Not quite sure what you mean here. Well, many countries don't look like the US. But what is surprising is just how similar to the US the whole of Latin America is. You have these interesting subtle differences between American countries and European countries. — ssu

I meant that I have come to believe that apart from the oppressed nations (i.e. dictatorships and theocracies where everything can be fabricated, and you may know a couple of identities/ethnicities/religions in these countries, but you never can be sure about the degree of social disintegration in dictatorships till the day that a war happens and you may find out that your spouse or your neighbor is not the person you previously thought to be), there are two kind of countries: 1) those countries which grand personal freedoms, but are multicultural or cosmopolitan (like the USA, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.), and 2) countries that are free also, but due to their size, geography, history, etc., have not reached the diversity or multiculturalism of the first group (of USA, UK, Australia, etc.).

It is my belief, also, that although both groups are called democracies, group 2 may behave much better in cases of hardship (like natural disaster, poverty, war or some other crisis). Culture, identity and compassion may really play a role in these small democratic nations when they will face hardships.

With regard now group 1, I think if the countries of this group face some kind of hardship, their people will show all kinds of negative behavior just because they were taught that civilization means living well and calling the police every time you have issues with your neighbor. From the moment you don't live well in group 1 and you cannot rely on the police, you either run away or you should watch your neighbor 24 hours a day.

It is a paradox, in my view, to include group 1 and group 2, in the same club, the "democracy club".

You made some good points, like that one about a new "global" culture.

However, as a person who in the US has discovered his love for European Cinema (when I lived in Europe as a teenager I detested French movies, but after living in the US for many years I came to love French movies and to detest contemporary American movies... with the exception of some comedies, where beforehand I tell myself I'll have some fun with American bullshit).

This experience of detesting contemporary American movies makes me ask the same question all the time: why in the hell people in other countries spend so much money and energies in order to see, advertise and idolize (contemporary) American cinema?

The only logical answer I come up with is "mass control". For some reasons, US culture industry has a big leverage on the rest of the world. Remove that leverage and you might see "global culture" trashed for good or becoming very limited in scope. This 'control factor' explains also why music and cinema in Europe nowadays are much more pluralistic/diverse than in the US. Here you see actors of various skin colors, but you "know" beforehand who are the great guys. In Europe you get surprised every day with actors and musicians of all kinds of genres, from all kinds of languages.

In conclusion, I tend to believe that materialism and policing may have a greater saying in our modern western world than "the global culture" which I see it as being imposed on us (and easily replaceable). We could happily live in a western world where Rammstein are more famous than Swift and Beyonce, in a world where Italian curses are more widespread than the English ones, or in a world without Microsoft Office Suite and Chat GPT. But I fail to see how the western world would look if well-being shrinks and if the policing/surveillance agencies fail to do their work.

I can't imagine a scenario with economies and surveillance performing very poorly and with people in USA or France being in "peace" due to their "democratic/egalitarian/cosmopolitan" values and "compassion". Till, I can imagine that scenario as plausible for some smaller nations which have been lucky enough to not look like France or USA today (though I guess there must be only a handful of such nations in the western world).

You might be right, but theocratists know what they want and they definitely have visions of woman, family, kids, behavior, duties, education, rites, and so on. They may be dead wrong, but they really know what they want (everything comes clear like crystal to their "blind" eyes).

And then you have nations and civilizations which at a point do not know anymore what they want (apart from economic growth). Who do you think will prevail? The crazy theocratists who have some definite goals or the moderate guys whose only daily dilemma is to live a pleasant life (only) or to suicide?

You are funny. I probably said that 5 years ago (so now I have been 7 years reading philosophy lol)

Here in the USA, I know they teach Nietzsche at Fordham only, cause Fordham Theologians should know what an atheist said about them. Maybe there are a few, but most of the philosophy programs I have searched do not teach Nietzsche (I don't blame them).

I do like Nietzsche like a writer, but I have serious doubts on his contributions on aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, and whatever branches of philosophy are taught in schools nowadays. The reason why Nietzsche might be the most popular "philosopher" in Europe I think is his writing ability, not his philosophy. People love great writers and they think they are enlightened by the books that entertain them the most.

In Philosophy I hardly can remember any Nietzschean contribution. In psychology (especially the psychology of the "pious/religious person") I did find Nietzsche very convincing.

His aphorisms are masterpieces of world literature, but nothing great happens in Nietzsche's "philosophy". This is what I came to believe :)

Maybe I didn't give a good reason to limit the speeches of BUND and Co, but BUND and other similar cases may provide some clues about American democracy. Although when you speak with Liberals they will imply that "democracy", freedoms, and their liberal values, etc., are the most rational things in this universe, in practice we see that things we are taught to be self-evident, rational, etc., are just power. (Many groups in the USA have won their rights in that way, by exercising more power than other groups.) 

The BUND rally in Madison square shows that 80 years ago it was okay to disregard Jews because they were not strong enough. Now, I assume, in the US and some other countries is okay to disregard Palestinians and Muslims insofar as they are weak in numbers and money.

It is more correct to think of Clintons, Bidens, and co, as people who count on donors, money, voters, etc., than as people who really care about justice and American interests in the Middle East. However hard someone tries to find the rationality of the US policy in the Middle East, he/she will fail.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/11/israel-hamas-gaza-war-us-middle-east-policy-saudi-biden/

There are two routes for the US policy in the Middle East to change: 1 (the most probable) repetitive failures and loss of public interest in foreign affairs, i.e. American isolationism, and 2 (the less probable) pro-Palestine people in US overcome in numbers and money the pro-Israeli people (this is the case in EU right now, where you have 25 million Muslims and EU is much more reluctant than the US to endorse the Netanyahus).

We were just surprised how such an event was allowed to take place in Manhattan (when many Jews, US leftists and anti-Hitler Germans had opposed it and had warned authorities against BUND).

In 2014, when all people in EU and UK were rallying in support of Palestine, Hillary Clinton was organizing a rally in support of Netanyahu and against the Intifada.

It seems that in this country none really cares about international causes, but just for money and voters.

There is a case against US administration in the US courts as well. Sunak, Biden and AIPAC people are saying that the suit does not make sense, but I do think that the judges may find the Leahy Law applicable against US military support for Israel.

Let's see what will happen with this case:

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/16/ccr_genocide


Now, a few days ago I was seeing with a friend a PBS documentary about German American Bund rally in Madison Square in 1939, where these "good Americans" could bring their swastikas and totally ignore the Jewish protesters. However weird it might sound, I recalled what is going on right now in the USA, where the protesters are not the Jews, but the Palestinians.

My friend asked me: how was it possible that back then NY authorities allowed a Nazi rally in Madison Square and they disregarded the Jewish protesters?

Well, I answered, this is American capitalism. Back in the 30ies in this country lived millions of Germans and the Jews were hundred thousands, but less in numbers than Pro-Hitler Americans (BUND Germans included). Hence, I guess Jewish protests were not enough to outlaw BUND rallies. Now, we have more pro-Israel people than pro-Palestine people in this country, and numbers (and money) are more important than justice for the US democracy.

Maybe numbers (not justice) are important in EU countries as well, where 25 million of Muslim residents have made Europe more sensitive towards the Palestinian Cause (in stark contrast with the US, where we have only 3 million Muslim residents).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden

I was seeing an old movie about Algeria a few days ago and just recalled that 60 years ago the most despicable nation for the Muslim world was probably France, not Israel.

The reason: somehow millions of Muslims had come to believe that France was a Muslim murdering machine and they were reading more bad news from Maghreb countries, than from Palestine.

Right now, Israel and US are killing more Muslims than France and this is a reason why many people in the Muslim world have forgotten the hatred of their grandparents against the French and other European (colonizing) nations.

My conclusion in a few words: for the Muslims it does not matter too much whether "their killer" is a Jew or a Catholic, but it matters a lot to Europeans when the killer is a Jew. The comparisons and graffiti of Jewish soldiers with Nazi symbols most probably are made in Europe, not made in Middle East. For the Middle-Easterners all non-Muslim enemies are equal (they, unfortunately, have a blind spot about their own despots). But for many Europeans the crimes of the US, UK and France most probably are not equal with the crimes of Israel.

If I am right in these beliefs, then the use of the antisemitic label should be confined to Europeans and Christians, whereas other labels should be valid for the rest of the world (who on their right have stopped believing that Europe and Bethlehem are the center of our Universe).

Liberals and communists will hate you now.

They teach kids that beauty does not exist. What
do they care the most are political & electoral correctness. Aesthetics is their biggest enemy. There are communist and liberal "aesthetics" being spread all over the world now. Either you accept that everything should be considered beautiful, or you are banned from the "respectful" world.

I was thinking one day that the reason why portrait-painting developed in Europe more than in other parts of the globe might be (to some degree) that a European face has more expressions & colors than Non-European faces. Do I dare to say this in public?

Maybe I am totally wrong. But the problem today is that I am afraid to learn. We live in a world where we are taught to suppress all thoughts that are not politically correct.

Why? Nigerians are not semitic. It seems you just want to reserve a special word for a certain group in order to demonise them, specifically Europeans and Christians. — Lionino

When you call someone antisemitic, I guess you somehow imply that either Jews do good things to that person or they do bad things to that person he still blames them, because this is what he was taught to believe all his life, he always despises them.

I hardly understand how people who do not know Jews at all (were taught nothing about them) can be labeled antisemitic just because for them Israel has come to mean: "Muslim murdering machine".

Calling people of different backgrounds antisemitic sounds to me like applying Western criteria to them. Since in the West it is hard to find people who hate Israel without quoting some far-right politician/author, we rightly confuse anti-Israel with antisemitic feelings in Western countries. But it is hard for me to call a Nigerian Muslim, to take an example, antisemitic, even if that person dreams the end of Israel. Insofar as the latter was taught to see the history of Israel from the Palestinian/Arab perspective, not from the European far right perspective, he better be called Anti-Israeli or even Jewish-hater, but not antisemitic.

Besides, aren't all philosophers and would-be philosophers also smart-asses? — Vera Mont

Go and try some forum with creative writers and you will see a different culture from this forum ;) I have been lucky to get to know (virtually and in person) both creative writers and philosophy professors/students and have come up with the conclusion that the second are a much better company.

Why is that so?

When I lacked any knowledge of philosophy, I tended to believe that philosophy and creative writing have many things in common. When I started studying philosophy (in my thirties), I came to see that creative writing and philosophy have very few things in common.

Though many writers tend to philosophize and psychologize, they do it poorly. They always miss many details, or if they go to the details they become bad writers... since the purpose of creative writing is to beautify things, not to analyze and defend this or that proposition.

Insofar as by their nature creative writing and philosophizing are two different processes, then very different is the writer from the philosopher. The writer starts always with some "finding", the philosopher starts with a question. The writer has always an "answer", the philosopher has a puzzle. Since the first is in the mood of "I know already", and the second in the mood of "I am not sure", then the writer tends to be egoistical, self-assured, eccentric, etc., the second diligent, hard working, honest, very focused, very detailed, etc.

In short, I think Plato was right in assuming that writers are gifted people (I say: with niceties, good memory, good vocabulary and imagination), but if you are looking for really intelligent people you better look for a profession where honesty, focusing and diligence are a must. If writers have an answer (due the nature of their profession) on anything, they tend to be witty and egoistical, but not honest, self-sacrificing, etc.

I am not sure what kind of intelligence it takes to be a writer nowadays. Some people have the gift to amaze and surprise you all the time and because of that they think that they are entitled to "educating" and "revolutionizing" you.

Anyway, I may get many things wrong, but we live in times when people will keep writing even if they have nothing to say (nothing new, nothing their own). It is hard to see that in philosophy. If a philosopher has said something and there's nothing for him to ad, then he will stop writing philosophy. With creative writers it doesn't work that way. That's the reason, I guess, why there is so much hallucinatory crap in the book stores :)

I have tried all kind of writings but movie scripts.

I translated Kant in my language (it's going to be published next month), I have translated pieces from Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Tolstoy. I translated myself also :( I have written opinions, reports, papers, essays, thesis, poems, aphorisms, literary reviews, two novels, two plays and many short stories ugh All these in three languages, not in one lol

Till now I have been praised for my novels mostly. What interests me is a main motive, the rest is just music for me. Hence, when I work for the government I like music that relaxes me (Jazz, Reggae, Classical), but when I write I listen only to music with tension (Rock, House, some Classical also).

I don't like novelists who try to philosophize and educate you, with very few exceptions (like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Orwell). That's for the simple reason that I don't like to confuse genres, though many philosophers do that often (Plato and Nietzsche for example).

Either you are a good artist, or you are a good philosopher. If you are both: you better try your hand in two different genres, instead of having professors praise your artworks for philosophical and psychological "achievements" bla bla bla Tolstoy, like a philosopher (in his work What is Art, let's say) was a total failure, but like a writer (let's say in his novella The Death of Ivan Illych) he is unbeatable.

Today, you have these writers who try to educate you though they lack the credentials to do so. I am sure that 90% of writers I have personally met will fail in a Logic Exam, but that does not stop them from being "smart asses". This is a reason, also, why I do not bother to join forums for writers (but I do like forums for philosophers/thinkers). Just because they can imagine (like Hesiod, Ezekiel, and co did three millennia ago), they think that they are entitled to educate you and sell to you all that trendy/liberal/libertine/creepy/scary crap that comes in abundance nowadays.... since that's the trend and that makes a writer popular to a multicultural/global audience.

To conclude, do not bother to try what other writers advise you. Most of them are products of the times we are living in (they are more mortal than my pets, since I am sure that my pets will be remembered by me and my kids :)

Find a beautiful story to tell. If it is not beautiful by itself, you better read some good philosopher instead of wasting your time with writing. Put some tension and acts, cause only those things will make you a writer (I don't remember any novelist who became immortal through nice talking, but only those who put some great acts and great/believable characters in their novels). If your piece has no tension, no beauty, no acting, no humanism, you better try some other genre.... like philosophy let's say. Even if you fail with philosophy, you at least will know that you learned many things. But with literature, you may live in total ignorance and stupidity and at the same time cultivate all kinds of illusions in your brain lol

I repeat it, though I love arts, I have come to the conclusion that philosophy can enlighten me much more. Literature has more audience, philosophy has more depth. Good luck to you!

I have been 15 years in the US and I don't remember a single day when liberal media did not provide some info about black people. You can search CNN at the time you read my comment, if you don't trust me. There definitely will be something about black people somewhere (it has been like that the last 15 years, and the odds are too small that it will not be the same at the time you read my comment). It's like they are trying to educate people all the time about accepting blacks, and definitely they keep making it a major political/social issue.

Whereas this happens, you see how fast Asian community is growing in the US and you might learn that the biggest minority in the USA are not blacks, but Hispanics (who prefer to identify mostly as "other" or "mixed" race).

Blacks, like whites, I think will see their numbers shrinking. While all this happens in this country, you keep hearing about white and black all the time, just because Republicans and Democrats want to play the political game in that way.

If you go and ask Hispanics and Asians how they feel, they will probably tell you that they are discriminated by both whites and blacks. Nonetheless, liberal media will not bother to educate you on daily basis about Hispanics and Asians. They will educate you only when something really bad happens on Asians or when there is some election going on.

Some of the reasons why this happens might be that Hispanics and Asians are considered newcomers, Hispanics might be considered a threat to American culture as well (for blacks you can't say that), and also Hispanics and Asians seems to be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, whereas blacks are predominantly Democrats (they are definitely an electoral power to consider).

To conclude, much of the racial debate in the US is politically motivated. In 2016 this country spent 6 billions for electoral campaigns only, and a lot of that money went to conservative and liberal media. The obsession of liberals with identity politics is not going to be beneficial in the future. Hispanics and Asians are not buying that (they don't seem to want to be labelled as minorities). Blacks are buying it and you have blacks leaders and Democrats behaving like advocacy groups, instead of pushing for other things: like better elementary education for all, better mental care, war on political corruption, etc. If people keep going on with the mentality that they should be treated specially because of their identity and they should be protected by Democrats and advocacy groups, it is a matter of time when they see their position getting even worse, since demographics are working against whites and blacks in this country. The 35% of people born in CA and NY have immigrant mothers and when these children will grow up, I guess they will not care too much about the colonial past of the US or about civil rights movement. They will have so many other things to worry about in the near future and they will mostly focus on having things done than on protecting all kinds of identities, histories and cultures.

I might be more a fan of Chekhov than of Shakespeare. Chekhov is far from perfect, but I love his naturalism. Whenever I finish writing my second play, I might read Stanislavski as well (and Moliere's Misanthrope). I don't know anything about Stanislavski (I just have heard his name).

I like Ibsen a lot. I simply don't know what he got in his mind when he wrote Peer Gynt (he probably knew cinema and opera would take over theater :) I used Peer Gynt like a famous example of the limits in plays. I didn't mean anything bad about Ibsen. The Enemy of the People and Hedda Gabler are masterpieces by all standards (whereas I found A Doll's House to be too forced, because Nora waits till the end of the play to wake up and I don't like that at all.... though I totally agree with the message of Ibsen).

I had a book with four plays of Ionesco. There was a nice comedy in, but I gave up reading the rest. I thought I was wasting my time (I was 35.000 feet above the sea when I was reading Ionesco, and that might have been a reason he didn't impress me, though I found him funny). You can say also that comedies differ from other plays in their form and features. There is also some difference between seeing and reading a play.


Though Sophocles, Euripides, Shakespeare, De La Barca, Ibsen, Chekhov, Shaw, Pirandello, Beckett, and Miller (to mention a few) wrote in different times/perspectives, I do find motives, puzzles and character developments in most of their plays. If I don't find these three elements in plays, then some funny stuff is taking place or I don't see play at all.

But when you start to appreciate Rothko, you develop a new standard.

In other words the work has priority, and the standard is just the current theory and standard - a post hoc justification and teaching aid. — unenlightened

I don't have a strict opinion on these things. But I have reasons to disagree here. I might rather say that for all artistic genres there are still possibilities that wait to be discovered, not that we are waiting for idols who will make new standards for everyone.

From the moment you invent a camera, let's say, there are certain things you can do with it. Most of the directors think that with a camera you can take to the big screen great performances and great actors, but then you have Victor Fleming who thinks that with a camera you can do those things but you can also add more pleasure (in Fleming's hands a camera starts to act on its own).

Now I can't say that Victor Fleming created the new film or that cameras in other directors' hands did not add pleasure to a movie. What I can say is that Fleming was such a genius who has a clear idea on how to use a camera. Other directors before him could convey a lot of pleasure to spectators, but they were not very clear in the way they used a camera. Now, all directors know the possibilities a camera brings to production, but that is not because Fleming did that, it is because cameras do have these possibilities (if Fleming were not the first to know, then most probably Sergio Leone would be the first :) and after 90 years what Fleming what the first to do has become like a common/public knowledge.

If I adopted your view, then I should lack any arguments against Yoko Ono if she tells me that a time (maybe after 200 years) will come when everyone will understand that she was the greatest poet and painter in UK of the 21st century :)

I am not an expert in painting, to tell you my opinion on Rothko. But Beckett is a great playwright, and Waiting for Godot has all the elements I mentioned in my previous post.

Motive: (Nietzschean) Vanity
Puzzles: what is Godot bringing to them? Why Estragon and Pozzo forget things all the time? Why did Lucky become slavish and dull?
Character development: In the second act all protagonists look different (Estragon has forgotten many things, Pozzo looks old and tired, etc.)

It's good to have a @Moliere in this forum, so I can talk about plays :)

There may be great plays, boring plays, but there are many texts playwrights will tell you: sorry fella, go try your hand in novels and scripts, cause this piece can be anything but a play.

If you don't have puzzles, character development and a motive, you definitely do not have a play. I can say, for example, that Jean Racine is a poor playwright (for my taste), but he has all those three features in his works, and I do not deny that he writes plays. But for some works of Eugene Ionesco, I doubt whether those should be called plays, as I might say also that Ibsen's Peer Gynt comes closer to novels and movie scripts, than to plays.

Hence, I do think in arts there must be some kind of standard/criteria on what consists of an artwork (poem, novel, song, etc.). But then I see in the USA a few activists (of social justice) called as the greatest contemporary poets, though what I read in them do not look like poetry to me (in form and expression).

In short, there is some kind of development and individual trait in all arts. But I think some people are trying to make us believe that everything in arts should be subjective, though to the best of my knowledge that statement is wrong. Plays, as I said, should have certain features in order to not become scripts, novels or something else.

The issue it's little complicated. I have come to believe that there must be properties in beauty. There are some Roman and Greek Poets who are taught in school and do not please me at all, but I am still pleased by Catullus and Sophocles, though they wrote more than twenty centuries ago.

On the other hand you see there's a difference in quality/appreciation of arts. All nations have some kind of music and painting. You can see also that many animals enjoy music (snakes, parrots, etc.). But then you have theater, movies, opera, and some other stuff, that most of nations either do not have an appreciation at all or are unable to contribute with any worth-standing pieces. It is impossible, at the same time, to persuade some people in developed countries that theater, opera and cinema are less universal/pleasing than painting and music and that's the reason why some civilizations never came to contribute in theater, opera and cinema.

To conclude, I probably tend to believe that there are real properties in Aesthetics, but at the same time I tend to believe that society can construct/alienate people's intelligence and tastes somehow. Other answers I don't find with regard to the question "why in all arts and sciences there is a "golden era" (and then lots of dark age)?".

There has been always involvement of governments in aesthetics. In communist and fascist countries the involvement has been very harsh. In liberal countries it has been through soft means. A good example is Germany, which has seen all kinds of involvements: nazi, communist and liberal.

Before Hitler came to power Germany had one of the greatest cinemas in the world. Seeing German movies from 1920s is really amazing (some of these movies made a trend called German Expressionism). Today German cinema is inferior to Italian, French, American, British and Japanese cinemas. One of the reasons, I believe, German cinema is inferior it has to do with its tendency to correct German history and politics. Italians had a fascist government and many communist directors. Though there are some politics in Italian and French movies, you will not see it in the same degree and intensity as in German movies. I have come to believe that the obsession of German directors with their country's past have made them less appealing (than Americans and Italians let's say) to the rest of the world. If someone asked me about a German director (after World War II) whom I should suggest, I might say Rainer Werner Fassbinder and two or three more. If someone, however, asks me about Italian, British and French directors who should be seen, I might suggest more than 20. This is what happens in US universities, also. If you go to learn about films in US universities, I guess you will hear more Italian and French directors, than Germans --just because in my view Italians and French tend to be less political than Germans of postwar era.

With regard to your question, being irrelevant is not the worst thing. Shakespeare might be irrelevant to me, but I see that his plays are filled with wit and tension (though his messages do not touch me at all -- I might find Euripides and Calderon de La Barca more touching than Shakespeare, though I can't say that the first are more artsy than the second). The worst thing is to change people's tastes and intelligence in order to correct their social/political behavior. This has happened in many communist countries. Some of these countries produce more movies and artworks than Europe and UK, but their movies and artworks do not appeal to anyone abroad. And then you have some small countries like Sweden and Finland, with movie-makers and musicians appealing to the whole world. The question now for Sweden, Finland and the rest of EU is to what extent they are willing to accept political intrusion into aesthetics? Are they going to follow the Soviet, the German or the Italian example? The first being the most harsh, the second middle and the Italian the most free in my view.

To conclude, we can leave aside all the debate about politics and we can raise more general questions: Is the way to taste beauty based on real properties or is it a human/social convention? If there are real properties in Aesthetics, should we alienate those in order to settle political/social disputes? Are these aesthetical tastes somehow related to my intelligence and the way I appreciate myself, the whole world and humankind?

These were a few questions that I don't have clear-cut answers. But I do think that they are important for me.

good to know there are books on this thing :)

You can roll your cigarettes and within two minutes you can think what were you doing before rolling the cigarettes.

With internet and social media it does not work that way. You go there to relax a couple of minutes and you find out you have spent there a couple of hours and have forgotten what were you working on.

Social media and internet control your mind. You think you have your own control, but most probably you don't.

Thank you for mentioning the economic cost of all these hours spent on cell phones and social media. I guess small employers and gov jobs are the most affected.

It would be interesting to see any studies which give a picture of the economic cost & economic gains of the social media. We hear mostly about the jobs & opportunities created by the social media and Silicon Valley companies. But I think you are right to emphasize the cost of these activities.

That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too. — T Clark

I think you didn't read what I was saying.

We may want to be monogamous because we aim to be exceptional, birds may not have that goal at all.

When I am loyal to a woman for my whole life I make a choice. I don't know what's the purpose of monogamy in birds or whether it is a free choice.

I agree with you, but T Clark was complaining why I said that birds do not count. I said birds do not count because in my previous post I mentioned mammals, not all possible animals.

Let it be clear here also that stating: 1) we turn monogamy into ideal because we are not mammals and 2) we turn monogamy into ideal because we want to show that we can differ from other mammals, are two different things.

I was arguing for 2, not for 1. I don't know what T Clark understood.

I also believe that at the core of Abrahamic religions and those moral codes I've heard about (Kantian ethics included) the idea of making humans different from animals was very important. This might be one explanation why Abraham saved Isaac, but not the ram.

People who in our eyes (depending on how we are taught to see) look or behave like animals are really repulsive to this day.

Read it again and you will find it.

Two people may do the same thing for two different reasons. What's wrong with that argument?

By the way, birds are not mammals. I don't know how they feel about sex... when I see a naked woman I am closer to a dog than to a bird, I guess. And polygamous men and women (especially orgies) to many of us bring in mind dogs in the parks, not seagulls.

The more you search world literature the more you find animal names used with offensive meaning for human behavior.

You are wrong to believe that those mammals (only meerkats I know to be monogamous, snakes and birds do not count) have other choices.

We humans know that we were not always monogamous, we know we have choices as well. Nonetheless we may come to disdain many things which make us look like other animals (dogs, cows, and so on).

It is not only about sex. There are so many things which make us nauseous just because they show some animalistic qualities in our eyes. We know we are animals, but to a certain degree we refuse to behave as such.

That's something different from snakes and birds which may not know at all that they have a polygamy option.

By the way, women shortage (some members are mentioning here) must be a phenomenon of the 20th century related to birth/gender controls (China, communist countries and Middle East) and massive emigration of male workers to Europe and US.

When the institution of marriage was invented I'm quite sure that there was big shortage of males, not of females.

Because we somehow show we can be different from all mammals... and we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains (which often are socially/ethically oriented).

Good points.

Any comments for poor parents who are okay with five year old kids to spend hours on TikTok just because they find this habit a good way to keep kids "busy"?

By, the way I made it clear that psychologists tend to think that a lot of harm is being inflicted on the mental health of children by the social media.

I think you comparing apples with olives, i.e. two different things.

An addiction you develop through being in the wrong place and with the wrong people is very different from an addiction that is imposed on you by all possible means in all possible places (through your cell phone, pc, notebook, smart tv, in your school, in your bedroom, restroom, in your job, your excursion, etc.).

https://amp.dw.com/en/p-4gjn4/a-62994670

So... What's new? — Bitter Crank

Does it need to be that way always? Maybe we can follow the example of those countries which thought it appropriate to limit money in politics (UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.).

Your points are very good... with gay you can replace anything in my statements. There may be religious preachers, as well. Some of them do not preach anything against a community, but you may have others who preach things that can be considered harmful to a democratic community and for this reason some intervention may be needed.

You are right about the abridged human rights of gay people, but this conversation was not about gays... @praxis directed it in that way, because she/he like others here wanted an example and I mentioned Cheerio Ellen Boxes without any reference to sexual orientation, but to looks only.

Since you touched a really good point about gay movement and rights, let me make it clear here that I do not take existing countries to be models of democracy. I don't know what country you were active, but in the USA it is useless to speak about democratic politics (in my view). You can speak about pluralism, activism, freedoms, laws, protests and so on, but it is wrong to take the US as an example of democracy nowadays, it is just an example of pluralism and freedom for the many.

In democratic politics there might place for a demos, a common culture, consensus, referendums, and so on. In USA forget that! The 15 years I lived here I have never seen any referendums taking place and I don't know if people in this country can come to agree on anything.

So, it is my view that the only factors that keep moving things on here (and in a few other countries as well) are: 1) power, 2) money.

If there is no other way to get your rights recognized then protesting and vandalizing are good options here. But because this is how things work in the US, that does not mean that these are the only recognizable democratic ways. I Switzerland they had referendums on minarets and gay marriages. People voted against minarets, but they approved gay marriages. Even if I was against gay marriage, if I lived in Switzerland I would stop saying anything on that matter.

The problem with the US is that everyone thinks that he is expressing the American people. Bernie Sanders speaks about the American people, Donald Trump speaks about the American people, Hillary Clinton speaks about the American people, Mitch Mcconnel the same. But if you read all those things they say you start wondering whether these people are really expressing the majorities.

When it comes to models something similar happens: you don't get those models because Americans love them, you get those models because those who made those for you had the power to do it. Since they had the power to give you and your family a model you don't like at all that does not matter in American politics. This is why you have all these angry people here. It has become very hard to persuade anyone here what is good and bad. That happens because social cohesion is dying, whereas power and money are dominating politics.

I hope in other countries they have more consensus on these things, they respect every citizen, but they also will be able to know what future they want for their children, what models. If they are not able to do that, then they shouldn't be surprised if they see their country change in ways they will not like at all.

If you're not bigoted against gay people then why would you have a problem with a gay model? — praxis

Lets say that I consider it irresponsibility towards one's community to refuse procreation and to refuse the cultivation of every citizen with the good qualities of both men and women (as children supposedly do when they are fed and educated by a mother and a father).

A thing many people do not get nowadays (thanks to the liberal cult of the individual) is: if you want to be accepted, you have to accept also.

If I take this like a maxim, it turns out that the community has some duties towards those who do not wish to contribute in all possible ways.

We (the appointed guardians of the democratic community) accept you and your boyfriend, we accept your renouncing of parenthood, we accept your mutilation of your own genitals, we accept your associations and clubs, we accept your flirting with people of your gender, and so on, we even help you satisfy all your spiritual and medical needs, but we wish to let you know that we have another vision for the children and the youth of this community.

Insofar as we believe in democracy and in human rights, we do not impede your activities in any way, but we do not like you lobbying and protesting in order to become an example to many others, when we think that procreation and family are the best things happening to our community and we are entirely sure that we express the wishes of the majority of this community. If you think that we are being unfair to you, you can file a court complain or you can gather support for a referendum.

Till you choose one of the last options, we will keep educating our kids in the way we do and we arrest you for any violent protests or any acts of vandalism.

Any problem with that?

Maybe Eros1982 holds the leftist view that sexuality IS constructed (rather than an essential feature), so that models produce whatever result that comes about -- male/female/gay/straight... — Bitter Crank

I said it from my first post that I am a leftist, but @I like sushi offered new vistas about the different turns leftism and liberalism may take, so I distanced myself from extreme left only and from the politics of identity (which seem to be taken very seriously in the USA, but not in some other liberal countries).

Yeah, well... as some sort of leftist gay guy, I find that "some leftists" seem to be in a competition for the most extreme possible position on all sorts of topics. The lunatic left bends to meet the lunatic right.

Objection accepted, though I was replying in another context.

What I don't accept is that I am offending people here (you are not claiming that, but someone else). Maybe, I'm just being politically biased.

Apart from the ancient world there are some interesting examples from the medieval world and religions.

In Christianity and Islam for example two forms of violating norms were recognized: 1) I violate a norm, though I accept it as a norm and 2) I violate a norm because I don't accept it to be a norm.

Both religions, in the Medieval years, were more harsh with the people who did the second. They could allow you "sin", but they couldn't allow you to claim that what you use to do is not a "sin".

This is what we are talking about here, are liberal societies in favor of role models or not? If yes, how they are showing it?

Stop offending me for god's sake, cause no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man.

The more such pics they see every morning (when they eat their cereals), the more acceptable to them.

If you take that to be a good thing, you can argue for that or even open your own discussion on "transformative aesthetics".

Claiming that I said things against gays is just a bad lying habit you have to get rid of... if philosophy really interests you.

Haha.... You could say that I made a weak argument with Ellen or that I was totally wrong in believing that Ellen is not a good model.

But your conclusion that I am prejudicial to gays does not follow from my argument that kids may be in need of models which lets say show feminine features in girls.

This argument might have made me prejudicial to girls, not to Ellen and gays. Capisci?

Anyway, I think some members here were totally wright in saying that democracies have more serious problems than those I mention here.

I better stop writing on this topic (because I am really busy). I did clarify a few things here and I am thankful to everyone for helping me understand those things better.

Since we are in the Philosophy Forum, I'm sharing this link with you:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

By the way, nice ceramic (but not a good model at all, the boy seems much younger than his molester).

So you were going through all these questions and conversation just to come up with this conclusion?

If you have good eyes you can discern the feminine and masculine features in both men and women.

In all ancient cultures these features (like strength in men or fertility in women) were exposed in all their artworks (with a very few exceptions in Ancient Greece, Rome, China and maybe India). I am talking here about artworks starting from 40.000 years ago till 30 years ago.

The last 30 years some leftists seem to be arguing that humans have been very wrong in the last 40.000 years for exposing fertility in women and strength in men. Okay, history will show who is wrong and who is right.

I don't know what prejudices you were talking about. I believe in my own eyes. I can see feminine features in men and masculine features in women. The way I grew up enabled me to discern these features. If my kids will not be able to see that 30 years from now, that means they will grow up with other models.

No problem with colors. But I don't see the reason why all liberal countries should follow the examples of US, UK, Germany, or France.

If these four countries turn one day brown or Muslim, that's the last thing I care about. They thought it wise to set their foot everywhere and conquer other nations and cultures, so it is their turn to accept all those peoples they wanted to conquer.

My only problem are liberal politics (that you named "extreme left" politics). They seem to confuse people and to not have answers on what is ethically and aesthetically good.

But you might be right in assuming that a new and very different world will be born and whatever we took for granted (pertaining to tradition, values, ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and so on) we better forget it and just look forward.

Maybe that's an answer. But I do believe that even in a new world we will be forced to accept some models. It is a big question what kind of models those will be.

By the way, have you heard people and intellectuals complain about Japan? Japan is one of the "most democratic" countries in the world, but at the same time women there "do not aspire" to do same things with men, immigrants do not feel welcome at all, and marrying people from other races is not encouraged by anyone. All these things seem to happen in Japan because of their "culture" and this is why no think-tanks complain about Japan.

Professors of the Freedom House are more disturbed with West Virginian poor folk who voted for Trump than with Japan. This is why Freedom House gives Japan 15 more points than US in democratic politics (Freedom House never complains about 6 billions USD spent in electoral campaigns every 4 years, they complain just for poor folk who do not want to change their way of life).