As I said, any category of culture will have changed in so many ways from 1960 to 2020 that it is far from unreasonable to say that the changes are immense. Anyone living today with pretty much 100% certainty is not practising 1960s culture, people have adapted with the times, it is not a matter of me going out and meeting older people.

Remember that we're talking about culture, businesses lasting hundreds of years is not relevant to the culture because that business will have adapted with the times. Of course, today's technology is built upon the technology of yesterday, but if I said that technology in 2020 has advanced a lot since 1960, that'd be true regardless of this last point and so it is.

We can categorise the changes from 1960 to 2020 in two ways, firstly, the ways things which existed in 1960 have changed and the effect of new things which came into being between 1960 and 2020. As for the former, nothing is unchanged, for instance, you acknowledge the changes for women and homosexuals have been significant but let's look at heterosexual men. I will just list some things.
Meeting your partner
https://flowingdata.com/2019/03/15/shifts-in-how-couples-meet-online-takes-the-top-spot/
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/

Getting Married
https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

Going to college
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

Fatherhood
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/health/fathers-united-states-age.html

Number of Children
https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/#:~:text=The%20typical%20American%20picture%20of,18%20per%20family%20in%201960.

The decline of Nuclear Families
https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/the-nuclear-family-is-in-decline-but-did-it-ever-represent-america/258493/

Increase in Single Parenthood
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/

We can look at changes in divorce, hookup culture, homeownership and types of homes, the effect of females joining the workforce, stay-at-home dads and like I said, pretty much everything will have either changed a bit or a lot.

That's the group you said didn't have big changes but is that really true? I automatically assumed you meant white heterosexual males because I doubt you'd argue that 1960s and 2020 is similar for the majority of ethnic minorities in the US. Every other group has clearly gone through far more changes than this group which has clearly changed a lot.

It's not a question of whether this one thing convinces you, it's just that I could do this for genuinely any cultural thing you want to talk about.

Then there's the stuff is really different, the explosion of computer, phone and internet usage from the 1960s to 2020 has revolutionized businesses, entertainment, education, sex, income, social interaction and the list goes on.

English has clearly changed a great deal, it's not that words are being changed but rather becoming more or less common. How could you even attempt to say that 20-30-year-olds today are speaking as they did in the 1960s? It's not even possible for them to do when the things they're referring to often didn't exist in the 1960s. Whether it's the internet, film, television, education, so much which has had a profound cultural effect in the last sixty years, why would it be barely changed?

As I said, any topic you want to bring up, I can do this, because you are severely understating the differences. If you want to agree to disagree that's fine but do not misrepresent my position, I'm not saying I can't understand people from the 1960s, I'm saying the culture has changed dramatically. Be careful about what you say is not a significant change because at some point, you will effectively end up denying there's any difference between any of the Western countries because the differences are there ar less substantial than many of these ones.

I think it's really hard to evaluate to what extent it's possible. I only disagree that it's achievable in just any context, I don't think an extreme example like smoking is fair, PTSD seems more appropriate.

I really have no confidence that someone practising non-attachment even for decades really exhibits the desired trait. Not only is it hard to prove but it's not like success in these areas is required to call yourself a Buddhist. My main concern is that much like with PTSD, our control over how we think can be really quite limited in certain cases. Claiming to be able to overcome that sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. Truly being able to overcome attachment in any context would mean overcoming a lot of what makes us human. Just being able to be okay with small things not going your way would be commendable.

Is it not possible to care about something without being attached to it (without it being a problem to lose it)? — khaled

I think It's possible but only in certain contexts, the more you care, the more impossible this is.

The archetypal experience of culture in the 1960s is very different than in 2020, few things have remained the same. That is the result of the many changes occurring, mostly as a result of technology, these changes trickle into all aspects of life. Within a culture, we can talk about clothing, music, entertainment, speech, media, laws, philosophy and much more. If we singled a topic out, started a thread about "changes in X from 1960s to 2020" would we struggle to find things to talk about? No, in fact, most of these things have changed drastically from 1960 to 2020. That is the basis for my claims.

If I went back to the 1960s, what of my culture remains? All my clothing, the foods I eat, the music I listen to, what I do for entertainment, the way I talk, my education, my work, my philosophies and pretty much everything about me would be out of place. That is just the truth.

I don't really dispute anything that you're saying, humans are humans and culture is not the be-all and end-all of understanding people. I'm quite nature orientated, I don't think people from different cultures are that different but their cultures are and that's all I'm saying.


So if a country is nuked into oblivion you call that "cultural collapse"? Doesn't that sound quite inappropriate? If the UK is nuked to oblivion but people in Sierra Leone still speak English then their culture is preserved?

By your definition, a culture "declines" by being annihilated, pretty much and really only that. Mostly by foreigners or maybe a natural disaster (not sure how many times that happened within the last millennia). Why did Australian aboriginal culture "decline" for example? Because Europeans with guns came to Australia, forced them off their land, killed them and tried to breed them out of existence. Not too much "cultural decay" there that's just being invaded by a stronger foreign power.

Western culture will morph into something totally new before something like that happens, what else could stop that besides some end of the world disaster?

What is cultural collapse?

Attachments aren't a problem until they become a problem, I don't see the point in pre-emptively removing all attachments, that's an overreaction. All it takes to become attached to something is to care,
and caring is worth more than the pitfalls of attachment by itself. It's worthwhile to manage the intricacies of attachment instead, most important is to make sure what you're being attached to is worth your emotional investment. Next is to overcome any attachments which control you, basically, be confident in yourself and prioritise things intelligently. Best to work backwards, rather than fearing and assuming an attachment is a problem, be comfortable to see attachments as a cause of an existing problem. That's more pragmatic and efficient.

It's really very subjective but if you want to include stuff like "Americans still use English" and other basics then 1% is hyperbole but if you consider a small change, nonetheless a change then I don't think I'm hyperbolising. English is still used but so much about how it is used has changed between the 1960s and now that I can justify saying there's a significant cultural difference. The devil is in the detail, you can say "Americans of the 1960s did or thought X and so do people of 2020" but is it even remotely the same? So what exactly are you talking about, tell me a few things that you think are unchanged from the 1960s to 2020. The question isn't really whether it's changed or not but if it's changed too much for us to even care that it's the same culture. The demographics and nuances of nearly everything that existed in 1960s American culture is going to have been morphed in some way if it still exists in 2020.

Even if we say "people played baseball in the 1960s and still do in 2020" and say that the changes in how it's played, watched, reported on and everything else are different doesn't matter. The demographics, the cultural significance, opinions on the sport and a vast amount else will have and at some point, you just admit it's not the same. We can do this for American's political views, views on morality, work, ethics, whatever. I don't think there's "nothing similar" but nothing is the same and most things are very different.

I think what you're saying would make more sense if we changed your quote from "the complex whole" to "the broader whole" because you're literally talking about things like Americans using English and celebrating Christmas. How is that taking the complexity of culture into account? I don't know about 1960s America but the way people talked in 1960s Australia was very different to now, to the extent that I would have a much easier time talking English with a foreigner because I wouldn't understand the slang and terms.

I do not think that having the same culture is necessary to understand another human being. I do not want to add a litany of disclaimers based on what people you might think I sound like. Posters on this thread are talking as if it is reasonable to compare the cultural change in periods before the 1800s and now. That we can compare the Byzantine empire to the US and look for similarities and differences. The facts are that within the Byzantine empire, a family can do say, blacksmithing, for generations, with the exact same technology, selling the exact same thing, doing things in the exact same way. Drastic cultural change is not inevitable, things can stay the same but that's not true anymore.

You don't even need to use very recent examples, compare WW1 to WW2, just 30 years go by. The differences are just dramatic, politically, economically, militarily, technologically, culturally, everything. Even though many people lived through both wars and it's only 30 years. This kind of change is simply not possible before, I assume it is not necessary for me to actually go through all the changes? This can't happen in the Byzantine empire or whatever.

Of course the matter is subjective. But notice what you say about 99% changing in 60 years. That means in seven years roughly 12% has changed, if the change happens in a steady pace. Meaning that 12% of everything you have or do would have not been existing or possible in the year 2013 — ssu

It is not steadily changing, it is exponentially changing. Honestly, culture is not about "what you can do" and "who you can understand" it's about what people DO do and how they do it. 2013 to 2020 is more than a 12% change culturally speaking, if you look at "what is the average young person doing today" and then asked "did that exist in 2013" or "was that popular in 2013" then yeah, more than 12% would be a "no". Even if something was popular in 2013, it will most likely have adapted to be here in 2020, things are not staying the same. Do we really need to do a deep dive into this? Do you really think that between 2013 and 2020, there's been insignificant cultural and technological changes? It's actually well beyond a 12% difference, such an estimate is much too conservative.

There are many foreign nations today which have more in common with my home country (Australia) than 1960s Australia. I could live in many countries and survive but I'm not sure that's the point. Immigrants from Korea, China, middle-east, India, Europe and so on can adapt to living here.

I would have to adapt to an even greater extent than an immigrant does when coming here if I were to go to 1960's Australia. What I eat, what I do for entertainment, what I do for work, the way I talk, the way I dress, I'd have to change everything to fit in or simply because what I do now is not available.

The life of many my age (20s) is dominated by things which weren't even around in 2000 but that simply isn't the case if you're living in 760 or 1760, 20 years before that, people were doing the exact same and not much has changed.

It seems to me that if you can point out a few similarities to show present culture didn't just come from nowhere then it's the same. So 1960s to 2020, there's 99% changed, 1% the same, there's no objective answer I guess. You say "that's the same culture evolved" and I say "no that culture is dead and now there's new stuff", doesn't really matter. Either way, everyone now is going to experience rapid cultural changes and technological advancement is driving it.

For most of history, the life of the next generation didn't really differ much from the previous one. That only started changing when technology and economic growth started to have a significant enough impact. Since the 1400s, the difference between one generation and the next was more observable than before. Correlating with the acceleration of advances of technology and economic growth, mostly those two things I'd say. Since at least the 1800s, each generation experiences the death of their culture, I think things are moving way too fast to call it evolution. Go back or forward sixty years and there'll be no familiarity, you'll feel like a stranger in your own country.

The technology, the infrastructure, the politics, the public opinions, the laws, the state of the institutions, the clothing people wear, the way people talk and what they do for entertainment, everything. I can read up about the culture of the 1930's but the culture of that period is very much dead, it's not still being practised and I can't go "live" 1930's culture just by going outside and interacting with normal people. Merely speaking the same language and living on the same land, that's not culture. When one speaks of culture they're not talking about that.

I think that the feeling of "my culture is deteriorating" is almost certainly correct. Drastic change seems inevitable, moral decay is not the cause, it's not strange or complicated, it's the technological and economic advancement which is driving the change. Each subsequent generation has it harder because the culture is going to change faster as it correlates with ever rapidly developing technology.

As for the links between ethnicity, land, language to culture, I think it's good stuff for politicians, filmmakers, businesspeople but ultimately superficial.

Within science, the method of valuation is clear, demonstrate through the evidence to reasonably or definitively prove or disprove a claim. Within philosophy, there is no such clarity, rather, valuation is so ridiculously complicated and nuanced that there's almost no chance of sharing one with someone else, let alone everyone else. The simple answer is that philosophy draws on personal aspects of ourselves which are crucial in the conclusions we arrive at. It is not at all surprising that my views are not held by people with very different personalities, circumstances and so on.

Besides that, even if we're essentially identical in our thinking, that doesn't mean we'll agree at all. Take tribalism as an example, of its nature, different groups with tribalistic attitudes will be drawn into conflict.
In science, it's not like that, if we all agree the Earth is round then our opinions must be harmonious. I simply don't think it's reasonable to expect philosophy and science to function similarly with regards to the homogeneousness of opinions in the respective fields.

I'm invoking these issues not in the context of their existence, but in the context of how individuals regard them. — Aryamoy Mitra

I'm a practically minded person and the spectrum of practicality on either extreme of what is required to perform behaviorally consistently is too much. To defy a dictatorship is dangerous, may not actually achieve anything but being courteous is just good sense and usually in your best interests. Some of your examples are about self-improvement and about being the change you want to see in the world and others require activism, charity work, getting political and so on. Are you indifferent to what's required of a person and what consequences their actions may have?

Again, why do you care whether people are driven by morality above all else? You don't even care what their morals are either...

I'm stating that sustained resentment is a precondition. Without it, people are neither deplored by themselves, or their acquaintances, to the extent that they will undertake substantive changes to their behavior. — Aryamoy Mitra

There's a whole range of human emotion and plenty motivate people morally. Your claim is probably impossible to prove but I think it'd be possible to disprove if I made the effort. Honestly, to me, it just seems so obviously incorrect and lopsided, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. The result of your position is that to be a truly moral person without hatred or self-hatred is impossible. Such a person would just lack the resolve or motivation necessary, correct? Given that you have already made your proclivity towards misanthropy clear, you insist that hatred is the only compelling motivation, I start to ask, what this means for you? You and people similar to you are the only ones who can be truly moral, yes? Now personally, I don't care about such things but since you do, I feel like that is worth something to you. Nothing personal but that kind of behaviour is ubiquitous across people, even I am guilty of it.

If you want to tell me that rather than hatred being a necessary ingredient for the moral person, it is just a door one can take to get there, I could agree. Personally, I think relying on people to be moral is a bad strategy because it's unreliable. Instead of relying on whatever flimsy moral motivations people say they have, better to target more reliable motivations. All morality needs to do is guide people in the right direction, to get them to agree to something. After enough agree that idk "racism is bad" then legislatively, economically, educationally, culturally, socially, people are practically forced to more or less act in accordance with "racism is bad". We don't need people to motivate themselves with hatred or whatever. If there's a problem then look to the larger social infrastructure, lamenting the lack of moral character of people is pointless.

Hence I think rather than misanthropy, better to be deeply dissatisfied with the system, that's something you can actually change. Whereas humans will always be humans and generally far too lazy to actually follow your scheme even if they wanted to.

Being amoral is rare, nearly everyone has moral ideals, seeing that isn't hard. You are the one who said passivity, not hypocrisy, leads to complicity. There's just a lot of ambiguity as to what you expect of people and no practical basis for your expectations. Your complaint is that instead of me going about my business, seeing something improper and saying "that's not okay with me", I should live in a perpetual state of discontent knowing "there are things which exist which aren't okay with me" is that fair? I need unnatural motivation for that, you say, all that will work is a deep, sustained resentment of the condemned act or acts which go against my values. It's not exactly clear what I have to do, what I need to achieve or how much I need to do.

Debating capitalism would derail your thread, the point I was making is that isn't that one can't condemn capitalism but rather, if it's going to be condemned, hopefully, it's done so with an understanding of what it actually is. We're going to be better off without people who have no idea what they're talking about marching around making demands and being discontent instead of doing some reading.

I'm not asking anybody to abandon their civility — Aryamoy Mitra

I know, okay, I had misgivings about the notion of "hating with civility" but perhaps I've been unreasonable, the idea is probably reasonable. I guess where I'm still confused is that you talk about "behavioural consistency" but then you bring up issues like identity politics, genocide, dictatorships and issues that have, well, nothing to do with my behaviour. Which is it? Are you asking me to i.e "resent discourtesy and thus be courteous" and "be the change you want to see in the world" or are you asking me to work towards reforming the government, protesting animal cruelty and doing charity work?

Passivity leads to complicity, you say? You have found a way to condemn swathes of innocent people for doing literally nothing with horrible crimes you aren't seeing them address, I suppose. Of the potentially hundreds of problems an individual can take moral issue with, how many do they need to address? Go save a cat, feed the homeless, a different rally for each day of the week, maintain a blog devoted to activism, do charity work instead of a holiday? It's not good enough to just live honestly without bothering anyone? That's the same as being complicit with all you find morally repugnant? Heh, okay.

I don't have much interest in distinctions like "genuine", the people described by the polarisation are polarised on moral issues for moral reasons. You've actually listed political correctness and identity politics as justifications for your misanthropy, it wasn't too ideological for you when you wrote that? Of course the political polarisation is based on moral issues. Abortion, gun control, economic inequality/redistribution, immigration, crime, racism, law and so many other things.

If a misanthrope were channelling their contempt for mankind in an uncivil or violent way, towards those doing that which they passionately hate, that would make more sense to me than what you're saying. You know damn well that many of the things in your OP shouldn't be treated with civility, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. For many of the issues in the US polarisation and across the world, it's not an ideological game, people's lives are at stake. Why would you ask for moral zealotry, to the extent where a person should live life orientated around their moral ideals, but then expect no serious consequences, only people politely minding their business, bettering themselves and leading by example?

I personally believe that a rare few individuals are motivated by the fact of their values, and that instead most are driven by egotistic instincts that they cease to acknowledge, and falsify as representations of their ideals. — Aryamoy Mitra

I think you just need to look harder, the overwhelming majority of people who are actually doing something to help, unsurprisingly, just want to help. Kind people who want to make a difference, you're a very sceptical fellow...

Honestly, we don't need every person to be gallivanting about with their moral ideals, it's preferable for people to just live well, treat people with respect, take care of their immediate surroundings. We should be aiming to tolerate difference instead of turning every moral issue into a battleground. Most people don't have a clue anyway, got people yelling "death to capitalism" without being able to define it. Isn't there a middle ground between hypocrisy and activism, where someone just lives in accordance with their principles?

I understand why my arguments in favor of misanthropy appear dissociated from what misanthropy generally implies, but the concept plays a significant role in what I'm laying forth. — Aryamoy Mitra

Isn't it just a possible result of what you're laying forth while what you're laying forth is not misanthropy. The only connection you offered was "maybe I'll just blame everyone for not doing enough", that's not really compelling, you can do that for a multitude of things totally unrelated to misanthropy. Throughout this thread, you have used the term incorrectly, even describing a misanthrope as though that's the name of people who adhere to what you've described, though now that is clearly inappropriate.

here exists an unmistakable distinction between a commonality's passive condemnation of a vile act, and a misanthrope that brings it into cognizance, rationalizes any hatred, and reconstitutes himself/herself as its antithesis, either through directive behavior or thought. — Aryamoy Mitra

I don't know why you're so insistent on using the term when your usage is just going to mislead people into thinking you're saying something different than you are, it's part of why it's taken so long just to understand what your argument is.

I believe in replacing that with genuine, sustained discontentment against the evils that one perceives — Aryamoy Mitra

Okay.

Being passive in light of what one perceives to be a reprehensible act is for many, tantamount to being complicit in that act. If I adhere to that proposition, then I am impelled to therefore condemn all those who remain behaviorally passive to the evil that I apprehend. — Aryamoy Mitra

Do you adhere to this position? It seems to contradict what you just wrote two posts ago about the political situation in the US.

Without that sustained hatred, one is devoid of any compelling motivation. — Aryamoy Mitra

So you haven't been able to find highly motivated people, motivated in part or entirely by their values or moral beliefs, who don't rely on sustained hatred?

Misanthropy, or sustained resentment in general, to me, when channeled meaningfully, is an intermediary between perceiving an act to be immoral, and embodying a behavioral antithesis to that act - irrespective of what that act comprises. — Aryamoy Mitra

So, you want people to be intensely passionate about sustaining how much they hate animal abuse but how do they embody the rejection or become the antithesis of that?

I don't believe what you're describing bears any resemblance to misanthropy. You're seemingly unwilling to condemn even the guilty, let alone the entire species? Honestly, I still struggle to understand how your philosophy deviates from a person simply being their normal self. I resent plenty of human behaviour on moral grounds, normal, I resent human behaviour which tramples on my values, normal.

It seems less so that your ideas would make an individual better but rather more appealing from your point of view. Which may not even have any practical basis. Is that unfair? Why do you care whether people embody their moral views or whether people exhibit moral passivity?

Isn't it difficult to convince people to feel hatred? Wouldn't any other route of galvanizing people be easier and also, wouldn't different ways lead to more reasonable approaches being taken?

A major issue in America right now is political polarisation but it seems like that's just the result of people doing something quite similar to your suggestion. Moral zealotry, with a real "fuck you" attitude to people who aren't on board with your way of thinking. Is that not the case?

What if we compare how many historical atrocities and evils were caused by moral zealotry and to how many fewer may have occurred if not for moral passivity? It seems like for your way to actually make the world better, we best disseminate it cautiously.

You'd first recognize an encroachment on your liberty, detest it in light of your religious affinity or principles, and then presumably rebel if you had the wherewithal to do so. You couldn't act without first resenting the encroachment, or the forces that impel it. Everyone undergoes this, which is why the means by which they do should be of greater emphasis. — Aryamoy Mitra

The means by which they do? Isn't this process automatic, I don't need to consciously activate my annoyance of things not going my way. I don't get it.

What I'm postulating is that man's hatred of himself in some circumstances can be distilled into a series of philosophical axioms, instead of being treated as an arbitrary sentiment in passing. — Aryamoy Mitra

It should work this way, "has views" --> leads to misanthropy, not "has misanthropy" --> leads to views.
You've given your reasons for why you're a misanthrope, I more or less condemn the same things but I'm not a misanthrope. Tell me, what avenues of philosophical thought open to you that remain closed to me?

What I'm hearing is that you seek to galvanise people, to care more about their moral stances. To you, hate seems like a good motivator so go with that. What you want is dedication, for people to embody the antithesis of that which they hate, is that right? Is the opposite of your view less about liking humans and more like moral apathy?

Consider a supernatural creature like a ghost or a deity, not even having a biological body, how can we say there is a biological sex? Yet, we still use "he" and not "it" because the gender is nonetheless performed. I could make up a story about two clouds and call one bob and the other jane and refer with "he" to bob and "her" to jane and nobody would be complaining about how clouds lack a biological sex. So using gendered pronouns for that which clearly has no biological sex is not controversial, only using gendered pronouns which contradict the biological sex is controversial. I can all a boat or country a "she" and etc.

Gendered pronouns always indicate gender but do not always indicate sex. If gendered pronouns were "biological sex pronouns" then this whole conversation about "which pronouns are appropriate" wouldn't make any sense, the answer would be obvious.

My understanding is that misanthropy is not about improvement and it's not constructive, a misanthrope is simply someone who holds humans in contempt, we do not know their reason just by the definition. So instead of being futile, it's just not trying to accomplish anything, it simply describes feelings which exist. If you had not used the word misanthropy then I wouldn't have used it for you, I don't fully understand why you're a misanthrope.

Why can't they be distilled and systematized in creating a rational philosophy — Aryamoy Mitra

If that is what you have done or intend to do then you are right, in that case, I underestimated you. You are right, your views wouldn't be invalidated, I made a mistake by saying that.

One could, perhaps, lay forth the argument that man's intrinsic predispositions and maladaptation to power are culpable for this stated corruption, as opposed to the fact of power itself. One may concurrently argue that these predispositions are ubiquitous, and ancestrally entrenched into the deeoest recesses of the human psyche. Why won't a targeted recognition, and resulting contempt of that trait be of any utility? Isn't it a precursor to any meaningful discussion in relation to remediating that trait? — Aryamoy Mitra

I believe a strong argument can be made in your favour, I don't know how power would function for a different species and I can only speculate. I do think there are many mitigating aspects to how things function which we can see humans don't have much control over but to what extent is complex.

You can recognise and hold a trait in contempt but that doesn't make you a misanthrope. I think 100% of people already do that, not much of a proposal. Philosophy lacks nuance, not necessarily yours but in general, the problems are always in the details. You can condemn humanity for your set of reasons but how are you going to convince others that your condemnations are just and correct? People have different personalities, upbringings, beliefs, values, experiences and so on. You say you hate political correctness and identity politics but there are very intelligent posters on this site who do not and you should know how hard it is to change the minds of others, just a single person, let alone a substantial group.

Even that which is unanimously condemned such as theft or rape isn't stopped just by being condemned. Even if 99% of the world's population shares your condemnations, 1% is enough to throw the world into chaos.

Let me ask you, instead of trying to change how human traits lead to your condemned incidents, shouldn't we look towards basically everything besides human traits? Human rights, social welfare, international law, governmental reform and so on? Most of your list of condemnations is either unanimously condemned within the West or highly contentious and highly debated. You point out how you hate political correctness and identity politics but you're not alone. Debate is already taking place, you use strong language but in reality, you're just joining these debates, these two things come up fairly commonly on this forum.

I guess I'm just struggling to understand what separates your proposal from the norm and how it would work.

If misanthropy is just a condemnation of certain human behaviours then everyone is a misanthrope. It's the conclusion that these condemned aspects are irredeemable and ubiquitous among humans and that disliking or hating humans is justified or warranted as a result that is misanthropy.

We don't have another intelligent species to compare ourselves too, but I believe that much of your list can blame the way power functions as opposed to humans. Power is so pervasive and commanding, it corrupts leaders but renders individual resistance futile. Politically, economically, religiously, culturally and even morally, the disenfranchised everyday person doesn't have the luxury or the wherewithal to do differently than where the flow of things takes them.

Besides the lack of nuance, your views would tell me more about you than about humanity, truth is constructed, its form a result of the creator's intent. Couldn't another user post a thread today listing only good things about humans and profess how happy and optimistic about it all? What is a third party supposed to make of that except to note how different intentions and perspectives lead to different conclusions? Each view is correct enough to invalidate the other, the varying facts are all just threads to be woven by the intellect. Only specificity diminishes the arbitrariness created by the potential for the creation of truth. That means abandoning the idea that a species-wide condemnation could have any credibility.

It's kind of like hating all dogs because some might bite or bark at you or disliking books and listing the reasons as all the bad books ever written. Misanthropy simply lacks nuance and makes more sense as a personality feature than a philosophical opinion. You can condescend towards all of humanity if you want but when it's for reasons like these, it's slightly ironic.

Man is judge, jury and executioner in all courts. You can in your heart of hearts be convinced of your righteousness. I admire this, it allows the intellect to elevate themselves in a hierarchical sense that they can't help but care for. Be proud, strong, happy and think well of yourself, love yourself and do this by establishing a worldview which celebrates who you are and condemn those whose views threaten you.
You will be viciously condemned in the worldview of others so why not do the same, hang around likeminded people and be appreciated and allowed to simply exist happily within your sphere.

Evolution aside, competition by itself creates efficiency and quality like nothing else, the stakes range from economic, political, social, sexual and psychological. Co-operation and competition aren't mutually exclusive and competition isn't mutually exclusive with being kind and generous. Capitalism is efficiency and quality orientated, competition is what makes it great. Context is important, a person can be a ruthless CEO, a charitable community member and a loving parent. However, when you are saying something is competitive, this may simply be a result of a meritocracy or just following rules which stipulate the rules of the game.

If people are only part of society, then what exactly do the remaining part(s) consist of? — Pinprick

Their ideas and practices, their organisation and many things. Take a stratified society as an example, the existence of which may predate any living person, they're all born into it. People are born into the different classes and inhabit the roles, responsibilities and privileges of those classes. The power structure disenfranchises the majority bottom class and the upper classes are benefited by the status quo. It may be that no matter which role you inhabit, you are not in a position to challenge the system.

Look at how society develops as a result of technology, overseas ideas, soft power from other countries or music, culture develops through food, drugs, religion. Someone could invent a babel fish but have no way of knowing how it will shape society, what kind of impact it will have on its various sectors. Even if society was just all individuals making choices, why would you ask people to take responsibility for someone else's choices? Why would that mean someone can't blame society even if they thought that meant "the individual choices which have impacted me"? Anyway, you have received quite a few good responses and responded with either nothing worth reading or this focus on "violence" which you probably should have just made your thread about rather than society. Yes, people ultimately choose whether to be violent or not, even if there are particular environment or social factors which influenced them, they still go to jail for their crimes. You want what, people to ignore science and just say "ah, that's totally your fault and I see no correlation between your actions and your environment and the statistical truth that shows a correlation between those acts and your environment"? You haven't even said who you're really arguing with just "them goddamn folk who blame society". Everything about this thread is mediocre and I've spent too much time on it already.

What I’m getting at is that when people blame “society” for something, it is a deflection of blame. It isn’t capitalism, or racism that is a problem; it’s capitalists and racists that are. We tend to look at people as if they are a part of society, when in actuality they are society. — Pinprick

They are obviously part of society, that's like saying "I'm not part of a group, I am the group".

The terms “society” and “individuals” are almost synonymous. — Pinprick

Well, I'm not even going to deal with this anymore.

But the wife was not forced to kill herself either. And yes, he is morally responsible for beating her, bringing her pain, but can he be morally responsible for her actions? — Matei

But that's not what moral responsibility is about, at the point where the husband literally forced the wife to kill herself, that's no longer suicide but murder. A husband could feel morally responsible for his wife's suicide even if he did absolutely nothing to cause it just by feeling guilty about not having noticed the signs. Moral responsibility is not a question of whether you directly caused an act, you seem to be asking whether the husband is literally responsible for her death but you already said it's suicide.

Does that really sound right? — Matei

There is a relationship between bullying and suicide, do you dispute that? A man can beat his wife and she might or might not kill herself as a result but considering the gravity of her situation, it's not unreasonable to expect that it might or could happen. If someone is being bullied to the degree that they might want to kill themselves then if they do, how can you say there's no responsibility on their end? You are correct, despite the husband's actions, things could have turned out differently but the same thing applies to the stabbing scenario. The truth is though, one stabber is a murderer and the other is not.

I think I misunderstood you though, the issue seems to be specific to suicide. Don't you see that the family and friends of someone lost to suicide can feel morally responsible and guilty? It is due to the presence of agency, the ability to do something differently which may have changed the outcome, that creates the possibility for moral responsibility. Otherwise, there would simply be no moral responsibility for someone else's suicide ever but that's not how it works.

People will often consider society or culture as a cause for human behavior, but isn’t society itself actually caused by human behavior? — Pinprick

These things simply aren't mutually exclusive and it's not just society or culture, behaviour can't be analysed in a vacuum. Society constitutes the environment of a person and a person navigates their environment or is affected by their environment. Intellectually, emotionally, socially, physically - what makes sense only makes sense as a result of what is put in front of a person. Be it in the form of access or imposition. Culturally, an individual learns from others and when they do what they learn to do within a culture, the results of that are similar no matter who you are.

This dichotomy of choosing between blaming society or blaming the individual can only lead to an incorrect and incomplete understanding, abandon it. Make a nuanced decision instead.

When someone is "morally responsible", we are not talking about them being the only or absolute cause and that is missing the point. I think moral accountability ultimately comes down to whether a person can be praised or blamed in moral terms for their involvement in an event. When it comes to bullying, we don't know how the other person will react but that's not an excuse. We could hold him morally accountable for her suicide because the husband is intellectually capable of understanding that his actions could have had this effect. There no real mitigating circumstances here, the husband isn't being forced to beat his wife by anyone. The husband acted of his own free will, with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It doesn't really matter that the wife would still be alive if she did not choose to die.

Many situations have this kind of "luck" involved, say someone is stabbed, perhaps the puncture is fatal or a flesh wound, maybe medical attention will be available in time to save the victim or perhaps it won't be. So whether the attacker is a murderer or just gave someone a tiny scar, maybe it will be decided by luck but they'll be held morally accountable for either outcome. So too for the husband, maybe his wife could've been stronger and more resilient and not take her own life but that wasn't the case. That really has nothing to do with the husband, he must be held accountable for what happens even if it mightn't have happened if things outside of his control didn't happen or weren't the way they were.

Depends on the context, when addressing an individual, blaming society diminishes personal responsibility and while addressing a widescale problem, blaming individuals diminishes the importance of looking at the impact of the institutions, laws, culture and so on.

Well, I think that's too general and I'll say that even though I'm sure you agree, not everyone handles adversity the same. There are difficult situations where it'd be easier to simply be told what to do and sometimes it's practical to seek help, for sure... In the situations where people are "giving away their freedom", isn't it because they have a reason orientated around necessity or practicality? Even if someone is encountering a difficult choice, that doesn't mean they'll listen to anyone's advice or instructions. Even if they do listen to someone else's advice, that doesn't ensure they'll not feel regret, anxiety, stress or whatever.

I think most of what you're talking about would be solved by having more power and that's telling of the nature of the problem. Sure, people feel anxious about making the correct decision when the stakes are high and that circumstance does make a person easier to control but isn't the issue the high stakes? It only shows that sometimes, people will be desperate enough to trade freedom for safety, security and other things of practical benefit. I don't think it shows that people "hate" their freedom at all, disagree strongly.

I think that people want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, not as a disenfranchised slave but as an agent of righteousness. People do not relish in slaving away at large corporations prioritising profit, doing a job devoid of meaning, considered exposable, unappreciated and unimportant. People do like the idea of being a crusader for values, ideologies and such they believe in, where they can see themselves as part of the greater good, fighting for something important. How can we become heroes if we only care for ourselves? How can we be appreciated if we keep to ourselves? Or view ourselves as doing more than merely living.

On a more practical note, when society is filled with hope and opportunity then we see people care more about their freedom. People can set goals for themselves and thus won't surrender those goals easily. In periods where it seems like there is no future, no opportunity and no hope, that's when people actively hand away their freedom, the hopeless are easy to control but it's not because they want to give away their freedom it's because they want something better for themselves.

I really do not know why you keep trying to shift focus to me, everything I have said has been generalised. Which means that there's no reason to assume that I see you as an exception to my understanding or characterisations. I was sharing my thoughts about free will, not lamenting about it. I am very comfortable with my understanding of my will and my views aren't causing me any grief.

I also don't think you've correctly understood me, your examples tell me that you are not understanding my points. I think I've been misunderstood to the extent to which I see this discussion as doomed and I am going to give up on it now.

The question remains if bodily limitations are perceived as such — Heiko

I am not talking about bodily limitations, I am talking about the body's influence on will. An example might be discussing how getting aroused can influence a person's choices or how addiction can cause unbearable cravings. When we talk about different personalities, temperaments and so on or the effect of being tired, angry or hungry. The culmination of which is a mix between two effects, firstly that your will is a construct of your psychobiological self and secondly that the freedom of your will is compromised by numerous and potent influences affecting it.

There is no "desire" not to smoke and cannot be as that is a negation — Heiko

Our will is messier than that, it is fractured and inconsistent, over time and in different contexts. One can vocally dictate their desires but actions speak louder than words, no human acts completely in accordance with what they say they want.

We are not in the middle ages. — Heiko

I don't smoke btw lol.

Then either you are lacking power or your abstract reasoning is wrong in that you only whish you wanted to do it — Heiko

The power to suppress your own desires? I think I understand our disagreement pretty well, at least this one of them. Over time, our desires change, we do not simultaneously earnestly and wholeheartedly commit to something while also deciding it's not worth it. When you commit to something, that is you trying to exercise your will but when you later decide it's not worth it, I think that's also your will. Why the change? Because your will is influenced by things like emotion which are not consistent over time. Over the passage of time, the attempt to exercise will shall generally be defeated. This isn't based on my experience, it's based on things like obesity rates, looking at addiction, knowing a little about psychology and many other contexts where this can be seen.

By the way, I'm not saying there isn't will or that we can't do useful things with our choices but just answering OP's question. Certainly, people can make the choice to quit smoking and succeed but consider how many emotions and desires have been coded into us or become present as a result of our circumstances and how hard it can be to change these things. I think over time, a person can gradually build habits and make transformations but it's rare, difficult and limited in scope.

Which is not necessarily a contradiction at all, as long as such an influence is not perceived as such. One is as free as can be until there is something which is actively perceived as limiting ones freedom. — Heiko

I agree to the extent that characterisations are always subject to interpretation but I don't conclude as you do. I think the body's influence on the will constitutes an outside influence, the question is how greatly can you be influenced before you are more of a puppet to those influences than an actor with free will. There should be a point where the individual acting in accordance with those influences to a degree where it is reasonable to doubt the ability of the individual to go against those influences. Also, I don't think perception can be trusted to bring clarity to this matter.

Of course, we can. The person gives a declaration of intent and that's it. One could even say that it is a demonstration of free will to be even able to want something different than what one is doing or what actually is the case. — Heiko

Well, what you've described is not what I meant, the desire to smoke and the desire not to smoke both enter the consciousness and that's how that works. Which is different from i.e flinching involuntarily. The whole problem here is that merely characterising your will as "what I want" and "what I don't want" is not the same as "I don't want that" but you do, that's the whole difficulty of exercising your will. If someone wants to stop smoking then they need to address the conscious decision they make to buy smokes, keep the smokes and smoke because that constitutes the entire problem. Declaring "really, I want to stop smoking" while you still make conscious choices which go against that demonstrates a lack of free will. How else would you interpret it?

Do you feel it that way? Then maybe you are just told it was your free decision — Heiko

Merely going with all of your psychobiological proclivities isn't freedom, that's just being taken along for the ride without trying to resist.

Are you asking that you "want to want something" now? — Heiko

I was saying that you can decide you want something but the growing pressure to do the opposite builds up until you eventually or quite possibly almost immediately capitulate. Like deciding you will do something bold until it comes time to do that thing and you're immediately overcome by fear which causes you to change your mind. Essentially, you are free to choose whatever but even simple things like losing weight or going for a jog every day can be tremendously difficult for most people. Thus your emotions influence your will and reverse your decisions and your ability to deviate from your life trajectory with will is limited. Millions of people want to lose weight or exercise more and there's no physical reason they can't but they find it very difficult. How do you respond to that?

I do want to add that I recognise a distinction between "free will" as the consciousnesses freedom to make choices, even if those choices can't be enacted and the ability of the consciousness to enact their choices. I think both factor into the question of free will but technically I think former is true free will and that the individual has absolute free will. However, that free will could be totally meaningless because the consciousness reverses their choice a second later due to their inability to sustain or enact their will. So I focused on the latter issue in my last post.

Impediments, influences and limitations.

1. Nature of Will

Hormonally, psychologically, emotionally, sexually, sensually and so on, the human body is made to dictate appealing from unappealing regardless of your will in a way which influences your will and really, often simply constitutes your will. "I" refers to the consciousness, the "will" in free will means "will of the consciousness" but I don't decide many things about what I want and like, that's largely pre-determined. The best example is someone trying to quit smoking, the body is addicted and gives off every signal that it wants to smoke but these desires are repressed by the consciousness to exert a person's will not to smoke.

Firstly, this is expressed as both the individual wanting and not wanting to smoke, we cannot express their desire to smoke as not being part of their will. Thus will is not necessarily pitted against something else, will in of itself is constructed and influenced by external forces (not my consciousness). My inability to cleanse my will of external influences poses the greatest threat to my free will, which is actually inherently not free at all by its very nature. I cannot be as just a consciousness, I am first and foremost a biological being.

2. Difficulty of Applying Will

All follows from my first point, the consciousness can make choices but could face incredible resistance. I simultaneously desire conflicting things and the longer I need to sustain a choice the harder it becomes to follow through on my will. I can easily decide to hold my arm out in front of me but it's much harder to hold it out until I stop due to physical limitations rather than "wanting to stop". Applying my will can be challenging, requiring effort, this effort implies resistance and resistance shows a lack of freedom.

3. Free Will vs Belief vs Interpretation

The limitations are not limited to less intellectual topics, I think a central issue to free will is control. Ever heard "you are free to believe whatever you want to believe"? Except you aren't and you can't. If you decide "I'm going to start believing in solipsism today", you are really only succeeding in lying to yourself, aren't you? You can't actually believe in solipsism just because you decided you would, internally, you know you are lying to yourself and you still don't believe in solipsism.

I could go on with examples but to answer your question "what is free will free of" it is free of impediments, influences and limitations. I think generally the "do we have free will question" asks do we at least have some control and some free will, only a fool would ever argue that they have 100% control and influence over their will.

I am going to state for the record that I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

Typing insults really just does nothing for me and since that's all this thread has to offer, I'm out, nobody @ me pls. Actually, can a mod just delete this entire page?

Well, you're certainly belligerent, you sound like a moron and I'm pretty convinced your reading comprehension skills are selective at best but you make it sound like you're talking about me? I'm certainly going to reflect on my actions.


monkey

Primarily the issue isn't about true/false, it's that you were asked to give an alternative characterisation of Putin and offered only positive comments and justifications. Then you responded to criticism as propaganda and virtue signalling, brought up your comments about silly people and black-and-white thinking. I think you have equal explaining to do about exactly what your problem is. My initial problem has already been summed up.

Agreeing on the obvious isn't a virtue, you can say good things about Putin on a specific note but if you only have 3-4 sentences to describe him, do you think it's fit for those 3-4 lines to be singing his praises and justifying his leadership? — Judaka

You say you're not singing his praises and justifying his leadership but I don't see how that is a reasonable interpretation, Putin would be very happy with what you wrote. You only dug your hole deeper when you started giving resistance to alternative characterisations of Putin and generally lamenting about Western propaganda.