in 6th grade i'd occasionally forget how to write certain letters of the alphabet. — Albert Keirkenhaur

That never happened to me. Do recall any specific triggering event that caused the onset of your forgetfulness like being struck by a rock or inhaling noxious fumes?

Part of me actually finds this to be kind of horrifying. — darthbarracuda

You find it horrifying not because you've decided it's horrifying, but you find it horrifying because you're compelled to find it horrifying, just like it hurts when you stub you toe.

Fortunately, I believe in free will, which, according to you, I believe in because I am compelled to. You might try to convince me otherwise, but I would ask that you save yourself the breath because I'm going to believe what I am forced to believe regardless of what you say. But, then again, you're forced to try to convince me regardless. We're all just sort of doing what we must, which includes our having this futile conversation.

And how is what you say different? It's also dogma. Except that you provide no argument for it, and merely expect me to accept it. You strung a sentence together, without any appeal to experience or reason. That's nothing but dogma. — Agustino

You've presented an argument as to what is required for happiness, which is adherence to virtue, which you then define as including adherence to various traditional social norms. You have the burden or proving your case because you made the argument. Your appeal to experience limits the application of your argument to you, considering my experience varies from yours.

Good for you, I'm not disputing it. — Agustino

If your argument is that the abandonment of virtue (as you define it) leads to unhappiness, then my counterexample of someone who has abandoned that virtue yet is not unhappy disproves your argument.

Yes, only that we don't need to measure it in order to know it's hot, which is my point. — Agustino

You can objectively measure heat, not happiness, which is my point, making your analogy of happiness to heat disanalagous.

This I more than disagree with. Virtue is the key to happiness. No that's wrong. Virtue is happiness itself. — Agustino

Again, this is dogma. Obviously if you proclaim virtue the highest of all goods, then those who have the most of it will be the best. The rest of what you say is just mindless repetition of what you've already said: those who adhere to the virtues you find virtuous are the bestess. What constitutes virtue is largely defined by you (like don't watch pornography) and once it falls into that class, you've just got to do it.

That's like saying "I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on being careful to preserve your bodily integrity. People who lose a leg learn from their mistakes and still manage to live good lives" - that's just stupid. — Agustino

Is that stupid or is it stupid to analogize watching pornography with losing a leg?

I only kept in touch with one, who was struggling with a drug addiction last time I spoke with him. He also had some child with a woman he wasn't married to, nor was he in an active relationship with, much less married. So no - I don't think so. — Agustino

And so I know a person who did in fact visit prostitutes when he was young. He has been married for over 20 years and they have a very successful daughter. So what now?

I don't need to show how that is measured for it to be true that I am a better person than I was. Similarly I don't need to tell you how to go about measuring the temperature of the water to know that the water is hot. — Agustino

I'm pretty sure we can measure the temperature of water.

No immoral act is trivial. — Agustino

Your dogmatic premise is what makes much of what you say useless to anyone who doesn't happen to believe as you do. You condemn adultery, pornography, and prostitution as these horrible evils that will destroy your soul, trash your relationships, and cast you out from honorable society. I can't dispute that they might, but I can dispute that they must. People are complex entities, and while I will certainly advise you to never cheat on your spouse, I can't say that people never recover from it and from there live happily ever after. I also think there are plenty of folks who don't have any (and I mean any) ill effect from pornography or prostitution. They go from cradle to grave no more or less happy or fulfilled than the most vice-free person. I would imagine many of your friends who visited prostitutes have married, had kids, remained faithful and every thing else. You can insist your resistance made you a better person, but you'd be at a loss to show how you measure that.

If I were writing a book on how to be fulfilled and satisfied, I wouldn't suggest that lying, cheating, stealing, screwing around, or watching porno was the path to success, but I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on avoiding sexual vice. The truth is that most who engage in sexual behavior that does not lead to happiness simply learn from their mistakes and stop.

People who sin significantly (I mean, real solid sinners) destroy their relationships with others, they cast themselves out of the community if they haven't already been cast out. — Bitter Crank

Amen my brother.

But then you say:

The morally incompetent are not going to suffer much from their sinful behavior. Only the morally competent are able to suffer from sin. — Bitter Crank

I would argue that the apparent malice associated with the deed would increase the sinner's ostracism, but even a clueless sinner is going to find himself cast out, although perhaps he won't understand why.

To take an example opposite and equally silly to your shirt, if I happen to own the whole world, and my property rights are unfettered, then you are in trouble unless I happen to like the cut of your jib. And take your shirt with you on your way out, but don't use any of my launchpads. — unenlightened

The issue then isn't whether there should be property rights generally, but what limitations should be placed on property ownership where others could claim an unfair deprivation of their right to own the property. Your example is not completely far fetched, as it likely was the case at some point in English history I suppose where all the land was owned by a fairly small group of designated landholders. The common man couldn't own land both by law and due to the fact there was no land for sale. It's entirely possible my understanding of ancient English real estate law is wrong, but such a scenario is imaginable.

And so if you look at American law, you'll see what great efforts are made to assure the fair availability of real estate to everyone. It's considered a major violation of one's civil rights to exclude them from owning real estate. The point being that the evil isn't in the deprivation to you by my property ownership, but it's in the complete deprivation to you of owning something similar. It's not unfair you don't get to wear my shirt as long as you get to buy a shirt of your own.

This is the very specific form of libertarianism popular now in the USA, not libertarianism as it has been generally understood — mcdoodle

I know there are all sorts of brands of libertarianism, but the one that seems to cause the greatest objection is the one I referenced and the one I assumed was again be objected to. It's the Randian type. And I'm really not advocating for it, although I suspect there's the assumption I would based upon my generally American/conservative viewpoints. I will fully commit to the virtue of private property ownership though, even if I don't accept libertarianism as I've described it.

The freedom referenced by libertarians is rooted in the right to property ownership. It deals with the right of two people to generally contract to do whatever they want as long as the two consent. I don't know what two people could contract to without reference to some material possession or to its financial value. That is, contracts are about conveyances of things for money generally. If you can't own things, then what is libertarianism at all?

Your reference to "walls and fences" I suppose must be figurative because we're not talking just about real estate and land, but we're questioning the right to property ownership generally. I suppose you can say that you're less free because you can't wear my shirt, but it seems we're both less free if neither can have exclusive rights to our respective shirts. In some academic sense you might claim greater freedom if all things in the world were at the library and free to check out, but in practice it would not be. It's doubtful anyone would produce anything just to have to hand it over to the common good, and, whatever obligations were imposed requiring that we labor to produce for the common good would be what the libertarian means by lack of freedom or coercion.

But, to the particular question of how the libertarian would seek to prove his point that private ownership leads to more freedom, he would likely point to the lack of freedom in nations where private ownership has been forbidden. I'm not suggesting that empirical evidence is necessarily needed for an ideological libertarian (nor for an ideological communist) for them to continue to hold as they do, but I do think there is sufficient empirical evidence for them to credibly argue a link between private ownership and freedom.

This isn't as much a criticism of libertarianism as it is a dismissal of it. I think a libertarian would be content if you acknowledged his views logically flowed if we accepted that property ownership were an inherent right. The fact that you challenge a fundamental premise of libertarianism would likely not bother a libertarian as he would not feel the need to justify a premise that he finds so self evident. This isn't to say he wouldn't rely upon what he considers to be empirical evidence supporting a link between property ownership and the general freedom of the citizenry, but that fundamental attack isn't one I think he'd be terribly worried about.

By analogy, you might get a priest engaged in a debate if you challenged some of the inconsistencies within his belief system, some of which might actually cause him to reconsider some of his theological views. On the other hand, if you presented an outright challenge to the existence of God, I don't think your debate would yield any fruitful results. By the same token, if you admitted to the priest that you believed that all the Catholic theological views logically flowed and were clearly true if there were a god, I think he'd be very content with that admission, even if you then told him that you happened not to believe in God and therefore Catholicism.