Fashion is fashion. The youth is prone to appearing 'fashionable' and being 'fashionable' may mean despising monetary wealth or aspiring to it.

You tend to find that mainstream artists dream of being fringe or underground whilst underground artists dream of commercial success. The stress between the two encourages people to sway back and forth.

Worth is subjective, but for most items in life there is a general consensus. Artists making money is more applicable to certain fields in certain times. The music industry is waning because live music is overtly commercial now. The Beatles and Elvis basically turned the industry on its head and the advent of MTV followed by the internet has started to make current forms of music less 'fashionable'.

Look to what teenagers aspire to be to see how things have changed. Once it was every teenager wanting to be in a band and now it is more about esports, podcasts, and streaming. These are the heroes of today not Bowie or Elvis. Now people want to be Elon Musk or Joe Rogan.

Anything that gets popularised comes from underground sources. Hip-hop was alive and vital and then it became commercial ... it is just how things are. The 'value' will shift with novelty. The true artists don't care much for money they just make stuff because that is what they do. Others fawn over them or are inspired by them.

Money is a reasonably good fungible means of trading and interaction between seemingly different areas. Monopolies are the issue. Another issue is that of immediate reward. That is why education is plagued by business models that are detriment to education as the 'pay off' of a good education is hard to measure/predict and takes a considerable amount of time to reap the benefits from. Some times school students do poorly in one year because the students in that year are just dumb yet schools are often rewarded based on the performance of students ... it is insane.

Money is better than barter ... but maybe with current communications and technologies a combination of the two may be more possible? No idea what that will look like though ... it would take someone extraordinary to come up with and implement an alternative.

Your opinion. Fair enough. You can argue/agree/question/view my point here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11886/choice-the-problem-with-power

It was about the way people use the term 'power' and questioning the validity of doing so when talking about 'power' in terms of 'corruption'.

Giving direction isn't 'bad' though. That is my point. Simply because someone is capable of applying their will here or there it doesn't mean it is 'corrupt' the corruption is more about exactly what they are doing, how they are doing it and why they are doing it.

Power is just as likely to make changes for good and it is for bad (whatever the perception of good or bad may be).

I see far too much people trying to drag down others because they are competent and/or possess abilities they don't possess.

Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. Is someone 'coercing' or 'suggesting' or 'guiding'? The term used to describe someone generally tells us more about the person saying it than the person they are referring to if they view power as some root of corruption (not that I am saying you said that).

If you are defining power as something that necessarily corrupts then it does obviously mean that. I don't see why power necessarily corrupts (power meaning ability to influence/control events to some degree).

I would basically equate power to ability. The 'ability' may be used as a detriment or not. If I have the ability to kill people (which I do and so does practically everyone else) I can apply this in ways that can be deemed as 'corrupt' or 'just' depending on differing circumstances.

Using power for personal gain and interest above all ease is 'corruption'. That is nothing like saying power causes corruption anymore than it is to say evaporation causes thunder storms or water causes animals to swim. Power can undoubtedly be talked about in terms of how corruption manifests but it is not a root cause in and of itself.

it remains a fact that power corrupts — Olivier5

No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though.

I think they are hard to find. A lot of people come to philosophy forums because they have a vague interest in expressing something, asking about something or just out of curiosity.

Most people are capable of philosophical thought and they are usually the kind of people who don't seek out philosophy where there is a sign saying 'philosophy' to start with.

Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless. — Olivier5

A person without any power is merely useless as they cannot do anything. A person with power can do something.

Good people exist because they possess the power to do something not because they are inept. I could just as easily argue that refusing claims to power would make you a bad person because it could be framed as cowardice and refusal to take responsibility.

To talk about differences in sex isn’t inherently ‘sexist’. I think it is a cheap shot and antithetical to any kind of level-headed discussion to try and tar and smear what someone is asking/saying/looking at.

Even if there is a general agreement that whether man or woman we should behave within certain boundaries it still comes to the point that there are general differences between men and women and that perhaps the general agreement about human bahaviours we wish to aspire towards (as men or women) necessarily means that there is a general difference in paths towards such an aspired place of civil communication, laws and such.

The underlying question I have is whether or not the differences in how men and women value certain aspects of human life differs enough to warrant justification for any discussion into how society can be better directed towards equality for all (as in equality of choice).

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

Overall I would probably expect this to be so. On an individual to individual basis I’m not sure it would hold up just as we cannot say definitively that one random woman is less aggressive than one random man (although I would bet on it being the man knowing the odds are slightly in my favour).

But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. — L'éléphant

No, because I agree there is a difference. I don’t care for ‘morals’ as I’ve stated. I have made quite clear (so I thought?) that men and women in general will have different ethical maps because they are different.

I mentioned the way feminine and masculine are used because I wasn’t convinced you were aware of how they can be used in psychology. If I was wrong I was wrong, it doesn’t hurt to state how the terms are used though.

Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction. — L'éléphant

But there is also a ‘motherly protection’ aspect too this. Shielding people from harm. We can argue for both maternal and paternal instincts here. Restricting freedom is seen by you as masculine/paternal but not feminine/maternal … probably because feminine and maternal are not exactly synonymous. The virtuous character traits if women (historically) have been more or less ‘passive’ traits, but for archetypes like the all consuming mother figure there is a large amount of tyranny involved as well as great danger.

I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.

The same goes for scientific procedure.

Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent.

Why? What for? If I wanted to post on facebook I would use facebook.

I think the one thing it is hard to argue against is that overall human development is what is it is and that men and women are distinguishable. That is not to say they are completely different but it is to say that they are most certainly not the same and that the overall pattern is that there are males and females.

Gender has recently taken on a slightly different take distinct from sex, but I think it has been overly politicised by a small minority within a small minority. As a technical term I'm fine with using the term any way people like just as long as we're both clear we're talking about the same thing.

The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. Generally the serious types are not screaming they are just asking questions and considering different views rather than pushing an agenda.

My position is basically against 'morality' as some kind of 'rule'.

When it comes to groups and individuals the very differences being discussed here take on a different means. Collectively women behave differently to men and are different to men in attitudes and psychological make up. On an individual to individual to individual basis the chances of distinguishing a man from a woman purely based on psychology alone is more or less guess work.

It is incredibly easy to confuse the behaviour of a rain drop with the behaviour of rain - as in the behaviour of a man/woman with the behaviour of men/women.

@L'éléphant Reread and stop overreacting. It is utter gibberish to replace ‘gender’ with ‘physiological’ in that sentence. I used the term ‘sex’ not gender. I have no issue with people using ‘gender’ in the same way as ‘sex’ but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something and don’t appear to want to talk about why you deem ‘feminine’ as ‘female’ and ‘masculine’ as ‘male’ when these are absolutely NOT equivocal in psychology. All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk).

Yes, what are called ‘feminine’ characteristics are traditionally (universally even) associated with females. Society has shifted.

It is a ‘touchy subject’ and if you’re touchy about it it doesn’t help anyone.

I think it is reasonable to say that on the whole there are differences in values between me and women and that these things have changed as society changes too. How are they different? There are personality traits that show some differences between men and women. It also follows that different values will give different moral stances.

The question for me is not whether men and women have different moral maps but exactly how different they are.

@Astrophel Here's a thought. If there is some underlying principle (core elements of) 'ethics' then can an alien species exist and have a completely different set of ethical views/rules? At the heart here is is basically about ways of valuing things.

Example: Maybe in an alien culture the females would select males based on how well they kill dolphins or build temples made of wood ... this would lay out a 'value system' upon which ethical schemes are based. In such a society maybe they question the underlying value of caring about temples made of wood or killing dolphins BUT they would still care about them to the point that such things have gone hand in hand, or tentacle in tentacle, with their evolutionary history.

When we look at humans we could take this tack too. How do females select mates? How do males select mates? How have such choices laid out the evolutionary groundwork for our ethical views via our biological predispositions and how influential are these 'innate' parts when it comes to us living out our lives?

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

Historically. But in more modern terms 'feminine' and 'masculine' qualities (psychologically speaking) are not exclusive to either sex. Just like Red in Spanish doesn't have a penis or a vagina, yet grammatically language has morphed into a weird admixture of terms across history.

Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. In a few situations (as with most situations in nature) there are exceptions where sex as a defining feature is less than clear.

Sapolsky refers to humans as the confused ape as unlike other ape species the difference between male and female is far less pronounced. The vast number of differences scientifically/statistically documented are more or less only noticable at the extremes or when culminated across large population groups (ie. height or muscles mass, as well as personality traits too a far lesser degree).

As for morality ... I personally don't see any reason to care for it :)

Asking why will eventually lead to foundational justifications. — Astrophel

Because you say so. I don't buy it. I'm not into atomisation. This is literally one of the main contentions Husserl had.

It doesn't matter why, or in what circumstance, or how evil one's intent is--- liking something, adoring it, despising it, and so forth, have in every case an existential counterpart: that which is in the world which is adored, despised and the rest. — Astrophel

I don't believe this via certain experiences I've had. I cannot share those experiences though only state that I cannot fully justify what you are saying or really hold to it with a large degree of seriousness. Nor should you care about my experiences too much just go about your business splitting things in half and you'll find the loop eventually or deny it (or maybe I denied it?).

Just to add, the argument for moral realism I defend is quite involved. This is but an iceberg's tip. — Astrophel

I find immoral to argue for a moral position. I think the term is far too suspect being entwined with social norms, claims of justification, reducing life to formulas and embedded in a medium (this one of words) that exists in a social format rather than one which is orientated about the individual being (Selfhood).

Humans are Legions whether alone or together.

As an exercise of thought anything can be justified and some things more easily than others. Understand it is a game though and not much more - that is probably the heart of what you are asking so there it is ... ethics is a game and it becomes more about what a game is ... you can go round and round, and so you should, until some of the parts and perspectives make more sense. What ever the hodgepodge conclusion you arrive at as sufficient will be nebulous and avoid precise articulation because we're not just words bundled up in a mindball.

What about this obvious point drove you to post it instead of posting about the sky being blue or circles being round?

I guess you just want us to pay attention to it more. Fair enough. I don't really care much for the post and if there is nothing more so be it.

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine, but I'm not sure where you expect this to go or want this to go?

This is a radical, and overarching openness that runs through all things, and is overwhelmingly alien to familiar thinking. — Astrophel

That is the phenomenological approach. There is no statement of what is or isn't only constant reorientation through consciousness.

You said it yoursef: your taste will vary due to mood, etc. I am not a mood. When a mood comes to me, I can deal with it, true, but the mood and its alternatives are givens. You are thrown into a world of givens. Choice intervenes, but choices are only among what is given to choose; and so many are now beyond choice: I can't choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. — Astrophel

Where does the 'mood' come from? France? Make sense or don't speak. What is it you are 'dealing with' and what does this 'dealing with it' entail? Note: I'm not trying to be funny or evasive here nor am I expecting an answer ... that is counter productive to disentangling oneself from 'ethics' as a reasonable quest.

You can choose to hate chocolate or adore traffic noise. Saying you cannot does not make the plasticity of your taste disappear it merely covers it up. You may or may not be predisposed towards x more than y but that doesn't necessarily make x a certain choice over y.

If you say you cannot choose it is because you don't wish that to be the case because it is upsetting on some level of rationality (which includes emotional aspects too as it must ... unless I'm wrong!).

The Self is not ethical.

btw Ethics doesn’t exist. The illusion is believing in a system of laws to the point that it overrules what you actually want/need/wish to do with your life.

The selfless man is spineless, selfish man is spineless. But the man who cares for being neither one nor the other … is the Self.

As psychological example …. Morbid curiosity! I can be ‘attracted’ to something I find ‘repulsive’.

What makes something ‘repulsive’ is the same as what makes it ‘attractive’ … novelty! Fear is part of discovery in some step of the journey. Discovery without some initial comprehension of fear isn’t discovery it is just ‘normal’.

I ask then, what is in an attraction or repulsion? — Astrophel

Are dichotic features real? How are difference defined? What is a the difference between open and closed as opposed to hot and cold? Opposites come in various forms and some are harder to categorise than others. Some can be called gradable in one situation and something else in another.

I can be NOT hot but not necessarily cold. The door be open OR closed NOT somewhere in between.

Attraction and repulsion are just two ways of saying the exact same thing depending on what features you are focusing on.

Still no mute button? :(

Blah blah blah. I don’t respect your opinion because I understand it.

As good a place to start as any. Any starting point needs to be seen as wrong at some point though.

What ethic we/I use is regarded in terms of emotional wellbeing and logical analysis (or rational thought).

The ‘emotional wellbeing’ involves self-deception as much as revelation (or perhaps more so).

The ‘rational’ is tied to the disassociation of authorship over our actions. All too often people ‘rationalise’ their actions (pre/post) in order to protect/confront their emotional states. To look at ourselves and see how monstrous we are (not can be, WE ARE) is not an easy task or a sensible one for that matter, unless we understand the danger … which we cannot. This is basically the Jungian Shadow.

Ethics is shrouded in law making. If I want to kill you that is fine in my opinion … but this is untrue because there are other factors such as empathy at play and the very language I am using to ‘think through’ and distinguish concepts such as ‘kill’ that are social terms not independent personal terms. The ‘essence’ of me is not atomised it is nebula … and not really an ‘essence’ as it is temporally and spatially indefinite.

Ethics is social. The irony is to dig under this is to dispense with the social by believing we can dispense with the social

You do. Your choice is just not blatantly apparent because it readjusts constantly (to some degree). The taste of something will vary due to mood, environment and patterns. An example would be symmetry … it is generally a pleasing feature. There are circumstances where symmetry effects taste. Such experiences refine/readjust initial experiences.

Joy is an attitude not really a ‘feeling’. The ‘feeling’ is attached to an attitude and the attitude to the feeling. They are not the same thing yet exist due to each other. We have gone past the point where they can be viewed as one item because our language has evolved this way due to societal interactions.

The ‘established value’ is established how and by whom/what?

In terms of philosophical investigation we ‘view’ a sound and notice that it requires volume, tone and timbre. We cannot talk about a sound without these things. It is nonsensical to then atomise ‘volume’ endlessly.

We make value judgements based on the instant. This is different to meditating on how these judgements are made. By meditating on how the judgements are made we are necessarily involved in judgements of judgements of judgements … or we can simply pick very different items of judgement and see if anything common shows itself. Either way we’re forcing our will upon the situation so we don’t know if we’ll favour what is or what we want to believe is.

We can still ask what is there in ‘ethics’ that cannot be taken out. That would be up to you … you see the problem therein?

There is no ‘foundation’ for phenomenological investigations. That is basically one of the greatest benefits of phenomenology. It doesn’t adhere to any particular ‘foundation’ although it was created (by Husserl) to provide a better grounding for science (not ethics). It is a ‘science’ of consciousness.

If it was used for ethics it would have to take on other forms. Heidegger and others (the hermeneutical types) probably go there in part with their slither the greater phenomenological body (meaning based principally on interpretations of mere words tangential to experience).

He didn’t say that. Read.

The ethic is based on the individual moral positions of peoples in societies/communities. There is also an underlying/innate predisposition to ‘animate’ objects experienced - empathy is innate.

Ethics is about presupposing a set of rules and means to live by that suit ALL people OR enough people to help the most people in the long run … or even to help humanity in the long run rather than the most people (hence how genocides and war are ‘justified’ by some).

I am against ‘ethics’ in this sense. I am against rules set out by others regardless of there use to me. My view is my view and if I think something is okay then I’m good. Sometimes this upsets others and that is just something I have to live with rather than ‘justify’. I think moral justification is probably the singular most dangerous element of human cultures.

The moral journey is an individual one and all make the necessary mistake of looking for public backing for their views rather than operating and adjusting them as suits experienced living. Thankfully enough people are too sheeplike most of the time so the minority have more clout. In more recent times this has become imbalanced and we’ve seen dozens of examples of this since history began (and likely further back than that?). When I said ‘recent’ I was talking on an evolutionary scale! I do still view the modern era as shedding more light on this problem because of the population explosion, but my view is myopic because I’ve not even been alive for half a century yet and just because I believe I am ‘better’ than most at viewing the human species with a good degree of objective indifference it doesn’t make it so :D

Also, ‘ego’ has different meanings in different contexts. I’m more in favour of Jung’s mapping out of the psyche than Freud’s.

Buddhism also has a similar point. — TerraHalcyon

Who cares?

I used to smoke weed fairly often many years ago. The best thoughts I got from it was when I stopped smoking it after days of abuse. The ‘wakeful’ feeling of stopping after short burst of excessive use were quite profound.

When people talk of cannabis as being ‘inspiring’ are just fooling themselves. It makes you feel like you have a ‘new’ thought but if you’d been sober you can be pretty sure the thought would’ve been FAR better. Maybe there is something to say for ‘opening a door’ to a different perspective? There are better drugs to take. Psychedelics are probably the most beneficial as well as being potentially the most dangerous.

Big Pharma will be dead once CRISPR hits its stride. Anyone will be able to cure anything … and change themselves.

We’re the tail end of the species prior to its leap into godhood. Perhaps some people alive today will be those but I’m probably a few decades too old to see it hit full effect. Big Pharma will try and hold it back but it is inevitable.

Language as shit and toilets as the brains trying to flush the shit away … but the crap just keeps on coming!

That which is corrosive and basically waste is often prized as something immaculate :)