Given that the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ isn’t very widely accepted means any measurement of it is on pretty sketchy footing.

Intelligence (the g factor) does help discern an individuals economic standing, but it is one factor of many. There is no hard evidence - to my knowledge - that has a hard connection to ‘emotional intelligence’ because, as I said, the term isn’t even very widely accepted by researchers. There are ‘hints’ that something is there, but it could just be what I said (g factor + experience).

Yet, there are undoubtedly other indicators for discerning emotional intelligence, such as being in poverty or such. — Shawn

Evidence?

I agree with this standard definition. To repeat what added in the closed thread ... my point was that the ‘item’ of discrimination by which someone feels ‘superior’ or deems a group of others as ‘inferior’ is prejudice - be this based on ‘items’ including class, nationality, perceived ethnicity, actual ethnicity, sex, political inclination and intelligence.

In differing circumstances some items come more to the fore than others. I wouldn’t place ‘racism’ on some pedestal of evil over any of the others. Often enough you’d be hard pressed to find instances of any of these ‘items’ alone anyway.

It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist’. That is something like the kind of hoodwinking that people either try to get away with of simply don’t put enough thought into because it doesn’t suit their current worldview and moral convictions.

Probably the most erroneous of all this is how people are so easily dragged into one of these ‘items’ by mistakenly holding to, or against, another. We’re imperfect beings stuck with an imperfect language trying desperately to hope that we can, one day, maybe move away from being so imperfect.

Beneath the semantics lies the heart. Mere ‘semantics’ can cause wars and genocides.

If you don’t like it leave. I would suggest just listening/reading and holding your tongue/fingers.

There are people here who can discuss topics without haranguing others. It’s a pretty sure bet that anything involving too much political weight will eventually result in a quagmire ... one-to-one, face-to-face discussion are better for that as people tend to be more reasonable and it is easier to cut through misunderstandings more quickly and efficiently.

You probably know this though. Doesn’t hurt to hear it though ;)

Anyway, I’m done here I think.

Bye bye :)

haha!

Of course. But I ask again, what is ‘racial prejudice’ then? If we can have ‘religious/class/racial prejudice’ is not racism a form of prejudice?

If I was to say I ‘dislike x people’ based on ethnicity/skin-tone is that not a ‘racist’ comment? Or are you suggesting it is merely ‘prejudice’.

I can certainly understand that the term ‘prejudice’ can be used to lessen the impact of ‘racism’ as it doesn’t necessarily carry such a heavy weight - being a term that doesn’t always mean ‘dislike’ and can mean, by definition, a ‘wishing to cause harm’.

The terminology can be perceived as being meant to ‘lessen’ the horror of racism and/or to ‘increase’ the scope of ‘racism’ beyond reasonable bounds (with or without intent). I’m quite sensitive to the various interpretations, but the ACTUAL definitions and meanings shouldn’t always be so easily overlooked especially on a philosophy forum.

To be fair ‘racism’ has a very specific history in human conflict and the event of scientific understanding (which both worsened the problem and lessen it to some degree).

It is also a very big political issue in the US for quite blatantly obvious reasons. Not to say that it isn’t such a big deal in other parts of the world only that the US currently has the centre stage in global media.

So you wish to ridicule rather than educate? I actual have dictionary that has multiple definitions for the term ‘prejudice’ ... please educate me and tell me what ‘racial prejudice’ is because it seems different to ‘racism’ bu what you’re saying.

I’m genuinely interested.

That is the ‘standard’ definition of racism. My point was people have murderous intent towards all manner of people’s for all manner of reasons (including class, national identity, religion and political leanings).

A strong prejudice will result in one wanting to inflict harmon said group.

I’m not sure how you square ‘racism’ with ‘violent assault’ and ‘prejudice’ with ‘dislike’. If that’s your interpretation I can only suggest you consider your definitions may not fit in with everyone else’s.

All I can ask you to consider is this question. What is ‘Racial Prejudice’?

I’ll say no more because I don’t think the response will be without ire and emotion.

No.

Racism is holding the belief that you’re morally or mentally superior based on ethnicity (often attributed - falsely - to physical appearances esp. skin-tone and bone structure).

To ignore ‘definitions’ and answer your OP as directly as possible (no point quibbling over a gist question I guess) ...

When it comes to ‘emotional maturity’ a lot of this is likely due to life experience. A lot is to do with how ‘maturity’ tends to lend itself toward the ability to plan long-term rather than being limited to short-term goals. Both combined, measured and understood would be wisdom.

Im todays world there is undoubtedly a large shift towards the ‘immediate’ because technologies have made our lives dramatically easier in many regards and therefore it seems reasonable to me to attribute a certain lack of ‘long-term planning’ to exhibit itself in apparent ‘immaturity’.

I don’t see the ‘emotional’ side having much more to do with this other than all humans generally being able to better deal with difference circumstances through lived experience. Stuck in a short-term planning loop would necessarily cut of access to certain life experiences. If you don’t plan anything long-term then you don’t have experience of this (obviously). It is seemingly less necessary to plan long-term.

For small things ... simple communication is now so SIMPLE across the globe. Whereas a few generations ago one didn’t carry a phone around in your pocket or have the ability to look up anything you wished online ... no, you’d have to visit the library and select a number of books you wished to read and ONLy take so many out for a set period of time. Now you don’t even ‘have to’ read ... just listen to podcast and/or watch a youtube video whenever and where ever you like.

People don’t really need to plan anymore, they just do. This may explain a shift in what you’re referring to when you suggest people are ‘less emotionally mature’.

Pride comes before the fall

The idea of EQ isn’t exactly solid. Not to mention the weird concept of calling it a type of ‘intelligence’ at all.

Sort of :)

You can present evidence for this :

The conscious mind is located in the prefronal lobes of the human brain which is that big bulge right above the eyes a very small part of the total human brain.

I think it’s a big mistake to assume ‘thoughts’ are ‘worded’. I don’t always think in words.

“What do you mean, what do I mean?”

@ToothyMaw Can you explain your thinking here:

Thus, the burden of proof is shifted to the compatibilist to prove determinism wrong in order to hold people morally responsible for acts.

It seems nonsensical to me but I’m sure you’ve put a reasonable degree of thought into this so explain in more depth why the burden lies on that side.

Morally it falls on the ‘compatibilist’ to point out the logical flaw of anyone ‘certain’ of this kind of fatalism. They basically have to take up the slack and show that it is a matter of hedging bets NOT rigorously holding to complete denial.

To be clear, I’m talking of this as you are ... from ‘Moral Responsibility’. From this position the ‘burden’ lies with the ‘deterministic’ view BUT they deny it if they’re utterly convinced of it. They deny ‘Morality’ and their own sense of being. Thankfully no one acts as if they have no responsibility even though many find denying responsibility appealing in certain circumstances. Only then does the ‘responsibility’ lie with those who aren’t stuck on one extreme end of the argument.

It boils down to this. To deny ‘Moral Responsibility’ when you actually have it is to wander through life without taking on any burden and suffering the consequences of such denial under the false belief of ‘I couldn’t have done otherwise’. On the other hand, those who accept responsibility for their actions are able to actively improve their decision making skills and choose a more ‘prosperous’ path in life - if they are wrong and they have NO real choice it makes absolutely no difference (for obvious reasons).

Logically it is ridiculous to assume you have no responsibility. The question is then more or less about the degree of choice we have in our lives and to what degree we can change anything. If our influence on the ‘stream of time’ is minimal or of import is yet another avenue for us to either throw-off the burden of responsibility or to take it on as a meaningful challenge.

One thing is for sure. We have a very distinct sensation of authorship to our actions. Such feelings of authorship have been - in certain conditions - a falsehood. So we can say that there is a certain limit to capacity when it comes to connecting 1:1 intent and action.

@Bartricks Yes, moral responsibility presupposes free will. There you have it.

Is there anything more we can say on this subject worthy of debate?

I did actually say that it is more useful to question the degree of responsibility we have for our actions NOT to outright deny them (such is pointlessly nihilistic).

I was trying to point out to the OP very clearly something that cannot be denied if you hold to the ‘no free will’ position alongside ideas of ‘moral responsibility’.

You’re enjoying the discussion with the OP so just ignore me. I just cared enough to point out something blatantly obvious in what the OP was stating.

You’re missing the point. The question of ‘free will’ has no weight when it comes to moral responsibility.

It is a null question. No one acts as if they don’t have free will. The rest is simply a matter of physics NOT philosophical musings.

I was making a valid point. Did you get it?

@Tzeentch Agreed. That isn’t how I interpreted the question though :)

To me you’ve just said that whether it feels good or bad is relevant but that it isn’t conclusive evidence of what is or isn’t good or bad. How can we talk about morality without considering what feels good or bad (for me, you or anyone else).

Far too much nuance that can be levered into the questions. I’d be surprised if anyone holds anything like a strongly differing opinion on what constitutes good and bad.

You’re a complete arsehole.

It may seem I am trying to provoke ... but I lack free will according to you don’t I? Ergo I’m not ‘responsible’ for my words.

This is the KEY point here. If you insist we don’t have any ‘responsibility’ then you can literally have no complaints about what anyone says OR accuse anyone of derailing your thread - at least you cannot and expect anyone here to take you seriously given that you believe we cannot do otherwise.

We act as if we have free will. Whether we do or don’t is irrelevant in terms of ‘responsibility’. We’re merely stuck with temporal perspective as that is what/how ‘existence’ is ‘existence’ for us. Our degree of ‘responsibility’ is what we really can get into rather than suggesting it doesn’t exist.

@Wayfarer I’d say that there is no real difference. What is ‘pleasurable’ is just that. To me it seemed to be against some kind of balancing out of some overall ‘pleasure’ and rather looked towards immediate pleasure - which would mean a regard for future pleasure (hence the point about not succumbing to danger desires).

To go further I feel it was trying to stave off an idea of having a certain amount of ‘pleasure’ due in one’s life. Against the possible thought of ‘I’ve had my pleasure, now for serious business!’ ... I would agree that such a thought is quite silly but humans being humans it is a thought because it relies on guilt.

I’m very much in line with what I’ve read of Aristotle. I basically came to a similar conclusion regarding ‘Virtue Ethics’ - but I’d be more inclined to actively seek out and experience ‘pain and suffering’ and to do risk ‘doing wrong’ rather than becoming stagnated and unmoving.

In common speech ‘hedonism’ means nothing more than an unabated pursuit of whatever pleases you regardless of consequences (I was just pointing out that to view it as that is rather simplistic, yet it is a hard idea to shake off given how the term is predominantly used in modern society even when we understand it as something else).

Without a doubt Judeo-Christian heritage has led to a stringer rejection of anything deemed ‘hedonistic’.

One thing for sue. Ethics is a key aspect of modern philosophical discourse and we’re not much further along today than we were several hundred years ago (perhaps we’ve even gone backwards in our understanding in certain areas - so it seems to me).

@ToothyMaw Physical Determinism and Moral Responsibility are two completely fields of interest.

If you’re basing your moral actions on the belief that ‘you cannot do otherwise’ you are immoral. People all too often use this as an excuse to do what they want to do. It is a pitiful thing to see and something that is meant with contempt by me - aggressive contempt.

Remember if a stream of insults comes your way ‘it was just preordained’. I have ‘no responsibility’ so why should I be berated for insulting someone who actively believes I could’ve said nothing other than what I said?

Combining such a fatalistic view merely allows ANYONE to insult you in any way they can imagine - because you’ve just given them the right to do so.

Complaints against violence and insults are void if they come from the mouth of those who believe everyone lacks moral responsibility.

Capitalists often said the same thing that we have made a lot of progress thanks to capitalism. Okay sure, but they always forget, deny, or ignore that there are also many problems caused by uncontrollable capitalism. — niki wonoto

No they don’t.

I'm tired of the same old boring arguments of capitalism .vs. socialism (or communism). Why can't we come up with another entirely brand new solution & system? Why are people/humans lacking so much creativity & new ideas in this area? Why do we progress (& think) so slow? — niki wonoto

We’re only human. We’ve managed to recognise Capitalism and Socialism as two rather distinct approaches that can be blended into each other to some degree.

The issue is usually the age old ‘can’t see the wood for the trees’ saying. I don’t think economic problems stem from economic sources. It’s a bit like watching someone obsessed with stopping fires yet doing nothing to look deeply into the actual causes of the fire when they live amongst flammable goods and enjoy smoking 24/7.

I’m fairly sure change will come when other ‘aspects’ of human life change. CRISPR is a technology that will have an immeasurable impact on human society. Colonising Mars will also change our outlook. How we adapt politically to things like this will perhaps shift human perspectives enough to open a door we never even recognised as a door before.

In the meantime we just have to put up with the heat sadly - some more than others. The age of propaganda is in full swing and is growing its own tentacles. We’ve never really been in control of what happens anyway, we just like to assume we do the good stuff when it happens and blame others when the shit hits the fan.

I just hope ageism doesn’t become a matter of political division. That could spell the end of civil society.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrenaics

I think it was a guy named Cyrine? That name springs to mind for some reason.

@Wayfarer That is a later version of the ‘hedonistic’ view. The original use was more or less something like attaining the largest amount of pleasure in life (meaning NOT being a slave to passions and desires). It doesn’t discount ‘wisdom’ and general experience nor does it necessarily talk about avoiding all pain and harm for obvious reasons (the ‘obvious reasons’ being physical fitness can lead to greater pleasures, but acquiring greater physical fitness necessarily requires one to ‘suffer’ the hardships of building and maintaining a healthy physical condition).

Strong disagreements come because people either believe other should think like they do (egotism) or because they think they understand the other’s point when they don’t understand actually understand them (egotism).

Either way, breathing space is necessary. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try another approach.

@FlaccidDoor People will only change their views if they do so by themselves. You can try and force a horse to drink water and it will just resist you regardless of how thirsty it is. Leave it alone and it will quench itself.

Judging the mood and temperature of the discussion is something we do get better at with time and experience. Some react well to conflict and others just dig in. Given the OP is about family members I’m assuming these people know each other well enough to be reasonable. With strangers more care and caution is required.

@Jack Cummins From a purely empirical perspective we are inherently ‘optimistic’. Meaning we’re neurologically ‘wired’ (as a species) to strongly favour information that best fits our beliefs and adjust them, whereas if something defies our belief we’re not willing to budge anywhere near as much.

Loosely this points toward a more ‘optimistic’ outlook.

My view of the universe is that it is in a constant flux yet still a ‘block model’. So, we’re all immortal even if we die.

Basically we will always have existed at some ‘point’ some ‘how’. That is essentially the same thing as existing forever given that we change second by second, hour by hour, year by year anyway.

The whole issue of temporality is strongly tied up in how we communicate and interact in the world. Today’s modern existence is one of perpetual time-keeping and clock-watching. The more we quantify the rate of change in this way - and place markers for them - the more aware we become of ‘beginnings’ and ‘ends’ and place them to the forefront of our daily attitudes.

Imagining an ‘afterlife’ is a strange act given our utter ignorance.

I remember watching a discussion with Peterson dude and Ben Stiller look-a-like a while back. They each tried to voice the other’s position as clearly and precisely as possible and then tried to correct each other.

No ‘putting words into the mouths of others’ - an all too common experience. Some people get so riled up they only ever hear exactly what they expect to hear regardless of what is being said to them. If that happens it is usually best to ‘bail’ as stated by someone else above.

People are going to interpret and extrapolate the questions in different ways.

For me it is the only thing that is relevant because feeling bad now may help you feel better tomorrow. It is important from every perspective as what makes me feel good (short/long term) may make several others feel terrible.

The longest lasting good is ... well, ‘good’! The knowledge and knowhow of how to attain the best overall ‘good’ would obviously involve assessing truths and acting as seems best.

Strangely enough the original use of ‘hedonism’ (Ancient Greece) was pretty much in line with what I’m saying. The term has since sprouted into other branches of ethical ideology.

For anyone to say it is irrelevant to morality must have said so with good reason ... I cannot fathom what that is and will be simply down to their personal understanding of what ‘morality’ means. I can understand the view that the ‘pleasure’ is in the journey, but the ‘pleasure’ is still ‘pleasure’ rather than some cold-reasoned way of living morally that may actively pursue pain and suffering ... pain and suffering can be a good longterm goal in seeking out overall good feelings (I’d say suffering and pain are necessary for a healthy and happy life).

As a rather simple analogy saying good ingredients makes a good cake is not true. What makes the cake good is how it tastes.

@Jack Cummins Looks like we have similar interests.

@Jack Cummins

By far the best definition of ‘religion’ I’ve come across is Clifford Geertz’s: https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/w/wattles/geertzppt2.htm

From his book ‘Interpretations of Cultures’: http://staff.uny.ac.id/sites/default/files/pendidikan/poerwanti-hadi-pratiwi-spd-msi/cliffordgeertztheinterpretationofculturesbookfiorg.pdf

I read this in combination with Levi-Strauss’ ‘Structural Anthropology’ and Eliade’s ‘The Sacred and The Profane’.

Levi-Strauss is clinical and dry, Eliade - in this particular work - surprisingly expressive compared to other scholarly works of his, and Geertz more like the cool kid on the block (a bit too opinionated and a tad of bias shining through).

To refer more to Eliade’s use of terminology, ‘religion’ is innate in that we all possess a certain foundation upon which we base our interpretations of experiences that come our way (the ‘cosmological’ view, Jungian ‘axis mundi’ AND/OR the ‘weltanschuuang’).

Upturn someone’s sense of reality and they will refuse to accept it regardless of what their senses and are exposed to. Blind people can accept the concept of ‘colour’ yet some people who are sighted may deny the existence of ‘colour’. Like with any serious paradigm shift not everyone is willing/able to take it in their stride. It is a necessary mechanism for mapping out the world - without a map there is no ‘world’ to speak of, so when people have used certain ideas to orientate themselves they’re either extremely unwilling to remove them, or more likely, simply unable to as it would literally tear them asunder.

Yes. The validity of any sensory perception is open to doubt.

ALL experience (be it pain, love, heat, or dreamed) is necessarily open to questioning. That is why it is ‘experience’.

You may well ask ifI question this point ... of course. Strangely enough it isn’t self-refuting; it’s just a way to explore human experience and view the roughly shod concepts we use to communicate.

I said that experience is what it is because it is open to doubt. Why ask a question when I’ve presented the answer?

I view ‘experience’ as necessitating ‘doubt’. Feelings are all quite dubious. My position is one that questions the semantic validity of the terms in use. Anything can be questioned

If you think about it we necessarily must doubt everything we regard as ‘knowledge’. If we literally had no ounce of doubt about some given ‘object’ then we wouldn’t be able to recognise it.

Everything we experience is due to our inclination to predict what happens next. What we experience is built upon what just happened a moment ago. Doubting our so-called ‘experience of reality’ is precisely what experience is.

In the day-to-day world there are many ‘items’ we just accept. Accepting something doesn’t mean we stop doubting it.

In short ... What cannot be doubted cannot be experienced. The ‘degree’ of ‘doubt’ seems like a misplaced sentiment to me. That said, I may question somethings more than others. Outside of that ‘certainty’ only has meaning within a set set of predefined circumstances. In terms of basic arithmetic 1+1=2 is a ‘certainty’ ... in experienced reality (applied to ‘reality’) I have plenty of room to doubt the use of its application. Ubiquitous ‘certainty’ would be something literally ‘Beyond Doubt’ and therefore outside of experience (aka nonexistent for all intents and purposes!).