I thought about putting this in the 'deep' section, but maybe it's only me... I just love how Danny Elfman can bash both sides at the same time.




There's nothing wrong with the capitalism
There's nothing wrong with free enterprise
Don't try to make me feel guilty
I'm so tired of hearing you cry
There's nothing wrong with making some profit
If you ask me, I'll say it's just fine
There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice
I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution
Or bringin' down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby?!

If it ain't one thing
Then it's the other
Any cause that crosses your path
Your heart bleeds for anyone's brother
I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass
You criticize with plenty of vigor
You rationalize everything that you do
With catchy phrases and heavy quotations
And everybody is crazy but you

You're just a middle class, socialist brat
From a suburban family and you never really had to work
And you tell me that you've got to get back
To the struggling masses (whoever they are)
You talk, talk, talk about the suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell do you know about suffering and pain, you dumb fuck?

:up: :100:

From the band who gave me my user name...




The last balloon is leaving
The last balloon from fear
The last balloon is leaving
Form that line right here

Climb aboard, climb aboard, you menfolk
You won't need any bombs or knives
Climb aboard, climb aboard, you menfolk
Leave all that to your former lives
Drop it all

The last balloon is leaving
The last balloon of all
The last balloon is leaving
Undress, discard, let fall

Climb aboard, climb aboard, you women
You won't need any gems or furs
Climb aboard, climb aboard, you women
Leave all that to the bad old years
Drop it all

The last balloon is leaving
The last balloon, they'll fly
The last balloon is leaving
And we won't qualify

Climb aboard, climb aboard, you children
Move aloft while your fleet and fast
Climb aboard, climb aboard, you children
We're weighed down by our evil past

Drop us all, you should drop us all
Drop us all and free your hand
Drop us all, you should drop us all
Drop us all like so much sand

Music I played to death as a youth... that pissed off my sister and she'd leave me alone. At the time that made it work for me twice as well as hoped. ;)

I also find this conversation interesting. — David Mo

Good to hear, as it's usually just me.

When I speak of dependency in the society in which we live, it is of two orders: economic dependency and physical-psychological dependency. — David Mo

OK... I can work with that in this context.

Both converge in the inability to carry out productive, paid jobs. — David Mo

What if one has reached a point that a paid job is unnecessary, as one has a lifestyle that one can afford in proportional to the amount of accumulated resources over time?

Naturally, the limits of dependency are imprecise and conventional. It cannot be otherwise. Like so many other things in our lives. For example, in the society in which we live, household work is productive but unpaid. This includes domestic work - usually covered by women even in 'advanced' societies such as France or Germany - and grandparents caring for grandchildren (it is very common in certain societies and in times of pandemic). — David Mo

I would add to this younger folks caring for the older folks... also unpaid, but still of a value.

The economics here is of the commodity is time instead of currency. As the older have cared in the past for the younger, there seems to be an open 'debt'.

Perhaps an issue here to ponder might be 'is currency the only commodity of value that matters'?

Young people have a special status (they are useful even if they are not in paid work) because they represent a medium-term investment. In the same way that a company can pay for some advanced English courses for its executives to improve their performance. Naturally, investing in young people is an overall investment that starts with compulsory education. There is no guarantee that it will be profitable in all cases, but in general. — David Mo

What a beautifully (horrific) accurate depiction of the current American education system. It not only reduces young people to commodities it controls them and directs the limits their 'unlimited freedoms'.

(On a side note... I find it a point of (evil) genius in 'neo-capitalist utilitarianism' as to why the wealthy elite will fight tooth and nail against free college is that starting off workers with enormous debt is the greatest innovation that 'neo-capitalist utilitarianism' ever came up with resulting in a möbius of freedom where the youth have the absolute freedom to comply. WOW!)

As you say, this is a utilitarian vision of social values. But not just any kind of utilitarianism, but a neo-capitalist (or capitalist, just like that) utilitarianism. We can call it mercantilism. — David Mo

This is a very good insight, one I rarely see.

In the USA there is a near cult of Utilitarianism centered around such a mercantilism, often sighting authorities such as Adam Smith... who oddly enough was one of the strongest critics of mercantilism, but was one of the thinkers to 'coin' the term mercantilism, more as a 'pejorative term'.... who viewed this form of economics as a sort of 'rent-seeking', basically meaning they were only seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.

Anyway...

I often wonder if when this sort of 'mercantilism' is coupled with a notion of meritocracy in the context of a metaphysical worldview (a notion where success is not only earned, but deserved - perhaps by the grace of a higher authority, which on the surface sounds great until one realizes the implication of failure also being deserved - perhaps by the damnation of a higher authority) isn't a part of this 'cause' that may indeed need treatment?

If this were indeed the case, why would such a notion of 'earned/deserved' not bleed over to health issues... making illness also earned/deserved?

Jumping ahead of myself...

This might also shed a bit of light upon why in such a system that instead of healthcare services one has a healthcare industry, but I believe I need to think this one through a bit more to even make this vague notion in to a base hypothesis.

Its main consequence is that it is favouring an exacerbated individualism which goes very well for business - for some - but provokes fractures and social violence against those who are considered "parasites" of society. And this is where the perspectives differ. For capital investors in a society, the workers who do not produce what they want are left over. For young sharks, grandparents are out of place. For the fathers of large families, single mothers are a hindrance. Etc. — David Mo

Agreed!

I also believe that business has been actively marketing nostalgia.

They create the 'new' that causes disenchantment among those who cannot adapt or comply, so business begins to market a 'new nostalgia' to sell to those who are left out of the cycle. Oddly enough... even for the 'parasites', 'those out of place' and 'the hindrance', they have a new 'flavour' ready and thus continue the cycle... in spite of notions of being outside the cycle, as they sell those notions as well.

It reminds me of this:



Mercantilism has come a long way.

Compassion and solidarity are banished to new normality. The triumph of the will of power sounds more than with fascism. Maybe we could talk about a new democratic fascism. Reality is full of such oxymorons. — David Mo

Indeed.

I have had major issues dealing with political movements, as it seem all too often that the exacerbated individualism of the self-assumed conservative and self-assumed liberal don't exactly run on a flat line in opposite polarity, but rather, much like the horizon of the earth, run in a slight curve difficult to perceive with the naked eye.

At times the polarities have gone so far apart from one another they they are being rejoined as the curve closes it's circumference. I look at protests where both the 'hard right' and the 'hard left' find a single point of affinity and focus in a myopic fashion demanding the elimination of a single point of perceived authority. Where it seems like a movement of unity it breaks apart very quickly, as neither side has an answer to replace that point (unjustified?) authority they wish to eliminate and forgetting that they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum; thus the only accord can be dis-accord as other political agendas and messages suddenly are introduced. (examples like: Mouvement des gilets jaunes - 'yellow vests' - beginning in France and now international and Querdenken - a movement in Germany and Austria meaning 'outside the box')

Anyway...

I always wished to categorize myself as being somewhat apolitical, but that sort of position seems no longer and option. It seems as if every statement uttered, even if the statement is one of indecision will be labeled by a respective grouping a political in some manner or another.

Marketing has done quite a good job in killing off dialog, as disagreeing has been marketed as 'your a hater', 'your a loser' or 'failed'.

The topic of democratic fascism is very intriguing... be it MAGA, WOKE, Bernie Bros, AfD, Extinction Rebellion even Friday's for Future...

...oxymorons are so abundant and currently the norm.

I know this is largely off-topic, but hey... it's your thread. Run with it as you will... as the nice part of this is no matter in which direction it runs a mature dialog is rare.

Funny thing here is that we totally agree, yet differ in many aspects. Quite curious...
— Mayor of Simpleton

Well, then we don't agree on everything. Fortunately. — David Mo

;)

What was my contribution and value to the greater good of humanity?'
— Mayor of Simpleton

Producing things that are now worth money, a mercantilist would say. What could we say against such an implacable logic? — David Mo

Well... in the context of that logic, probably nothing.

I would only suggest that mercantilist indeed 'knows' the monetary value of everything, but that's all it knows. To any value beyond monetary value, the mercantilist in living in complete and utter poverty, but that would be also of no value to them, so I leave them alone as why bother with saying to them:

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

... unless they can count the money collected for the tickets sales of this performance.

But maybe I'd say this (then watch them walk away, as if they wasted their time with me):

“I've never done a single thing I've wanted to in my whole life! I don't know's I've accomplished anything except just get along. I figure out I've made about a quarter of an inch out of a possible hundred rods. Well, maybe you'll carry things on further. I don't know. But I do get a kind of sneaking pleasure of the fact that you knew what you wanted to do and did it. Well, those folks in there will try to bully you, and tame you down. Tell 'em to go to the devil. I'll back you. Take your factory job, if you want to. Don't be scared of the family. No, nor all of Zenith. Nor of yourself, the way I've been. Go ahead, old man! The world if yours!”

— Babbit

I don't think so. Old age means a stiffening of neural connections. How can it mean "wisdom"? It seems contradictory. The myth of the "wisdom" of the elderly rests on a strict patriarchal society that has not existed for a long time. The value of the elderly has plummeted in societies with dismembered families. Including the new Chinese or Korean societies.

I believe that those of us who still value the elderly do so in the name of emotional values. But this kind of value is in disuse in our society of advanced capitalism. We should look at why.

I don't think "rational selfishness", Ayn Rand, etc. are the causes, but the ultimate symptoms of a social illness. — David Mo

Funny thing here is that we totally agree, yet differ in many aspects. Quite curious...

I'm curious as to what you see the cause(s) for this shift might well be.

I have a few ideas as to where that might be coming from and why it has lead to a perspective of 'youth worship' and economics as the foundations of morals. As I see it this far predates Rand and her exploiting a wound that already existed (in the USA, as outside of the USA no one knows who the hell she is... I view that as a good thing myself).

As any good medical practitioner would say... 'allow the symptoms to guide you, but in the end treat to cause'.

What are the causes?
(btw... I never take criticism of political, religious or social issues personally, so there's no need for a 'courtesy bias'. This is a very good exchange of ideas, it's very helpful. Even if we don't quite agree (or in the end agree), this is really nice. Thank you!)

We have seen this perfectly when in the current pandemic crisis measures to prevent deaths (of mostly old people) were confronted with the "economy".
Therefore, we could say that the date set to consider someone an old man - with all the indetermination you want - starts around the end of their productive activity. And he is definitely considered old when he needs to become physically dependent on others. — David Mo

This is very interesting.

Question that immediate hit me are:

- How do we define productivity?

- At what point can we consider a youth to be productive?

I don't mean her/his assumed potential productivity, but the current active productivity.

Another question:

How do we define dependency?

The point here might well be, the youth are as dependent upon others (parents and community - not only in terms of economic and physical dependency, but also for education) and we are only speculating there is a potential of productivity.

As to the older folks, we are only speculating that they cannot have any more or drastically reduced active (or potential) productivity. Also there is an assumption that their current rate of 'productivity' out weighs their age (so to say); any current or past contributions (measured and not measured) justify the value of their existence (possibly placing the continuation of this existence into question).

- Does older age imply uselessness?
- Does youth imply usefulness?

That's a rather strange Utilitarian issue, but the implication seem to be there at the moment. Someone needs to ask the question, so why not ask it myself?

In terms of 'economics'... wow... that's also a question of how one calculates the math and creates priorities of value.

Indeed younger folks might have more potential value for some things, as in potential length of time in the market place working due to a longer life expectancy or better health leading to more strength or endurance in general - but not absolutely the case), but they do result in a much larger 'carbon foot' print and as the free market expands and the 'spice flows'. There is no indication that this carbon foot print will decrease, in spite of token measures being applied for the sake of publicity; thus making them, the youth... in terms of 'environmental economics' ... the worst thing possible. Long story short... there is not great negative impact upon the earth than having children.

This isn't really my position on the 'environmental economic' issue, but there are very strong empirical arguments to support this claim. What if we'd measure these economic factors according to this standard rather than the current American Objectivism and the Neoliberal turbo-capitalism perspective?

- How do we wish to determine usefulness?

Perhaps it's just me, but to quote Saul Williams:

"I’m tired of buying into ideas that divorce me from my potential. I’m tired of having my potential explained in terms of money."

Then there's this:




'My name is Vincent.

I tried to get into University and failed.
I tried to help the impoverished and failed.
I tried to communicate my inner being to my family and friends and failed.
I tried to paint and fail to ever sell a painting.

What was my contribution and value to the greater good of humanity?'

To apply logic doesn't one need premises?

Aren't premises the content from which one works with (like the raw materials to build something) by applying logic (using tools to work with that material) and eventually have deduced conclusions.

Looking at these conclusions, well... they are really just restatements and repackaging of the content contained in the premises. While the conclusions may look new to us, probably because we hadn't thought through the logic, but they contain no more than the information contained in the premises. They are just cast in new form. Indeed it is a form that may seem to give us new insight and suggest new applications, but in fact no new information or truths are generated. (I'm kind of remembering something I read about 15 years ago, but I can't remember the reference. The writer was a whole lot clearing than I am and went into a lot of details, especially in mathematics... it was a good read. My memory was good about the content, but for the life of me I cannot remember who wrote it.)

If the premises, the content, are false, well... no matter if the logic is applied correctly the argument simply won't reveal a 'new truth'.

I believe these were errors made by Aristotle who believed logic would grant him 'new truths'. A bit odd as nearly everything he concluded via logic about the physical science was actually dead wrong.

I'm not really suggesting that thoughts exist independent of the mind, but rather the mind needs content first to even start up with an application of logic in thoughts.

Anyway...

Without the content of premises what exactly can logic be applied to leading to any conclusion?

Of course, logic is comparable to a tool and tools need material to work on. The point is the material is not what defines the mind, the tool does. At least that seems to be the received opinion on the matter. — TheMadFool

I think we're talking about two different things here.

Sure the application of a tool(s) is needed to build things and the worker is the one who is applying the tool in their work to build whatever, but without any the material to begin with what can a tool do in and of itself even if a worker uses it?

The same applies to logic.

It is a tool and indeed someone applies the logic to build an argument and yes create content, but if there is no content in the beginning upon which the logic is working with what can logic really tell us in and of itself?

I posted one on the purse of a woman... Women's purses are deep, aren't they? — Olivier5

... and I posted one on the Murders, of the Hope of Women.

Perhaps I can post this one as a balance...
... she has a good philosophy I can fully endorse (at times).

Thanks!

To tell the truth I could nearly post 'Safety Dance' by Men without Hats, but that would be me reading into the lyrics, as it's not really about what it is I'm reading into it. ;)

All I'm offering is what, to me, is an opening for dualism to make its case. That's all. — TheMadFool

Fair enough. I was just a bit confused with the 'and', as it seemed to be more a conclusion than an opening.

All I can say at this point is that logic seems more fundamental to mind than what it's applied to. Didn't Aristotle define humans as rational animals - no mention of ideas, concepts, theories, hypotheses, the stuff that constitute content as it were. — TheMadFool

Seems more fundamental is perhaps a good place to start, as 'seems more so' isn't exactly the same as 'is more so'.

I get the Aristotle bit and yes I believe that was certainly the case, but I suppose just asked something that was maybe omitted or not asked or not answered or something of the like... without some sort of content as a point of reference, can logic tell us anything?

And...? — TheMadFool

Isn't it a bit too early in the rant for an 'and'?

We've just started and now I need a conclusion?

... or is that the 'and itself?

You're talking about content but a mind's age relates more to the processes - logic for example - that go into creating the content. — TheMadFool

In part quite true applications of logic do indeed provide content, but what does logic without content to process state?

Where does it start?

The normal state of affairs is not to treat the mind of a 20-something person as different from a mind of an 80 year old. This is what I find odd! — TheMadFool

Thanks!

That lends more context to the drift of the post.

Funny thing is I don't consider minds to be easy to generalize, yet that occurs very often. Perhaps it's this generalization that leads to many of our misunderstandings, as well as a whole host of hasty assumptions... but maybe not. I'm often off the mark.

Taking it for granted that minds are not treated as differently as they perhaps should be, be that due to age, geographical location, time in which one lives, social norms, conflicts with norms, comfort in norms... the list goes on and on... (I kind of make a lousy moral realist, but can't get my shit together enough to make a statement that is moral anti-realism... good thing I can still throw a baseball somewhat effectively. It gives me something to do that seem to make a 'difference', but really not, so... never mind... I'm on a tangent again.)

... anyway, I'm happy to see you place the granted and the given into question. More than likely I'm not the one to have the answer (if such a thing even exists), but hey... I can always provide distractions and jokes (that probably aren't that funny, but I'll try), as well as a few questions along the way. ;)

I fully agree with you about all of Saul's work.

I'm just never sure about my notion of what is actually 'deep'. In many ways I feel that my life is quite trivial, but oddly enough I find things that I think might be profound and deep, but do to my deeply trivial nature I'm never quite sure enough.

Then again... my user name 'Mayor of Simpleton' is not an accidental choice. ;)

Just a question...

The 'acting one's age'...

What are the determining factors for this 'notion'? (not sure 'notion' is the best choice of words here)

I'm a bit less interested in the exceptions here (dementia or preciousness in children), but more so in the normal situations.

For what it's worth is the likely my favorite song for the past 16 years...

... I'm not sure if it's deep, but it does seem to articulate a Zeitgeist that's long overdue for a stage.





I want my money back
I'm down here drowning in your fat
You got me on my knees praying for everything you lack
I ain't afraid of you
I'm just a victim of your fear
You cower in your tower praying that I'll disappear
I got another plan, one that requires me to stand
On the stage or in the street, don't need no microphone or beat
And when you hear this song, if you ain't dead then sing along
Bang and strum to these here drums 'til you get where you belong

I got a list of demands, written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you're gonna know where I stand
We're living hand to mouth! You wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
I gotta list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you're gonna know where I stand
We're living hand to mouth!
Hand to mouth!


I wrote a song for you today while I was sitting in my room
I jumped up on my bed today and played it on a broom
I didn't think that it would be a song that you would hear
But when I played it in my head, I made you reappear
I wrote a video for it, and I acted out each part
And then I took your picture out and taped it to my heart
I've taped you to my heart, dear girl, I've taped you to my
Heart and if you pull away from me you'll tear my life apart

I got a list of demands, written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you're gonna know where I stand
We're living hand to mouth! You wanna be somebody?
See somebody? Try and free somebody?
I gotta list of demands written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist and you're gonna know where I stand
We're living hand to mouth!
Hand to mouth!

Ecstasy, suffering
Echinacea, buffering
We aim to remember what we choose to forget
God's just a baby
And her diaper is wet

Call the police!
I'm strapped to the teeth, and liable to disregard your every belief
Call on the law!
I'm fixin' to draw a line between what is and seems and call up a brawl
Call'em now! Cause it's about to go pow!
I'm standing on the threshold of the ups and the downs
Call up a truce! Because I'm about to break loose
Protect ya neck, cause, son, I'm breaking out of my noose


** Saul Williams commented on his own lyrics by stating:

"I’m tired of the bullshit. I’m tired of the hustle and the make-believe hustle. I’m tired of buying into ideas that divorce me from my potential. I’m tired of having my potential explained in terms of money. I’m tired of the bullshit and if you feel the same way throw your computer against the wall.

Well, maybe not the wall (Prince, “adore” voice)." https://genius.com/1539217

With this knife I cut the cake
Who will be my bride today
**Sweet Fanny Adams
Watch her climb the step ladder
A present from her step father
Sweet Fanny Adams
See her reaching out and stripping down the muslin drapes
A cover for her nakedness, a veil for her face
With curtains for your wedding dress
You must take your place amongst
The Proper Little Madams
And now because I love you
I must take my place too

Amongst the...

Murderers, The Hope of Women
Death in every new beginning
I must take this woman for my sentence of life
And she must take my knife

I will buy a ring of gold
And you will practice birth control
Sweet Fanny Adams
Like a puppet upon a throne
Of o estrogen and progesterone
Sweet Fanny Adams
This is where your misery starts
This is where your mystery stops
We'll rent a television
To replace Pandora's Box
And I will wear a business face
And you will learn your proper place
From those Proper Little Madams
And in my world of cut and thrust
I will learn that my place

My place must be with the...

Murderers, The Hope of Women
Death in every new beginning
I must take this woman for my sentence of life
And she must take my knife

In my pipe and slippers
Do I look like Jack The Ripper
Sweet Fanny Adams
But I poisoned you with every kiss
Smothered you with domestic bliss
Sweet Fanny Adams
Underneath the suntan from the sun lamp that we bought
Your face is paler than the pale face of a corpse
And from the seventh floor of our bungalow
You flung yourself down to where they stood below
Those Proper Little Madams
But in white hair, wrinkles and false teeth
I escaped detection by the police

One of the...

Murderers, The Hope of Women
Death in every new beginning
I must take this woman for my sentence of life
And she must take my knife


(**Fanny Adams was an eight year old girl brutally murdered in 1867 in Hampshire ,England. The expression “sweet Fanny Adams” refers to her and has come to mean “nothing at all” in British Naval slang.)

I'm curious... I get the having children, but why the having sex bit?
Children are not a necessary outcome of sex.

That one is really funny!

I'm gonna miss reading this thread in a couple of weeks. It's very entertaining.

In societies that exalt youth, like ours, the elderly fall mostly into the second category. They are dispensable, if not a nuisance that is relegated to mortuaries such as nursing homes. A highly visible role in the current pandemic crisis. — David Mo

This might be a curious notion, but as someone who is not youth or elderly, it occurred to me that neither the youth or the elderly really have much direct influence in my daily life.

Indeed there are a few older folks who require some assistance or are simply crossing my paths and proximity, but it is not as if they are so present in the section of society I tend to navigate.

The same goes for the youth. Other than the kids of my neighbors, I'm actually only aware of them, but have little or no interaction with them, and the younger guys playing baseball in the same league where I play (I'm currently 55 and the average age of the league is 24 - is that still youth?) I tend to have little or no contact with the youth.

Oddly enough, I'm not a nostalgic person. I tend to look toward newer technologies as positive, my radio station of choice tend to feature new music that is actually outside of the mainstream and more toward the current avant-garde (if such a thing really exists).

Do societies really exalt youth or is it the feature within society that one chooses to focus upon?

Here's another question...

Is this notion of the elderly being dispensable and a possible nuisance a universal thing or simply an aspect within specific nation states?

Something tells me that in Japan or Korea where notions of the value of the elderly are quite different than the notions of value within say the USA.

I've basically shut down many aspect of my life in respect for freedom. Not just my own freedom, but the freedom of others. From my perspective the highest freedom of all is the freedom to live. If one respects that freedom one cannot place lower level freedoms above the greatest freedom and claim to to value freedom.

Perhaps in nations like the USA there just isn't a debate or clear distinction between freedom and what might well be selfishness? (Ayn Rand just snarled!)

Perhaps old folks are simply viewed a bad commodities, so in the ever important morals of economics in the USA they are of little or no value; thus it's better to cut one's losses?

Does age imply wisdom?
Does youth imply innovation?

Anyway...

Even perhaps too explicit I recommend "Torching the Dusties" in Margaret Atwood's Nine Wicked Tales. — David Mo

This would be quite interesting. I also know there was a short film made about this, but I cannot seem to find it anywhere.

It has a 'Logan's Run' or 'Half a Life' (Star Trek: The Next Generation) feel to it, but with the modern trend to dark dystopian film technique in the mix. Indeed interesting...



Until then, some nonsense: (This song refers to historic events from the 60s, misremembered by an unreliable narrator)




I remember the year I went to camp
I heard about some lady named Selma and some blacks
Somebody put their fingers in the president's ears
And it wasn't too much later they came out with Johnson's wax
I remember the book depository where they crowned the king of Cuba
That's all I can think of, but I'm sure there's something else
Way down inside me, I can feel it coming back

Purple toupee will show the way when summer brings you down
(Purple toupee when summer brings you down)
Purple toupee and gold lamé will turn your brain around
(Purple toupee and gold lamé)

Chinese people were fighting in the park
We tried to help them fight, no one appreciated that
Martin X was mad when they outlawed bell bottoms
Ten years later they were sharing the same cell
I shouted out, "Free the Expo '67!"
'Til they stepped on my hair and they told me I was fat
Now I'm very big, I'm a big, important man
And the only thing that's different is underneath my hat

Purple toupee will show the way when summer brings you down
(Purple toupee when summer brings you down)
Purple toupee and gold lamé will turn your brain around
(Purple toupee and gold lamé)

Purple toupee is here to stay
After the hair has gone away
The purple brigade is marching from the grave

La la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la
We're on some kind of mission
We have an obligation
We have to wear toupees

Very good!

So we have Socrates at about 70 (Apology 17b) and now a standard of measure for the category of old age via this shield criterion.

As to modern day we can simply look at vital statistics for an life expectancy (probably somewhere in the 78 to 85 range), but here's a bit of a tough nut... how do we get to a modern day standard of measure for 'old age' then subsequently figure out is it a blessing or a curse?

Back to the overview on Plato's time (to check my vague understanding of things)...

Basically we 'start out' as immaterial souls prior to birth (Phaedo 70c-72e) and knew the 'Forms', but due to being in (embodied in) a physical realm we forgot a lot of it.

Being 'damned' to stumble through life in the physical realm we eventually begin to recognize similarities between particulars. This development draws our attention upward towards the similarity and away from the particularity. Over time we experience moments of clarity and as we get older this process becomes more and more frequent; thus if this is correct, then people gain wisdom (or, at least, people ought to have fewer false beliefs) as they age. (I can't remember the reference at the moment, but I believe it's somewhere around Phaedrus 245 - 258 and something in Phadeo in the 70's... possibly elsewhere too)

So why is such a process desirable instead of just living life without this critical thinking?

In my looking up the age of Socrates it placed my attention to the Apology once again after a long long time. What I 'connected' (I'm certain many other have doe the same and far better) might give some insight to Plato's position.

Socrates, famed for knowing he knows nothing, investigated the knowledge of others by his being interrogated by them. Other than the craftsmen, who knew their craft, these 'knowledgeable people' really knew nothing. Socrates has what he considered to be 'human wisdom', but knew it was worthless.

Socrates suggests that as long as we are embodied this form of a human, we are not capable of knowing anything truly. Only the gods and, perhaps, the dead have true wisdom. If the dead have such knowledge, then perhaps death isn’t an evil after all (Apology 40b-42a )

I'm not sure if this is the direction you are heading or if I've basically run off chasing rabbit again.

Also, my knowledge on the topic is certainly not that of a specialist.

One thing I can remember (I believe it was in Republic... maybe) was a dialog between Cephallus and Socrates when Socrates goes to visit him because “the more the pleasures of the body fade, the greater becomes one’s desire and taste for conversation”.

They talk quite a bit (I suppose as old farts do), but what I remember was that Cephalus states that a person with a good character will find it to be a great help to their old age. It is not that old age (per se) is bad or unpleasant, but rather old age coupled with a dreadful past days of youth.

More or less if your character was screwed up as a youth, it'll likely be the same when you are older; thus making old age not so desirable.

I'm quite certain I'm leaving a lot out of this, but it basically what I can remember (the classics were about 35 years ago for me and I'm not really sure my memory is on the mark nor my understanding at the time it was taught)

Back to the present day...

Indeed this sounds like a rather common description of getting old. Not a lot of new concepts here, but how does it relate to the present day and does it really stand to reason?

Of course I might be chasing rabbits and none of this was worth writing, but my take on the issue isn't quite in line with the perspective of either Socrates or Cephallus, but before I bore you more with the 'notions of the Mayor' I kind of need to know if this the tree upon which I should be barking upward?

The flag of Libya between 1977 - 2011 was an interesting one, probably only in it's 'philosophical statement':

The flag of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was adopted on 19 November 1977 and consisted of a green field. It was the only national flag during that time in the world with just one colour and no design, insignia, or other details. It was chosen by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to symbolise his political philosophy (after his Green Book). The green colour traditionally symbolises Islam, reflecting the historical green banners of the Fatimid Caliphate. In Libya, green was also a colour traditionally used to represent the Tripolitania region. This flag continues to be used by Gaddafi loyalists. The flag had two versions, one with wide ratio and another with smaller ratio.

- Wiki

I thought this thread was going to be about flags representing various philosophies. — Pfhorrest

So you think they don't?

What do you suppose the flag of Mozambique wishes to communicate?



Again... YIKES!!!

So, the OP title is:

Is living essentially living the lives of others?

The posted question is:

How much is one's life dependant on another? — whippet101

Implications and assumptions being made by this combination are what exactly?

WOW!

Talk about rising from the dead. This thread was dead and buried, but now it rises again.

I'll play...

Flag of the Empire of Benin: (not to be confused with modern-day Benin)




YIKES!

There are always exceptions to the rule. But that does not invalidate it. — David Mo

It also hasn't done very much to establish a rule other than simply stating 'it is so', as speaking generally from experience isn't quite an empirical investigation or is it?

Why isn't the shield criterion useful? — David Mo

What exactly is the standard of measure for this shield criterion?

OK... they lived until about 71, but still at what point in time do they reach the status of 'old age'?

So is that age of 71 the standard or just a single case example?

Since that's the age of death... what is considered to be old age?

What are the traits of old age that make it preferable to youth? — David Mo

- You've learned you didn't invent sin.
- Every generation could be called the 'what the hell were you thinking back then generation'... including your own generation.
- Pop music of preference has less to do with quality of music and more with context associated with the music.
- You realize that no one is 'special', but rather are mediocre and the only 'specialness' one bring to the stage is their own individual special flavor of mediocrity. (OK... that's probably just me)

Generally, advantages of a sociable nature are claimed, such as kindness or benignity; moral, such as a sense of justice; psychological, such as freedom from sexual passion; and especially wisdom (Plato).

Is this justifiable? — David Mo

As Plato is speaking 'generally', it could be in some cases justifiable and in other not so much.

Is old age a blessing or a curse for the elderly? — David Mo

Doesn't this depend on who you ask, when ask and in what context you ask?

I kind of doubt you can establish an answer to this question as a one size fits all universal standard.

How old was 'old age' in the age of Plato?

Here are 4 examples of what can happen when a series of unrelated premises meet up in a philosophy forum.

Haven't we all experienced this sort of philosophy at one time or another... if not on a daily basis?

Perhaps the Ads and Mods care to comment here. ;)

I can make more sense of death metal than the antinatist stance. — Jack Cummins

Yep!

I’m a fan of Taoism, moral anti-realism, and stoicism (the latter two seem to be unpopular here) — Albero

You might be surprised, but there are more with this sort of 'polarity' than you'd think.
They tend to play with the cards tighter to their chest.
Don't confuse acoustical volume with quantitative volume. ;)

The funny thing is I quite enjoy being useless.

It certainly lowers the bar of expectations and when something I write that actually is of any use for someone else, well... it's a surprise bonus.

OK... my reason for asking you that question was if there isn't any clear consensus as to what 'highest ideals and aspirations' are then why should philosophy be bothered to set a target with intentional focus upon a goal that itself has never been agreed upon or have a unified standard of measure for levels of ideals or aspirations?

(Banno's jigsaw puzzle might well apply here.)

The question as it stands seems to imply that such a consensus or standard of measure not only exists, but can be in some way defined.

I've been away from philosophy for quite a bit and was beginning to wonder if I missed that memo.

Anyway...

... I'm intrigued by value theory (of which ethics is a sub-set) as well as questioning questions.

To be honest, I can't really follow what it is your attempting to communicate.

A ruling system is called religious if the men in charge of it say that the core of its rules was inspired from a certain supernatural being. — KerimF

I'll put the genetic fallacy oh hold for just a bit, but are you stating that all ruling systems are religious?

I am afraid that saying that 'something' exists, or not, leads to nothing if this 'something' is not well defined first. — KerimF

In what way is the concept of god well defined or not?

I personally have no reason to believe in the existence of a ruling god. Am I an atheist? Of course not, because I, being a rational man (and a designer of new products), know for sure that the probability to be/stay alive is very close to zero if the zillion living cells in my body are programmed to act in a random way. — KerimF

If you do not believe a ruling or otherwise interacting god exists you would be an atheist.

It seems as if you wish to claim that humans are the result of intentional design or purpose, if so, how do you defend this position as being fact or simply the given?

If so, you might have to build a case for this particular argument.

For example, whatever forced me to exist temporarily in this world cannot be a ruler; otherwise he/it cannot be my maker since we would have nothing in common. — KerimF

Again.. my questions would be...

How do you know there is another world (implied from the statement 'in this world')?

How can you know that IF an agent (a god creator) forced you into existing that you do not have anything in common with that agent?

What if there was no agent (a god creator) to have 'forced you into existence'?

Is that previous question a question you are willing to ask yourself?

It seems you'll need support for these assertions as well.

Now let us agree that just believing in science doesn't make someone a scientist. — KerimF

I would not really agree with the statement as such, as science is not a belief, but rather a tool for investigation. Anyone suggesting that science is a belief doesn't understand science.

One does not 'believe' in science, but rather one applies scientific methodology to test notions. If one applies these methods to something once held as a belief and it proves to not be true, the only thing that is gained is a better understanding of that thing. The process of science works as it takes the human assumption of 'it must be thus and so' or 'it's evident to me, so I don't need evidence' out of the process... it eliminates bias. There is no principle in science that indicates an investigator must be pleased with the outcome or that the science pays any respect to what an individual (including a scientist) believes.

Basically science start with an observation of a phenomena and builds questions to yet be answered. The investigation is founded in empirical evidence and facts; thus eliminates the bias of preferential notions of faith where a claim of 'it's evidence to me' have no place. The answers may not be the one's one prefers and quite often lead one to simply asking even more and hopefully better questions.

Religious faith doesn't work in the same manner, but rather starts with the central answer, then subsequently builds questions in respect to that central answer that need not be supported by any empirical evidence or facts, but it is supported by a religious faith... what one has in the absence of evidence or fact. In this case the claim of 'it's evident to me' will be able to replace and dismiss any and all evidence or facts that would be contrary to the notion of faith.

Indeed religion is a belief (not contingent upon empirical evidence or facts... as faith is enough), but science (completely contingent upon empirical evidence and facts... as faith is a bias) clearly isn't.

Here's perhaps a strange questions.

Are all ruling systems, be they 'supernatural beings' or 'we the people', religious and their doctrine religious?

Does all of this mean all systems of belief and doctrine are 'supernatural' or 'supernatural substitutions'?

--------

On a side note...

To my understanding an atheist is an individual who answers the question 'does a god or gods exist' with 'no'.

The identity of a person being classified as an atheist can only be asserted until this question has been asked and they have answered it with a 'no', so their identity as an atheist is directly contingent upon this question.

Regarding the foundations upon which one builds a system of believe/worldview...

I'm not too sure if an atheist forms their various worldviews or individual systems of belief according to what it is they don't believe exists, but rather in what they believe exists.

If I 'flip the script' to the question of how does a monotheist form their worldviews and individual systems of belief it might shed some clarity upon the gist of my drift.

I would find it to be somewhat absurd if someone who believes in the existence of a particular god deity and does not believe in the existence of a all other different god deities would go to the effort to create a system of believe founded upon the notion of the not believing in the existence of the god deities, but rather it would make far more sense for them the build the foundation of their belief system in the god deity they actually believe exists.

Regarding a monotheist...

The only difference between the atheist who believes no god deities exist and a monotheist who believes in only one particular god deity is simply that one exception of a god deity that they believe exists. More or less a monotheist makes a single exception that the atheist does not, as the monotheist answers the question do the other gods exist with the same 'no' as an atheist... making them an atheist in respect to the other god deities.

As to a pantheist.. that's a different kettle of fish.

---------------