@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!).

“Emic Ethnography” would be better referred to as just ‘ethnography’ as the former is like saying ‘a dark shade of black’. If not some clarification would be useful.

Ethnology and ethnography are commonly misapplied. In terms of political sciences there is a large amount of similarity to Berlin’s ‘Monism and Pluralism’ approach - my point being favouring one over the other is to only take in half the picture.

Anthropology straddles numerous subjects. Some aspects of anthropology are more strongly based in empirical measurements than others. ‘Applied Ethics’ is just something akin to what the current guru states as a ‘universal truth’. The solidity of ethics (scientifically speaking) is contained within DNA ... but the species is part of the larger environment (hence the importance of BOTH Monism and Pluralism without being seduced by one over the other.

As creatures - perhaps overly fond - of cutting and categorising; it is a constant habit of ours to reimagine our experience of the world through different lenses. You may as well argue that physics is a type of philosophy because physicists actively use free-formed thinking and imagination to explore and question reality itself and what is commonly perceived as so-called ‘reality’.

On top of the above there is the niggling issue of defining ‘science’. I’m sure you’ve done this elsewhere, but a reminder of your position is probably worth mentioning in the OP.

I believe this would be a good candidate for ‘Articles’?

Some people are attracted to novelty where others are more attracted to what is familiar. It probably has much more to do with exposure and psychological dispositions - ‘attraction’ that is - than anything else.

In terms of physical appearance so many things may factor into this - including outright ‘racism’. We don’t tend to call someone ‘sexist’ for preferring one particular sex, or ‘racist’ if they have an aesthetic inclination towards men or women of a certain physical build (regardless of skin tone or ethnicity).

The question in and of itself says more about the societal state of our times and how many are struggling to re/define certain boundaries and/or to obsess over labels and identity in a world that is seemingly becoming more and more homogenous (in terms of globalism and cultural trends blending).

@Gus Lamarch

I think it is a fair comment to make in the current situation. Today ‘history’ (or rather ‘interpreting history’) has become the mainstay rather than simple scholarship (attempts at dry records of current events).

You’ve not really sold me on the ‘ancients’ pessimism and modern ‘optimism’ - so to speak. I think in societies there are always somewhat equally pervading elements of both. The idea of a ‘Golden Age’ has persisted right through from ancient Greece even into the current colloquial “When I was a lad ...” which can be both a harking back to better days and/or referring to the benefits that people have today.

With the advent of History human perspective has necessarily changed. Our arrival at the written/recorded word/thought our very idea and conceptualisation of a thing called ‘time’ has undoubtedly embedded itself in the heart of practically every human on the planet today. The empirical pencil we’ve mapped the world (weltanschuuang) with has become increasingly hard to erase/ignore.

Isiah Berlin’s ideas may be related to what you’re looking at here? His thought on “Pluralism/monism” echoing something in what you’re saying here.

Adios!

Dymora -

It’s your’s. Own it, explore it and use it as you personally see fit.

It is a burden at first, and an exciting one, but it will ebb away little by little - as it must. The trick is to frame your current state and make a solid and honest memory of it because once the peek subsides you’ll barely believe yourself any longer (that is the seemingly perpetual state of the human condition).

Just know that what you have doesn’t matter as much as it does matter. It seems selfish to hold it whilst other’s don’t, but really ... it isn’t something that can be ‘communicated’; only recognised in others - smile and live. Talking to blind people about how beautiful the view is is not likely going to appeal to most of them.

To quote Clive Barker: “Be burn so hard yet shed so little light”... a little is enough :)

X -

Depends on what country you’re referring to? In the US it would be anyone earning around 500,000 dollars a year or more.

On a global scale it would include everyone who posts here. In some countries the distribution is more skewed than in others. Historically the most powerful nations (in terms of economics) always suffer from extremes of poverty and wealth. Due to various factors - including the effects of a ‘smaller’ world because of communication and mass advertising - this common feature is probably magnified due to awareness and actual adverse effects brought about by such effects of our current revolutionary period (computer/information age, soon to be CRISPR age).

A great problem is the global community acting like ‘their country’ is the be all and end all of everything. Things are a changing though .., subtly but very, VERY quickly.

I’m just waiting for people to be less fearful. ... or rather to ‘embrace’ fear. Opportunity is a mindset not a privilege. None of us are perfect, and none of us enjoy suffering (obviously!), but it helps to fully understand the benefits of suffering to better ourselves in what small ways we can - sadly this is just something that comes with experience IF you are willing to blame yourself rather than the ‘regime’ or ‘them’.

GL HF :)

Dymora -

I don’t post here anymore, but this is something I can relate to.

What happened to you has happened to other people. I believe it happens to everyone, but not everyone recalls/recognises it.

I refer to it as an extreme altered state of consciousness. It could be a mini stroke or numerous other things. In scientific terms I’d say it has something to do with DMT (naturally released in the brain).

A common element of such transformations happen under various degrees of stress and strain. Like I said, I believe everyone has this but not everyone pays attention to it - various forms of psychosis are common features of this experience and so many are ‘given treatment’ instead of viewing the experience as being potentially part of a healing/growing/developing process (and of course, some people DO need treatment). It is a very hard thing to recognise/diagnose.

In simple human terms it appears you adjusted to a mental shift and released your new potentials. Believe it or not most people are scared of what they desire. ‘Fear’ is key. I’m sure during your experience - and since - you have less ‘fear’ and a far greater ability to step out of yourself (so to speak).

You could call this Jungian Individuation or easily compare it to ‘shamanic initiation’ (there are plenty of common features of what it means to become a ‘shaman’ and the repeatedly instances of physical and mental stresses the body is put under to reach certain ‘points’ - religious practices tap into this too.

Anyway, enjoy and explore :)

Happiness is nonsense as is sadness.

Watch a master. It doesn’t involve ‘not speaking’ to those you oppose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-X1CXiI8

Just popped back in to reassess the issue. I haven’t seen any comments made by mods that show anything but a modicum of self-realisation.

Almost nothing put forward by the mods holds weight in their reason for the banning. Maybe not everyone here has read through the pages and compared and contrasted what was said, the manner it was put across in and what constitutes ‘poor quality’ posts.

Chester’s posts - agreement with what he says is irrelevant - were of no more ‘poor quality’ than some off-hand quips and insults thrown around by others with far less to say.

Why is it? In that thread StreetlightX insults several people, calling them stupid, fuck wits and such. Is that okay?

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - who’ve, as you noticed, been purposefully aggravated by the person who banned them (that is trolling).

Note: The irony is the thread is about provocation and people in positions of power violating that power. The person so emotional vocal about the situation - including comments relating to burning everything down - is so egotistical they cannot see how vile what they say and how they act on this forum is in relation to the problems faced in US culture.

Anyway, if that is how things are here I’m going to leave as I have before. I don’t believe in people banning others on personal whims, but if that is how things are here (the second occasion this has happened and the reason I went away last time) I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)

And who said that? The person banned or StreetlightX? I’m guessing you’re quoting the person who was banned.

StreetlightX doesn’t appear to have the temperament to judge who should or shouldn’t be banned. I’m saying this based on current events. I’m saying this based on numerous instances of name calling and provocation when someone disagree with them.

Complaining about 23 pages of people talking about violent behavior after they pretty much said they wanted everything to burn to the ground? Seriously? Was such a clearly hyperbolic and provocative statement put across to direct the discussion in a sensible manner or merely to showcase their need for volatile verbal conflict in order to provoke statements from other that would allow them to ban them.

Then there is the cloaked threats and hints beforehand. Someone apparently suggesting Frank was ‘trolling’? Insanity.

We watch the watchmen. If they’re not up to the task we’ll go someone else. Get it?

Are you going to ban yourself for your hostile comments?

If you have the power to ban and repeatedly provoke and call people names there is something seriously wrong with how this forum is moderated. Is the irony lost on you?

You’re just embarrassing yourself. Don’t you see?

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum. I don’t think anyone commenting here is looking the other way (I think it’s pretty hard to look the other way considering how this has spilled across international news headlines).

The question is then how to use this opportunity to better the US for the people living in the US. Small steps can build momentum. I think a lot of the peaceful protesters should give serious consideration, and active encouragement from the community, to join the police force themselves.

In terms of surveillance there is something there too. I think without video footage the situation in the US would be much worse. It’s horrific to see and hear about the string if cases like this one, but equally such horror is better seen in the cold light of day than hidden. People can cover up their views well enough most of the time, but under surveillance it’s almost impossible. For that reason open public access to police operations - to some larger degree - would be an area worthy of consideration (as is already happening and as has been happening as practically everyone has a live streaming handheld device now).

I think everyone’s got the message. The thing is a few bad people can make a helluva mess giving the misconception that more foul play is at work than there is.

Building something important takes time and coordination. Destruction is something any chump can put their hands to with success.

Note: There is no excusing such actions. They don’t need to be excused only noted. Human nature is what it is. When upheavals happen we’ll always see the demons of our natures come out to play.

I was hoping for some kind of discussion about what is happening, how it can/could be handled, and what steps to take towards a future goal - and what such incremental steps may look like.

I think it reasonably fair to say progress has been made, albeit with backwards steps along the way. The encouraging signs are that these public protests look string enough not to dissipate - this looks like an opportunity for rational discussion and a rethink about troubled areas in US culture.

Knowledge of both is essential to recognise them. Someone only interested in ‘the good’ is setting themselves up for denial of their potentially ‘evil actions’ as they are only ‘good’ in their mind.

It’s a really tough thing to look deep into our own sense of right and wrong rather than just blithely skirt around the difficulty of deciding where and when to draw the line.

Has the situation at least improved in part over the past few decades?

I don’t buy into the idea that these are isolated instances. If we see one horrendous act in full public view it is silly to assume the same or worse never happens out of public view.

The ability for the public to document what happens live is a great boon. Camera footage is mandatory for police in the US, right? If not maybe installing such technology would mitigate some of the potential threats from within the institution that is meant to uphold the law rather than act as if they are above it.

One thing is pretty clear. Justice for one man’s murder is NOT justice for previous victims of police corruption. A clear plan set out by protesters would be a great thing! Asking for justice for this one incident clearly needs to take its momentum into some kind of protest backed movement that DEMANDS changes to how law enforcement functions.

I do think psychological screening is a VERY tricky matter too. We’re talking about a very high stressed job where violence and poor human behavior is seen in a daily basis. My friend was a policeman for a few years and he saw some quite crazy things - I imagine in the US (in certain areas) the dangers police face are enough to push anyone over the edge of reason.

Perhaps the peaceful protesters could be actively encouraged to join the police? That would seem to be a VERY good idea don’t you think? Often enough the people nest equipped for a job can be the very people who are loath to do it (from my friend’s perspective I know for a fact he joined the police because of an incident he was involved in personally - he was angry and scared, and honed that into responsible action by joining up).

Really though, this goes deeper than a law enforcement issue ... economic investments into schooling for poorer communities would be a good longterm plan, but the immediate problems are much tougher to handle on top of the current climate.

HELLO!

Is there a chance of a discussion about where this may lead the state of US politics in the near/far future?

It looks like the general public are doing as much as they can about this at the moment. What is the end goal? How do we get there? What steps/measures need to be put into place?

In an age of surveillance, both public and private, it has got harder and harder for crimes to go unnoticed. In there some manner in which this can be further implemented to protect the innocent? Clearly without such technology it’s likely no one would’ve believed/cared. Seeing is believing so this is probably the most striking weapon in combating injustices.

What dangers await and what cautionary measures need to be considered?

I think that’s a SLIGHT overreaction. I don’t think we’re there yet. I don’t believe most people in the US want the country to split. If it did that would be a pretty big mess - it’s already set up in a way to try and get the best of both worlds with a singular nation and independent states with there own laws.

A large country, like the US, diverse and interconnected landmass breaking up into completely sovereign states would lead to all kinds of horrible situations arising (perhaps even a civil war).

You can’t start over if you burn along with everything else. Stand alone remarks like that are, in my mind, exactly the opposite of what sensible wish to hear - frankly I think it’s a disgustingly irresponsible thing to say in a time like this.

There are people out there willing to take advantage of the situation and rile people up because they want a ‘revolution’. Streetlight said he wants everything to burn ... do you approve of those sentiments at this current junction of social upheaval?

I am listening to what is being said. I am also aware of the rather naive political leanings of some folks on this site (including the mods). Rioting shouldn’t be encouraged. Trashing amazon and such places doesn’t bother me though, but at the end of the day the innocent suffer and lose their businesses when things get out of hand.

From what I’ve seen in the media the protesters are NOT rioting or destroying property. There are vicious elements that are taking advantage of the situation. As an example a major reported that ALL of the arrests made in his home state were from out of state - meaning, those causing destruction and trouble in his home town had no interest in ‘protecting the community’ because it wasn’t their community.

I’ve seen the vast majority of protesters behaving well. I’ve also seen police acting, for the most part, in a civil manner under huge pressure.

Hopefully after this has calmed down a bit we’ll see some actual sensible political candidates come to the fore so after Trump’s/Biden’s next term in office they’ll be a REAL choice for people. If not, this will continue and then I’ll have to side with what christian said (we’re witnessing the initial cracks show in the splitting up of the the US - maybe in a decade or so).

We’re both lucky and cursed with communication. I do have faith in people though so at the end of the day the word is the most powerful tool we can wield to help move forwards instead of backwards.

Note: I’m not from the US so my perspective on the matter is carefully measured in a broader global context.

What makes you think others countries want you there? First of all you need relevant skills, money and/or youth on your side.

Canada has been actively seeking immigrants for a while.