But male white privileged conservatives hate handouts, even to other white people, and they are the ones who run this country for the most part. I agree with you, though. The rich are the most entitled of all.

And besides, if pigs could fly, it would be a much different world. — Bitter Crank

And I’d be a billionaire if I were Jeff Bezos and not someone who is sensitive and has schizoaffective disorder.

Perhaps necessary in a host scenarios, but there's something to be said about the type of bearing that things such as 'Ought' statements hold on our psychological health. "I ought to be this", but what if you just aren't? Should we feel ashamed because we don't uphold the principles of some external moral doctrine?

I'm not really sure about the answer. — st0ic

It depends I guess. If one is powerless to change in a way that they think they “ought”, then one “ought” not get down on oneself even if others do.

I think the biggest reason as to why people feel a lack of meaning in their life is due to us being pushed into the idea that life has to be in a certain way in order to have a purpose. I think it's more about the relationship between purpose and the action of fulfilling the purpose that makes us question our life's meaning. If we were to treat the purpose of our life and our reaction to knowing our purpose as two separate things we would feel content regardless if we achieved our life's purpose or not, because then we would feel safe in the notion that our life has a meaning, but it's up to us if we want to pursue it or not. And this is, of course, a consequence of societal norms. — Ines

This may be true. If my purpose is to provide for my family, and I fail at this, then I still know my purpose even though it is not accomplished. I’m not sure I was getting at this in my OP, though. I think existential meaninglessness comes from having to do a lot of activities in modern society that can seem pointless, but this has a lot to do with how sensitive one is and their personal disposition. Civilization breeds philosophers.

Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank

I agree with your analysis except for the use of the term “delusion”, mainly because in psychiatry, delusion is something to be rid of. I’m not sure which word would be better, though. I think it’s a NECESSARY delusion.

The best I can say regarding your OP is that it hints at Marxist notions of alienation, and now you're trying to argue that pre-civilized man was free of such pain. — Hanover

Thank you for your gracious generosity, but I would argue that Marx was onto something about alienation due to division of labor. That’s why so many people have hobbies outside of work. They find meaning in their hobbies that they don’t get from their occupation. I think that is a symptom of civilization that couldn’t have been prevalent in ancient tribes and clans due to the inherent structure of the social units involved.

Well, surely, they are 'thanked' a good deal more than those who are managed? — ZhouBoTong

Depends on their boss and how they treat their own workers, of course.

Shouldn't people just learn to find value and purpose OUTSIDE OF WORK? Isn't the attachment of my personal self-worth to my job the REAL mental health problem? — ZhouBoTong

Yes. Guidance counselors in schools across the country tell students to “shoot for the stars” implying that if they land the job of their dreams everything will fall into place for them mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. That’s what it seems like to me, anyways.

So, I guess the solution would be not to put so much stock in your occupation as a source of fulfillment. That goes against the American educational system’s propaganda, though.

The fact of the matter is that mental illness diagnosis is on the rise. However, this could be better diagnosing, more pressure from pharmaceutical companies, more actual mental illness due to alienation, or some combination of the aforementioned.

Okay

The point is we are all screwed and human in our vanity doing things out of mainly boredom, discomfort, and survival, mediated through the medium of our society/culture. This is no different for the plains Native Americans or the city-state dweller. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, maybe, but I think the plains Native Americans believed there was purpose in what they did. It seems like existential meaninglessness in that culture wasn’t as prevalent. They had shamans, not philosophers. Pick your poison, I guess.

The Sun Dance with self-mortification sounds like splendid fun. :grimace:

A happy day for me when someone sees things the way I do. :wink:

But to the OP, I do believe it does shows ancient societies were just as worried about meaning and purpose as today, possibly more given their non-scientific teleological bias. Existential doubt (which we can probably agree is generally thematic to Ecclesiastes) is part of the eternal human condition, not a new problem brought about by modern decay. — Hanover

To my point, Ecclesiastes describes life in a city-state as far as I know and not life in a tribe or clan like the plains Native Americans.

Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.” — Hanover

Sounds like a philosopher to me. :wink:

Therefore, the job you do, such as bookkeeper, manager, social worker, or psychiatrist, and the tasks you carry out in secular, worldly affairs are insufficient to give meaning to your life. Even helping other people, is insufficient to fulfil your destiny. You will still need to pray, keep God's law, and sexually reproduce to find fulfilment. — alcontali

Thank you for reminding me of what I once gained through prayer. :smile:

It’s a highly idealised view. From what I’ve read violence was endemic in many hunter-gatherer cultures. — Wayfarer

I was thinking of the plains Native Americans as an example. Hunter-gatherers undoubtedly settled some disputes through violence, though.

IOW, without civilization there would be no philosophers.

I think both of you missed my point entirely. My point was that before there were modern cities, when people were living in small tribes and everyone in that tribe had a place, knew everyone else, and were indispensable to that tribe; I doubt very many people asked or thought to ask, “Why am I doing this?” I believe philosophical thinking is a product OF civilization. Without civilization, no one asks what their purpose is. In tribe life EVERYONE has a purpose. People aren’t disposable in a tribe or clan.

Farmers know what they do has value. Or at least they should know. Carpenters know that what they do has value or creates value. But enter modern civilization with its global markets. Tariffs for the American soybean farmer have made it so that no one is buying their product, and many farmers are becoming depressed and suicidal. What they produce has been removed from the people who would buy it. Modern civilization has removed their purpose. This is just one example.

Now, I’m sure there are many bookkeepers who enjoy their occupation and feel like they have value to their companies and their families. But I’m also sure there are even more bookkeepers who question their value to companies when they don’t get credit for a job well done and only get noticed when they make a mistake. How many mentally and spiritually healthy bookkeepers do you know? The ones who are healthy probably have to look outside of their occupation to find meaning.

This having to look outside of one’s occupation for meaning is unique to civilization and not something you would find in an indigenous tribe. That is my thesis.

Thanks, guys.

But this is just personal indulgence on your part. — tim wood

Of course it is. This is a philosophy discussion. We’re discussing theory.

What one thing (first) might you change, and how, to make it better? — tim wood

I would have one house of Congress with representatives based on equal districts of population with four year terms. Then actual people would be represented and not land. The states already have their own governments, so they don’t need to be equally represented in Congress which is currently the case with the Senate. That’s the first thing I would change.

In a word it captures much of the wisdom of the American forefathers. They were quick to dismiss mob wisdom and notions of pure democracy, — tim wood

That was then (1787). This is 2019. If you had read my comments in this thread, then you’d know where I stand.

I’m not saying our forefathers got everything wrong. What they got wrong was leaving so much power to the individual states, the electoral college, and the structure of the Senate, which overwhelmingly favors the powered elites over the vast majority of citizens.

Furthermore, winner take all elections resulted in a forever two party system, which leaves out the viewpoints of a lot of people. This was another mistake.

In conclusion, the forefathers were wise in that their was nothing like our government in the world at the time, but they shouldn’t be deified as they made many mistakes.

being the neurotic, pre-pubescent axis upon which political action apparently ought to be judged. — StreetlightX

Exactly! You can’t even bring up anything in politics with conservatives without them invoking the founding fathers, as if conservatives know what the fathers would say if they lived in the here and now. This isn’t 1787!

I disagree with the deifying of men who owned slaves and oppressed women.

I think we need a real world example of how anarcho-libertarianism would work. How would it deal with hate speech, radicalization on the Internet, leading to terrorism?

And they forged the constitution. The metaphor of the forge is apt, imo, the red hot iron of ideas hammered on the anvil of debate - sometimes itself heated- by skilled hands. No word of it is unweighed, unconsidered, accidental. It starts, as you well know, "We the people...".

The government, then, is of, by, and for, the people. The point being that the government is intended to not be apart from the people - even though most of those people are "always already" judged unfit to be the governers. And this is just Socratic wisdom: do you trust everyone to train your horse, or more properly the man who is the horse-trainer?

And so federalism, representative to address the problems both of democracy and the sheer size of the country. Equal division of power for checks and balances. State governments for local concerns - and because states are the original entities. So far, junior high school civics, or should be. I myself believe that every US voter should pass a basic civics test before he or she can vote.

Was the 17th amendment a movement away from federalism? How could it be? It simply altered the how of the selection of senators, not the fact of the selection. And while it may not have eliminated so-called smoke-filled back rooms, it made them much larger. Repeal of the 17th, it seems to me, is akin to what happens to alcohol when too refined. You go from beer and wine to whisky, rum, and brandy, finally to grain alcohol, which is undrinkable.

I see your citation on repeal. I see it starts with this:
"Out of manufactured hysteria over nonexistent corruption, the Seventeenth Amendment was born, robbing states of their most notable constitutional check on federal lawmaking." If you buy this, you're a fool. Are you a fool? This seems typical of the big lies so much now a part of our daily discourse.

It ends with this:
"So let’s give states back their original power to stop federal overreach by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Let’s remedy our century-old mistake. It just might save the republic." Who knows, maybe we can have slaves again. Not black ones; that would be impolitic. And the other minorities wouldn't put up with it. So maybe thee? Or me?

I see it was written by a third-year law student. It has the ignorant enthusiasm of a student, with the substance of a moot court argument. God help him - and us - if he means even a single word of it. There is danger in educated ignorance elevated to stupidity in service of ideas that are ultimately vicious. We have our own examples, but the usual models are fascism and communism, which seem to evolved into today's cult-leaders, like Putin, Xi Jinping, and others across the world, including our own unspeakable and disgusting wanna-be. *sigh* — tim wood

This is religious bullshit. Pardon my French, and God bless you. I don’t agree with what you’ve said, but I will defend to the death of me your right to say it.

the argument of those opposed to the EC that it was the tool of slave holders. — JosephS

That’s akin to holocaust denial, like denying that the founding fathers were slave holders. You don’t have to buy it. It’s a fact.

Always upholding precedent - because it happened - will lead to repeating mistakes. — creativesoul

Ah, yes. The bane of common law.

As Marchesk points out, it is irrational to ask for democratic institutions just because every politician in the U.S. uses appeals to democratic institutions. — hairy belly

True that the politicians do this. Also true that I wish for a better system despite politicians’ collective hypocrisy.

Anyway, since we’re not going to agree on basic matters of fact, I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion.

I wish you well in the coming years when there’s no more jobs.

The most recent series of adverse shocks lasted longer and became more severe, however, prolonging and deepening the Great Recession.

This is unverifiable, and you cannot compare the collapse of 08-09 to 91-92 or 2001.

). I mean Bill Clinton inherited a good economy when he started office and he didn't really need to do much to keep it that way — Shushi

Not true. He got elected because there was a recession. The deregulation of the banking sector in 2000 was the Republican Congress’s legislation that Clinton signed into law. Clinton was all about triangulation, something I disagree with.

Capitalism magazine? And they’re not biased? They don’t have an axe to grind?

Keynesian economics worked to pull us out of a recession in 2009, and you’re probably not old enough to remember the 90s. The economy was doing great for almost everyone.

Anyway, automation and AI are going to remove millions of jobs in the next ten years. Then big government in the form of handouts will sound pretty good for most.

I mean capitalism has been the most effective tool in liberating most of the world population from hunger — Shushi

I agree with this, but I disagree on tax policy.

Both Clinton and Obama were supply siders, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

The top tax bracket (yearly income over $1 million starting at the millionth and first dollar should be 60%. The working poor should have no taxes and a tax rebate, and the middle class (income from $100,000 - $200,000 per household) should be at 15%. The poor and middle classes stimulate the economy because they spend their money. The rich gamble on the stock market with their low taxes right now. Entrepreneurs should get tax incentives. Corporations should be taxed to kingdom come. That’s my view.

If we kept cutting taxes every time we wanted to “stimulate the economy” (a bubble), we’d eventually end up with no taxes. Then we’d end up with no government and anarchy.

Reagan at least doubled the national debt with his tax cuts, and the debt was virtually nonexistent until he came along. We have had supply side economics for the last 40 years. Low taxes do not lead to more revenue. They may create bubbles that for a short time increase revenues from corporate profits, but those bubbles always burst.