Are you claiming then that you know that Trump's rhetoric caused the bomber to send out bombs? — LD Saunders

I don't think we can make such a direct connection, and I don't think most commentators are attempting to. It's more a case of Trump using his high public profile to encourage and feed a conflict based social environment. He's poring fuel on the fire. As are many others, but he currently has the biggest microphone.

Regrettably, we are suckers and are falling for the whole scheme. Here we are, talking about Trump, Trump, Trump exactly as his plan intended.

I am suggesting limited government, not a nonexistent one. — Eric Wintjen

Well, not really. You're suggesting a government that imposes strict conditions on who gets to participate in the political process. May be a good idea, but not really a libertarian idea.

People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge... — praxis

True, but knowledge is the source of the powers that we abuse. The fact that people tend to abuse all resources should suggest to us that perhaps we shouldn't be giving people ever greater powers at an ever accelerating rate.

At the least we might test ourselves before proceeding to see if we are ready for more power. Can we get rid of nuclear weapons? Can we decisively solve climate change? Can we clean up the messes we've already made? If yes, that would be evidence that we may be mature enough to handle new powers.

But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed. — tim wood

Experience of phenomena that might be called God seems possible through reason alone.

As example, you are using reason to discover the limitations of reason in regards to God beliefs. So if we discard reason, and can't accept faith, we are left with nothing.

This might be a good outcome. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing for you sticklers). Thus, putting our minds in a state of nothing aligns us with reality.

When our minds aren't crammed with theories, ideas and plans etc our attention is freed to focus on reality. To the degree we focus on the real world we may experience things there which were inaccessible to us while distracted by the symbolic realm.

The problem arises when we try to convert this experience of the real world in to ideas, theories, conclusions etc. Then we are back in the same old game, and if we want to create a bunch of explanations of such experience then faith may be the only available course of action, as you suggest.

But we don't have to create a big pile of explanations. We can value the experience for itself and leave it at that. As example, we get nutrition from food simply by the experience of eating it. It doesn't matter if we then go on to try to explain the processes of digestion etc, this is an optional activity which doesn't provide any nutrition.

The ideal outcome is that only those who are willing to take on significant personal responsibility and make sacrifices in order to serve the public should be allowed to impose their will on the public, and anyone who is willing to take on this responsibility is given the opportunity. — Eric Wintjen

An interesting proposal which merits discussion.

All I can think of to quibble about so far is that this would require a major re-write of the U.S. Constitution, a perilous enterprise.

A smaller scale version could be to impose these conditions only on those who seek elected office.

Well, the recipe for that is simple: education, the accepatnce of what science tells us about the natural world and the elimination of dogma and ideology from the curriculum for a start. What else could work? — Janus

Generally speaking, scientists already meet the criteria you've set. And they can't figure out how to design any technology that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. They're rushing headlong in to AI and genetic engineering without any real idea where that path takes us. And by inventing the industrial revolution they've created the threat of climate change, because they weren't able to think through where the industrial revolution would take us.

I'm not demonizing scientists here, who I see as smart people with generally good intentions. The point is instead that even those people who best fit your prescription aren't up to the job.

It is arguable that "species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species" come form a combination of clinging to outworn dogmas and ignorance or rejection of what the science tells us. — Janus

Um, it was science that invented species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. And it is science culture that is leading the charge in clinging to the outdated "more is better" dogma. What science tells us is to keep on rushing ahead in a reckless pell mell fashion without any real idea of where that takes us, willfully ignoring the real world fact that it was this very process which has given us species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. No offense, by like Karl and most of our culture, you appear to have bought in to the science religion.

Sure, but the point is that the shift to alternative sustainable technologies will inevitably slow down the train. — Janus

How so?

What I see is that if we obtained free clean energy the economy would take off like a rocket, which would accelerate the depletion of finite resources, species extinction, human population growth, the further expansion of mega-cities, further invasion of the Amazon etc.

This is nothing more than unjustified alarmism. Alarmism is never going to be helpful, if only because most people cannot stomach it. — Janus

And this is characterizing an argument instead of meeting the argument.

The persistence of nuclear weapons is on account of neurotic nationaistic ideologies and cultural paranoias. It is lack of education and the alarmism that results that has caused, and sustains, the problem of nuclear weapons in the first place. — Janus

And so given that we have no credible solution to these longstanding human problems, we should give our highly imperfect selves more and more power at an ever faster rate? You're making my argument for me here.

many of us will not be expert, or even modestly capable, in such arenas. — Jake

Except for me of course, because my social skills are so very excellent, so much better than all of the rest of you, which is why everybody loves me so much on forums. :smile:

Who is "clinging" to a "more is better relationship with knowledge"? — Janus

The group consensus, including yourself apparently.

It's not a matter of "clinging"; when it comes to managing the environment, the economy and the body politic, more practicable knowledge obviously is better. — Janus

This is the simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" mindset left over from a past era characterized by knowledge scarcity. We no longer live in that era, but instead now live in an era characterized by a knowledge explosion. Assumptions that were valid in one era do not automatically remain valid in a radically different era.

You will rightly point to all the benefits which come with more knowledge, which I don't dispute at all. But that's only part of the story. More knowledge, power and benefits comes with a price tag. More knowledge, power and benefits also accrue to those who wish us harm, and to those who haven't fully thought through the new technologies.

As example, the industrial revolution was launched with the best of intentions, and has come with a great many benefits. But the price tag has been species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species.

The key thing to focus on is the issue of scale. As the scale of the accumulated powers grows the room for error steadily shrinks while the price tag for mistakes steadily grows. If the "more is better" philosophy remains in place it's only a matter of time until the one bad day when one or more of such powers slips from our control. As example, should we ever have a global nuclear war, or climate change spinning out of control, then none of the benefits of the industrial revolution will have been worth the price we had to pay for those benefits.

But the increase of knowledge is not the problem, it is rather the reverse; the increase in technological capability is not paralleled by an increase in the appropriate knowledge required to manage it. — Janus

Right, if we had some credible plan for accelerating the abilities of the "governing mechanism" of human maturity, judgment and sanity etc to match the accelerating growth of technological power then this would be a very different conversation. But the reality is that we have no such credible plan for human transformation.

What the group consensus is attempting to do might be compared to upgrading a race car engine to go 1,000mph, without bothering to also upgrade the tires. Point being, a good engineer looks for the weakest link, the single point of failure, and in this case that is us.

But the point is that modern civilization is like a racing train; no one knows how to stop it, and everyone is afraid to alight since it never stops, and we fear we would come to grief if we jump off. — Janus

Yes, true, no one knows how to slow down the racing train, because we adamantly refuse to try to learn this new skill. Instead, the group consensus invests all it's energy and intelligence in to trying to prove it can't be done. The cliche here is, if we think we can, or think we can't, either way we're probably right.

The train is, under one perspective, driven by greed and desire for power of a few, but it is also driven by everyone's aspirations to live more prosperous and comfortable lives, with all the benefits of medical technologies, entertainment and cultural riches that come with it, — Janus

Yes, this is surely true. We very reasonably cherish all the benefits past progress has provided and want to enjoy more such benefits. And further knowledge will provide more benefits. So, the group consensus is not insane, they aren't being ridiculous, they've just failed to think through where the racing train is taking us. If we continue to speed up the train without limit, sooner or later the train goes off the track and then all the benefits we love are erased.

If it be acknowledged that we cannot simply stop the train or even deliberately slow it down, then obviously the best strategy would seem to be to intelligently redirect it as much as the circumstances allow. — Janus

There's no reason to make such an acknowledgement when we've not even begun to try to slow down technological development. There's no reason to make such an acknowledgement when the group consensus basically refuses to even think about trying. You're preemptively declaring failure before any serious effort has been made.

Yes, intelligently directing the knowledge explosion is obviously a good plan. What you're not getting is that there is a limit to human ability, thus we can't simply project ever accelerating knowledge and power development in to the future without limit.

We will successfully direct much or most of technological development, but as the scale of powers grows that's simply no longer enough. Example, one bad day with nuclear weapons and it's game over, no matter how many brilliant benefits are being delivered elsewhere.

In the past when the scale of powers was modest, we could afford to make mistakes. As the scale of powers grows, such room for error is ever less available.

There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is.... — praxis

Except that I never did make that claim.

Here's how you might proceed, if you are actually interested in the topic.

1) You could argue that humanity can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate. If you feel you can make that case, please do.

2) You could argue that humanity can NOT handle any amount of power delivered at any rate, and then apply yourself to constructively addressing that limitation.

If you can make a compelling case for #1, there then is no need for "Super Adults".

If you can't make a compelling case for #1, then some governing mechanism is required, and you could explore what that might be.

The good news is (WTF, good news from Jake???) that while we can't easily reverse species extinction, we could substantially reduce human populations fairly quickly. In theory at least.

Well, the best I can suggest is that a global philosophy forum may not be the best place to seek such advice. We're all over the world and many of us will not be expert, or even modestly capable, in such arenas.

Can you find forums that focus on your local area? If not, start one perhaps?

Have you considered selling sex toys door to door? — Bitter Crank

:smile: :smile: :smile:

I'd think it would provide some framework where I could enhance my skills. — Posty McPostface

To the limited degree I understand your situation, if I do at all, it seems attending college would get you out of the house and help you learn more life skills. I support the idea for that reason.

However, given the sad state of the philosophy business, getting a philosophy degree seems like a poor business plan, so attending college is likely to be a temporary remedy. Unless you can convert the philosophy degree in to a decent job, there's a good chance you'll be returning to mom's house down the road a few years.

A law degree might be a compromise. That's still a highly intellectual and philosophical experience, but has a better chance of serving your needs over the long run. A philosophy BA with the goal of using that degree to gain entry to law school?

But to say that civilization will end in 15 or 30 years? Really? — ssu

What is it about the fact that the collapse of modern civilization could literally happen right now today in the next few minutes that you don't get?

An elaborate mechanism is in place which allows either of two individual human beings to destroy modern civilization almost instantly at the push of a button. And neither of these individuals are known for their high moral character.

If this is not a situation which justifies alarmist calls to action, what would be?

...to repeating a mantra of irrelevant anti-intellectualist dogma. — Janus

It's not "anti-intellectualist" to get that the success of science has created a revolutionary new environment which we are now required to adapt to, like it or not.

What's "anti-intellectualist" is clinging stubbornly to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was valid in the 19th century and earlier, but which has been made obsolete in our time.

People of your persuasion (most of the culture) aren't being intellectual or forward leaning, you are instead stuck in the past. The group consensus is unable or unwilling to adapt to the reality of the modern era, which illustrates my point of why we need to slow down.

Technologically we can go 100mph. Philosophically (and please do remember this is a philosophy forum) we can go 10mph. If you have some method by which we can dramatically accelerate up our ability to adapt philosophically to new environments, that would be a solution. Without such a plan, we have no choice but to slow down the technology, or die.

Karl has spoken repeatedly throughout the thread about the need for any organism to align itself with reality if it wants to survive. I agree with this principle and am attempting to apply it. The reality is that human judgment and maturity are limited, and thus technological development can not be unlimited, which is what's implied by the "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

The entire culture easily gets the concept that I'm selling when we are discussing humans under the age of 18. But once that child reaches their 18th birthday, we get hopelessly confused.

Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed — Janus

The only thing that's needed to slow the rate of technological development is for us to grasp what's going to happen if we don't.

I would agree that we're not going to grasp this through the processes of reason. As example, even though the Europeans enjoyed high culture and are the home of western philosophy etc, they weren't able to escape a centuries old pattern of constant warfare until the price of that pattern finally became too much to bear in WWII.

So if members want to stamp their feet, debunk my posts, and tell me what I "utterly fail to see" here's how to do that. Keep reminding me that what I utterly fail to see and accept is that attempting to address challenges of this scale through the processes of philosophy is a waste of everyone's time.

In summary, I'm smart enough to see that we are racing towards a cliff, and stupid enough to think that me typing about this to anyone who will listen is going to accomplish anything at all. See? There is a way to debunk me, and I've just handed it to you on a silver platter.

It's not a problem, it's a correction. There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is and your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact is both intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, pathetic. — praxis

This is what interests you.

The bit about not waiting too long... True. A friend had planned to commit suicide under xyz circumstances. XYZ circumstances arrived (cancer, immobility from weight and arthritis, heart disease, etc.) and she was no longer capable fo carrying out her plans. — Bitter Crank

Yea, that's the outcome I would hope to avoid. But, it's not always possible. You know, one could have a stroke out of the blue, a car accident etc. But if one has some warning, I don't see the point of the heroic hanging on until the bitter end philosophy. But that's just me, I don't have an opinion on how others should proceed.

I'm wary of greed. I'm a lucky fellow and have had way more than I probably deserve. 67 years and counting. If I die today I've gotten a totally fair deal. I'm wary of spoiling this happy story by being greedy for every last minute. If I have a choice I'd prefer to go out on top.

I've set my mind on majoring in philosophy. I'm hoping on returning to my old school, UCSC. My main interest is with Wittgenstein as many can tell. But, I was wondering what others might have to say about my plans? — Posty McPostface

You might seek out those currently teaching and studying academic philosophy for further advice. This link might help:

https://blog.apaonline.org/

If you don't know already, this is a group blog of academic philosophers and their students. It's run by the American Philosophical Association. There's very little conversation on the site, but you may be able to make some contacts by following links in the articles. And reading the articles may give you a better idea of what kind of work is expected.

I spent some months on the site and came away with a better understanding of the culture of academic philosophy at least. That said, I'm not clear how representative that site is of academic philosophy in general.

My admittedly imperfect impression is that the job market for philosophy majors is not promising. And my admittedly imperfect impression of you leaves me not knowing whether this matters to you or not. If it does, the double major suggestion is probably worth considering. At the least I would advise against going in to debt for a philosophy degree.

A place to start might be to write a paper on why you want a philosophy degree, as opposed to studying philosophy on your own, which you seem capable of doing. I'm not making any point here other than that writing such a paper might help you think it through in more detail.

Jake, there can be a great degree of time between the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease and a quality of life not worth living anymore. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

My mom died of Parkinson's. The problem is that if you wait too long, you lose the choice, and can be stuck for many years in a collapsing body prison.

And, as easy as people talk about suicide, it is not so easy to carry out successfully. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It takes one second of decision.

But psychologically, the requirement that would make all these things happen is an end to the divisive religion of Me. — unenlightened

Thank you, I was hoping you might add your insights, your understanding that this is fundamentally a human problem, not just a technical problem.

If the "religion of Me" as you put it could be substantially edited for the better that would presumably make us saner and wiser, and thus more capable of successfully managing more powerful technologies.

This would be an ideal outcome, but so far at least nobody seems to have a credible plan for such a transformation that can be scaled up to the degree necessary, in the shrinking time available. This is what I mean when I asked Karl "Do we need to be correct to the reality of human beings?"

Until such a plan for psychological transformation is available, it seems the only option left is to limit the powers we give to our highly imperfect selves. Thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, not evidence we're ready for more vast powers.

Did you not read this the first time around? — praxis

Yes, I read your post in it's entirety. You presented a problem. I'm waiting to see if you are interested enough in this problem to try to address it yourself. You're under no obligation to do so, but should you choose not to, I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.

we must be correct to reality, else we shall be rendered extinct. — karl stone

Do we need to be correct to the reality of human beings?

The thing with suicide is that you can't be wrong about it, and that's a scary prospect. — Posty McPostface

Indeed, great comment that gets to the hub of it. However, as one gets older the price of making the wrong call does recede.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all this "life is meaningless" business, but when they tell me I have Parkinsons disease, well, I'm not sticking around for that. Adios amigos!

why do people stop the frivolous lives of their youths and times at universities or such? — BlueBanana

They get pregnant, and those little mouths need to be fed.

They get tired of living in a cramped roach infested little apartment next to the university, and the better places cost more, requiring a serious job.

They are following what everybody else is doing.

They are trying to meet the expectations of their elders.

Being a party animal stops being cool at some point.

All their friends are getting married and pregnant, so there's nobody left to party with.

They forgot to read this forum, and thus never learned that all of life is meaningless. :smile:

I asking who these adult-adults are. — praxis

Who do you think they are?

Please note how you made NO EFFORT to address the question yourself. That's because you're not actually interested in the subject, and are indeed looking for something to reject.

I look forward to your upcoming thread where you attempt to solve the problem which you have identified.

In my typoholic opinion, no one can provide an answer one way or another regarding the possible existence of something like a god.

However, a good philosopher should be able to demolish the God debate, which in my view is a step in the right direction. If the question of God's existence can be shown to be fatally flawed, then there's not much point in arguing over competing answers, and all this energy can be redirected towards more promising investigations.

==========

We can observe that pretty much everyone on all sides of the issue seems to assume without questioning that things can only exist, or not exist, one or the other. But if we make an observation of reality as our scientist friends would wisely advise us to do, we discover the following.

1) The overwhelming majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales is space.

2) The existence status of space is very unclear. Space doesn't fit neatly in to either our definitions of existence or non-existence. One could make a reasonable claim in either direction.

3) If the vast majority of observable reality can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist, one or the other, then why do we assume that something the scale of gods would be limited to existence or non-existence?

==========

The concept of existence seems to assume that there are separate things which exist independently of other things. And so we ask, does this thing or that thing exist, is it a phenomena separate from other phenomena?

Do YOU exist as a separate thing? Here's a simple quick experiment to find out. Hold your breath for one minute.

==========

Existence and things may not be a property of reality, but rather products of thought, the device observing reality.

As example, if you're wearing tinted sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. The tint is not a property of what you're observing, but rather a property of the tool being used to make the observation.

If men shouldn't because they're too violent, should women, who are too timid be trusted with power. I think there has to be a better balance. — BrianW

All kinds of arguments like this will go round and round and round to nowhere, until the day the violent men do something to get our attention, like nuke a city or something of that scale. Reason isn't going to work here, so we'll just have to wait for pain to do the job. And so it has probably always been.

So who are these ‘adults’ (enlightened folk like yourself?) that will limit the powers available to the ‘children’? — praxis

If you're interested in this question, you'll try to answer it yourself. If you don't try, you're not interested, and thus it wouldn't be a good use of our time to engage on the subject.

I suspect you're just looking for something you can reject. If true, you can look forward to me saying the above a lot.

No. Absolutely not. Freedom baby! There's a principle that both limits the legitimate implications of science as truth - and lends science the authority to overrule ideology, and that is existential necessity! i.e. if we don't we'll die! — karl stone

Should an engineer building a faster race car take in to account the abilities and limitations of the driver? Would doing so tend to make the car safer? Or is the human driver irrelevant to the subject of auto mechanics?

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict reflects what? — frank

Great question. Not sure I have a great answer, but here's a try.

Interpersonal conflict seems to often involve some kind of superiority claim. I am right, you are wrong etc. Put another way, I am big, you are small.

Why do we want to feel big, as measured by some social comparison? Because we feel small.

Why do we feel small? Because we are made of thought, an electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of dividing reality in to conceptual parts. This process creates the experience of reality being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very small and "everything else" being very big.

One way we attempt to overcome this perceived smallness is by attaching ourselves to something larger. So I become a Democrat, a Catholic, an American, something, anything larger than myself. Once I've attached myself to this something larger the something larger becomes an extension of my small self. If you question my something larger I will defend it, because it is me. If you present an effective challenge to my something larger, I may have to burn you at the stake.

I'm not entirely satisfied with this answer, but it's the direction I'm exploring. We're made of thought, so we experience ourselves as small, so the need arises to demonstrate that we are at least bigger than somebody.

I am however arguing that science constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we need government and industry to be responsible to, or we're all going to die. — karl stone

Would this include a detached, objective, impartial, evidence based observation of the human condition, built upon the thousands of years of history we have available to examine? Are human beings part of the reality which we should seek to develop a coherent understanding of?

If women were better suited to saving the world, they would not be passive by-standers as men sank everything into oblivion. Let's face it, neither men nor women know better when it comes to saving the world. — BrianW

I'm not claiming that women are gods with all the answers, only that they aren't as violent as men, a factor which grows in importance as we fill the world with ever larger powers.

Which brings me back to my point that, what's needed is more intelligence about managing human affairs. We need to be able to collectively realise the greater need, be able to collectively organise our priorities appropriately, be able to collectively overcome our personal limitations for the greater good, develop greater collective self-control to avoid unnecessary antagonism, etc, etc. — BrianW

I agree with all this of course. My point is that we're not likely to complete such a centuries long process because violent men will use the awesome powers now available to us to crash the system long before we get there. You know, thousands of hydrogen bombs, locked, loaded and ready to go at a moment's notice. A single press of a button by a single person, and it's game over.

First, thank you for re-engaging. In thanks I'll make a good faith effort to downscale my ornery bombastic belchings. Sorry for getting so wound up.

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality. — karl stone

I agree to this, no problem. But that doesn't automatically equal more science being better in every case. My complaint is not with science which I see as being an effective tool, which like any tool is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My complaint is with our relationship with science.

Valid knowledge of reality is not a "one true way", imho. It is instead a powerful tool to be used with discerning judgment. As I've explained ad nauseam, we already deliberately limit the powers available to children, and all I'm doing is extending that concept to adults. Obviously adults can handle more power than children. But that doesn't automatically equal adults being able to successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate.

And yet, that is what the group consensus requests from science, ever more power delivered at an ever accelerating rate.

What does this have to do with your opening post? Your proposal, whatever it's specific merits may be as a technical solution, arises out of this flawed group consensus assumption, ie. more=better. I'm not ignoring your proposal, I'm addressing the assumption it's built upon because, you know, this is a philosophy forum and digging below the surface is the kind of thing philosophers tend to do.

The group consensus, the majority of us, don't see a need to examine the "more is better" assumption because the validity of that assumption is taken to be an obvious given. This is understandable because the "more is better" assumption has been very valid for a very long time.

However, due to the awesome power of science which you correctly point to, the world is changing, and changing at an ever accelerating rate. And some of the cherished assumptions of the past are not going to find a happy home in the new environment which is emerging.

If we cling to outdated assumptions and try to build solutions upon them, we are likely to create more problems than we solve.

Doom mongers, who don't read other's posts - and so don't take on board repeated explanations of why, what's right about their ideas is subsumed under a paradigm with greater explanatory potential, while theirs reaches a false conclusion, should not expect to have their trolling acknowledged, less yet encouraged. — karl stone

Thank you for acknowledging my doom mongering trolling while at the same time claiming not to.

Your comment here is a classic example of the true believer mindset. You keep assuming that if only I was reading your posts then I would obviously see the genius of your position and join the religion you are selling. What's happened instead is that I've read all your posts and presented an effective philosophical rebuttal, which you are unable to handle emotionally, and so you are running from further engagement.

My ideas are NOT subsumed under your paradigm, because you don't even really know what your paradigm is other than to repeat the phrase "science as truth". Speaking of explanatory potential, please explain to us how you will convert humanity to your "science as truth" religion. How about those climate change denier Trump voters, what will you say to them to win them over? Even if your "science as truth" religion really is the "one true way" that doesn't matter unless you can somehow convert much of humanity over to your point of view. And that's not going to happen any time soon, or ever.

And meanwhile, the clock is ticking, as we race at ever faster speeds towards some power which we won't be able to successfully manage, just as is predicted by the Peter Principle. It's not doom mongering to point to this reality, just as it's not doom mongering to inform your neighbor that they're about to catch their house on fire with those leaves they are burning in the front yard. My position is just simple common sense, no more complicated than how we routinely limit the powers available to children.

The problem you're experiencing is that you've bought lock, stock and barrel in to a simplistic "more is better" group consensus which is not capable of common sense. The group consensus says, "Of course we should limit the powers available to teens!" and then on the teen's 18th birthday the tune changes to "Of course we should have as much power as we can possibly get, as fast as possible!" This mindset is just NONSENSE which I'm attempting to liberate you from.

I'm sorry. I really have no personal beef with you. But you're living in a dream land, and you've brought your dream to a philosophy forum, an Internet service which specializes in ripping things to shreds. Hey, my stuff gets ripped to shreds too, it's not personal, it's not about you.

Personally, I'd have a political spectrum ranging from ideologue to scientist — karl stone

Personally, you would endorse a science worshiping ideology. You are the spectrum! :smile:

By men, I mean human beings, both men and women, who also equally succumb to power trips. I think the major difference has been the persistence of gender roles over most people's personas. With time, greater realisation of equality between men and women will result in greater diffusion of previous gender-defined roles and attitudes. — BrianW

Apologies, but this is just trendy political correctness fad of the day stuff, which ignores literally millions of years of human evolution. Not a theory. Turn on your TV. See for yourself who is, and who long has been since the dawn of time, doing the violence.

I think that's unnecessarily judgmental. — Benkei

I didn't mean it to be judgmental, was just trying to summarize my highly imperfect understanding of Schop quickly.

What's wrong with creating meaning in an inherently meaningless world? — Benkei

Right. We are human. We write stories, about everything. This is who we are and what we do. However...

1) If/when we are creating meaning stories as a way to hide from something deep inside that we are afraid of, then the stories can become problematic. If I NEED my story and you disrespect that story, I may have to kill you, wipe out your tribe, remove any threat to my story etc.

2) We don't actually know it's a meaningless world. That's just another story some people like to tell.

I mean to say that adopting my beliefs will save the world. — karl stone

There's exactly no chance that humanity will adopt your beliefs. So where do we go from there? Are we still interested in saving the world? Or is it your beliefs that we're really saving here?

I'm just passionate. I don't mean to cause anyone pain or harm. But there are times when it's necessary to bang on the table. — karl stone

There you go. And if you're going to claim the right to bang on the table, that right has to be extended to your conversation partners as well.