I thought Canada would be the first domino, but it turned out to be Germany. How many more? They all have pressure from their own right wing and a common fear of Putin. A Trump-Putin alliance vs The EDu? I don't think Europe wins. I know the earth doesn't. Or the people.
But what we are in even more suspense about is whether JD adheres to the book he endorsed or morphs into yet another incarnation once DJ strokes out. I give him till March (in deference to a self-styled prophet we met in 2016: maybe he had the month right and just misread the year.)

Some days, it's a genuine privilege to be old.

I'm saying people don't vote for it.
…
If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.


People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid. — Bob Ross

That's what I've been trying to tell you: democratic nations don't "take over" other countries to fix those other countries' morality. It would have to be done by either coercing or misleading the people: i.e., by undemocratic means. So, what superior values are you imposing on another non-democratic government?

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? — Bob Ross

Who attacked the Nazi regime just to improve its morals?
And why do you think shifting the subject in every exchange is going to convince anyone of your own moral rectitude?

I've just read an article by masculinity researcher, Richard Reeves, which seems to shed more light on the gender issues. And how the Democrats miscalculated. — Amity

Badly, yes.

But I don't think this:

“There are so many progressive young women who are worried about the mental health of their boyfriend or brother. There are so many progressive women who wanted a party that would support their reproductive rights and do a better job of educating their son.” — Guardian- Young men and the Election

would have helped. The first reaction from the rightward press would be :"Are they calling all young men crazy?" I shudder to think what the Trump campaign would have made of that approach.

Susan Faludi covered this state of affairs it pretty well in her book Stiffed It's been evident for some time that the social, political and financial status of women, especially women of colour, has made rapid and accelerating progress in the last 25 years, while that of men in the same ethnic and class brackets has stagnated or declined. Given where each group was in 1990, the fact that women are still paid less, and what happened on the economic stage, that shows progress toward fairness.
But the affected men don't remember past conditions as wrong, don't experience the present as fair, and don't know enough to place the blame appropriately. (This is largely down to the shift in 'information' media, more than political rhetoric.) It's always easier to direct one's frustration and disappointment at the nearest target than at some billionnaire with the power to move your livelihood to the other side of the world, leave your town destitute and you, dependent on the wife's income.
Of course, there have always been canny political strategists to harness insecurity, frustration, anger and hurt pride. Especially hurt pride.
The single biggest mistake the Harris campaign made was that ad by Julia Roberts: "don't tell him". That was specifically directed against men. Seems many men are less bothered by being called rapists and garbage than the suggestion that their wives lie to them.

Instead of leaning so hard on the women's vote, Harris should have emphasized Biden's job creation and her plans to expand that - more detail in what union jobs will become available with the building program and renewable energy scheme. They should have put more emphasis on workers (that was working for about five minutes) and veterans and revitalizing the industrial base. They might have explained the effect on the productive classes of deregulation, offshoring and tariffs better. They should have come down hard on the 'protect women whether they like it or not' Trumpism, with something like "How dares that pudgy old rich guy take over as protector of your family?"
(They might also have covered border security much more forcefully, but that's not a gender issue.)

Someone is paying the price for 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants in the US, and it isn't the liberal elites. — BC

Nor is it the "conservative" elites. It's convenient that the famous American political amnesia has sainted Reagan and blamed everyone else for the consequences of his policies. It's convenient that nobody asks why so many Latin Americans are fleeing their homelands. Those questions would be far too complicated for the average Trump voter. They'd rather be taxed for thousands of bibles at three times the regular price than not have bibles in their schools.

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. Why not? Because the economic elite isn't running the country for the benefit of workers. It's run for their own benefit. So, workers get fucked over — BC

Well, duh! And the coming deregulations are not going to bring any good jobs to Americans or reduce their rents, gas and food prices - but at least it will eliminate overtime and strikes. I'm sure enough scabs can be rounded up in the concentration camps.

At the time, Nixon was the liberal nightmare, — BC

He still is, to me, despite some of his good policies. His campaign advisors made the little snowball that turned into the Trump presidency and he dropped it in front of George Wallace, who kicked it down the hill.

One of the points Snyder made in a recent NPR appearance was that a number of incumbent governments have been voted out since Covid, the UK, for instance. — BC

Won't make any difference to the next catastrophe.

Firstly, people get told to go to war no matter what in a republic—that’s not unique to my position here. If my country goes to war, then I could legitimately get drafted—are you saying that’s bad too? — Bob Ross

I'm saying people don't vote for it.

Secondly, the idea is that, just like a citizen should want equal rights for their fellow citizens (and to sacrifice potentially for it), so should they with helping people out from another country by taking them over or at least having influence there to help out. — Bob Ross

If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.

What makes you think that? — Bob Ross

Everything he's ever said and done publicly.

So war, for you then, is always impermissible. — Bob Ross

A war of aggression, for me, is always immoral.
I wish you did get it.

Demagogues might often use xenophobic rhetoric to take advantage of the fact that the West's migration policies are deeply unpopular, even among many minority communities at this point. However, the key reason the center and the left's efforts to push back on the ascendent far-right have failed is an absolute inability to countenance major changes or compromises on migration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Changes like sending millions of people to destitution, misery and death is a bit hard to countenance. (Especially since we know that it was the allied powers' actions since WWII, and European imperialism preceding the wars, that cause most of the current displacements).
But that wouldn't be sufficient appeasement for the extreme right: next, they'd have to give the Christian militants control of reproduction, marriage, education, assisted suicide and gender issues. They've pretty well caved on climate mitigation at every summit. Soon, they'd have to start dismantling social services.
Major changes in that directions will come, but through coercion, not compromise.

There’s nothing about a representative republic that prevents this [electing officials on their aggressive foreign policy]; nor why would it? — Bob Ross

Because it would require them to die and sacrifice.

What do you mean by “aggressive”—that’s a very vague term here.

Nothing vague about aggression. One country attacks another - as you propose they should. The population is usually not asked whether it wants to go to war; it's told (often untruthfully) why it should or must go to war.

It’s not that he doesn’t care: it’s that he cares more about America—as it should be. — Bob Ross

Oh, he doesn't care about the US, either. If he's convinced you otherwise, I've overestimated your acuity.

This can be true, but isn’t always the case. I think you are denying my OP on the grounds of practicality, when it was meant in principle. — Bob Ross

I'm rejecting it on all of the grounds I listed in my first post. If your principles cause innocents to be killed or bereaved, I reject your principles.

Do you think there’s a certain point where the Nation would have to use conquest, as a last resort? — Bob Ross

I'll let you know when I've seen the results of the first five resorts. ATM, no.

Like as not, Trump will do little to make life better for workers, — BC

Oh, he'll make it much worse, if he gets the chance.

You are worried about xenophobia; most workers are not. — BC

I'm worried about fascism, which rides in on nationalism, racism and the fear of strangers. Trump didn't say all those horrible things about immigrants just to piss off the liberals; it always got big cheers. He got elected on paranoia and misdirected anger, not for his concepts of a plan to improve health care. And if he puts the migrants in concentration camps (mass deportation is too expensive, even if Venezuela, the only Latin American country Trump knows, wanted them) the price of food will go through the roof.

Democrats have done a great job meeting run-of-the-mill working class needs, plus there's the "basket of deplorables" and "garbage" problem. — BC

Now there is a perfect example of double standards!! Two isolated comments by two unrelated people over 10 years - in reaction to the continuous toxic spewage from Trump and his many mouthpieces. (What, no indictment of the Democrats' response to Covid? Or how they let down the labour unions?)

What I am more afraid of is 4 years of seriously incompetent and corrupt management of the government, and an altogether failing effort to deal with basic problems ike Social Security funding, environmental protection, global warming, health care costs, etc. — BC

You needn't worry too much about incompetence. Chances are, it will be a Vance presidency. He has an agenda. Maybe it's the one laid out in the book, maybe not: nobody knows what the next Vance incarnation believes or wants to do, though we can be sure he'll please as many billionnaires as possible. He'd probably try to keep the Wall Street feeding frenzy going, which doesn't bode well for the working class. We don't know whether he can keep the Inverterbrate Party or its tame judges in lock-step; we don't know whether he has a foreign policy the military can stomach. All we know is, he's sane, smart, utterly uncharismatic and unreadable.
You've got what you've got; you'll cope as you can.

Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism? — ssu

No, I mean the rise of right-wing xenophobia all over the world, to which some nations are more susceptible than others, for reason of their location and/or history. Politically, Poland may be safe for the moment, but those antisemitic, anti-Muslim sentiments haven't gone that far underground - and the refugees keep on coming. Of course, if Putin picks them off one by one - a possibility of which they are all keenly aware, the question of elections becomes moot.

Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny. — ssu

Okay. But keep your eye on your own overridable constitution.

What small countries are you talking about specifically? — ssu

Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria are openly pro-Russian; Poland has a rising pro-Rusian faction, Serbia will probably follow soon. I don't know the current political situation in Albania and Romania, but they're all scared of another wave of refugees: xenophobic parties keep gaining power even France and Germany. And most EU countries now have debt problems. Once Putin's taken Ukraine, they'll be unable and/or unwilling to mount a convincing defence without the support of NATO.

Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems. — ssu

It doesn't matter anymore. The tipping point is passed; global cooperation might have provided some mitigation, which isn't going to happen now. Nor will any effective prevention of the next pandemic.

"Actual good" in war is usually merely things valued from the perspective of the one citing it as a justification for war. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, that. No country invades another country and kills its people for their own good. After the pillage and installation of a governor, the conqueror might bring some of its more advanced technology and introduce its own - sometimes - more efficient admininstrative style ... usually to the detriment of the local culture and class structure; usually with the result of another war for that country's independence.

Do you think members of a government, in representative republics, are self-appointed??? — Bob Ross

As guardians of other countries, yes. Candidates don't run on aggressive foreign policy. The American people have just elected an isolationist president who doesn't give a sweet ff about other countries.

No empire conquers other peoples in order to help them.
- Why not? — Bob Ross

Because:

The US isn’t in a position to be funding external wars right now; that’s why US citizens are fed-up. They have a serious budgeting problem that needs to be fixed. — Bob Ross

conquest is far more expensive than aid, and many representatives oppose even the barely adequate level of aid that might prevent those bad effects you want to march in to remedy.
If the biggest, healthiest (for whatever short time in the future) economy and the biggest, most expensive army in the world can't or won't oppose dictators, who do you think is capable or willing?
Nations go to war when they or their assets are threatened, when they have an obligation to allies, or when they have something to gain.

You don’t think we should try to help oppressed people in other nations?

I absolutely do. By prevention - like, not propping up and arming bad leaders; like not bombing civilians or supplying bombs to those who will; like empowering the common people; like supplying medicine and technology. Not by conquest. That only substitutes a foreign oppressor for a native one.

You are conflating a subset of scenarios with all of them. — Bob Ross

I'm opining that your subset is a pipedream.

Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other. — ssu

Yes. However, things have been changing and will change faster now. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. Also, an alarming surge of xenophobia has been causing ructions, and will get worse. The richer nations will have to keep forking out more for mutual defence - especially if Trump-Vance scuttle NATO, and will be increasingly reluctant to protect states that are failing or turning into enemies.
OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal.
So, it doesn't much matter what they do.

Where does that empower any nation that considers itself superior to the nation in which a wrong is taking place to invade and impose its own values?

You ask everyone what they prefer, without others knowing what they said, granting everyone an equal say. — jorndoe

And this is practicable in a nation of 50 million - how? I assume, first you asked each of the people in your own country whether they supported an intervention half-way around the world. Could take a while....

You didn’t answer the question; and provided, instead, a red herring. — Bob Ross

No, a reality-check. It's the UN's mandate, not any self-appointed guardian's, to organize interventions against genocide, but those morally superior modern western nations are mighty slow to support UN initiatives.
When the morally superior western nations finally did defeat Germany, they didn't prevent the next genocide; they didn't resettle the survivors in their own countries: they took the lands of people they had recruited to their cause and plunked a European population on it, which started 77 years of sporadic carnage.
This 'duty' to fix other peoples tends to be expensive and end very badly.

to your point, many people would be too cowardly to act. — Bob Ross

Or they're too sensible to die for your assessment of The Good.

The way they handled the conquest of abhorrent; because they were not trying to help the people there: — Bob Ross

No empire conquers other peoples in order to help them.

What the OP is referring to by imperialism, is its simple form of a nation having a duty, under such-and-such circumstances, to conquer and impose their values onto another nation (without it being legitimate self-defense or something like that). — Bob Ross

I get that. You're wrong, it's illegitimate, it kills more people than it saves and it doesn't work.

He's a question for you. Now Trump is elected one could make an argument that the US poses a treat to the health of earth's biosphere, as it is one of the biggest polluters and under Trump it also has no intention of doing something about it. Are other countries morally obliged to attack the US in order to prevent further damage to earth's biosphere? — ChatteringMonkey

How about preventing the proposed persecution of liberals, women and immigrants? Nobody's about to intervene on behalf of those threatened minorities. Nobody's even going to aid the protests that will inevitably form. The US will have to play out its own internal drama.

I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. — Lionino

I'm not exactly looking forward to that. In the case of Canada, they probably don't need to invade; they're imposing their 'values' on us through money, propaganda, infiltration and appeals to the meanest, dumbest factions. But at least we get the best of their defectors.
Mexico won't need invading, either; it will be inundated with poor migrants from all over South ans Central America. As per current Western Nationalism.

And let's cast a brief glance at Saudi Arabia.... How are "we" doing there, morally?

Not at all. I am evaluating the justifiability of imperialism via a moral realist theory: I am not saying that every country should just take each other over for any willy-nilly reasons. — Bob Ross

They're not willy-nilly, they're at bad guys. Every imperial aspiration is fed by some self-perceived need, threat, imperative or benevolent wrapping on a greed motive. Your moral justification isn't mine; America's is not Britain's or Russia's. There is no 'objective' realism.

For example, if the Nazis stayed in Germany (in the sense of not invading other countries), then would you say that no country should have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust? — Bob Ross

No country did; most wouldn't even take in refugees. It wasn't until after they themselves felt threatened that the allies confronted Germany. No country is stepping in to stop Russia or Israel today. And stopping a genocide is not equivalent to imposing one's own political system on a non-belligerent nation.

It wouldn’t be blind: it would be operating under policy guidelines; just like the Geneva convention or how the UN tries to enforce universal rights—instead, though, we would actually do something about it when it happens. — Bob Ross

Who "we"? Under what mandate? The UN is a legitimate international organization that is poorly supported by its western members; "we" could only be vigilantes.

Imperialism does not presuppose a dictatorship. It never has and never will. — Bob Ross

You read this in history, or tea leaves? How else do you get the majority of a people to volunteer for extreme hardship and danger, for the purpose of imposing one government's will on another? If you can manipulate people into believing their own country is in danger, yes; otherwise, you have to coerce them. As in Korea and Viet Nam.

The dude was brutal. — Bob Ross

He wasn't alone; the regime was brutal. He reported to Ferdinand II and had the use of soldiers, administrators, overseers and priests sent by the monarch. Is there any record of the common people of Spain or Portugal clamouring to bring civilization to the Americas? D you truly believe they would have voted for the conquests on moral grounds?

I can foresee, as a possibility, a nation which comes up with a better economic system than capitalism; and if that happens then, yes, they should imperialize everyone else — Bob Ross

Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat? It's not easy to see the log in one's own eye. Whenever economic parity is approached, the capitalist nations smother it in its cradle. No such country could survive a single generation, let alone grow powerful enough to threaten other regimes. Even if it wanted to, which fair and decent governments don't.

What do you mean? — Bob Ross

What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess.

You can take over a country with the sole purpose of giving it the gift of democracy and then trying to salvage the culture as much as possible to keep the traditions. — Bob Ross

No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship.

jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression — Vera Mont

is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship. Let's see how Mexico and Canada fare in the next four years.

If the West took over North Korea, e.g., we would not, in all probability, do anything remotely similar to what Columbus did to the Natives. Wouldn’t you agree? — Bob Ross

Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy. You would do to the Natives pretty much what China, Rome and Britain did.

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross

Partly because 'degeneracy' is far more evident in some western countries than in some you consider inferior. If you were serious about promoting democracy, you would work for reform in your own country.
Because western leaders and nearly all of their people lack the drive to conquer. Because 'democratic values' are not robust enough to transplant: democracy survives only where it grows from a unique seed, in conditions appropriate to the climate.
Because it can't be imposed. Imposition is the opposite of democracy.
Because no western nation is powerful enough, no matter how many people it kills, cripples and displaces, no matter how much land it renders uninhabitable, how much of its resources are sacrificed, to attain, let alone maintain, such an empire. No nation is asks a foreigner to relieve it of its own government; even the most unhappy population will fight for its identity.

if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences — Bob Ross

That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason: consequences to the aggressor. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?

Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical)

That's the inevitable destination: jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression and/or civil war.

What the EU should do is all of the above. What it probably will do is fall apart.

The dominant theory governing the workings of the individual is called, rational-self-interest. — Shawn

Can rational self-interest account for religious zealotry, patriotism or racism?
If you separate the economic arrangements of a society from its world-view, social structure and moral foundations, you end up with the fragment of a picture and no understanding.

Thanks. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when....

Where does he say that? — Ludwig V

Oh, dear - again? Didn't I link the correspondence. You can read the fifth meditation, if you like. It's exceeding tedious in describing the heart and circulation, but does explicitly recommend the reader to witness it in 'any large animal'. There's a lot of guff about the soul and reason and why animals don't have those things: because they don't speak French.

Are we including fair and balanced as well? — Ludwig V

You mean like Trump(except we have to sanewash him)=Harris(except we set the bar higher)? I don't think so.

Why do you think we perceive things so differently? — Athena

Many reasons. Temperament, upbringing, self-interest, culture.

Some of us are horrified by animal and human brutality and others are not. — Athena

And some order it and always find many to carry it out.
You just don't see that in prairie dog society.

All animals are less civilized and rational. — Athena

I respectfully disagree.

No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights. — Athena

Or exemption from the gas chamber if there are more of them than we like. I know. But then we don't treat our fellow humans any better.

It would take an angel to be on the right side of every debate at the same time. But then, you have high standards, it would seem. — Ludwig V

And that's a bad thing? It didn't take any angels to establish animal protection laws - just a lot of determined ordinary people, with ordinary IQ's and no individual influence. I didn't ask him to be on the right side of every debate; I do blame him for endorsing one particularly horrific practice.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of everything his followers did — Ludwig V

In the face of the vigorous philosophical arguments he made supporting the clockwork idea, approval would seem the least of his complicity. Probably, most of the inquisitors didn't personally heat the pincers, but they understood the use of hot pincers and published theological justification for their use.

That sounds rather hard on people. — Ludwig V

Why?
[Surely, if I'm exposed to some evidence for an idea, but there's not enough evidence to justify believing it, I am right to reject it, [/quote] Without consideration, or further inquiry? Well, I just hope you're not an antivaxer. I've encountered a few intelligent posters who keep insisting that we go back to original research, because there's just not enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. I do think that's willful ignorance. It's their loss; I don't punish them for it. I probably do the same regarding subjects I don't care about.

In any case, there isn't enough time to live a life and think carefully about everything we need to know. — Ludwig V

Ignoring what you need to know will cause errors, maybe serious ones, in your life. We all make some bad judgments because we didn't think things through. But, sure, you choose to learn what matters to you. And then you lie about some things you know when lying serves a purpose that matters to you. That's all rational thinking.

Nonetheless, deliberately leading someone to believe something that you know to be false is generally disapproved of. — Ludwig V

Not by all the parents who tell their children about Santa Claus! I think their story is silly, too readily exploitable, not thoroughly considered - but their motives are benign. Nor all the spy agencies in the world, convinced that they are defending their country and its values.
It depends on why you're doing it: to protect potential victims, or to benefit from the deception - from laudable to trivial to reprehensible.

So forgiveness becomes important, to prevent pursuit of the good turning into the tyranny of perfection. — Ludwig V

Sure. But let's try to be accurate in our observations and honest in our assessment.
It's for their God, not me, to absolve them for their motives or toss them into The Pit for their crimes.

Societies swing. Some things get worse and worse until people unite to change what is causing things to get worse. This is the fun of life. We have problems to resolve. — Athena

The dying planet won't wait for us to swing around like a leaking oil tanker.

That is the bottom line of this thread. The differences between animals and humans, and why we are not as civilized as educated people used to be. — Athena

Have you looked at any newspaper headlines lately?
Which animals are less civilized and rational than humans?

But then, there is a difficulty about the intersection of rationality with morality. — Ludwig V

I do believe - sincerely - that they do not conflict. Any more than a pencil and brush in an artist's satchel, or a hammer and pliers in a carpenter's toolbox. Our mental equipment includes a great many tools that are separate one from another. When I say something is rational, I mean that it is based on observed or assumed fact and is aimed at solving a problem or achieving a goal. There is no value judgment here of the worthiness of the goal or the cause of the problem. Whether it's aimed at a better cancer treatment or a more effective weapon of mass destruction, the thought process is rational.

I believe it is the case that Descartes never indulged in the vicious torture of nailing animals to planks, but that some students who followed Descartes did. — Ludwig V

I don't know whether he did it or only defended the prevailing practice. It doesn't matter now. It mattered when the prevailing practice was questioned, opposed, justified on philosophical grounds and therefore continued. In this, he was greatly influential.
The rational component of that justification is the aim of gaining more knowledge of physiology*. The moral component - if there is one in your world-view - is wilful disregard of the pain caused.
*If a person truly believes that the mechanical dog and feeling man are of different kinds, why would he consider the physiology of dogs useful in understanding how humans work? Does it matter that the vast majority of humans do not philosophize and some cannot speak? In fact, the doctors dissected executed people in the same lecture hall as the vivisection lessons. They were not legally permitted to study live humans, so they went to the next best thing. Can you possibly imagine none of these intelligent men knew what the screaming signified?
I never understood why you introduced the moral component.

So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name — Ludwig V

There is no need to conflate those ideas. Obviously, stating one's belief is not lying. It only becomes so if one is exposed to the truth and rejects it. Making oneself believe what isn't true is lying to oneself, whether it's said to anyone else or not. Nobody believes falsehoods through simple carelessness, though they may repeat what they've heard because they don't care enough to reflect. That may be trivial or criminal, depending on the falsehood and its effect on the world.
But why is lying a immoral? There are many reasons to lie, some of them laudable, some despicable. There are also many styles and standards morality; what one culture or individual applauds, another may despise. I don't believe there has ever been a sane adult in the world who is or was morally pure, or entirely truthful or altogether devoid of hypocrisy. None of our heroes and role models are so much more perfect than we are.
Why is that a problem?

Well, if you said that Galileo was a hypocrite, I would agree on the basis that it was, technically, but justified on the basis that being tortured or burnt at the stake was an unreasonable price to pay for following a purely academic line of research and so lying was a rational way to get out of his situation, — Ludwig V

Of course it was. Wouldn't you? Joan of Arc was crazy; Giordano Bruno was an ideologue. Most of us normal people practice some degree of hypocrisy, simply to get by, and more to get along.

even though, if you are a Kantian, lying is always wrong. — Ludwig V

I'm not, and that's a ridiculous, unrealistic position. Also, in many case, immoral.

Descartes' case is much less clear. — Ludwig V

He learned a lesson from other men's examples. He was smarter than most of his contemporaries - smarter than Galileo who seems to have considered himself the smartest man alive.

Descartes isn't quite in that bracket because he frames his doubt as "merely" theoretical. — Ludwig V

That doesn't persuade me of his sincerity. If it persuades you, all's well.

However, his critique is milder than yours, in my book. — Ludwig V

Yes. He was encumbered by the 'soul' issue; I'm not.

I would expect, however that Cudworth did not think that animals had souls — Ludwig V

That's just how he did justify the moral position held by a minority of thinkers at the time that it's wrong to torture animals.

But Cudworth didn’t think that the similarity between man and beast was purely biologically based, as most of us would argue today. Instead, Cudworth argued that animals, like humans, have souls.

Descartes also preferred to replace "vivisection/torture" with "killing and eating" in the moral argument. It's way more acceptable to defend throwing chunks of beef in a pot than dislocating a dog's shoulders and hips, then nailing his paws to a plank and slitting his belly open, all the while he's screaming in agony. Most people who object to torture (then and now) do not object to killing enemies in war, or eating humanely-killed flesh. Most people in the argument do not draw the moral line at possession of a soul or human language (though some philosophers still do) but at deliberate infliction of pain on a sentient being, for whatever reason. Let's shift those posts back to the real issue.
Of which vivisection was an offshoot. It does demonstrate hypocrisy: he could maintain - paraphrased by the French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche - that animals “eat without pleasure, cry without pain, grow without knowing it; they desire nothing, fear nothing, know nothing.” and yet take Monsieur Grat for a walk, fully expecting that the dog would not shit on his rug, expecting him to obey commands and and appreciate treats.
But it's the God argument I originally mentioned.
Had he been entirely honest in that meditation, he would have questioned all beliefs, rather than making the church's case. Theoretically. Funny, how it all works out, innit?
I never blamed him for that hypocrisy: it was the rational choice.

That God/soul problem persisted in all philosophical arguments as long as the HRC held Europe in its grip. After the Reformation, thinking became a little more free and diverse, even though most Protestant sects were also intolerant of agnostic ideas - but at least they didn't have an Inquisition to cow their own congregants into silence. A couple of them still persecuted witches and expelled heretics, but they were less dangerous than the unchecked (and profoundly corrupt) Catholic church.

There's not way of knowing, and consequently no evidence that it was just a matter of convenience. — Ludwig V

Convenience was my guess. You have other choices: absolute conviction in the teeth of all evidence, willful self-delusion, subconscious delusion, fear of prosecution, sadistic monster.... More if you can find them. But I still don't understand why you want to, when it's independent of the serendipitous discovery of God (....the majority of whose creatures are nothing but noisy machines. Pretty damn disrespectful of the Creator for a devout Christian - but that, too, is beside the point.) All humans compartmentalize their beliefs and attitudes. There are no sane, intelligent, totally honest humans.

Procrastination is the result of internal conflict, and hence of a divided mind. If I am single minded, there can be no conflict; I am doing what I am doing, wholeheartedly. — unenlightened

Yes, exactly that! And it's unwinnable: if you force yourself to do what needs doing, you resent the process; if someone else has to do it, you feel guilty and obliged; if it doesn't get done tonight, it will be waiting for you in the cold light of morning.
Every minute you're aware of procrastinating, your Inner Critic is either actively chiding or quietly stockpiling blame.
One approach is to consider all possible options and deliberately, purposefully choose the least objectionable path. The fact of being purposeful already gives your mood a lift: See, Inner Critic, I'm in control again.
Another approach

I tend to trust procrastination. It's happening for a reason. — frank

is to figure out the reason. Most common: the task is unpleasant. (Like neglected leftovers in the fridge, it will only become more unpleasant with putting-off.) Also common: creative block. That, you have to wait out, confident in the knowledge that the whole time you're distracting yourself with solitaire, the kitten or You Tube, the little wheels somewhere deep in your brain are turning furiously: the story or design or shape of a nose will come into focus when it's ready. (That's hard with a deadline; you have to find more energetic distractions, like racket ball or tossing a frisbee for someone's dog.)

Although, sometimes finishing what I started is a toughy. I can reward myself for getting shit done...like I won't eat lunch until x is finished.

Setting goals and rewards is sometimes a viable strategy. It may help to divide a daunting project into more manageable portions. After I've removed all the stakes and binding from the tomato bins, I can have a snack and watch a tv show. Then I'll pull all the dead tomato plants and carry them out to the compost. That will get me to dinner time. Tomorrow, I'll turn the soil and cover the bins.
At least, that's the plan. I haven't put on my shoes yet and I'm already tired. Still, it must get done before the snow flies (like, tonight?)

I actually agree about the suffering. It's just that I doubt that he and his colleagues made much practical difference. It's not as if animal welfare has ever been a moral issue before our time. — Ludwig V

It was a moral issue in Descartes' time.

The response to Descartes I want to look at here though, is not modern. It belongs to a now little-known philosopher called Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688), a younger contemporary of Descartes. Cudworth was an Anglican theologian, a keen Classicist, and for most of his career, Cambridge University’s Professor of Hebrew. Along with the aforementioned Henry More, he was a leading member of a group of philosophers known as the Cambridge Platonists, who promoted the relevance of Platonic philosophy to contemporary life and thought. Although he agreed with Descartes on many things, Cudworth thought (as did More) that Descartes’ view of animals as mindless machines was implausible.

He defended his entrenched mechanistic position in many arguments. His main theme was: They have no souls; therefore they feel neither pleasure nor pain. But admitted that they can exhibit "passions".... The guy had a dog in his house. Was he unable to see the dog's responses as being like his own, or he did he choose to ignore the similarity because it wasn't convenient? Remember, this is not a stupid man; he's defending a theory - at least in public.

It would prefer "after supposedly ridding himself of all learned beliefs". — Ludwig V

I was skeptical, too. But it's what he claimed as the object of the exercise: get to the truth by doubting everything he'd ever been taught or believed. (Except that.)
Why are you going on out on a plausibility limb to defend a hypocrisy that can't be sanctioned or punished at this late date? It served his purpose, so that was the rational path.

Inflation is caused by a number of interacting factors, money supply being only one of them. Your understanding of it is at least as solid as Trump's. Anyway, he does want to raise taxes on poor people who shop at Walmart, by imposing high tariffs on goods imported from China. Then raise the price of food by deporting the low-paid migrant workers who harvest and pack most of it. Of course, both of those measures will increase inflation, but closing the schools will put a whole new generation of cheap labour on the market. Eliminating Medicare will cover the huge tax breaks for his rich donors. Musk won't have to peddle his sperm to make ends meet.

You seem to really have it in for Descartes. He is iconic and takes a lot of stick. — Ludwig V

In for? You mean judge him as I would any mortal making his way in the real world? Okay, I do hate what he and his cohort did to our relationship with nature and other species, the two hundred years of suffering they inflicted on helpless animals. He's not responsible for that; he's just a participant who was clever enough to make himself an icon. My insignificant opinion won't deter any of his fans.

But we were not talking about that. I was referring to his very sensible use of God to avoid confrontation with the Inquisition. Spending time in the more tolerant Netherlands was a smart move, too. Icons are for the faithful. I have no faiths. But I would have pretended whatever was required if the inquisitors had their eye on me; I certainly don't fault anyone for doing it, and if they're clever enough, turning it to their own advantage.

But he wasn't the one who invented God, or even the argument he used to argue for the reality of that God. — Ludwig V

He just pretended to rediscover it after ridding himself of all learned beliefs. It was merely an example of rational thinking not subjugated to truth.

The difference between the two is that Galileo pretended to accept that his theory was an erroneous hypothesis when he believed that it was a true account and while Descartes never pretended that his scepticism was more than a possibility; he was exploring it n order to refute it. — Ludwig V

Of course, Galileo was both right and wrong. He endorsed the Copernican system (Copernicus himself was rational enough not to publish in his lifetime) and rejected the far more accurate Keplerian system.
Descartes God was a creative invention, just like his clockwork world. It's easy to play back-and-dorth with fiction; take no principles at all.

My personal belief is that knowledge is a form of "memory" encoded in the brain, more specifically the hippocampus. — Shawn

Of course knowledge is stored in memory. There are only two forms of memory: short- and long-term. The short term memory is information. If it's used right away - like a postal code or sale price - it's discarded immediately after; you cannot recall what cantaloupes cost in August, 2004. But if your Grade 4 teacher was any good, you remember the 9X table. That's knowledge in long-term memory.

But that knowledge consists of all kinds of things. The name of your pets, of doughnuts, constellations, dead movie stars, cars, sporting events, chemical elements, philosophers, restaurants; how to park uphill, what pie charts mean, what a jerk your boss is, how hot sand feels on your soles, that you shouldn't wear white after Labour Day, how much to tip a cab driver, the taste of mashed potatoes, what never to say to your significant other unless you want a fight.... Knowledge is all the useful and precious and unwelcome clutter in your memory. There is no index or handy catalogue: you have only a vague idea what-all is in there; half of it is only available when you're deeply asleep.
Of course every scrap of knowledge contributes to your identity. You grow with each experience, with every fact you learn, with every skill you acquire.
The down-side is, when you forget things, your identity diminishes.

what does the reader think about the quote from Wittgenstein and the role of education and learning on the development of the person or individual in terms of their psychology and "identity"? — Shawn

Education is just another part of life. If it's formal, you learn conformity, discipline, compartmentalization of subject matter, some social skills, a respect for or resentment of authority, depending on your school(s). You also learn many things that may be useful through your whole life and many others that you need only until the exams are done. You won't always know which is which until thirty years later when you discover you can correct the rival who misquotes Hamlets' soliloquy or you need to make a tent out of a canvas sheet. Aside from the influence of the school environment on your attitudes, education is just more stuff deposited in the memory banks. If it's informal, education is simply instruction and experience. Whatever environment it takes place in will influence your attitudes.

All experience adds to identity.

BTW, I've heard people commenting on Descartes' personal moral stance before, but I've never quite understood what the problem is. — Ludwig V

No problem. After Galileo had his little confrontation with the good fathers - and quite rationally stood down from his heretical belief in the Earth moving around the sun - every thinker in Europe had some difficult moments rethinking their strategy. So Descartes has his big truth-seeking exercise: purges his mind of all beliefs, everything he's ever been taught, delves way down in there for one incontrovertible fact and comes up with "I exist" OK... "But wait, here's another incontrovertible truth: God. Didn't learn about God; it wasn't a belief: I just happened to find Him in here at the bottom of my completely empty mind. And now, I shall proceed to unfold my theory of a mechanistic universe, only God's winding all the clockwork animals. Oh, and people are a mechanistic body with a completely independent, immaterial soul.
Are you convinced of his sincerity?

You can't be moral when you're dead - so you compromise to stay alive. That's rational. The same person who made that compromise might still be honest with his friends, faithful to his wife, accurate in his court testimony, prompt in the payment of his debts and play a clean game of billiards.
Why insist that anyone be pure in both thinking and probity? That's just not human. The insides of our heads are never swept clean like Descartes imagined that one time.

That is something we can change. We may not do so before destroying our planet and making our present civilizations impossible, but I do believe we can make better decisions. — Athena

Like you said: hundreds of years for this, decades for that.... Have you noticed what's happening in the US election? We simply ran out of time. What's the point of 'making better choices' when everyone left on the planet is fighting over the last habitable acre?

But then he would be guilty of hypocrisy. — Ludwig V

I don't know about that, which is why I said 'might'. I do know Descartes was. I was only interested in the rationality of their thought, whatever the rationale - not in whether they actually believed in the product.
I'm not assessing people or judging their morals or psychoanalyzing them: I'm only concerned with whether the thought process being exhibited is rational or irrational. Without accusing anyone specific of lying, it is very often the most rational approach to a situation; a lunatic can shout out what he really thinks and feels, if he's heedless of the consequences.

Rational thought is less often used in the service of Truth than in achieving goals. — Vera Mont

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Practical reason is inherently morally ambiguous; a bad actor can be entirely rational. — Ludwig V

Again, I'm not concerned with anyone's morality. I'm concerned with judging whether a thought process is rational or irrational. If it achieves a discernible goal, opens a gate, invents a helicopter, evades a predator, earns you a promotion, liberates the cookies from the box, it's rational thought, whatever motivated the goal, whatever tactics were employed.

It is only theoretical reason that is in the service of truth.

Both require facts which are true. If one's goal is to discover some particular truth, like who broke into the Watergate, or whether Christine has been unfaithful, or how magnetism and electricity interact, or how many marbles will raise the water level so you can reach the treat, it's still goal-oriented thought. I don't believe there such a thing as a great big all-encompassing Truth to which you can apply rational thought. You can think quite a lot about how to talk about Truth, but you can't comprehend it with reason; the Truth is too abstract to capture with anything but faith. (Not saying definitively that It isn't 'out there'; only that I can't believe in it.)

But there it can be very hard to tell which of them has really put their finger on an actual wrong, as opposed to a perceived wrong. — Ludwig V

Of course. My point was only that social injustices were always perceived by some people, even against an overwhelming cultural norm.
You can only judge according to your own values. If you assume that enslaving people is wrong and somebody in 400BCE spoke up against it, you're likely to think he perceived correctly. If you think people should be equal under the law, you'll probably disagree with the perception of legislators who blocked women's and Chinese immigrants' voting rights. Whether you think they were/are right or wrong, these actions are rational. The perceived/actual grievances of Maga cultists would be very difficult to sort out, but we could each do it, given a comprehensive list to compare with our own convictions. (but I can't drink hard liquor anymore)