Comments
-
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)There's not going to be martial law — RogueAI
Well not today, but once those invasion plans are firmed up for Panama, who knows ...?
-
Is the number pi beyond our grasp?Can it be that it it is the concept of "beyond our grasp" that is beyond our grasp?
(My old friend Ludvic suggested this to me.) -
Misogyny, resentment and subterranean normsI'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? — Tzeentch
Of course I do; I'm an old hippie, but sometimes it's the other way about, and the orthodoxy is violent and the rebellion is peaceful. My point is that my attitude, which aligns with yours in this matter, was considered degenerate by the previous generation. These things are values by which we judge others. As far as I can see, you are defending your values, which is fine, but then you accuse those who attempt to make a balanced analysis of such values of, in effect also being degenerate. That's not so ok.
It's like you know, as none of us other contributors do, what 'masculine' human nature is beyond social and cultural influence, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and degenerate. No doubt you also then know, as I certainly don't, those circumstances if any, when violence is justified and virtuous. -
Misogyny, resentment and subterranean normsThe promotion of senseless violence is a problem very particular to certain scenes - gangster culture and football hooliganism, for example. Both have been glorified by pop culture, even though the vast majority of society recognizes these scenes as degenerate. — Tzeentch
When I was young, the youth culture was all about flower power, giving peace a chance, peaceful protest against the Vietnam war, and nuclear weapons. And that was generally considered degenerate.
Youth culture is always inclined to be rebellious and the old guard is always inclined to find it degenerate. -
Misogyny, resentment and subterranean normsI also don't agree with that. I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve. — fdrake
The new man of power and the new man of violence is a drone flying nerd; the hard drinking hard fighting Russian type real man cannot compete. When I say 'must change' I mean change or die. It is an evolutionary pressure if you like.
Of course, 'after the collapse', that pressure may reverse.
Men are going to be masculine no matter how hard society tries to mould them into something else. — Tzeentch
Hard to disagree with that, barring mass castration. But also very easy to disagree with as soon as one considers the (surely purely social) division of gay men into 'butch' and 'fem'. Or even just the cliche of the hen-pecked husband.
If we are talking about the spectrum of men, on almost every measure, there is a good deal of overlap with the spectrum of women, even to the extent that men can lactate and breastfeed. But we are not really talking about the reality of human diversity, but about the ideas and ideals that are prevalent and the identifications that are made and the social pressures to conform to this or that image of what a man versus a woman is or ought to be. -
Misogyny, resentment and subterranean normsAlso very much in agreement, yet what I miss in many discussions on this subject is exactly this two way street. We are right now in a time in which is not self evident how and with what man should identify. The general consensus on the left seems to be that man should change and that since they are the problem they should figure it out while the general consensus on the right should be that men should reassert their classical role as the 'head of the table' so to speak. On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media. — Tobias
Masculinity is problematised in a very different way in mainstream discourse than femininity is problematised. Masculinity's associated with violent crimes, sexual crimes, domestic abuse, posturing, financial risk, overwork, selfishness, lack of community spirit, emotional inflexibility and poor communication skills, and thus is a problem. Femininity's problematised as part of an oppressive system of norms that confines women's conduct and renders them less powerful and less capable of self expression, it is thus seen as posing problems to women. — fdrake
"... that man should change ..." is a value. It is, in its total vagueness, the value of the left, having abandoned the class war because of the loss of the mass workplace. Although 'left and right' are terms of the ancien regime, and what predominates now is the second dimension of political leaning, between 'authoritarian and liberal' as here, for example. Left and right has become up and down, because the economy is becoming emancipated from human and political control.
The myth of the very stable genius has replaced the myth of the lonesome cowboy. Not so much 'should', the facts are that man has changed because he must change. His masculinity is now cosmetic drug induced muscle that hides a complete lack of moral integrity. There is nothing behind the performance. He has indeed become the bicycle that every fish no longer needs or wants. Politics is insane because it no longer governs. It's the economy, stupid, follow the money; but the money out-runs us.
Men are simply way too violent. It's still a huge problem. — RogueAI
The solution to the violence of men has always been the hero as protector, one's very own violent man. More defence spending, more guns. It used to be that there was nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose; but now, or very soon, that man will be replaced by an AI drone, that cares naught if it loses everything and can hit you from the other side of the street. -
Misogyny, resentment and subterranean normsThere seems to be a muddle of terminology that is creating or at least facilitating disagreement and rancour.
values Masculine Feminine — Tobias
It starts here. Values have no sex. So we are talking about values and perhaps virtues and vices that have been traditionally ascribed to and associated with masculine and feminine identities.
Then, the thesis is that these associations have been changing. The world has changed, for example, with the introduction of "the Equaliser". This charmingly lethal apparatus negates the physical advantage of strength in combat. No one can out-run a bullet, and even a delicate feminine finger can pull a trigger - hence the name. The facts of industry and technology have devalued masculine muscle.
And this presents a problem to traditionally minded men and women, who Identify with and admire, physical power. The Russia-Ukraine war provides another example; courage means nothing when an infantryman confronts a drone. The drone is the Unequaliser — the drone operator risks nothing in relation to the infantryman.
The problem is that traditional male virtues have lost their value. And the solution is either a luddite reversion to primitive preindustrial society or a change of identification, of what it is to be a man, and particularly a good man. And of course women are involved with this re-evaluation of all values, because 'man' and 'woman' are identities in relation to each other. -
On eternal oblivionthe sense of self persists in terms of "mine" and "yours". — javra
And how does one know what is mine and yours, except through memory? Dementia becomes fatal when it extends to losing the function that controls breathing. "My lungs?" "My wife?" "My children?" "My home?" "My name?" Such are the identifications one can lose. -
On eternal oblivionConsciousness genus seems to be one of the tricks the Universe performs, mine and yours (species) being examples. But I think it's the mineness and yoursness that having come, will soon enough go. — tim wood
We are more or less of one mind about this. :joke:
The way I usually think about it is that it is a question of Identity, or rather, of identification. If oneself is that blank emptiness that is aware of whatever it happens to be aware of, then perhaps there is no difference between one self and another, aside from the particulars that it happens to be aware of from time to time.
What connects the child to the adult to the old man is memory, a narrative that can be recited, and that particular narrative cannot be repeated, because even if another life occurs that is exactly identical, it will not connect, and so will not continue the narrative that ended. No more than identical twins are the same person.
Actually, because of my rather materialistic worldview, it’s even more bothersome to me that eternal oblivion seems unlikely, as I wrote above. — Zebeden
I wonder if you find such considerations reassuring or not? -
I found an article that neatly describes my problem with libertarian free willYou haven't engaged with the reasoning presented in the article. — flannel jesus
That's true. I have presented another position, with other reasoning.
In short, I agree that 'free-will' is incoherent; that is the extent of my engagement. I then propose that 'freedom' is not incoherent. -
I found an article that neatly describes my problem with libertarian free willIn this post I will argue that libertarianism cannot actually explain or make rational why an agent chooses one course of action over another. — George Wrisley
I used to always have tea at breakfast, but I have changed my habit and nowadays I always have coffee. Not being able to explain such things is integral to the freedom one has.I changed my mind. And that, I would suggest, is a freedom that one always has, but does not always exercise.
But I would say that it is not by an act of will that one exercises one's freedom, that is rather a contradiction, 'will' being a determining factor in the sense that to be strong willed is to be determined.
Can anyone else change their mind, or are you all determined to be determined? A determined mind is a programmed mind, and freedom is what allows the mind to be responsive. To a determinist, the mind is a mere epiphenomenon, because it has no known cause or effect. -
Climate change denialThis is somewhat off topic, because it doesn't deny fossil fuel effects, but merely ignores them. But we all love Milankovitch Cycles don't we?
-
Kicking and Dreamingsleep paralysis. I've suffered this experience and it is terrifying.
— Christoffer
Wow, it certainly sounds like it. — J
I was going to mention this too. My experience of sleep paralysis is that one can learn to recognise it, and to struggle less and just wait for awareness to grow and the paralysis to wear off. And this relates also to my experience of learning to stop bed-wetting, which involved, in my experience, learning that a dream of urination should be 'a wake-up call'. Once the alarm is set, the problem is solved.
All of which seems to me to favour explanation 1, but also suggests that wakefulness and sleep are not a dichotomy in the first place, but rather related, graded and complex conditions.
I can add to the phenomenology an occasional grand-mal epileptic fit, which begins with a sort of shaking or palsy noticeable in hands or eyes and the jaw, that precedes a total loss of consciousness during the fit proper, followed by a confused state that one does not remember in which one might try to get up and wander but with no memory thereof. The return of awareness is gradual and memory is absent and then vague and patchy for several hours.
This makes clear that wakefulness in the normal condition involves voluntary muscle control, presence to sensory information including proprioception, but also crucially, the activity of memory, all integrated to produce a continuing narrative of experiential flow. Whatever I do not remember in some way, hasn't happened for me, whether it be dream or reality.
That picture is so evocative! -
What are you listening to right now?Can blue men sing the whites, or are they hypocrites for singing...
-
Depression and 'Doom and Gloom' Thinking vs Positivity: What is 'Self-fulfilling Prophesy' in Life?Dreams can be realised iff 1, they are realistic, and 2, they are enacted. On the one hand one cannot make fantasies real by the power of thought, and on the other the most detailed and well constructed plans still require materials and builders to bring them to fruition.
A self fulfilling prophesy is not the same as a good prediction. A prophesy can act to produce the future it predicts, as in the old joke:-
"I know what you're going to say next."Reveal"What?"
This is a trick one can play on oneself, or on others, but it is no more magical than an advertisement. People are influenced, and those who believe they are not, the more so. But when the next eclipse is predicted, it is not influenced by the prediction, the prediction is calculated from past observations, and orbits are stable. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up. — Tony Benn
-
What is faithI am faithful to my wife.
there is a story from i know not whence. A bridge across a chasm; you might look at the bridge and wonder if it will support you or not, and you might believe or not that it will support you. But faith is when you trust your weight to it and start to cross. Faith is putting your money or your life where your mouth is, or possibly where someone else's mouth is
1.Faith is an act, a decision, a commitment.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, - I don't know
I don't know if love is God, but I will act as if it is so. -
Climate change denialHow many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly? — Agree-to-Disagree
I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer. -
Climate change denialHere is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
— unenlightened
Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.
The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.
Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.
He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.
Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions? — Agree-to-Disagree
Ah, happy days are here again!
Everything he says about the lack of a realistic plan and the vast expense that government commitments imply is pretty much true. Those commitments are not going to be met. I knew you'd like it!
But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career - because no one ever wants to hear unalloyed bad news. :cool:
Why do you imagine I post videos I haven't watched? Or that I haven't somewhat comprehended?
Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source. — Agree-to-Disagree
I have already explained that global temperature and sea level rise are lagging indicators to atmospheric CO2 levels, because CO2 acts as an insulator not a direct heat source. The rapid increase in CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is only now beginning to have an effect. the radiative balance of the Earth has changed and the planet surface will continue to warm until a new balance is achieved. meanwhile, as we begin to overheat, we continue to add another duvet or two. -
The News DiscussionThis is a partizan channel. And here is a Canadian politician talking to anyone who cares to listen, and at the end directly to the US government. Words are not being minced, and economies of truth are not being made.
-
Climate change denialHere is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
-
'This Moment is Medieval'...Those who have won will not let anybody else ignore them or form coalitions against their control. The worst part is, they've always been able to persuade plebes to do their oppressing of other plebes. — Vera Mont
Divide and rule is always the rule, and solidarity is the only resistance, but solidarity can become an oppression of its own. So education, so humble teachers always learning, so democracy in education.
I have no final solutions, I'm just describing what I think I see. And yeah, history is long, and never finished.
Everything passes, everything changes,
Just do what you think you should do;
And some day baby, who knows, maybe
I'll come and be crying to you.
To Ramona - Bob Dylan. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...How do you map all of this onto what is happening now? How does it apply? — Amity
What is happening now is the collapse of capitalist democracy. There is a transfer of power from democratically elected politicians to the oligarchs. Everyone who is not an oligarch is oppressed, including politicians. I will also include the rest of the natural world.
So we have been playing monopoly for a century or so, and now we can see who has won. So that game is over, and we can ignore the winners counting their money and gloating, and get on with our spirited levelling without them. It's a better game, and lasts longer. Start here, or wherever you may happen to be. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...How we liberate one another, oppressed and oppressor, and find our humanity, is through the spirit level. — Vera Mont
I don't understand. The state of oppression is exactly a state of inequality, and the solution is exactly to move to a state of more equality. So how does that happen?
A century and a half or so of the women's movement has gotten women the right to own property, the right to vote, the right (in principle) to equal pay. I think it is done by establishing an equality of the oppressed. And from there the education of the oppressor can begin. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...If you're waiting for your oppressor to liberate you, don't hold your breath.
Rather, as Paulo Freire explains, it is the oppressed who must liberate themselves and the oppressor from their toxic relationship. This is because the oppressed are motivated to understand and transcend the social order. The oppressor will always appeal to the authorities and mistake the social order for the moral order, the natural order, the unchangeable, necessary order. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...The philanthropist that easily springs to mind in Andrew Carnegie. — Amity
In terms of philanthropy, I commend to you one Jimmy Carter, whose foundation has worked quietly to eliminate the Guinea worm, a truly disgusting and agonising parasite. They have almost succeeded, and I hear no credit being given to the founder because, who (else) cares about Africa! -
'This Moment is Medieval'...
"I may not get there with you, but I have seen the promised land." (MLK)
Herewith, a call to arms, along with a realist's mea culpa.
-
'This Moment is Medieval'...Oh dear, we are in deep shit, are we not?! :sad: — Amity
I forgot to mention the environment and climate change. Deep and wide, and nary a paddle. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...You're so much more succinct than I am. — Vera Mont
Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. :wink:
Here is the economic situation. The invisible, or blatantly obvious, hand is operating according to new rules. The old rules were endless growth, mass production, and mass consumption, with the 'entrepreneurs' taking the cream of the surplus. The ideology still prevails, but the realities have changed, and the 'entrepreneurs' have noticed a long time since.
AI and robotics mean that the mass of human labour force is no longer part of the means of production. This means that the majority of humans are economically redundant. Consider, for example, the size of the entertainment industry. it produces nothing - no bread, only circus. Add on the bureaucracy, the caring industry, beauty and fashion, sport, ... production of anything tangible is the province of a tiny minority.
But the literal killer is that production is becoming possible on a one off basis, with 3d printing for example. The end point for all this is indeed medieval — a few robber barons with robot armies instead of serfs. 'The People' will cease to exist. That is the vision towards which the oligarchy is moving the world. It doesn't even require a conspiracy, because it is plain economic sense. The world will be so much easier to control without all these wretched greedy peasants.
Write to your president with your objections, or post them here. Either will be equally effective. -
'This Moment is Medieval'...Mill called women’s forced dependence on men “the primitive state of slavery lasting on” — Libertarianism - Introduction to Mill's The Subjection of Women
Again I have to disagree with the great man. The state of slavery is not primitive; it is a sophisticated systematic exploitation of one group by another. It is not a natural occurrence and it doesn't happen by accident.
It is very important to understand that patrilineal inheritance, which allows for men to inherit property from their fathers, absolutely demands as precondition the sexual control of women. This is normalised by patriarchal religion and enforced by the laws enumerated above, and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it". -
'This Moment is Medieval'...(2) The adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or
forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what would be best for humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the dawn of human society every woman was in a state of bondage to some man, because •she was of value to him and •she had less muscular strength than he did. — The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill
I hesitate to argue with you John, but it seems to me more likely that the dawn of civilisation would most likely have been matrilineal, because there is rarely much doubt of an offspring's maternity, whereas paternity would be hard to establish. It follows that the subjugation of women, essential to a patrilineal system that predominates today and since historical times, was indeed a deliberate, revolutionary act that inverted the 'natural' order. The difference in muscular strength is too small to overcome alone, the natural advantage of giving birth, and thus knowing one's offspring with certainty.
(In a matrilineal system, men can still dominate in some ways, but the offspring they would primarily regard as "theirs" would be their sister's children, not what modern man takes to be his own, usually on faith.) -
The Empathy ChipIf we do not change our mindset and move beyond national rivalry, ideas of racial superiority, and greed—humanity will be doomed. — Rob J Kennedy
This is true, but they are not the product of a lack of empathy, but of a mindset or ideology that is socially induced, that actually relies on empathy for its propagation. -
Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?Scientists are a conspiracy to attract funding? But these are businesses, putting their money where their mouths are - or rather withdrawing their risk coverage from where their mouths are.
unenlightened
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum