Also, I hope this issue brings to light the severity of sexual abuse and rape. It is not something that people can just 'get over' or 'go to therapy for'. It's effects are often internalized, and it can take years until the event begins to be processed-often manifesting itself is terrible bouts of depression, anxiety, and eating/substance abuse disorders.

Sexual abuse and rape kills people. Even if the physical death doesn't take place until years or decades following the event-it still kills people.

It's not murder. Murder implies the involuntary action of one person taking another person's life. It is bad-not because death is bad, but because forced death is bad, and no one therefore has the right to take another person's life.

According to the short and seemingly biased article-I don't think this is murder. While suicide should not be considered as the 'solution' to mental illnesses-such trauma must be treated similarly to a chronic disease. Trauma and the mental illnesses associated should be considered a chronic disease-one that affects the individual for most of their lives. While I am saddened at this girl's death-I am in no place to blame her for her decision-she voluntarily chose to end her own life-as a majority of rape survivors do sooner or later. While many victims in similar situations do find a way to move forward in their lives, this is not always possible for everyone all the time.

I've never understood the anti-euthanasia push, to me it seems entirely common sense. There is a threshold of suffering that is possible for an individual, and worth it for said individual, to endure. While evolution equips us with much strength to endure such suffering (not too mention the stigma resultant of culture) people's lives will eventually, stop being worth living. If you do not die an accidental or sudden death (ie. hit by a bus) then there will come a time, inevitably, that your life depreciates to the point it is not worth living.

Eating human meat is, well, just meat. The horror associated with cannibalism is not due to the meat itself, but the practice of 'eating' a member of our specie, presupposes that we would have to kill said member to eat them. Its pragmatic to ban something that could encourage the stronger members of the species to kill weaker members. A lot of people believe various religions banned the practice of eating pork because it tastes (and is extremely like) human meat.

We've had domestic terrorism, just not on such a grand scale as the US. Last Spring a man drove/plowed through the sidewalk of Toronto in a rented van, killing about a dozen people.

I consider myself an indeterminist-the opposite of determinism. The complex arrangement of interaction, and cause and effect, which cause what we experience as our lives is not determined per say, by an individual, overall power, or plan.

There is no plan and no real way to predict the future beyond educated guesses, and playing probability. Things happen because other things happen.

This is not to be confused with compatibility.

Free will does exist-to an extent, but even the concept of 'free' is hindered by larger, more complex, and subtle systems, such as the neurological functions and capacities of the human brain, our finite brains can only understand such an abstract concept to a certain degree..

• Therefore, we are all subject to various overarching and under arching systems (depending on your position in said universe. Even the universe (as in the collection of plants and solar system) in subject to various overarching, increasingly complex, systems, such as the Big Bang, larger solar systems, and blackholes ect..

• While we are subject to so many restrictions as per the process of ever-changing, seemingly random, chaotic, but meaningful systems this does not necessarily fully exclude moral culpability. People are perhaps 99.9% resultant of their environments (systems) including the most benign as unconscious recognition (a study showed that individuals secretly flashed and presented the same number in various random and inconspicuous locations throughout their day, would later almost every time, use that number to gamble with, unless another number was chosen for a distinct and clear reason. .1% allows for the reality, that it is impossible for the human brain to conceive of such a system at large, let alone in situations of perceived injustice or danger...therefore we need to place blame on something tangible-lest we seize with injustice and anger. Most then, seek to blame, and as social beings, we all have to accept the reality, that we will be held accountable by our peers-at the very least because the human psyche cannot live with unabated frustration, and that placing such blame allows large societies to cooperatively function. Not all do of course, there are people much more forgiving than others, perhaps because they are empathetic, intelligent, and reasonable enough to realize at least some of the complex systemic and probabilistic events at play (consider to, people who claim they found solace or peace in their lives following a traumatic event, after concluding that life is some a kind of system, some kind of life cycle, or that it led/impacted some other more positive event in their lives (ie. bad marriage leads to eventual successful career change). People who can comprehend such an obvious model of complex systems as the concept of cyclical poverty-or intersecting oppression, are thereby more empathetic and less resentful towards people in such circumstances-it could be said they see less individual moral culpability

• This view of life as huge, interacting, overarching systems is understandably problematic. Not because it excludes a full amount of individual moral culpability but rather for two reasons, one) because it questions fundamental social pillars-human intersubjective systems that lay waste to lives while simultaneously making other people's lives better. For example, hyper-focusing on individual moral culpability on topics such as recycling or limiting motor use is resultant of the threat posed by focusing on systemic causes, such as capitalist economics, or the power of big business and technological innovations that make such plundering of the environment possible on such a large scale.

• Life is a series of indeterminate systems, interacting with each other in complex probabilistic ways. Appears chaotic and random to those within the system, thus giving the illusion of complete free will, comprehension, and control.

Foucault!

Or from a feminist perspective read Andrea Dworkins (she writes about the inherent coercion involved in heterosexual sex), Promiscuities and Vagina, A New Biography by Naomi Wolf discuss harmful cultural associations regarding sex and female sexuality, including how this affects sexual development. The Purity Myth is another powerful book which talks about the fiction and cultural norms regarding the sacredness of sex and virginity-a tool used to further oppress and legitimize control over women's bodies. There's probably a ton more feminist theorists that I cannot think of off the top of my head (largely writers writing from the 70s-contemporary times though). I might think of more.

What about Canadians?

Funny that many of the narratives supporting domination of the Earth/instrumentalism of natural resources, relates back to the beginnings of Judeo-Christian tradition. Not too mention the Christian ranking of human as superior to animals, plants, and so on. Christianity also completely denies evolutionary theory, and the reality that there we are all accidental events...Convenient how religious zealots always argue that everything is compatible with Christian thought and values-bit of a doublethink isn't it?

Ya of course, exposure over indoctrination. I don't think everyone is able to/wants to be a philosopher, but I think that philosophy can be useful for everyone. I'm getting really tired of defending that thesis though, to my friends, my family, my boyfriend, my coworkers, everyone just thinks I'm weird-and should be interested in something that will make $$ or be cool. Like playing lacrosse or something.

Descartes also tortured dogs and seemed overall-a dismal and myopic person. Pity he devalued philosophical inquiry so entirely, that to date, it is hard to find hard refutation evidence of his theory beyond that of common sense (at least his disparage of animal sentience).

The conclusion is inescapable: science cannot proceed without making, implicitly or explicitly, a persistent metaphysical assumption of unity – ‘metaphysical’ because it is too imprecise to be verified or falsified by evidence. The current orthodox conception of science, inherited from Newton, and still taken for granted by scientists today, that science must appeal only to evidence, and must not make metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the universe independently of evidence, is untenable, and must be rejected.

But what if the human mind/imagination can only comprehend unity? or unified theories? Does this implicit bias of de facto unity reveal more about us than it does about the Universe?

Academia needs to be transformed so that its basic task becomes to help humanity resolve those conflicts and problems of living that need to be solved if we are to make progress towards a genuinely civilised world.

Also agree with this. But academia will not be transformed until it becomesvalued in various countries and cultures, and in order to do that, it needs to be (on our current model) economically valued and more accessible. It costs too much money for people to go to school to not even ~get a job~.

In the Ontario curriculum (a province in Canada) philosophy is only offered once, as an elective high school course in grade 12 (ranked as a "U" level course, meaning the grade can be submitted to universities). I was fortunate that my teacher was phenomenal, and passionate, and the course actually offered a fantastic summary of key branches of philosophy. It also 'taught' me the word philosophy, and taught me that up until then all the other courses and subjects that I had loved (English, sociology, history, social justice) were also PHILOSOPHY.

But, that being said, philosophy is not supported or ~discussed~ beyond that one elective, which I recently found out, not all high schools even offer. The issue is, I've found that by the time children are 16-18 years old, they've developed rigid thinking patterns and most find philosophy, confusing, bullshit, or boring. Philosophy needs to be introduced younger-I always found drawing up little picture books helps with even my own understanding of philosophical concepts. Perhaps a retired philosopher should take such a task on, developing a curriculum of philosophy for younger children? I've managed to talk about philosophy with children as young as six (I worked as a summer camp counsellor) mainly simple political concepts-like the idea of 'democracy' but they ate it up. No reason philosophy can't be introduced earlier-encourage abstract, theoretical, and critical thinking.
Except-where's the $$$ in teaching children that?
Philosophy also has great subversion power-the whole point of the modern education system is to prepare children to enter the working economy and function productively. Not to ask questions that don't necessarily have answers and stir up trouble...

Also, one more point (before I go read the article)-even science as we know it, is heavily butchered in the education system environment. Before we can even begin discussing 'bridging' the gap between philosophy and science, we need to repair the harm done to both fields...science as presented in the school system is based on the premise of establishing 'facts', you memorize terms from a text book and then answer the test. Or you do an "experiment" (most of which get bungled in the process) to establish said 'fact', this is repetitive, tedious, and boring. This gives science a bad first impression. I HATED science in school, HATED the stupid experiments where you had to write down your 'predictions' 'observations' ect. It makes science extremely inaccessible for most, when it doesn't have to be. Science is a whole more than what is presented to you in school.

Yes I'm getting that vibe only a dozen or so pages in! But it is a refreshing view point, and I appreciate his defence of the anti-realists of his time, he says at least they are willing to shun the prevailing views and so on.

Am I mistaken to say that Nietzsche also does blame language/interpretation for issues in philosophy?

Yes-haven't gotten to that part yet!

I regret replying now-I am by no means qualified enough to answer your question.

I just started reading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche, and (in the first part at least) he discusses the problems with philosophy (as he sees it) in great detail. Really quite interesting. I haven't read any negative accounts of philosophy in awhile-philosophers are a prideful bunch, perhaps because of how much criticism philosophy gets in the modern day, not many are willing to admit that a lot of it is, in fact, contradictory bullshit. Definitely read Nietzsche if you haven't already.

Is it possible for this attraction to be decided in the conscious mind and remain true?

Surprisingly, I say yes. I say that people can force themselves to usually come to love and be attracted to the other person. For example, there are only a few men at the bar one night but you're determined to take one home (maybe you haven't had sex in a month, maybe you want to revenge cheat on your SO ect.) you can probably 'trick' or otherwise force yourself to be attracted to at least one of them, even if outside of said context-you wouldn't normally be attracted to that person. I think this explains the high success rate for arranged marriages as well-if you go into something with the expectation that you are supposed to be/need to be attracted to this person, unless this person is extremely unfavourable, most likely you will find something attractive about them. Now as for 'romantic' feeling or love, that is something I believe takes longer to 'trick' yourself into. When I first met my current boyfriend, I wasn't that physically attracted to him at first (he will confirm I was actually a bit repulsed) but he drove 2+ hours to my university to meet me and stay the night-hence the underlying expectation for some 'magic' to happen, which, after many drinks and drugs, it did. Now we have been dating for over a year and I feel more attracted to him than anyone I have ever met despite various relationship obstacles/rows we have had.

Is attraction solely determined by physical, behavioural and intellectual attributes? Or a combination of all and more?

Depends. Again, contingent on context and circumstantial. I believe different people at different times in their life expect/need/want different things from their partners. I feel that younger people want someone they perceive as highly attractive even if that relationship is not meant to last in the long run-it looks good, raises self-esteem, and is filled with lots of hot and heavy sex (maybe I'm drawing too much on personal experience HAHA). Behavioural and intellectual attributes play a slighter role in the short term, but in the long term can cause real problems like boredom and unhappiness. I also feel like there is a pattern where extremely intellectual/smart people are attracted to or end up with, extremely 'dumb' or unintellectual type people-hence the jock and nerd archetype. I liken this to the sheer simple pleasure people like this bring-my boyfriend is not academic-he's a retired football player and doesn't know much about philosophy beyond the old Joe Rogan podcast, but I enjoy being with him because it is a break from my own brain. I think I would go crazy if I were dating someone like me. [/quote]

Could sexuality and attraction be determined simply by what is deemed as what is deserved?

"You accept the love you think you deserve" -a rip off of the Perks of Being a Wallflower quote. I was in an abusive relationship for almost a year-I definitely believed I deserved it. I still believe I deserved it during that time, I wasn't a nice, or strong, or good person.

How significant are environmental factors such as maternal and paternal relationships during certain developmental stages?
Once arrived at, can it be changed? How?

Eh-enivoronmental factors play a part in any attraction we feel for people, platonic or sexual. People feel comforted by the familiar-or excited by the unfamiliar and exotic. Swings both ways.

LOL I remembered when I took my first philosophy class at the age of 18 in grade 12-I was like, well its a social science class and I love and am great at political science, social justice theory, history, sociology, and english, sure I'll be good at this too, and then I left class the first day absolutely and irrevocably in love. Philosophy was all of my favourite subjects and more! It was thinking about thinking! It was knowledge for its own sake! Something i had been struggling with beneath the surface in those other subjects for a long time, which is probably why, almost three years later, I can no longer really find the interest in those subjects-the tests and questions seem pointless and repetitive, while philosophy is quite a good blend of creative thinking, art, factual reasoning and knowledge, and purpose. I remember not too long after that first discovery, I went through some of my writing from early middle school, so I was probably ten or eleven, and I found I had a whole journal of notes on how 'time is made up' and 'words aren't real, we just made them up' and I realized, shit, I've been doing philosophy all my life. I just didn't have the terminology such as social construction or intersubjectivity ect. that I have today. The ideas, and abstract thinking patterns were all there-I just needed the structure of a class to unlock it.

Philosophy is so hard to learn though, because there is no real building blocks-I mean, in math you learn numbers, then addition/subtraction ect. but in philosophy, you kind of start in the middle with (maybe) the key and most predominant thinkers, but the problem is a lot of those thinkers were influenced by more complex, less mainstream thinkers, which can lead to a diversion of theories and big words pretty quickly that might not make a lot of sense to the beginner.

What I would say is, keep researching and studying. If this subject really does interest you enough to write a book, then nothing should be preventing you from continuing to keep researching and studying. When I'm hooked on a topic/thinker/subject I spend most of my free time googling, reading articles ect. I'm sure lots of people on this site would be happy to direct you towards academic paper databases, such as PhilPapers.
Also, remember the golden rule depending on whatever kind of writing you are doing if you want to write well, you must read even better/more I am, and always have been, a ferocious reader, which means that writing comes a bit more naturally to me. Though, when I don't read for a long time, say when I'm in school, I find it harder to write so I have to force myself to read, even if its just more easier to read fiction, just to 'unglue' my brain. Reading = writing. So KEEP reading. But also, don't be afraid to start writing.
Lastly, the more information you have, the better you understand concepts, the easier and less painful writing will be. Don't get me wrong, writing is painful, but it is a lot less so when you really know what you want to write and know exactly what you are going to say. This comes with ample research. The hardest papers I have written are the ones where I didn't really know what I was doing ie. I didn't read the book or do much research, so I found myself sweating and trying to bullshit it all. Which comes out meh for the most part, and sometimes, as my grades reflected, quite badly. Don't do that. The more you know the more easier and clear your writing will be.

I'm just curious-what kind of philosophical book are you aiming to write? If you are planning on writing a more non-fiction, opinion piece, then you will have to do an ample amount of research to back your claims, define and clarify terminology, ect. If you are writing a novel with philosophical themes, then go for it! Though the more you know about these philosophical themes, the easier it will be to convey and to convey them correctly. Don't just read a wikipedia page and try to stick that idea into your book, it will come out very forced. A lot of the best philosophy, arguably, has been written in novel/fictional form, so don't get too paranoid, I think it will be fine.

PS. While Camus' works (novels) may be more readable to a mainstream/non-philosophical audience, by no means would I consider Camus 'surface level' if there can be such a term in philosophy. Camus ideas, especially as espoused in The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel are a lot more complex than they appear. I am saying this, not to be a snob, but because Camus is probably one of my utmost favourite philosophers. If you want to think about entry level philosophy-look on YouTube, there are a lot of useful 'crash course' videos there that define basic terminology and highlight key thinkers.

I disagree, I quite like the buttered bread metaphor.
Also learned social mores and rules, such as talking to strangers, is not really related to the OP's point on attitudes. 10,000 years ago (when human minds last evolved), there were no roads to fear, and most children were raised by all members of the village/tribe so maybe 10-100 people give or take, there were no strangers, so no reason to be cynical about the danger.

The OP is talking about attitudes of future outcomes, not direct fear or desires. Just because I am cynical does not mean that I necessarily fear something, for example-a lot of people use cynicism to combat fear, they believe that expecting the worse to happen can help prepare them for it to happen, thus no reason to be afraid.


I quail at the word 'natural' misused, but I do see your point, people may have more of a disposition towards pessimism than optimism. From an evolutionary point, this would have an advantage, if you are negative about the outcomes of things, you will be more on guard, and then less likely to succumb to things, hence why your eyes will play tricks sometimes on you in the dark or frightening places, a couple seconds of fright at nothing is a whole lot less worse than not being hyper-aware and missing the real threat in the dark. I forget what book I read where they talked about this-maybe it was my philosophy of emotion class. I'll think about that. Then again, its difficult to differentiate learned pessimism from innate predisposition to it; for example, the first time I had my sunglasses stolen right from the coffee table of my own house, I became a lot of more suspicious of my so-called 'friends' and took a lot more care of my sunglasses, never leaving them out around the house ect. Then again, I would not say that I was optimistic about them not being stolen, more so naive, but now I have learned my lesson and take defensive measures; which arguably, I think pessimism is all about.
A more clear example would be the argument that people are more predisposed to trusting and gullible behaviour, ie. if I tell you to look behind you, you will probably look behind you, even though it is 99% chance I am just messing with you. This is because it pays to be gullible, what if I didn't look behind me and then I got killed? There is an evolutionary advantage to being cautious and paranoid at times.

I agree. The definition of better is tricky-especially with regards to racial differences, then we get historic genetics, which has never led to good outcomes.


Is 'attractive' a necessary trait? As from my experience, the only useful traits that stereotypically attractive people seem to possess is charisma, because humans have a disposition to like and appeal more so to people they find physically attractive-and maybe confidence, coming from the self-awareness of one's own attractiveness and it's effect on others. Other than that, because people who are attractive did not have to work much harder in life to socialize, achieve academically ect. hence you get the 'dumb hot' stereotype, the big buff jock or the dumb blond, both dumb with (usually) unappealing personalities-because they did not need to develop better ones. Trust me when I say I am dating one of the former (and have dated dumb girls as well) and while my current boyfriend is very soft-hearted when he wants to be, he is not very considerate, emotionally dense, or otherwise 'intelligent'-he has never had to be, relying only on his looks and large physique to guarantee a career in football.
Also-what defines intelligence? I am currently writing a book that denies human intelligence-at least, its superiority to other forms of intelligence-questioning, what can intelligence mean if there is no real objective reality to really 'know'. I argue that all varieties of species have a different reality-and that human intelligence has strengths and weaknesses, just like other species. In humans alone there is a whole classification of different intelligences-I happen to fall on the abstract thinking, linguistic side, but I cannot do math very well and I struggle with art. I am also autistic/"gifted" which means I also think and reason in ways different from others and as a child, lacked a lot of key social skills necessary for being successful in school. In school I struggled, not because the classes were necessarily hard, but because teachers taught in a way that I could not understand/did not care for, and in many cases, I just lacked interest. I failed a lot of classes-yet next year I am going to law school, so you can already see how hard it is develop any sort of test that would measure intelligence (ie. like the bullshit curriculum ones) let alone a way to develop and measure higher intelligence in vitro. Unless you're going for some kind of hyper-savant goal, like breeding only high functioning autists like myself? Which, while I'm flattered, I would not condemn another person, let alone my child, to live like I. People of extremely average or moderate intelligence are usually pretty content.


I agree with controlled breeding programs, that do scan for genetics insofar as health ect. I also believe that the 'perfect' genetics would include as diverse a range of genes as possible, so it would include traits from various races, ethnic groups ect. for example, african/black people do not cancer as often as white or eastern asian races do...something to consider. I believe in controlled breeding programs insofar as I believe that the Earth cannot handle an unprecedented amount of human breeding, if we are unwilling to alter our consumption patterns then we must alter the quantity of people consuming. It would be voluntary-not horror movie style, just more along the lines of China's One Child policy-where people would have to apply for child licenses and prove they have good financial standing, good community to raise child in ect.

I think your misusing 'biology' by making it to explain all human actions-human actions are the result of more than just literal biology, in fact, science has shown that genetics has very little outcome re: a person's life-unless you include genetics influenced by environmental invitro-ie. pre natal care, which does actually, determine a great deal about someone's health and future lifespan. But in no way does that necessary determine behaviour.

I'm an indeterminist-the opposite of determinism (which holds as you pointed out) that something (or someone ie. God) has a pre-determined plan that all events, including our individual lives follow. In many ways this is comforting, and to answer the OP question, I believe people would still enjoy entertainment, even knowing that it has a pre-determined end. I don't really understand your question beyond that, because in a way, everyone already knows that life is pre-determined in some way, such as we might not know who will win the game, but we know one of the two teams will.

Indeterminism argues that we don't have free will (like determinism) but holds that instead of things being pre-determined by some great plan, much of life is left up to probability and chance. Something most philosophers as William James noted, disparage, but I personally embrace and find fulfilling and freeing.

In Homo Deus Harari argues that it is fictions themselves, whether religious, language, money, ideologies ect. that have lead to human domination. He calls this, intersubjectivity.

OP must read Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death. He discusses the divorce between man's bodily side, and his transcendental functions.

I have always loved that song (I remember playing it on Wii rockbound as a kid with my dad) and those song isn't so much about base survival, as it is about achievement and adaptability. That is, man can adapt to any circumstances and 'survive' them. That is a true anthropological statement-man is extremely adaptable, otherwise we wouldn't have ended up on almost all the continents/climates on Earth. But this is just one skill. I take issue with your need to disparage 'low-order life forms' they do not stand in the way of man's 'glory'. Low-order life forms as you call them-have extreme skillsets that humans do not possess and many that humans cannot even begin to imagine. Ie. a tick that can wait an upwards of eighteen years sitting silently in the same spot waiting for its prey. I struggle with the psychological, let alone physical effects of sitting for any time past ten minutes to an hour, let alone the span of almost my entire life.

I do agree that life as the existentialists pointed out, at least, a secular life must find some greater meaning that transcends it. For many, this is success, like curing a disease that can help/improve other people's lives-or wealth, which improves your own life and in many cases like famous celebrities, will make you remembered upon your death. These are just the ways 'success' has been defined by our capitalist environment. I agree with @interestedparty there are many other forms of transcending oneself to find meaning and or the 'Will to Matter', like living ethically and authentically. I too, want to live authentically-to not be silenced of my opinions, to stand up for people when it matters ect. Unfortunately this is not always possible, which is where people start feeling such great disappointment, depression, or unhappiness in their lives. On this same note, I think there is also the imperative to live 'kindly' as a form of living ethically/authentically...not kindly as in social niceties or even being polite, but rather, doing kind and helpful things for others and not expecting much in return. Like holding doors for people. Or smiling at strangers. Or picking up a snail from the middle of the sidewalk and putting it on the grass so it doesn't get stepped on; the latter sounds ridiculous, but even if you don't hold that snails have some form of sentience/value, its the attitude that matters. When I work children's camps in the summer I always make a big show of pausing wherever we are going and doing this. Showing that being kind and observant matters.

Priorities. Don't you have to ensure that you are surviving in order to even contemplate other goals? How can you achieve other goals if you haven't ensured your survival first?

You're right. Base survival is pretty important (Maslows hierarchy of needs)-I get a whole let less concerned with being kind or authentic when I'm extremely ill, or grieving, or otherwise consumed with my own pain and suffering. You could say then that the 'Will to Matter' is for the privileged then, those that are currently not suffering in some form. But the 'Will to Matter' can also be a way to transcend suffering, and I believe, is intrinsically linked to surviving. My grandmother died last year at the age of 89, not of any real health problems, but in her sleep-after months if not years of being depressed due to aging/family problems. For her, there was no more 'Will to Matter' in the Schopenhauer sense-so she stopped living. Now of course, a young and healthy person like myself, would probably not die after being depressed for months or years-but my health would certainly deteriorate ect.

There is a continual push for the people with wealth to keep growing and becoming more powerful at the expense of the ordinary citizens. Whether this is simply greed, the 'system' is geared so that those who are 'successful' trample over everyone else and grow in influence whilst those who show philanthropy and care for humanity have their wealth eroded.

Well of course, that's how capitalism as an economic and a deeply entrenched cultural system works.

My boyfriend has the unfortunate tendency to subscribe to various conspiracy theories, and while I agree that conspiracy theories have some philosophical merit, that is, they argue against the status quo, or assumed knowledge, which is, again, important to understanding objective knowledge itself, in no way do I necessarily believe in the Illuminati, or as my boyfriend calls, the 'elites' (he had another name for them but I forget). Of course governments are corrupt, and of course, there are various political/economic agendas secretly at play. I have no doubt the American government tortures lots of people on islands in the south Pacific, also have no doubt that China is secretly working on [insert weapon here] and ya, lots of 'public safety agencies' are probably spying on our web usage.

The same people who propose that kind of stuff are the same people who seem to go to great lengths to put tape over their web cameras (thus smudging and otherwise damaging the quality of their $2000+ laptop camera lens) just because they are so paranoid that some secret agency is watching them pick their nose as they surf eBay. The people who generally believe in the stuff are people who are just naive to the way the world works and operates, how various systems overlap. As one philosopher on conspiracy theories put it (I also forgot his name) they seek answers because they seek a unified world, and clear concise answers. When there are none. The world is random, chaotic, and overly unpredictable.

By any chance has the OP been watching "The Blacklist"? This post is pretty much an extreme rip off of the entire like first six seasons of that show.

Yes I've tried smoking high high CBD weed (I think it only had trace amounts of THC) but this was about two months ago when I was still smoking regular weed every day, so, didn't notice that much of a difference. I recently bought Indica oil (restock my own), I'm not sure what percentage of CBD it has in comparison to the 10 mg of ThC per ml but I will look into it. I've heard CBD helps with muscle cramps and have begun researching to what extent it could help with menstrual cramps-another big health issue that big Pharma fails to address that I feel marijuana could. Again, since it is legal now in my country I'm looking forward to a burst of innovations, research, and more reliable results in the next decade or so regarding its various benefits. Just felt like debunking some of the myths.

What failed with your growing venture, if you don't mind me asking? My best friend/roommate and his friends set up a substantial grow-op in our rental house basement all year and it was quite successful, a good 19-25 plants/clones and some good weed came of it. At one point every cubbord in our hallway was filled with plants HAHA.

There are women and gays in positions of authority in churches. Why would you omit this information from your post?

Easily-surely there are more 'political correct' movements occurring that allow for LGBTQ+ people in churches, great! But why were they ever banned in the first place? How can anyone claim that religion is 'peaceful' when the two great religions of the world are predicated on hate, marginalization, discrimination, a millennial of wars, and provide the narratives in support of ecological instrumentalism, colonialization, and death?
Also, religion becomes deeply embedded in culture in places where public/religion are not firmly divided, as per the OP's original point. Exampe; the Middle East-I would have to wear a Burqa or other form of head wear, not because I 'believe freely' (as some Libtards would say) in some bullshit sexist purity myth meant to control my bodily autonomy and invalidate my existence as an individual and free being, but because that is a cultural expectation...otherwise in many places I could be killed.

The US is the "least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth"? Have you lost your marbles?

A thousand years from now I guarantee that someone will look back and be incredibly shocked at how the US managed to maintain the image and reputation of one of the most wealthiest, prosperous, and innovative places in human history, yet at the same time keep such a majority of their population in poverty, oppression, or otherwise deteriorating circumstances. By no means in the US Saudia Arabia, but in many, perhaps even more dangerous ways-there are real issues in American society.

What percentage of these religious populations actually hurls beliefs forcefully and habitually at those from other religions, or at anyone?

As per (I believe) the OPs original point, any kind of religious signage is a form of propaganda and thus serves the purpose of propaganda, to propagate. There are no exact statistics though. My guess, a lot.

Where is the conflict, and what is the nature of the conflict? Are hordes of Christians fighting hordes of Buddhists in the streets of every city?

You're straw-manning, also, Buddhism is a decentralized spiritual activity, not a centralized organized religion. Buddhists wouldn't be organized to fight anyone FYI.
Also you'd have to be willfully ignorant or blind to not see the 'conflict' evident in Christianity vs. Islam, Christianity vs. women's rights, ect.

How can you reconcile your proposed violation of fundamental human rights with the law and the constitution?

Why is religion a human right?

Also, please reference global violent crime and terrorism statistics so that we can all have a gander at how anarchistic and violently out of control American citizens are by comparison to the rest of the world.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

Since you point out so explicitly that this is a philosophy forum, please be aware of your use of 'anarchistic' since, Anarchism is also a school of political and philosophical thought with a long and exemplary history. The concept of anarchistic as synonymous with out of control is one that lay-people succumb to. This is a philosophy forum.

I too, am in general very concerned for the thinking skills of the general population. Especially my generation. Religion may be less to blame though (no one my age, who I know, is religious) as celebrity culture ect.

Ah, well in Canada, you have to be "Catholic" to go to Catholic public school (until high school). I personally never experienced the curriculum first hand, though I do know that they teach other classes as well like the trades/second language ect. but my argument is, there should be more of that not less, to make room for all the ~religion~.
Also, Catholicism is a reminiscence of both Canada and Australia's colonial history-that being the forced spread of and indoctrinating of faith and dogma, not only unwillingly to the subjugated and exterminated Indigenous populations, but continuing on, today. Makes me rather ill at the thought to be completely fair.

Also, ethics without the religious aspect, ie. secular ethic theories are much more lasting and effective then leaning on a crutch of 'faith' and following a list of set dogma, that is not only hypocritical and contradictory due to the Catholic church's long and bloody/violent/terrible/racist/sexist/homophobic history, but pathetic. If we teach people that they should do the right thing so that 'God' loves them (positive punishment) or so that 'God' doesn't send them to Hell (negative punishment) then really, they are doing the right thing for some kind of selfish reason, kinda defeats the whole 'do the right thing' mantra when you scare-tactic people into it under duress. But now we're getting into ethics, which is a subject I don't claim to have any reign over.


I agree-religion has its place to be learned, in history (studying the gross misuses of power and ideology) and in mythology/stories-but it must be taught as fiction. It's true that most people who do go to Catholic school come out very anti-god ect. which is good, but these people were still forced to prey and make signage to a fictional story that they do not know or believe in, i just do not see how that inspires authenticity-but then again religion is meant to teach complicity, obedience, and uncritical thinking.

Laughed a bit when I read that the James only understood Hegel when high, the first time I watched a documentary on Hegel I was pretty baked myself. But it didn't help with comprehension. Not sure WTF Hegel was on back in the day-but I could sure use some of it (joke).

Not sure about break throughs-perhaps we'll never know how much of philosophy, let alone art or science, are thanks to break throughs made while high. Its worthy to note that many of the best writers in the world/history are known alcoholics or ex-drug addicts...interesting correlation between substance abuse and long-term abstract conceptional thinking...I think that the majority of artists/philosophers experimented with drugs and alcohol because substance using attracts a certain kind of person, just like philosophy attracts a certain kind of person, thus the two overlap (ie. introspective tendencies, curiosity, mental illnesses/life issues/need to escape). This is a big mistake that people make when talking about marijuana 'causing' mental illness-it doesn't, marijuana attracts a kind of person already pre-disposed to or suffering the mental illnesses-in many ways, that's why people often seek out drugs, due to uncomfortable circumstances. I stopped smoking weed for more than a year-and i admit, it was one of my most productive self-improvement years of my life, but that's not because I stopped smoking weed, but because my life circumstances more generally, got better.

I think again, it depends on context and circumstance. I certainly would feel anxious if I was smoking around my family/or with people I didn't particularly like or trust (or at least, I used to).
But marijuana helps me so much with my generalized anxiety because it allows me 1) to sleep, or at least, calm myself down enough to sleep/relax 2) eat, when I was severely depressed and anxious in the winter I could not usually bring myself to eat more than a bagel a day-the only time I could stop feeling anxious long enough to really eat (and enjoy the food I ate) was when I was high, it was scary watching myself lose so much weight and having no energy and 3) marijuana makes anxiety/fears less 'real'; my anxiety means that I often overthink/evaluate certain events, and I seem to perceive threats and react, even when the threat is not really there-my anxiety thus threatened all my relationships with people; being anxious all the time + not eating meant not only did I not have the energy to properly socialize, but that I was often extremely emotional/depressed/and worried consistently that I was too 'anxious', making me, LOL, more anxious ect. Marijuana helped break that cycle, because of course I got anxious/had bad thoughts when I was high, but then, I was able to dismiss them more easily, because everyone gets anxious when they're high sometimes and I was just 'too high'-by inducing anxiety, it helped me feel normal and put things in perspective. I also spoke a lot to my bestfriend when we used to 'sesh' together almost every night-it felt great to decompress and let me feel safe enough to share a little about how I was feeling.


YES, especially now in Canada with weed legalized, it represents a huge threat to big Pharma, especially Pharma for mental health-which, I agree with, I think is more 'placebo' than anything. I considered looking for an anti-anxiety medication; but I read a lot of research and not only are many addicting, they are also expensive, and need to be monitored closely by a mental health professional. I had 1) no money for expensive prescriptions 2) struggling to hide my deteriorating mental illness from my parents 3) have no family doctor let alone a psychiatrist who could prescribe such a medication let alone monitor its effects. I was also worried about side effects and how it would change my personality. I recommend trying weed for anyone who has severe anxiety/problems sleeping, before I would recommend prescription sleep medication.

From personal experience, marijuana can certainly heighten paranoia when done in ituations/circumstances that are uncomfortable/negative or otherwise, as you point out, experience with marijuana and the various strain.
When I first smoked/ate edibles back in high school (15-16) I was incredibly anxious and unhappy, I was worried I would be caught, and was friends with a "rougher" more judgmental crowd that laughed at me and made me feel insecure on a regular basis. Then I went to university and everything changed, I made good friends and started vaping it regularly, often in the comfort of my own room. My experienced changed drastically. Now I take medicinal marijuana (indica) almost every night to help combat my anxiety and depression, yes I will admit, it does make you lazy and not a lot of "productive" philosophy is done while high, only brainstorming and random research. But I'm not productive at all when I'm anxious, my anxiety has gotten so bad that I could not sit down and read let alone, write something of merit.

Pardon my views, but I still feel as if "no" organized religion is better than any. But then again, religion is ideology, and ideology arguably, has existed as long as civilization, so even if Christianity and Islam fade away in the next century, it will no doubt be replaced by either the collective growing faith in science, or some form of political/celebrity worship.

I saw that article, but Ontario and Quebec are very different provinces. Quebec has very differnt provincial laws than the rest of Canada (we call it the Texas) and in Ontario at least, despite repeated emphasis in the last decade for greater inclusivity laws (gender neutral driving licenses, bathrooms, very explict sex ed curriculum) nothing is discussed about the public catholic board, despite the fact that such a system of childhood indoctrination is modeled after the Residential Schools and excluding high school, only Catholic children are allowed to go to them. The amount of funding is disproportionate to public schools, especially those schools neglected in poorer areas.

@Gnostic Christian Bishop

I agree, the consensus seems to be that Catholic schools are better run, funded, and disciplined in comparison to public. I went to all public (not being allowed to go to Catholic schools because my family is not Catholic) Despite these discrepenies, it disgusts me that the Catholic curriculum is allowed to waste valuable learning time, learning fictional stories. These students could be learning another language, PHILOSOPHY, more literacy/math support, life skills courses, the trades, but instead wasting time with absolute garbage, which most by the age of 18 stopped believing long ago. I also fail to understand how such a thing can exist with such blatant contradictions ie. Science being taught down the hall from creation theory bullshit.

Beauty is relative-and by relative, I mean value laden; culturally, individually (for example I find nature paintings very beautiful because it reminds me of my childhood up North), and yes; to some extent "absolute". But you should be careful when it comes to unchanging claims about what is beautiful and what is art. Many would argue that art is not always beautiful, and when discussing architecture, beauty too depends on practical uses and cultural values-for example stained glass windows are often (historically) seen as beautiful, but modern times (myself included) finds such adornments repulsive.

I am no expert in aestetics but you included feminism in your title so I thought I'd point out a good read on the topic of beauty and cultural uses-The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf.

I have long agreed with a total ban on organized forms of religion-if not to reduce tribal violence but also because religion is a tool of the dark ages, the antitheses to critical thinking and equality. In Ontario we talk about equality but still have a Catholic public ally funded school board. Ridiculous.

What makes you say a fish cannot develop some form of self-awareness?

Sounds like an interesting read, have some infinite time on my hands to do lots of reading in the next two months, so will be sure to add it to my list. Is it about the development of the human being? Or more so about fish evolution/anatomy?

This sounds interesting, and I'll (try) to get into it! Not the best at computer science outside of rudimentary HTML coding...though on that note, I suppose we'd have to figure out what "intelligence" means. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that if we stopped making human intelligence the 'benchmark' for intelligence, we would get a lot farther.

These recommendations are great. I've already ordered two of these books from my local library!