Cost to environments should be taken into account so that it becomes more expensive. Markets seem to fail to do that, so they should be corrected. Is that about right? And if so, what is it that's holding this kind of correction back. Corporate lobbying, geopolitical interests... or even just that is difficult practically speaking to do something like that?

in case the context isn't clear, awareness of how racism works requires an understanding of race and its categories. It just isn't plausible that stopping being aware of race is going to address systemic racism, precisely it requires a critical awareness of race. — fdrake

Awareness of race isn't going to address systemic racism either it seems to me, at least not on it's own. It's interesting you bring up the UK and compliment the US on it's awareness of the problem, because it isn't entirely clear to me that black people are better off in the US compared to the UK.

It's a bit of catch-22, right? The categories that are created are the origin of the problem, and then you have to take them into account because they have created a reality that you want to change. But in doing so you risk reinforcing made-up categories that tend to cause inequities by virtue of them existing. Then again they already exist, so it probably doesn't make all that much of a difference.

Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. Apparently game-theoretic models predict these kind of inequities 'naturally' arising between separate identified social groups. I don't know how solid and applicable these models really are, I'm no expert, but it does intuitively makes perfect sense to me that this would be the case, especially if one group is a minority. And so if you can't do away with them, it's always going to be a bit of an uphill battle.

But maybe - if I'm allowed to make abstraction from the real world problem for a second - that is the more philosophical take-away from all of this.... that inequalities will arise between identified social groups no matter if there is overt or active racial discrimination or not (and there certainly is that too). And so we need something to correct for that... I'm not entirely sure what kinda of solution would do the trick though.

I would argue that while some people do this, they would be the people who are seeking status for itself. There are people who do such things without regards to status, and have had such status placed on them by society. It is the later who are the true saints and ascetics, while I would argue the former are pretenders. — Philosophim

I think they are all pretenders... if you look closely enough. Or if they are not, they will in some way have integrated the fact that they are also human in that way, and have some kind of ironic/playful relation to it.

No, I agree by and large.

What interests me most is the question what are we going to do with this given.

Nietzsche for instance points out that even asceticism or saints are ultimately also an attempt to gain status... that is to say, denying that you succumb to these human all to human drives, is itself an expression of it, albeit a more perverted one.

So, if we accept there is no escaping it, what are some healthy ways of dealing with it.... by channeling or sublimating it in less harmful ways, via art? I think that is an open question...

Can't say that I blame you.

Weird like me. I used to abhor politics. I thought that all politicians lie and will say whatever they need to say to get elected. I used to flippantly dismiss any campaign promises, because they never seemed to be kept. I believed for a very long time that my vote did not matter. What that candidate campaigned on and/or said did not really matter. Etc. I do not believe much differently now.

Political speech is supposed to elicit a response. That is it's very purpose. Generally speaking, a citizen's response is supposed to be to vote for the candidate that the citizen thinks will do what needs to be done to improve the nation, including that particular person's life and/or livelihood. Since the advent of cable 'news' channels(early eighties?), there have been concerted attempts to change the way American society thinks about the societal problems America is faced with. Mainly, what those problems are. Social media has only multiplied this.

I still do not like politics. The reason I've decided to become more active is because I just want the problems to be identified, and unfortunately America's partisan system has failed horribly as it is. That's another matter altogether and an entire subject matter in and of itself. Systemic racism is but one of those problems. Division of America is another, related issue, that is intentional and helps perpetuate the system's subsistence. — creativesoul

I get and can respect where you're coming from, but I went the other way. I used to believe in politics more, but have become progressively more distrusting of it since I had to deal with politicians professionally on a regular basis.

In the end I think my efforts to make a difference via politics would be largely wasted. I'd be just one more of a multitude of voices trying to out-scream eachother for that little bit of political influence. In short, I think I can have more of a positive effect if I focus on other things non-political.

It opens the door for otherwise unknowing and/or unaware white people to much better understand the extent of the problems. It sheds light upon the otherwise unknown reality. It leads to empathy where there could be none prior. It gets their attention considerably more than just saying that we have a racial discrimination problem...

... wouldn't ya say? — creativesoul

Let's just say I don't like politics, and it has adverse effect on me when people try to infuse their language so as to elicit some effect from me. Maybe I'm weird.

I'm not talking about that sentence, although I do think the way I said it is more clear, but it's about the concept of white privilege. This is already an explanation you have to give for white privilege.

It opens the door for otherwise unknowing and/or unaware white people to much better understand the extent of the problems. It sheds light upon the otherwise unknown reality. It leads to empathy where there could be none prior. It gets their attention considerably more than just saying that we have a racial discrimination problem...

... wouldn't ya say? — creativesoul

I dunno, I think different people will react differently, as is evident from these threads I think. Some will maybe react in that way, some will be offended, others will just misunderstand it... I think it's hard to say what the effect will be and if it will be a good one. I generally prefer just plainly stating what is going on, it think clarity has it own merits. For one, it's harder to deny that there is a problem if it's crystal clear...

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. — creativesoul

Don't you think this is very convoluted way of talking? Why not just say that the problem is that non-whites are being discriminated and oppressed?

You know, it does kinda raise the question why one goes through all the trouble of framing it in that way if there is a more simple and straightforward way of phrasing it.

I think you know that's not how it's used. It's not just about the law, though there absolutely is a component of privilege associated with the law; apartheid, Jim Crow, the Windrush scandal... Another aspect - unwarranted police violence splits along racial lines, and it's almost impossible to prosecute them successfully for it - by design. — fdrake

Yes I know privilege is not used only to refer to the law, it wasn't my intention to imply that, though I can see you could interpret what I wrote in that way, I could have been more clear. The important part is that it's a (positive) exception for an individual or small group to some kind of norm, legal or otherwise.

Although some whites no doubt have privileges in that sense, that's not really what we mean with the concept 'white privilege'. What I think the concept seeks to point to mostly, is discrimination of other groups... i.e. (negative) exceptions to the norm for non-white groups.

You might argue that this is essentially the same, because in the effects a negative exception for one group ultimately also amounts to a positive exception for another group. But I don't think that argument really holds up, the fact that some things have similar effects doesn't imply they have the same meaning.

And I think the difference in meaning matters, among other things for how we are going handle the problem. You typically revoke or take away privileges whereas you try to prevent and forbid discrimination etc... I don't think it makes much sense to say for instance that we should revoke the privilege of "freedom from oppression".

It's just confusing to speak about it in this way. It's hard enough as it is without these subtle shifts in meaning for political or moral purposes.

↪ChatteringMonkey

So the concept of privilege isn't contrary to any of your experiences. You simply feel it is patronising. — fdrake

The thing you are looking to describe with the concept privilege is not contrary to my experience. The concept however don't correspond with the thing that your are looking to describe. And yes, it does feel patronizing that you seem to think that this slight of hand with the meaning of the concept is necessary for me to adjust my behaviour.

Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds?
— ChatteringMonkey

So focus on the facts: do you find anything factually wrong with what material conditions accounts using the concept seeks to highlight? Privileges of able body and mind, race+ethnicity, income, gender... — fdrake

No, as I said above, I don't disagree that the phenomenon that your are looking describe is a thing. I just don't agree with the terminology being used.

but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place
— ChatteringMonkey

I'm sorry that the idea that other people may be able to teach you things that have a shot of making the world, and you, better offends you so much. Are we so different that you only believe what you believe based on reason and no sentiment is involved? I doubt it, we are talking about your personal feelings of offence, not about the realities associated with privilege. — fdrake

Yeah I don't exactly come here to receive moral instruction, but to have conversations with people about all things broadly philosophical. And ideally I can learn some things from that, yes... but is it that unreasonable to expect that we let people decide for themselves on a philosophy board?

My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning

an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich:
— Cambridge

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
— Merriam-Webster

I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.

Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?

That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is. — Isaac

You're going from 'advantage', 'right', 'favour' in the definitions to 'freedom from oppression' in your description, how is that not a shift in meaning?

Anyway the meaning of the word becomes quite clear if you look at its etymology, privi lege... private law. A law is generally applicable to everybody without exception. Privi leges then are private laws or rights that specifically only apply to certain individuals or small groups. The majority of whites don't have privileges in that sense... so it's just not accurate to say they do.

Moral instruction can be distasteful when the values+perspectives attempting to be imputed go against something in you, yeah. Which of your experiences does the concept of "privilege" go against? — fdrake

It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable. This has nothing to do with morality.

And no this kind of moral instruction is distasteful, not because it goes against something in me, but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place... and more importantly because of the way one thinks it should be instructed, by manipulating the meaning of words. Or perhaps more specifically, the context is framed in such a way so that the desired moral behavior naturally follows.

Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds?

In context, what have you decided? — fdrake

It doesn't matter what I have decided for the point that was being discussed.

The point is that words are being used in a way that is not typical so as to elicit the correct moral response. I'd rather have an accurate description and let people make up their own minds, that is all.

It offends me, not because I can't handle the label privileged put on me, but because it is deemed necessary to spoonfeed me the correct behaviour by manipulating the meaning of words.... it insults my intelligence.

To add to that, it's also offending to constantly be told what it is you are offended about, even after explicitly stating that that is not the case.... as if your self-reported experience doesn't matter because you have to be some self-deluding idiot that can only be saying these things to justify his abject moral character.

Does that seem like a fair complaint to you?

Yeah, its basically saying that you can't be trusted to make up your own mind.

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose. — fdrake

Perhaps, but belief it or not, some people are actually concerned with precision in the words they use. Like, don't try to convince me by manipulating the meaning of words, just give me accurate facts and let me decide.

Actually I think I would be much better off working for something outside the realm of science altogether. At least there, all of this is par for the course. Humanity as of now is incapable of creating a purely scientific environment. — Seth72

I struggle to say something helpful about this, because there always seem to be trade-offs. But I suppose if you are the kind of person that wants things to advance, that wants to have a sense of actually working together towards a common goal, science and the larger public sector can be frustrating to no end. Some, some mind you, companies in the private sector might be a better bet then because there does seem to more unity in direction there.

Like you said, I doubt there's an easy way to fix this. Personally, my problem with this is that one is forced to consider politics and the random whims of society even when they choose to work with something that is supposed to be purely scientific. CERN, or any other institution for that matter, is not disconnected from these matters. — Seth72

Well yes, there are some guarantees for independence for the scientific community, but at the end of the day the funding for science does come from society. So I suppose only by virtue of that fact alone, there will never be complete independence.

Here's part of the problem, from the CERN statutes :

Article I.1.4 Languages
The official languages of the Association shall be English and French. In the case of doubt concerning
the interpretation of these Statutes, the original text, established in French, shall be deemed authentic.

This is something that has to be included for the French, they legally cannot agree to be part of an organisation that does not explicitly state this in its founding documents because the French constitution demands it.

I guess part of the problem is that not everybody readily accepts English as universal language, because of other then scientific reasons, political mostly. You are probably well aware of language rules in the EU. If you think language is a problem in the scientific community, then multiply that by I don't know how much, and you get an idea of the difficulties it brings on the governmental level. At least in the scientific community there is some agreement to use a universal language... which is not evident at all, certainly not now the UK will no longer be a part of the EU.

But I take it that your gripe is that the people don't need to know a lot of English to get accepted at CERN. Considering the funds for CERN come from a host of different countries, they probably want some of "their" scientists working there irrespective of how good their knowledge of English is, and irrespective of how good that it is for the actual advancement of science in 'general'. That's probably an unfortunate consequence of how the Center is governed and funded, and hard to remedy. Suppose for a second there is no French physicist that speaks English good enough to be accepted at CERN.... French funding agencies would quickly ask themselves the question why they keep investing in it since there is no direct return on investment then for 'their' scientific community.

What is ideology but a belief you stand by? Even anti-ideology is an ideology in and of itself. Lol. Is it not?

Sure, that's a point I like to make often. Just because something works today or has worked in the past doesn't mean it's the one and only truth. Skepticism is vital to knowing and preserving truth. Same with what works or rather is fruitful in the short term vs. what isn't but may be in the long term. This is probably a major source of division. Each position having their own unique benefits and drawbacks. — Outlander

I use ideology here as I described in the opening post specifically, as a set of ideas to gather support, unify and hold those political groups together. I do have my beliefs about society, but don't fully subscribe to any of the actual ideologies proposed by political parties. I'm mostly a-political in that sense. But beliefs are fine, you can't do without.

Supposedly, rather hopefully, people did adequate research into positions they hold beforehand and have weighted the benefits and consequences. Republicans seem to want to deregulate and develop more and also allegedly believe in God and the traditional family unit. That last part aside, sure, you become more successful in the short term- bearing in mind resources are limited there are very clear drawbacks to this. Democrats seem to .. I don't even know what they're into but from what I've heard are more open to immigration, personal freedom, abortion, etc. Too many immigrants who aren't vetted properly could lead to a problem. I hold a belief that abortion may or may not be .. "not right" or whatever so that's a biased view I'll reserve for this reply but, yeah. Every position has it's pros and cons. The two party lines generally encompass (more or less) what the individual believes in and so they're in a sense fighting for what they believe is right. There's always going to be lines people draw between themselves and others. From the personal, individual level say providing for basic needs like food and water.. the individual obviously wants enough to survive (or more) and will oppose a neighbor to get it. These divides can be larger as they were in the past encompassing things like religion or race. That in mind, a political divide is the lesser of (many) evils and so should be tolerated if not favored. — Outlander

What you are describing here is part of it, I won't completely deny that, but the part I feel you are missing is the marketing aspect of it. Part of what they say is for marketing purposes predominately, and as such not something they really believe in or look to actually implement.... but whatever they think convinces the most people and keeps them in power.

Like what? Solipsism? Lol. — Outlander

It was not really a serious comment, I was just taking a cheap shot at philosophies I don't like, like say rationalism.

Neither politics nor ideology has to stifle philosophical thought intrinsically I'd say. Sure, any one current political system or prevailing ideology may present ideas that seem to hinder or restrict productive philosophical thought (as in how to best go about creating positive change in the world in which we live as opposed to simply learning about it). Essentially you use these things that largely and in part control most peoples lives and actions (politics/the law defining what you must do and ideology defining what people believe they should/want to do), see the benefits of them, the drawbacks, and mayhaps figure out how the benefits can be improved and the drawbacks can be mitigated. Not a great explanation but post some examples of how politics/ideology can harm philosophical thought. Aside from dogmas. I get that. — Outlander

Well it's essentially a psychological point I'm making. People usually want some amount of certainty about questions they have and typically want to avoid cognitive dissonance. If you're uncertain about something you tend to keep looking for answers until you find something that satisfies you. Ideologies present easy, all to easy, answers and so psychologically you are less motivated to keep looking for better answers. Adding to that, because we don't like cognitive dissonance and the uneasiness that comes with that, it can become very difficult to get away from these answer, especially since they typically speak to something with a lot of emotional valance. Ideologies are like thought traps that can be hard to escape from... And naturally that is bad for philosophy since that is I think all about retaining some mental agility and being able to do away with bad ideas for better ones.

As for examples, I don't know if you're american, but just look at the political debate there and how heated it has become. People seem unable to think straight when it comes to debating issues. They constantly seem to be triggered into party-line talking points... that's not thinking and evaluations of things on their merits anymore, but merely regurgitating.

And that is why I call it the crisis of Liberalism. You've stated it very well.

I'm afraid I know the answer, but I'm trying to be optimistic anyway. — Pro Hominem

John Dewey, which I think is one of the most underrated philosophers, was a big proponent an educational system that actually sought to educate people so that democracy could work. That seems to be at least a minimal condition to it, if it is possible at all. People won't magically turn into educated democratic citizen, but maybe it's possible if a real effort was put into it. That's me trying to be optimistic.

I’m not sure they are at odds with each other since a great deal of philosophy goes into forging ideology. But perhaps one should begin with philosophy before venturing into politics. — NOS4A2

Perhaps Plato would agree :-)... but I'm not so sure, I think to be a successful politician you need good instincts as to what speaks to people in the first place. Maybe you need some philosophy to be a 'good' one, but then you probably won't be a successful one.

Without politics we have war and bloodshed. Or more of it at least. Without ideology we have emotion run amok coupled with odd, disjointed beliefs birthed by mere happenstance. Politics, to some, can be reduced to mere civilized mob rule, which has always been in existence since the beginning of language and probably earlier. Ideology can also be reduced to mere opinion, usually one that sounds good or promising as in able to facilitate greater works than an opposing one. Which again shares most of the traits described. These are part of reality and so unless one wants to make the argument that philosophy ignores reality, they're simply part of the philosophical equation. — Outlander

Well some philosophy seems to ignore reality :-), but yes, that is not exactly my intention. And it's also not my intention to do away with politics and ideology, because well, it is what it is, and a necessary part of the world as you say. What i'm suggesting however is that maybe as a matter of personal choice, one should possibly make a decision for one or the other.

Again, you use restrictions or "what is" as guides or supports to bolster productive discussion as opposed to limits that restrict it. Floors not ceilings. — Outlander

This sound like it could be interesting, but I don't quite understand what you mean. I"m not trying to be dismissive here, just curious as to what you mean.

I think we are straying into history here, and away from your point. In modern times, it is clear that Ideology is useful for capturing the imagination of those that are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about a thing. — Pro Hominem

Yes I agree.

But let me ask you the following question then, do you think it is feasible to get enough people to think about these things in a sufficiently nuanced way for democracy to work as it is intended? Maybe they don't have the time, motivation,talent or whatever.... to do that.

And if the answer is no, wouldn't then the problem be that we have a system that relies for it to work on conditions that we can't really expect to happen?

Any philosophy you read that lacks this attribute should be discarded and thrown into the trash... so much for formal analytics. Life is way too short to spend it on thought puzzles whose only referent is their own abstraction. — JerseyFlight

I don't disagree, I was referring to ideologies, not philosophy.

True, but in the context of monarchies and oligarchies, it doesn't really matter what "the people" believe. — Pro Hominem

Well it does to some, arguably lesser, extend... because otherwise people would revolt. That's why they did go through all the trouble of justifying their rule with ideologies.

Depends on what you mean by "new". It is only a couple hundred years old. What I think you are describing as politics and ideology don't exist in the same way prior to the Enlightenment. — Pro Hominem

Yes, i'm mainly talking about politics in democratic systems. But maybe the same thing could be said about ideologies developed in the name of the powers that be before democracies... they were not designed for the purpose of understanding the world.

I refer to this phenomenon as the crisis of Liberalism.

Liberalism champions democratic movements in society. It has been successful over the course of the last 3 centuries in increasing the level of democracy across many countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, the bedrock of liberalism is education and rationality and these factors have not kept pace with democracy itself. The result is that you have huge numbers of people empowered to vote and participate in government with little to no understanding of what government is or how it works or how it should be used to help the human condition. Until a greater percentage of the population is capable of philosophical or at least rational thinking, we will continue to suffer the effects of pop politics and lazy "ideology". Social media has only exacerbated the problem. — Pro Hominem

Maybe it has gotten worse over the last couple of decades, yes. But I feel like this is not exactly new, and always to some extend the case, because of the way politics works.

I was not so much talking about the method each should use, but more about their different purposes and the consequence that has. But yes I guess in general politics will invariably have to involve some rethorics, which includes appeals to emotions.

Personally, I detest building or theorizing about a socio-economic system or a government based on some theory of human nature that's reducible to a specific state of mind or biologically-based interaction. — Maw

Allright, and I don't really care for building or theorizing about socio-economic systems based on any ideologically inspired dogma, which usually would include capitalist apologists and Marxists alike.

There is a point that trade and capital have been a part of the human experience since prehistoric times.

On these grounds I would argue that trade and capital has never been systematized, and that “capitalism” was always an expression of human nature rather than a system someone invented and convinced people to act out. — NOS4A2

Trade probably, capital I doubt it, since we were mostly nomadic (so there was little use in 'owning' land) and there was no currency.

Capitalism maybe wasn't conceived top-down from scratch, but there were obviously people pushing for certain policies and laws that predominately favoured them... and ideologues looking to justify that after the fact. So expression of human nature is maybe a bit to strong, but I do take the general view that culture/ the political and economic systems we have, are never completely separate from quote unquote "human nature" interacting with a certain environment... and so not something you can just replace with any other set of ideas you might have.

That's not to say that there is no room for doing things in different ways, just that it is constrained by "human nature" and environment. The latter is the thing that I think will actually force us to adjust our systems in fundamental ways, because things have change so much over the last couple of decades... without the necessary change to the system. And that is a big part of the political crisis we are feeling all over the western world now I think.

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. It's another point of propaganda to identify capitalism and capitalist values as ingrained in humanity, while ignoring actual anthropological history that can provide alternative values for modern alternative systems. — Maw

I don't think anybody, or at least I'm not, is arguing for capitalism as it is. This is just a strawman. The question is whether Marxism is a good alternative for capitalism, or if we should look for other solutions.

Another point I would want to make is that anthropological history is not necessarily relevant because the environmental factors are completely different now. One might for instance point to the more equalitarian societal structures of hunter-gatherers, but across the globe societies developed hierarchical and stratified societies independant of eachother as population grew larger after the agricultural revolution. I don't think that was some arbitrary fluke of history. It rather seems like it was a necessity to keep larger societies together.

So what historical systems are we actually talking about that would still be relevant in a highly technological world with billions of people?

All this assumes that, even if human nature exists and is violent, the impulse to exploit is like the abuse of women: it can be corrected and ultimately repressed. All that is needed is the will and the strength to do it. — David Mo

This seems like an untenable position to defend in the face of what we know, because there are enough things that seem difficult, if not impossible to correct or implement.

Say for whatever reason, we want to forbid sexual intercourse between people... all the will and strength in the world wouldn't be able to repress that impulse.

The abolishion of alcohol maybe is a good example of something that they actually tried and failed to implement.

I can sum up other examples.... but the point is, it seems hard to deny that there are limits to what we can reasonably expect to work, because of what kind of beings we are. It's an open question as to what these limits are I think, but flat-out denying that there are any, and refusing to even consider the issue, seems like a glaring mistake to me.

I agree.

Only if you think moral objectivism has anything to say about what people do in fact value as part of "human nature", which it doesn't necessarily. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure I follow, so you are saying that it is possible that all people happen to value the same things, but that that doesn't come from what kind of beings they are? Then how did they all come to value the same thing? I mean, how do you come to some objective morality then? I'm assuming here that you are not referring to God....

I don't mind, but this is probably a bit of a divergence from the thread.

↪Bitter Crank I think the problem with arguments that stem from “human nature”, the objection to such arguments, is that the picture of “human nature” being put forth is usually hopelessly simplistic. “Competition is human nature” vs “cooperation is human nature” arguments are dumb because humans are a complicated bag of nature and nurture that includes both competition and cooperation in a very nuanced and ever-changing way. Sure you can do science to human behaviors as a species, but the patterns you come up with aren’t going to be so simple as “humans are naturally x”, for any x. — Pfhorrest

I'd agree that it not as simple as saying human are X. But at the same time, even if it is complex, there is still something there. And I think that is important and fundamental, because any theory that doesn't jive with that something, whatever it is, isn't going to work. So it seems like a mistake to just ignore the whole issue, because it's complex.

Isn't it strange that I would be arguing this point, as a moral constructivist, against a moral objectivist ;-).

I did read most of it... I just don't think the idea of static timeless experience makes sense. We may have a subjective experience of time that differs from real time passing, and we may loose track of time... but my experience is never actually static or timeless in the sense that nothing changes.

But alright, I didn't really expect you to be willing to engage.

Remember, the natural afterlife is timeless, thus it can't "become" anything, it's static and so "is what it is." — Bryon Ehlmann

That is the problem with the theory I think, you cannot conceive of experience that is static or timeless, because experience seems to presuppose some kind of passing of time. Without time there is no experience it seems to me... it's an unintelligible concept.

And so, if one cannot conceive of what it would be like to have a timeless eternal experience, how could one answer the question of what impact it would possibility have on anything?