I think what you are failing to see is that there is no such thing as "talk just for the sake of talk"; all talk has consequences. — Janus

The consequence of talking for the sake of talking is more talking. More talking is ok, I don't object to that. I'm just trying to strip away the illusion that talking will accomplish anything other than casual nerd entertainment. If that is seen and accepted, I have no further complaints.

I disagree with Jake due to the fact that these simple and elegant behavioral tactics or strategies are not able to be realized in full by the depressive. — Posty McPostface

You disagree because you don't actually want to do anything about the situation you are describing, other than talk about it. As is your right.

There's a difference between some anonymous person making a claim on the internet and someone publicly requesting an FBI investigation and agreeing to sworn testimony before the Senate. — Michael

She wanted to be anonymous. And she didn't request an FBI investigation for 35 years, thus, from her point of view, putting lots of other women at risk.

Jake, you need to go read the details of the case before commenting. — Baden

You need to stop claiming to be the morally superior holy roller expert on the subject, because you certainly are not. As example...

She told her therapist she was assaulted before any of the recent political events. — Baden

She told her therapist, but nobody who could actually do anything to remove the alleged rapist as a threat to the public. This lack of action was a public statement that what maybe happened to her was not really that big of a deal.

She allowed him to become a lawyer, a high ranking public official in the Bush administration, a judge. 35 years of opportunity to right the wrong that she perceives. 35 years of opportunity to protect the rest of us from someone she sees as being seriously flawed. A single police report would have probably ended Kavanaugh's career before it ever started, but instead, for 35 years she chose to ignore us.

She had a right to ignore us. But we also have a right to review this record documenting a lack of concern for the rest of us, and find her credibility weak.

Plus, she asked Feinstein that the information remain confidential. — Baden

She contacted her congresswoman with the intention of her story having an influence upon a major political decision, a fact I see you are intent to ignore. She willfully entered the political process, and is now being evaluated by that process. It's reasonable for people in that process to evaluate her claim as not being useful, given that she brings little to the table other than a claim.

Look Baden, I'm all for crime victims bringing their stories in to the public political realm. I spent a year of my life facilitating that very process. But this is not how you go about it.

As the mod of philosophy forum, and a normally sensible commentator, you should be able to realize that if we accept claims without evidence, then the credibility of all claims are undermined. Such a process is not helpful to the #metoo movement.

If we accept claims without evidence, it's only a matter of time until others begin fabricating claims in order to get money, fame etc, and then nobody will believe anything.

Ford should be allowed to tell her story under oath, not that this will accomplish anything more than boosting TV ratings. She should be respected as a person (unless it can be proven she's lying). But after that, she sucks as a witness, and is basically wasting our time.

Besides, I can prove I wasn't in America at that time, and you're definitely not my type — Baden

More lies from the rapist!!! :smile: I sure was your type that day on the beach!! Again, you have no leg to stand on here, because I am claiming to be a victim, without any evidence at all, and thus everything I'm saying surely must be true.

The information was leaked by a third party so her insertion into politics at this particular moment was not of her doing. Please familiarise yourself with the details of the case before commenting. — Baden

Look Baden, Dr. Ford told her story to her congress woman at the time of the nomination. She didn't tell her priest, she told her congress woman. She wanted her story to influence the decision.

Please come down off your politically correct morally superior high horse and return to your usually very sensible self.

Or, if you are just making a case, much as I might pretend I was Hitler's attorney and make his case, ok, that's fine. But in that case please just state that is what you are doing.

This basic fact combined with the credibility of Blasey Ford's background, previous conversations with therapist, and request for confidentiality are why I tend to believe her. The idea that it's just 50/50 he said/she said is absurd. — Baden

Like I said, you're getting carried away.

I'm an upstanding citizen with no criminal record or other black marks against me, and I claim that Baden tried to rape me 35 years ago during a spring break in Daytona Beach. I have no proof, no evidence. But readers should believe me because I'm a nice guy claiming to be a victim. Given the above, there's no way we can accept Baden as a moderator on the forum, because when he rejects my claim he might be lying.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved. That's a lower bar than in a criminal case, but it seems absurd to put someone on the court if we feel they PROBABLY lied, despite there being a reasonable doubt that he lied. — Relativist

Yes, I can agree with all this.

Personally I don't want him on the court whether he lied or not, but that's another subject.

So, let's talk about depression? It seems like we're making progress in that regard. — Posty McPostface

Making progress towards what? That's what I'm trying to help you clarify?

Making progress towards more talk? Yes, that seems true.

Making progress towards easing depression? I don't see that.

Again, I don't object to talk for the sake of talking, I just don't personally find that process all that interesting. Others may experience it differently of course.

You don't get to use #metoo to discredit my arguments. Period. If you want to address my points, do so. — Baden

I am addressing your points. And please recall two things, we have the same goal, and I've invested a ton of my own personal time in serving as a political advocate for crime victims, and was part of a process of changing a major public safety law here in Florida.

You're getting carried away, as is pretty much the entire culture right now, and that getting carried away is a threat to the #metoo movement. If anybody can be declared a victim simply by making a claim, eventually none of the claims will be seen as credible.

Let's assume Dr. Ford is a victim, that her claim is true. She is of course within her rights to talk about that, or keep it private. But if she wishes to use her personal experience to comment upon public policy, she's regrettably gone about that in an unhelpful manner. No police report, no public statements about her experience until the very last minute of a highly charged political decision 35 years after the alleged crime etc.

Whether she is a victim or not we can wish her well, but we can't use her as a model of how crime victims should influence public policy with their personal stories.

Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose. — praxis

Agreed. My point is only that many people have used religion for this purpose. Religion is probably the largest longest most organized system to address these needs. But I do agree it's not a requirement. I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.

You asked about this...

Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering — Jake

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace.

Of course no human being has perfected this process, so it's an ongoing day to day struggle to accept psychological death (the surrender of "me") as the price of peace. Jesus sometimes yelled at people, priests sometimes rape children, we are all immersed in "sin" as the Catholics might put it.

I'm speculating now, but the Christian concept of "original sin" may be referring to the source of this experience of division (and thus all the other problems), thought itself. Or at least that is my own preferred interpretation, I don't speak for Christians or anybody else here.

Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. So for instance, we have words like "mind" and "body" even though mind and body are really one thing. It's this built-in process of conceptual division which creates the concepts "me" and "everything else" which all other problems arise from.

So for instance, the idea of "getting back to God" could be interpreted as an attempt to heal the perceived division between "me" and "everything else". I would agree with you (if I understand you) that the God concept is not a necessary ingredient, but only a personalization of reality that some people find helpful.

For the atheist, "getting back to reality" can work just as well, but like with religion, it should ideally be primarily an emotional experience and not just an intellectual abstraction. Atheist meditators can reach for these experiences beyond the illusion of division without any reference to anything religious.

Sorry for all the words, hopefully something in there addresses your question.

I like Jake's pragmatic approach. But it's too mechanized and people are intricate to put them through such a cookie cutter approach. — Posty McPostface

Taking better care of our bodies is a place we can start. If we won't do even that, the rest of all this talk is probably just talk.

Which is fine, but this is a philosophy forum and so a reach for clarity is appropriate. If this thread is just talk for the sake of talk, ok, no problem, but let's face that, admit it, and accept it. In that case, I offer no complaint.

At this point the case is one person's version versus another persons version, delayed by 35 years time. There is no way to prove very much about this case. You believe women. Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

Casting my vote for this.

What seems to be under appreciated is that the #metoo movement, a very just cause, is threatened by sloppy standards and a rush to jump on a politically correct bandwagon.

Crime victims need to keep in my mind that, however difficult it may be, they have a civic responsibility to report crimes to the police because failing to do so puts other people at risk. If they fail to fulfill that responsibility, their credibility is naturally going to take a hit, and maybe it should.

I would very much like to see a thread on that topic if you could start one. It's not a challenge, just out of curiosity. — Posty McPostface

Ok, I'll work on that, been meaning to anyway.

I'll ponder on what you said. It seems like the correct solution, logically. — Posty McPostface

What I've said could be logically part of a solution IF....

.... you want a solution.

As best I can tell, neither of us are entirely clear whether that is true or not.

I'm probably rushing to the assumption that you want a solution so that I can play the glorious role of Baba Bozo in providing one.

Just babbling here; but, I want to live as in my dreams - away from responsibility, deficiencies, self-labeling and so on. Dreams are amazing to me because they are the self-generated content of the mind. Nothing is more original or authentic than a dream. — Posty McPostface

This could be a very interesting thread of it's own. You know, the whole culture is moving steadily towards ever an deeper fantasy dream immersion with technologies such as virtual reality etc.

Perceived deficiencies, self labeling etc are all made of thought. Perhaps we could think of thought as a kind of internal TV. If we turn the volume of the Thought TV down, the ads are still there, but they're less compelling, less annoying. Great philosophers like us :smile: like to think of ourselves as sophisticated commentators on the machinery of thought etc, but the truth is few of us even know where the on/off button or volume control on this machine is.

It's an analysis of the desire to live a better or more fulfilling life. — Posty McPostface

I'm unclear of your meaning here. Are you saying your posts represent a search for ways to lead a more fulfilling life? Or, are you saying instead that your posts are an analysis of that desire? Or something else?

Here's a thought experiment that may help clarify the goal. Let's imagine for a moment that it was conclusively proven that philosophy was worthless for treating depression and the only solution was to take up playing golf. What would your choice be in such a hypothetical? Continue with philosophy because you like analyzing things, or would you set philosophy aside and start shopping for golf clubs?

I have to say that your Skinnerian approach to depression is very much welcome; but, how do you deal with the self-criticism and my honesty about my form of depression? — Posty McPostface

My focus, which doesn't have to be your focus, is on identifying constructive helpful steps which can be taken immediately without any further delay. That's why I keep pitching mechanical approaches. There's nothing at all stopping us from applying them right now.

If we choose not to apply readily available methods that is also useful, because such a choice would seem to tell us something about our relationship with the problem. You know, if I like to write about my typoholic mania disease, but the truth is I don't really want to do anything about it, then it would be clear minded of me to recognize and accept that I'm unlikely to find a solution. This could be a fine outcome, so long as I make peace with the price tag that comes with not curing my typoholic mania.

n my dreams, I am not depressed. Everything flows effortlessly and without restraint. Why is that so? Why are dreams an escape for me from depression? — Posty McPostface

I'm happy that this is so, but don't claim to understand it.

Many people have spent a lifetime in therapy trying to understand such things. That's their choice of course. My question would be, do you want to wait until you understand everything before you reach a positive change in the situation?

What I'm attempting to do in my posts is leapfrog over the entire understanding operation, because that can take a very long time. It's not that understanding is bad or wrong, I'm only saying perhaps we shouldn't make it condition which must be met. In my typoholic opinion, understanding should be put as an optional option way down the priority list.

Should we believe Ford? Should we give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt? — Relativist

So far there doesn't appear any way of determining who is telling the truth. That may change, we'll see.

This is not a criminal trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" needn't apply. — Relativist

Agreed. The Senate is free to reject Kavanaugh for any reason.

Would you want him approved if she's telling the truth? — Relativist

No way. But then we just elected a President with far more such accusations, so perhaps molesting women is no longer a disqualifying factor.

Would you want him approved if we can't know what the truth is, but we know he might have done it and lied about it? — Relativist

It would be better if we had a candidate no one is accusing of rape. But that won't solve a whole lot as Trump will just select some other conservative to fill the empty seat. Sooner or later the Senate will have to confirm one of his choices.

I admit I do have some concern that the "me too" movement is designing it's own demise. I've repeatedly heard Ford described as "the victim" based on nothing other than her claim, which appears not to be backed up by any substantial evidence. That kind of sloppiness will undermine the movement if it continues, which would be a real shame.

In the good news department, Bill Cosby has a sentencing hearing tomorrow.

I've posted many times about depression. I don't know what more is to say about it other than just accept it and move on. Yet, I'm here again posting about it beating the dead horse. I want to say something profound about depression; but, there's not much for me to say about it. It really is an unpleasant feeling to have to talk about it all the time; but, I figure it is something worth talking about so here I am again taking about it. — Posty McPostface

Your honesty is refreshing, bravo for that.

I don't know you or your situation, so all I can really comment on is what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing may or may not be representative of what is actually happening, you'll have to decide that.

As you say, you're beating a dead horse, which is fine, no problem. If you wish to talk about depression go ahead and talk, that's what forums are for. However, your posts will become more interesting when the focus of them shifts from discussing depression, to doing something about it. The best I can offer in that regards is something like the following.

We have two words for "mind" and "body", but in the real world mind and body are really one thing. So for example, if I get a massage all the compulsive complaining thoughts in my mind recede substantially, even though I've done nothing at all to analyze those thoughts. That is, I've constructively addressed the very complicated realm of problematic thought content with a purely physical mechanical method.

What's good about purely physical mechanical methods is that they don't require understanding. Complexity is removed from the equation. I get a massage, or I don't, simple. I do yoga or I don't, simple. I upgrade my diet or I don't, simple. I get regular exercise or I don't, simple.

Removing complexity from the situation is good news for those looking for concrete specific steps they can use to ease depression. Removing complexity from the situation is bad news for those who prefer the experience of abstract complexity over down to earth practical action oriented solutions.

As best I can tell from this long distance, and I may be wrong, you are in this later group, you prefer complexity over simplicity, and don't really care if complexity is the most effective way to address depression. You like to analyze, and so you are analyzing. I'm very much like that too, as you can see from this excessively wordy post.

However, if we analyze well enough and long enough we may come to realize that analysis may be more of a problem than it is a solution. But, if the truth is that we're not really seeking a solution, then so what, on with the analyzing.

Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. — praxis

A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience.

So for example, Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering. The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation.

There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

Such a basis is survival. We're a social species, very few of us could survive on our own. A secular basis for morality is any set of rules which enhance social cohesion.

You don't know? Fair enough. — Banno

I know what my position is. The question was intended to see if you have any idea what it is that you are rebelling against.

And the same can be said for some political ideologues. — S

Yes, agreed.

(Nuclear weapons, cough cough). — S

If you keep coughing like that it's going to lead directly to the immediate end of all life in the universe, and you'd better agree with that right now or you're going to hell!!!! :smile:

But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that. — S

Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty.

Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions. — S

And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be.

That is, your contention that we are ignorant is a bit too convenient to your position. — Banno

What is my position?

No one wants to touch on the subject of why God can't be all of existence. Everyone is too predisposed to the original definition of God. — Lif3r

The Catholics say that God is ever present in all times and places, which to my thinking is a claim that God is all of existence. But then they still seem to want to think of God as a "thing" something separate and distinct from everything else.

In my view, it's helpful to consider not just the competing claims, but to focus instead on the medium which all claims are made of, thought. That is, shift the focus from the content of thought to the nature of thought.

If it is true that thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts, then there is a built in bias for the Magic Sky Daddy thesis in all it's forms.

As example, consider the noun. We observe the world and our minds instinctively experience what we're observing as being a collection of separate "things". This process of division is so fundamental to the human condition that it's natural that it would also be applied to the very largest of scales, such as gods. God becomes just another thing, a very big thing, but still a thing separate and distinct from other things.

Some religions feel that the only way to escape this perception of division is to step outside of the medium which is creating it, thought.

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. — Relativist

And it might also be good to consider whether what we perceive to be "other" actually exists. Well, consider as a first step, which may evolve in to experiencing the non-existence of "other".

Point being, there are different levels of religion. At one level there are the doctrines and moral teachings etc, at another level there are the experiences the doctrines and moral teachings are attempting to take us to.

Christian doctrine suggests that we "love our neighbor as ourselves". The bottom line goal of such a suggestion isn't just that we be "good", but that we experience a weakening of the boundary between ourselves and everything else. The experience is true religion, the rest of it often devolves in to the chanting of memorized slogans.

So... there is no point in trying to understand god? Just believe? But if there is no way we can reason about god, then there is no reason to believe, either... — Banno

We can use reason to determine that we have no methodology proven to be capable of analyzing anything the scale of gods (should they exist). The God debate can accomplish that. Everybody (theist and atheist) makes their claims, the chosen authority each claim is built upon is examined, and we see that nobody's authority has been proven qualified for the task at hand.

The God debate can reveal that we are ignorant, in regards to questions of such enormous scale. This is useful information.

The problem is that few of us, theist or atheist, wish to follow the trail of reason where ever it may lead, because in this case that trail takes us to a conclusion that most people don't want to hear, we have no idea what we're talking about. This conclusion doesn't serve the ego agendas which are the primary driver of the God debate, and so this conclusion is swept aside, dismissed, ignored.

What a reasoned process would do is...

1) Discover the reality, that we are ignorant.

2) Look for ways to make constructive use of that ignorance.

The God debate could be productive if we were serious about following the trail of reason to it's conclusion. But we aren't serious. And so we hike a little ways down the trail, and then stop, and build a fort.

The eastern ways are as old time itself. Brahman is in all and is all to that way of thinking. Are you Hindu? — MountainDwarf

No, just logical. :smile:

I find that atheists also need to find a positive channel for their expression of atheism. Atheism should not be about antagonism to religious beliefs. — BrianW

Yes, agreed. Atheists might change their label to "Reasonists", a positive approach which can have value irregardless of one's relationship with religion. They would have a more compelling message, and be more interesting, if they focused on what they are for instead of what they are against.

Because something may be irrational; this does not make us rational for not engaging in this imagined irrationality. In the end we are all irrational creatures. — Blue Lux

Bravo, applause from here.

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. — flight747

This claim can be measured.

Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of services to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. This might be compared to the impact of charities led by Sam Harris and other atheist ideologues.

Banned Noah33 for refusing to disavow Hitler/Naziism etc. — Baden

I have no objection to this decision, but still feel that a logical case for Nazism can be made. As I see it, the value in such a discussion could be to shine a light on how assumptions taken to be an obvious given by the group consensus can often be not as obvious as they first appear. I just find such an analysis interesting, but am not demanding the mods feel likewise. Sorry, that's all for now, gotta go, my jackboots need polishing again.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. — praxis

Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.

But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together".

What do you think religion's purpose is — MountainDwarf

To address the illusion of division which is a fundamental reality of the human condition.

how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

By finding those aspects of religion which one can personally put to constructive use in their own life, and then putting what one has found in to action.

The dispute, as I see it, is over the misleading rhetoric. — S

Dear Professor Dimwit,

Are there thousands of hydrogen bombs on hair trigger alert poised to erase at least Western civilization at the push of a button, or not?

Yes? Or no?

Please observe how you will now display an inability to answer a simple yes or no question based on widely agreed upon facts in a straightforward direct manner.

That's because you're not actually interested in the topic being discussed, but in the experience of debate. That's not wrong, but neither is it interesting.

I am going to go from personal experience and say that I for one am somewhat intimidated by some philosophers and deep thinkers because I know that they have more knowledge on many subjects than I do. — Lif3r

This is much of what I'm attempting to address in this thread. There is no reason for you to be intimidated. Well, ok, so it depends...

HISTORY: If you define philosophy as the accumulation of historical information regarding which famous philosopher said what and when etc, then professional academic philosophers are quite likely to know more about that than the rest of us, given that they've spent some number of years studying these subjects all day long everyday. If that is your vision of what philosophy is, and if you don't have that training, then some humility is in order, agreed.

REASON: If on the other hand you define philosophy as the application of reason to human situations (as I do) then there is really little reason to be in awe of the professionals. We in the public are largely ignoring the nuclear gun in our mouth, as are the intellectual elites. There's no meaningful difference between the public and the professionals.

BUSINESS: If on yet the other hand, if you define philosophy as the ability to accumulate cultural authority, position and status within academia, and to receive payment for one's philosophy, then in that case the professionals are clearly leading the field.

If your quoted words above you reference both "deep thinking" and "knowledge". In the spirit of philosophy, you might wish to question the degree to which deep thinking and knowledge are really what philosophy (defined as reason) is about.

As example, there's little deep thinking in my posts above. All I've done in my comments above is apply simple, straightforward, common sense to the reality that our culture has a gun in it's mouth, and we are largely ignoring this remarkably huge fact. That doesn't require deep thinking, or specialized knowledge, or a PhD. It requires only an interest in applying reason to human situations, and in following the path of reason where ever it might lead.

No Jake, it has been a custom in PF that if someone presents a thesis and relies on facts or data, it ought to be corrected if there is something wrong with the statement. It's not about 'failing' or 'winning' a debate at all, — ssu

Ok, now you're getting deep in to dishing out the BS.

one has to be educated about the subject one discusses — ssu

That seems good advice for you to follow.

Seems like anything that doesn't support your conclusion aren't in your interest. — ssu

You aren't actually interested in the topic you wish to discuss, that's the problem. To disprove this, show us the threads you've started on nuclear weapons, articles you've written etc.

You're interested in debating. Ok, this is a philosophy forum, so go for it, no problem. I'm just not that interested in debating just to be debating, on this particular topic.

You guys are lost in the group consensus complacency delusion. You are in very good company, almost the entire culture including the most prominent intellectual elites. There's nothing I can do about the delusion you are experiencing. We'll just have to wait for the first nuke detonation and see if that helps.

There definately is a difference. Ten times of a difference. — ssu

Ok, thank you for engaging, but you're clearly not qualified to participate in this conversation, at least not to a level that can hold my interest. See you in some other thread.