Most do not commonly read with "dedicated analysis" as you noted, but this is what is generally expected in english curriculums, something that is hard enough to do for the average/below average reader majority to do for 'easier' books like Twilight and something that becomes 3x as hard when forced to do it on an already difficult to comprehend book like Heart of Darkness. This turns many people away from reading before they even get the chance to learn to explore and enjoy it on their own, minus the 'dedicated analysis'. I personally, try to afford the classics/cannon the analysis they deserve when I read them that is, and that too, prevents me from reading them casually; as I always feel a weird sense of honour and trepidation just as I open the cover...it's like, am I as professional a reader as I think I am? Can I wholly appreciate this book? Probably why I haven't read War and Peace yet tbh.

I've never liked Shakespeare. He's over-forced in english classes (ALL FOUR YEARS OF HIM) and I just think the beauty of his sonnets and his work is overshadowed by the complete misunderstanding and lack of interest. Then again, I never claimed to be a theatre buff, or even, a real literary genius. My major was philosophy, not english, for a reason.

In my opinion, I think the literary canon has some gems certainly, including Hugo (never read) and Fitzgerald (yes I actually LOVED The Great Gatsby BECAUSE of his illustrious illustrations of the era, not despite them, although I did prefer Hemmingway, Gone With the Wind (underrated as a literary classic due to its romantic subplot but ever-so deserving of being a top contender of one of my favourite literary books of all time), Poe, even Wuthering Heights and yes! Heart of Darkness too-but despite the fact all these books are powerful, memorable, complex, and beautifully orchestrated, they are hard. We read Heart of Darkness in my grade 12 english class (I was only in grade 11 at the time) and while after a few dedicated anaylsis, I finally understood its deeper meaning and beauty, 99% of my class did not, most could not even make sense of the first page. That is what I hate most about the literary canon, the fact that unless you are already a highly skilled and dedicated reader, great at abstract thought, comprehension, focus, vocabulary, and critical thinking-then yes, these books are ten times more rewarding than say, picking up a pocket novel romance erotica...but majority of people, especially children in classrooms, are not prepared for the literary master pieces coming their way, and thus becomes the gatekeeper to higher reading skills, even enjoyment and success of reading...forcing children to read things that don't make sense to them and are very very difficult to understand enough to even enjoy, well, its no surprise everyone hates high school english is it? And its no surprise then, that this prevents people from ever picking up a book, if one of the few experiences in your life with regards to reading (fiction) was so confounding negative and intimidating...especially when English teachers love to call on children with super open ended and abstract questiosn, that, if you can't understand the book you'll be just googling the answers too, and even those make you sound dumb to all the smart-ass kids in class who by chance, or their parents encouraging them ect. happen to have the sufficient skills to unearth the meat and matter of such "marvelled" literary canon.

I was one of the smart-ass kids that made fun of the other children who couldn't pronounce the words in "Heart of Darkness" but that being said, I don't read much literary canon now, especially not in the last year, it's just too heavy for me emotionally and mentally-I have no focus or energy to dedicate to picking apart nuanced sentences written in an entirely different diction. I also now have a better understanding of why people are scared-off of English/reading, largely due to this issue presented by the canon. Teachers (rightly) believe that the literary canon contains some of the best examples of true literary greatness; something that everyone could learn and be inspired by, but what teachers don't realize is that the students, even by high school, do not have the necessary literary skills to properly analyze, comprehend, such texts, let alone the interest in doing so! It's too late at that point, and instead of meeting students needs and allowing for wider freedom in books, including graphic novels, and individually meeting their needs, these teachers seem to think its better to keep forcing forcing forcing and that somehow they'll "learn" something, when really, all anyone learns at that point, is how to use and copy off of Wikipedia without getting caught. The entire literary experience is lost out on, and these same students carry this aversion and fear of reading for the rest of their lives.

~Rant over~

That being said; in no way am I implying these literary classics aren't important. They are. But they should be peppered lightly (like a strong spice), with some "cheat" literature like @Amity @SophistiCat were debating...all reading is good reading. Even 50 Shades of Grey.

Reading fiction is where I began.

Reading fiction is where I began too, but one must be honest and admit that various types of literature require different commitments of time, focus, energy, and comprehension. I stopped reading fiction because I had too many emotionally-laden events happening in my own life, I couldn't handle the thought of taking on anyone else's, fictional or not. I read nonfiction now because right now, that's what's important to me. Any reading stimulates the mind and improves focus and vocabulary, reading certain 'harder' literary fiction or non fiction, improves vocabulary and knowledge perhaps, in more noticeable ways than reading Twilight, but the action is still the same. Also you have to start somewhere.

As an example, of the sort, but not quite the same: I was talking with my friend Paul, and I used the word "albeit" nonchalantly, and pronounced it the German way. All-Bite.

I'm laughing right now. I have always pronounced it "All-Bite" (I'm not German though), maybe that's why no one ever understood what I was saying :chin: I also have always pronounced salmon Sowl-mon not SAM-in which has perturbed a good dozen people. I think that now we're getting into diction though, and less into written grammar/punctuation.


Your experiences do not surprise me, my story was very similar but on the opposite side; I was extremely good at English/humanities and terrible at math until it became a cyclical issue where I avoided it because I was embarrassed I didn't/wouldn't understand. I taught myself everything I know about philosophy/science/history/politics but barely finished highschool due to my precarious engineering(technology), math (and gym) marks HAHA.

Surprisingly, that's not a common answer LOL only on a philosophy forum it appears to be a general consensus. I too feel the same when I think of all the things I want to learn and read, and all the time I don't have that's taken up by work, personal issues, daily living ect. ect.

@god must be atheist
Look at us concurring wholeheartedly! Art is all about nuance. And subjective feeling. And subjective response. Most noticeable is when you re-read a favourite childhood book (or book you read some years back) and now realize it has an almost entirely different meaning to you. Or I guess you hate it completely. The first time I read Eat Pray Love for example I was in grade five, I read it again four years later and guess what-I actually understood more of the adult subject mater! Imagine that (haha). I've noticed the same thing with music too-songs mean different things to me at different points in my life.

I agree. I've never agreed with linear conceptions of history. I don't believe that life is necessarily 'better' now than at any other point of time. In fact, statistics on mental health + suicide actually reveal the latter. People of every age and era though; are quick to claim supremacy and superiority over all that have gone before them. I mean, can't blame them I guess; the here and now is all we have to work with, so how could we not consider it the 'best'?

@thewonder
My apologies I misinterpreted. I get defensive quickly when people starting denying the autonomy that suicide; I believe, is deserving of. It is one of my favourite quotes too; but that being said I haven't done much research in the area since last summer/fall. I put the chapter of my life behind me and started focusing my research on 'happier' things like fish.

@StreetlightX
I found the thread you linked. What a ride. I agree that poetry is gesture-perhaps why poetry is its own form of 'written word'. The rest of it went quite over my head. I wish you could explain it to me in person HAHA. I was actually just reading up on a bit of Godel today-it was the first time I had ever looked into philosophy of math, or rather, metamathematics. For someone who barely finished tenth grade math, this is new found land. I obviously, at the very least, need to read some Merleau-Ponty (I'll have to add him to my list of theorists I need to read before I consider myself worthy of being called a 'philosopher')

@Purple Pond

There's so many things that can affect your focus.

Focus is perception within one's subjective reality-or Umwelt as Uekell described . Every Umwelt has different 'focus' receptors, meaning depending on our physiology, context, environment, and desires, we focus on different 'tones' at a different time. Uekell was kind of a biologist, so he's speaking broadly-not just people, he actually gives the example of a fly. A fly focuses on things useful/comprehendible in his environment. Take a room, and the fly focuses on the light, or walls/windows to land on. Give a dog the same room, and what focus 'tones' light up for him? Probably not a table, unless it has food on it. A bookshelf is useless to a dog-but a comfy bed, while useless to a fly, has the 'bed' tone a dog might want when said dog is tired. Or for example, take how when we are desperately scrambling around for a writing utensil, our "tone" in the focus of our Umwelt shifts suddenly to a super specific task-finding a specific writing utensil, thus blurring out say, our stapler, or the fire alarm on the wall above us. Does that make a little sense?
I am sorry to hear that you too suffer from anxiety and other related issues. I hope that if you do choose to be evaluated/and or medicated/treatment, that your focus may improve.

I concur. I LOVE reading my own posts (and short stories, essays, etc.) It's equivalent to a person loving his or her own voice in speech.

God what arrogant shrubs we are. So true though. I remember the first time I read my own writing (a novel project) back in middle school, and I lost track of time...never had I lost track of time reading my own writing before-I thought to myself, "oh my god, I'm not that bad!"

Re reading old books is great, it's like hanging out with close friends. You know exactly how good it is going to be-and you pick up on nuances you didn't catch the first time. Or maybe that's just me being autistic, and overrating the value of repetition and sameness.

@Bitter Crank

One has to begin very early by talking to children - a lot, and nicely - so that they accumulate a big supply of words as soon as possible. Then it is important to get little children interested in books (start with the thick-cardboard paged books). Read to the children, encourage them to read. When children see their parents reading, when children see books around the house, that is a good thing.

I took what you said very seriously today. The talking to children part. We always read them a morning story, and I've always been a big encourager of children and reading. But the talking part, it's true that with very young children its easy to ignore them/issue them only commands, especially when you're busy and there's 16 of them and only one of you...but today I sat in the playground and talked to this boy named Samuel for probably 20 minutes HAHA he's 5 and loves sharks, so he was talking to me about sharks for all of those 20 minutes. Taking the time to listen, I think you're right, is so important. I always try to talk to even the youngest children like adults, same tone, I don't mince my words (ie. dumb down things) I was even trying to explain theory of relativity at one point (we were talking about space and how far away the moon is). They probably didn't get it. But that of course, is never the point.

Do you think English is one of the hardest languages to learn as an adult? I am a native speaker of English, but even still, I consider myself to have above average writing/reading literacy skills (it does not show here of course, when I am rushing and usually exhausted typing this) but at times, struggle with such niceties as punctuation and grammar.

Parents should certainly take time out to read to their children if they can.

Yes they should. Should be one of the key points of parenting-just like teaching your children to wash their hands ect. Read read read. My mother read to every night up until probably the fourth grade, and even then, she would still occasionally read aloud novels for me to enjoy. I owe my literacy almost entirely to her. Not to school. They took my books away from me. My nonfiction reading skills I had to self-teach, including note taking systems.
I think by literacy I meant communication skills as well...for example, my boyfriend is not a very good reader or writer, and as a result I feel his thinking is very limited-he also struggles to articulate his ideas or beliefs, we get into a lot of disagreements due to miscommunication deficits, and as a child he had a speech impediment and it still shows...I've been encouraging reading time with him, and he does read sometimes but its an arduous and slow process and I'm not sure how much of it he absorbs or fully understands. A lot of the people I know struggle with these issues; regardless of their so-called "intelligence" level. Some of the smartest people I have met, people excelling in maths ect. can't string a sentence together to save their lives. But being able to communicate effectively, efficiently, and properly, is the key to navigating the social world we find ourselves in. If no one can understand you. No one can help you. Using big words/precise words are meant to articulate specific meanings to prevent misunderstanding or ambiguity; while "easier" words might work, it is more efficient to use the most precise word...something else my boyfriend struggled with when we first started dating. I know it frustrated him when I would speak (using the 'big' words) and he couldn't understand what I was talking about, he would get quite angry at me actually, but he has now admitted that dating at me has at least expanded his vocabulary-on average I probably define about a word a day for him.

I think when discussing suicide it is important to note that people, do and will choose to die. Not only is this to protect the right to death (legal euthanasia) but to rid the guilt survivors feel when someone they love kills themselves. Circumstances are everything-and one must understand that while circumstances drive someone to consider suicide, the final choice is theres. As Camus put, "should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee?" That he held, was the choice we make everyday.

I believe that @thewonder we do have an understanding, just not necessarily the exact same, which is what philosophy is all about!

Finally, it’s not clear to me if we can say that there is a universal human nature.

Very true, I always try to avoid blaming things on 'human nature', but rather, a predisposition to-with regards to the denial of death, I think it is safe to say that the biological reality that we will die means that some kind of attitude regarding death is present in all human societies, but as you pointed out, in no way can we claim that all people want to live forever.

The future the Victorians planned and expected, and even fought to death for, never happened. That’s irony.

Very true and interesting point. Do you propose that the "digital age" is a kind of second industrial revolution?
I too believe the extreme technological enthusiasm is concerning; Nagel described it as the next world religion 'scientism'. It is also discussed in the "spaceship hypothesis" that is, that science is going to 'save' us eventually, thus as long as we innovate hard enough, we will never have to reap the consequences of our actions or take responsibility. Sounds super convenient, and a nice narrative. Exactly why I'm so against all this immortality focus.

Ketchup is great on anything. No more discussion.

I used to call myself a non-reader. Then I started paying attention to all the short readings I do (this website, newspapers, magazines, wikipedia, email, etc) and I probably average an hour or two per day (to be fair, most of that time is probably spent proofreading my own posts :grimace:).

I'm dead. You just made me realize I always forget to include my online reading/research/writing/communicating in my reading tallies; which is fallacious of me because these readings take up the majority of my free time, leaving very little for 'book reading'. I also laugh, it too takes me a good 2-3 hours to draft a reply. Probably because I'm also usually high and exhausted and have "Corner Gas" on.

Any idiot can read words, but not everyone can actually READ.

@I like sushi
Very true. But also spelling is severely lacking. This though I'm beginning to add up to a looser cultural deviation from strict and precise punctuation and spelling to a more open and heterogeneous form of dialogue that shifts from context to context medium to medium (ie. like texting language "LOL").

@Bitter Crank
↪Grre You are a trouble maker. — Bitter Crank

Guess so. Someone has to play Socrates sometimes I guess. Also much of the academic/historical/literary side of this forum I get to receive in formal school, so instead I opt to discuss more general/socio-political topics. Forr the majority of the time I feel very alone, misunderstood, and under-stimulated, so being on this forum and getting into squabbles is good for me.
What do you think can be done to improve literary education and consequently, the educational success of students?

@Purple Pond
Have you considered the reality perhaps mental illness does affect your focus? If you're hanging out on a philosophy forum for fun I doubt its your IQ that's shabby. My friend lost his ability to read completely (even like stuff for school, he was never a big pleasure reader) and while it got better with treatment, medication, and time, he still cannot read well nor fast, and he believes it is still an underlying symptom of his anxiety. When he stopped his meds, his focus and reading skills further deteriorated. When I suffer(ed) extreme anxiety for more than a year, I also lost much of my drive and motivation to read, which made me more anxious to read, and still I couldn't read. I couldn't really sit alone either so I guess its par for the course at that point. It got better when my life stabilized a bit and my anxiety subsided, but I still feel like a much weaker reader than I was even two years ago, and I'm hoping that once my life settles down I can return to reading like @StreetlightX noted, is akin to "getting back in shape" ect. ect.
Try reading high, that's how I got over a lot of my anxiety when I was alone at night ect. ect. It helps with focus and interest too. Also start slow. Try Fifty Shades of Grey and go from there.

@god must be atheist

Up to about five or ten years ago I was able to read articles in magazines. Now those are very difficult to do for me. I currently read all articles written by Will J. Bouman (spelling? Bouwman?) published in the magazine Philosophy Now. His articles come out about twice a year.

Why do you feel like your reading skills have been exponentially deteriorating? Was it just disinterest? I will admit I've become quite disinterred in fiction over the last year or so, it started when I became more serious into researching-and had less time for "fun" reading, and also less reason, as my life had become more social and more "fun". Now I read almost entirely non-fiction, and only delve into fiction when I want reread some of my favourites, either for a specific purpose or out of sheer boredom or lack of other materials. But I do doubt that I will avoid fiction forever, one day I want to write a great opus of fantasy.

@StreetlightX
50 books a year is pretty impressive. I haven't kept track of my reading a for a few years but I can only hope that my number is around there. Probably not this year. Anxiety destroyed the laser focus that came so easily to me previously.

Never look down on those who don't read, or are not as literate as you. To be able to be well read is to be privileged - the time needed, the ability to disengage from life and it's necessities: these things are what reading need, and many do not have the opportunity, or are not in an environment that enables such opportunity, and is an indictment on our social and cultural organization, not on individuals

You are 100% correct, I did not mean to imply that I was condescending of "non-readers", also I, more than most I've met, am the first to take circumstantial systems into account; such as the 'privileged' notion you brought up. Libraries for example are extremely important to foster reading and encourage research ect. I lived in a town of about 80k people with only one public library (with terrible parking and no space)-only one copy of even such infamous books as "Twilight" or "The Hunger Games". Nothing disheartened me more, as I was already well aware of the cultural and economic gut that was that town.

Books and reading are an exemplary mechanism that allows one to access such hollows in time, which give thought a consistency proper to their own being. Reading is not the only way to do this, but it is an important and vital one.

I want to write this quote out in my notebook. I love that interpretation; I have always felt that way but never found the right words beyond "accessing foreign subjective experiences and realities" which is a bit metaphysical and not always correct; because it doesn't address the concept of time-experience and perception.
I am curious though, what other ways did you have in mind as a way to "hollow time"? Intimacy? Drugs? Hard work?

Yes, I will be receiving social security payments for zillions of years.

@PoeticUniverse

Maybe that's why there has been such uproar since the beginning of time about the 'possibility' of ~immortality~ !

Regardless there will be pros and cons. My great great grandmother died of 'poisoning' from an infection got from "bumping her knee" (at age 25 in 1910). Obviously in 2019 she would have survived. But is that "immortality" or merely, finding solutions potential threats? Yes we have solutions now that we didn't have before, but to create some ideal scientific narrative where we are constantly linearly progressing towards "the best" = immortality is false; the road to hell is paged with good intentions.

We all incessantly avoid death. Human beings are incapable of acting otherwise.

We DENY death. Not avoid it. If people avoided it, people wouldn't do harmful actions, like smoke cigarettes or eat junk food..and we don't always deny death. Sometimes we are confronted with it. Sometimes we even consider it as an out. I think @thewonder me and you are on a similar page, I do agree that something must occur to shake, or otherwise disrupt this "faith" in life, or as I termed in a paper, "Immortality Projects"-incidents, trauma, neurological issues, ect. But people do consciously choose to die. IN many examples. Not because they want to die necessarily, but because death is a better choice than life for them.

But one can just as well argue the opposite - that all you do is meaningless, because death is the great equaliser. Nothing you do matters once you're dead, and since everyone else also dies, nothing ultimately matters to them, either.

@Echarmion

I am arguing that. I'm arguing that by default, the nature of our lives (its inherent meaningless in a vast universe that is random and chaotic and devoid of meaning) means that our lives are-well-from an objective sup species aeternitatis MEANINGLESS, leaving us only with what we have; finite and transient lives, that then, we must find/create some meaning in (existentialism)-must find meaning in spite of (absurdism), or as you put it, there is no meaning and we will all die (nihilism). All approaches are equally valid reactions to this predicament (other philosophers have called it the tragedy of the human condition). Regardless, death is the great equalizer, and is what forces us to choose one of those options, and more often than not, people choose to find/create meaning in their lives, it is incredibly difficult to live a functional life while silmultaneously holding that there's no point to; generally that is where depression or other issues present themselves. Maybe I am being confusing, but I hope someone gets my point. Death guarantees that eventually we will be (permanently) obliterated as individuals, and in response to this, this allows us how we want to confront and react to this reality. That is why I am against "immortality"-because life is about death, if about nothing else.

Thoreau touches on this. I've been trying to dig up more thinkers. Orwell too.

Divide and conquer. Two "parties", inconsistent, hypocritical, regressive, and competitive-presented as an absolute dichotomy, black or white, left or right, with an ever slightly shifting "middle" or "centre" which allows for enough compromise to allow for survival and cooperation and safety-and to buffer the fringe extremists (like Trump as you were referring to). This is more generally where our governments tend to fall-shifted ever so slight to either side. This allows for mostly peace, and SOME progress-although it's kind of redundant as one party merely undoes the work of the other party-back and forth, some issues lasting decades or centuries (slavery) to resolve, even with eventual and oftentimes inevitable violence. This "two party system" makes voting, and de facto partisan politics, somewhat like a game, or "gambling with a slight moral tinge to it" as Thoreau put it, and just as ineffective, cumbersome, and corrupted.

@Wallows
I've seen that video too, and I agree, it is fascinating stuff. But I don't think its as threatening or even as beneficial, as people think. I think most "advances" in technology result in both unseen pros and unseen consequences.

Well, I would like to learn more about mathematics. It's something that is irresistibly beautiful and edifying.

I want to learn Latin. And biology. And ecology. And formal logic (better). And physics eventually. And then I want to own a yacht, and sail for awhile, and read every book I can find. My point is, I agree, there are lots of things I want to do but I think doing things, even new and exciting things, is only one facet of life, or at least, what makes life worth living and enjoyable and fulfilling.

No we should certainly not. I personally think the human species should go extinct sooner rather than later. All things considered.
— Grre

Uhh, and why is that? Are you perchance a misanthrope?

Because I am an irritating presumptuous autistic person here is the definition of misanthropy from Wikipedia;

"The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus was by various accounts a misanthrope and a loner who had little patience for human society.[6][7] In a fragment, the philosopher complained that "people [were] forever without understanding" of what was, in his view, the nature of reality.
In Western philosophy, misanthropy has been connected to isolation from human society. In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates describes a misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: "Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone."[8] Misanthropy, then, is presented as a potential result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naïve optimism, since Plato argues that "art" would have allowed the potential misanthrope to recognize that the majority of men are to be found in between good and evil.[9] Aristotle follows a more ontological route: the misanthrope, as an essentially solitary man, is not a man at all: he must be a beast or a god, a view reflected in the Renaissance view of misanthropy as a "beast-like state".[10]"

While I have recently been hurt, and hurt quite badly, I don't claim to hate "everyone" out of some misplaced fear and distrust. I am biased, but more so, I feel detached. This detachment helps me see more clearly that individual lives don't matter in the slightest, and that species en masse don't matter beyond, perchance, their rarity and eliteness (life itself, is miraculous, statistically speaking), and that is that. Extinction then doesn't really matter. Except right now. To us. So, then, all is left is, what matters to you? Therefore, you are speaking from inevitable bias and waylaid by subjective experience-if nothing matters beyond your own life and experiences, then there isn't a lot of quantifiable meaning to our lives is there? And the life and experiences don't mean that much, so inevitably we cling to them. Hence extinction seems to us, quite bad, all in all, when considering our current lives.

I think, that if people had an extra 50 years to live longer, then the entire world would dramatically be changed for the better.

I agree. "Intelligence" develops it's capacities with experience and time and change. Old age does allow for wisdom, or at least, some degree of a wealth of experiences which are raw data of what is otherwise, an inaccessible reality.

I doubt that almost anyone would choose not to extend their life given the chance to.

@thewonder
But what is life? Is all life worth being extended? Many people, including the chronically depressed, would argue that sometimes life is not worth being extended. That there are quality of life factors to be considered. Say someone someone might live another 10 years...but those 10 years are spent imprisoned in an old age home, frequently unwell/uncomfortable, lonely, declining...thats the reality. I think it is the YOUNG that want to extend life, because they have not yet lived-but those who have lived, and who get to live long and fulfilling lives, die relatively at ease. At least, that's how I want to look at it.

Even if it's not really all that great, you still always want to be living

Yes, its called survival instincts; deeply biological and primal, and not logical. Benatar actually holds that if people really knew "how bad" their lives and plausible futures really were, most people would kill themselves or be a lot less positive...we are actually biased (by survival arguably) to be optimistic, its a real recorded psychological phenomenon jokingly called "pollyannanaism" that helps us adapt to difficult situations.

How does death give life value, exactly? Is this more than a mere platitude?

@Echarmion
I mean, I never meant it as a platitude; just common sense. You appreciate things that much more which are rare, harder to come by, or transient. I love Christmas because it comes once a year and I get to make a big deal about the season ect. I don't think anyone would care about Christmas or birthdays or much for that matter if they were commonplace or permanent. Because life culminates inevitably in death, makes it all the more important to live it, and live it to the fullest of your ability. To live well. To change and make difference for what you can. I'm not saying that life is "sacred", it has no moral value objectively speaking, but rather, we naturally appreciate more that which is finite or transient. Or at least, we should, by default of its impermanent state. Common sense would tell us that makes sense. Death makes things like love, that much more intimate, raw, and powerful. People can, and have, used their deaths to help more people ie. more life. How can death not add value to one's life?

Falling in love with someone and living together for a million years blissfully doesn't sounds that bad. I also feel as though with an unlimited lifespan our desires would also be quite easily met. Obviously, if we were to be able to live a near infinitude, then all these disorders and such would become redundant or solved.

Sorry to double post but.. couldn't resist.
Doubt anyone wants to spend a "million" years with anyone, and doing "what"?? Just because death is no longer a problem doesn't mean people wouldn't have problems.
Would all our desires be met? Shopenhenauer would argue otherwise; desire begets new desires.

Plants and animals DIE because they can't perpetually maintain all of the systems required for a healthy life, or life at all.

@Bitter Crank
Thought I'd add some fun facts; most species of octopus (arguably the most alien species we encounter on this planet, and also one of the most recognizably intelligent and inquisitive of all the species) live less than a year, before they spontaneously enter senescence after mating. Biologists have speculated that octopodes would have over-taken human intelligence perchance, if they did not have this biological limitation holding them back (it takes many years to amass enough knowledge and experience to use inborn intelligence effectively to adapt to new problems and situations). Food for thought.
There are some organisms, like Hydra, due to their regenerative capabilities that arguably "live" forever, but is regeneration the same as the original? People argue that by definition it is different. Axolotl's, octopodes, and other animals can also regenerate wholly, but again, does not really provide a practical aid for human immortality, as even these animals are still wholly mortal.

I read somewhere that the human body is really only biologically able to withstand the wear and tear of at least 115 years, after that, organs and bones and muscles WILL fail, and quality of life becomes an issue. My grandmother was 89 when she died last spring, no real health problems, still mobile and living alone (with some assistance)-her real killer? Depression. Living alone. Friends dead. Her son disowned her and refused to talk to her. Her first husband 60 years dead. My family holds that she wanted to die, at least unconsciously, so it was that much easier for her body to simply fail..and she died in her sleep. It was sad of course, but it was what she wanted. When people discuss mortality, its always young or middle aged people; never the truly elderly, because if you ask the elderly (my other grandparents are both mid 90s now) they are usually quite at peace with their near deaths. What they want more is dignity, to die before things get too messy, and peace. They have no interest in "going back in time"-do you? The mere thought of going back to kindergarten, middle school, ect. is exhausting, why would I want to go back and do it all again? Endlessly? Forever?

Personally, I view death as a waste. In a manner of speaking, a waste of life. We seem to live in a world full of inanimate objects and things.

I think that death is the opposite of a waste. I think death is what gives life value, otherwise we would be what, just existing forever and ever? I abhor the thought. I do not want to live forever, I cannot imagine anything more depressing than living forever (beyond I guess, having the time to read all the books ever music/learn languages ect.)

People throughout the ages have found ways to "deny" death by broaching the topic of immortality, hence the endless saga of vampire myths, ancient gods ect. ect. but it is also just the result of our inevitable desire to outlive our physical form, our hatred and fear of our physical limitations. I disagree. I don't think immortality is anytime going to be possible; technological immortality might eventually exist in the form of uploading one's voice/memories to a hard drive or some AI device, but I can't imagine that will catch on; sounds grotesque and extremely painful for those grieving loved ones.

Read the Denial of Death or even Benatar in The Human Condition. Both authors talk in length about existentialist crises, our innate desire for immortality ect. ect. quite fascinating stuff.

If the Earth is overpopulated, then we start habitats on other worlds like Mars or Europa. I just don't see why life should be thought of as a book that all have some start and a finish.

No we should certainly not. I personally think the human species should go extinct sooner rather than later. All things considered.
Life is also far from over; hate to say it, but individuals don't matter to the cycles of life and death. Just because I happen die, doesn't mean life ends; birds still sing, insects crawl, and if my loved ones follow my directions; hopefully various sea life will be feeding on my corpse; laying eggs in my body, life begetting life.
In my opinion, that is beautiful. There is beauty and strength and courage in the finite. Only cowardice and exhaustion in the infinite.

I'm a little tired and not with it, so I didn't digest your full point. But if what you're trying to say is that actions create infinite results/reactions, and therefore, responsibility entails accepting this infinity ripple (for lack of a better work) and encompassing this encompassment in our definition of responsibility, then yes, I agree!

I love Hanna Arendt though. Banality of evil. So important. Especially when you teach kindergarten.

Please read this.

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-owns-guns-3026230

The whole "gun = safety" narrative is caused by racism, an us against them mentality, white against black, American vs. immigrant, $$ vs. capitalism, Christianity vs. Islam ect. ect. (hi George Orwell, yes you are right! A nation at war, facing an external "other" or enemy, is a unified nation, except in the case when the literal nation is divided by this (perceived) diversity...)
and while you are right @creativesoul the NRA is not THE problem, the NRA is the propaganda of the problem, and it is posing many problems of its own, including funding and organizing this deep felt divide and feeling of threat (on one side that is, and we all know what side that is) that otherwise would have no teeth...

You are over simplyifing my original points. And as nice as your charts look, they're not comforting? Gun safety solves one of two gun issues, prevents accidental discharge. Doesn't prevent purposeful discharge. You're not going to convince me that guns is better than no guns; because no guns is better. Human emotionality for one; you can force someone to safely store and take gun safety courses until their ears turn blue, but it won't change their anger when they go for their gun in some dispute...everyone at some point in their life could have shot someone, myself included, if I had a gun. Hence why I will never own a gun. Or support gun ownership. Guns are for killing people. A population that feels the need to "arm" itself to "protect" itself is one that is already brutalized by fear, paranoia, and violence.

Even better, how about I carry a gun around my kindergartens? Like all those NRA people in the graphs you showed clearly want. Then we can start real early on indoctrinating them into a culture that thinks that it is okay to carry, "proudly" something used only to hurt other people. I mean, or we could teach them not to hurt people at all? A complete non-violent culture? A complete lockdown and amnesty on guns the military and so forth? A complete reconstruction of our economic and political relations?

Okay, I know I'm being silly here. But I prefer dreaming up complex upheavals than settling for, "well we just gotta make sure people don't kill too many people!"

then what on God's green earth are we doing not providing those same safeguards to our children?

Okay. They do have metal detectors at some schools, including here in Canada. Have to point this out, but don't you think there is something WRONG when we have to screen children going to school? Are we that desperate to hold onto the freedom to have a gun? When gun = killing people? A good stop gap attempt. But also bad. It says, "it's okay that people have guns, and people sometimes get killed by inevitably occurring human mental instability, so we're just going to work on minimizing the damage rather than address the real problem".


There won't be a solution anytime soon. America won't give up their guns (as per evidenced in these posts).

They would know better than to harass others. They would know better than to make broad brushed statements about groups of people.

I don't think my statements are that "out there" but appears they are according to you people. I'm not trying to posit Canada as a country devoid of issues, we have plenty, including our historical mistreatment of Indigenous peoples; and of course we are influenced by American culture, we practically drown in American products for one...that is why I am worried. Canada is following the same trends as the United States. The extreme fringes you speak of, if they do reach a boiling point, will spill over to us.

@Bitter Crank
Did not mean offence. I too know educated rural people, including one heading to law school with me But there are statistics showing that anti-gun people are more likely to hold at least a bachelors degree, and that the less education someone has the more likely they are to have pro-gun views and die a violent death.

I hear your argument. Your people will uprise.

That is what the NRA propaganda has done.

I've never been to rural Wisconsin but I've been to rural Canada so I can imagine. These gun supporters correlate directly with poor, ignorant (read: LACK OF EDUCATION FUNDING), rural, isolated, and otherwise easily fear-mongered communities-fearful of change and "others"-fearful of control ect. ect.
Again, all these issues are so deeply and closely related.

My apologies, you're right-an exaggeration on my part (my boyfriend often accuse me of being an exaggerator). Interesting that the rise of the NRA coincided with post-ww2 cultural tribulations at the time, ie. rising black rights movement, second "wave" feminism" ect. ect. Smells like the elite white rich (and the ignorant, rural, poor white who were exploited and manipulated into believing all this propaganda by the elite rich) had some qualms about the changing tides.

May God damn the NRA to the depths of hell.

I agree. Remember, I am only two decades old. For as long as I have been alive there has been guns and severe gun violence and massacres on the news. For me, it really has been forever. I grew up with all the stranger danger, not being able to walk anywhere by myself until I was about 12, monthly armed lock down drills in my school, hiding under desks ect. ect. And this is in Canada, where I feel relatively safe. When I steal someones parking spot at the mall and they roll down their window to give me the finger, not for one moment do I think my life is in danger-but I do know that if I lived in the US, I would be risking my life.

I disagree. I think the NRA is too powerful of a propaganda group to not hold accountable for the cultural mindset that props up the bullshit gun ownership argument-an argument that is inherent to the whole topsy-turvy. An argument that is undermined by factual statistics. The guns used in the majority of massacres, especially perpetuated by teens in high schools, are legally owned-family guns, or legally bought at gun shows. Owning a gun in your home exponentially raises the risk of dying from said gun, whether by accident, suicide, or spousal/domestic homicide. Children kill themselves everyday by accidentally discharging a gun at themselves, siblings, or parents. Guns are for killing people. Knives aren't. Guns are.

I never claimed that NRA "talks" about the insufficiently funded American public system. My point was actually-that no one does. My point was that America cares more about guns than people. That the people are so culturally indoctrinated that "gun rights" are more important than public safety.

These events are in no way isolated. No political events really are? I mean, I'm aware i am making brief generalizations and summarizations here, but it doesn't take much common sense and internet research to build a pretty clear case of this. The insufficient public education funding is a problem of its own, but it is a problem that is overshadowed by these hungry lobbyists-and it is a problem that is resultant from a culture that doesn't value individual human life.

And the winner is clearly not the US.

https://www.businessinsider.com/education-military-spending-comparison-2016-9
This was before the Republicans (sorry, I mean the NRA) came into power.

Actually I lied. They were always in power. One just has to look at Obama's face when he talked about all this massacres, including the kindergarten one...the NRA was in the shadows, gun to his head, NRA hands deep in the pockets of the Pentagon.
Haha gun pun unintended!

Again I appreciate your thorough correspondence.

Its weird because I never considered myself one to like small or younger children, for one, I don't like running those games that seem all the rage in elementary school programs, the ones where "everyone wins" blah blah. And I don't like the constant stress that one might dissipear ect. But this summer at the camp I work at I was placed with the young young children (3-5), the first time I have ever really interacted with children at that age, and I found them I did like them better than the school age/older children. You can be just as realistic with younger children as older children, just as blunt, you just have to be more patient because it takes some brain power to explain more complicated concepts and eventually you have to settle with "well something like that I think" and just hope that ten years from now they'll miraculously remember the conversation and be able to do something about it. Older children also lose their ability (at least in some cases) to entertain themselves, while younger children, exempting shyness, are a marvel, you give them items and set them lose, watching their creativity and imaginations and curiosity, it absolutely fills me with vigor. PHILOSOPHY vigor. Is that not what philosophy is all about? Where would Socrates be in the modern age? Either homeless yes, or uneducated working in McDonalds playing on this forum in his spare time, OR in a kindergarten classroom, making slime (we made slime today) or out in the rain digging for worms, or playing with balloons ect. I have come to love and respect kindergarten aged children because of this curiosity and desire to learn...I had always thought that if I do become a teacher (which isn't on the horizon at the moment) I will teach highchool seniors, but I'm starting to think that would just frustrate and distress me. I was never very well understood or liked by children in middle school or early high school (again, until puberty hit) so I have this horrendous image of my head of me still sitting alone at lunch at age 45 reading all my silly philosophy with all of my students in the cafeteria making fun of me-no sexiness this time to make them like me (I kid). Also, young children really don't know-they're learning, they're learning social cues as much as they're learning how to interact with the physical word, while older children KNOW, when they're talking over me, or doing something dumb/inconsiderate, they KNOW and I got 0 patience for that.

they NEED emotion/facial expressions to understand the words

They DO haha, it makes me hyper-aware of my face and helps me become more animated/it feels good. Kind of like adulthood bitterness and the need to appear perfectly passive, polite, and calm all the time has botox-ed my face, and then getting to play and laugh and air-guitar breaks all the hardened clay.

the book - and movie - called 'Wonder' definitely spent some time ensuring the reader understood that the bully had a tough life too).

Might have to look into this. I'm always for breaking down individual moral culpability.

Kind of like trying to predict economics without acknowledging that most people are bat sh*t crazy.

Education is complicated and multifaceted, by no means am I attempting to narrate an absolute solution. Also no one cares. Unless you are a child, you have kids, or you directly work in education, no one wants to foot the bill. Canada must have dropped a good couple million $$ just on the manhunt currently going on (two teens wanted for murdering someone up in some shit hole town in some shit hole part of Manitoba or something) I'm talking tanks, SWAT, air force (common for the US very rare for Canada) they haven't found them, probably won't, probably they died in the woods, TOO BAD THAT MONEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN SPENT ON hm education? Sorry, but I'm a big believer in preventative action...my answer to every social problem, IMO is education education education, we're all just products of our environments. And this is Canada, where, while provincial loans for post-secondary school were recently cut quite a bit, at least we have a reliable government loan program...America, well, just google military budget vs. education budget...and then people wonder "why is America so screwed up" "how did they elect Trump?" blah blah, well quite easily it turns out, look at what that culture values. Certainly not the individual welfare and growth of its citizens.

*I am biased because I am a university student*

Side note-best of luck teaching middle school. Much cringe. While I respect middle school age boys for their hyper-athleticism (gotta love a super competitive deadly game of dodgeball) I could never face that age group, too awkward, too uncomfortable, all I think about is how terrible their lives are at that point in their life. Middle school is the most sucky of all sucky. For one you're so SEXUALLY frustrated all the time jesus CHRIST.
I digress.

Adults always tell and emphasize messages to kids to "help them", its the classic hero complex narrative, not unlike how we as humans are always "rescuing" animals. I'm not sure to what extent it "works" as I recall there are plenty of messages adults tried to install in me as a kid, that in turn, I mocked, blatantly disobeyed, and made fun of (I'm also extremely oppositional by nature). As a result I somewhat take a step back when it comes with children, I speak to them like they are adults, even make casual conversation and small talk about things in my own life (like telling them my baby fish died), but in no way do I pretend to be their friend or talk baby talk to them. Children are smart, curious, and honest, and I try to let their natural capacities guide them; I ALWAYS answer their questions honestly, and I NEVER tell them to stop asking questions or "because I said so" or "that's just the way it is" (though it is tempting sometimes with certain annoying ones). Question-asking, or "inquiry" as educational theorists have described it, is so important to maintaining critical thinking skills (philosophy skills!) of course these are the very skills that traditional education systems had tried to limit; ie. by claiming that all facts are absolute, memory-based testing ect. vs. open discussion and exploration as more encouraged today. I digress.

My point is, I think children who are raised openly being directed, circumvented, "rescued", and protected by an adult is one that grows up with impoverished critical thinking and critical action skills. They are more passive, malleable, naive, ect. My parents do a lot for me financially (paying for my schooling right now, helping me with car insurance) but I always felt alone when dealing with social or personal issues. My parents never "rescued me", at least, not because I voluntarily went to them for help. Bullying has always happened, it is inevitable, we as social beings will exert power over one another, often in manipulative and cruel ways-it is cyclical at the very least, meaning that in any society organized hierarchally, where there is a power imbalance, and where certain individuals can assert power over others, there will be "bullying" as it is so loosely and vaguely defined. I also hate how the last ten years or so of anti-bullying campaigning (so basically my entire childhood growing up with it) focused so heavily on stigmatizing the "bully" and romanticizing the victim without examine external circumstances and pressures (ie. like race or class). It rarely touched upon WHY people become "bullies". Like the poet Iain [something] said, "Everyone was born as soft as water, that is the tragedy of living" (or something amongst those lines).

Perhaps I shouldn't be proclaiming what is or isn't considered "cool". Cool is again, while important to all ages of youth and adult groups, each age cluster has a defining border where what is cool changes slightly from age cluster to age cluster, sometimes with clusters inheriting and absorbing elements from other clusters. Clusters are also organized loosely by cultural factors; race, wealth. I think it is easier to define what ISNT "cool" than what is...Elon Musk was certainly an unpopular and misunderstand child-but success is cool, and now as a successful adult being celebrated for those very successes, he is considered "cool"-he also of course has the wealth to buy "cool" things that are de facto cool resulting from their price, use, and availability (like VIP tickets, private jets ect.) The biggest defining difference between "coolness" as perceived among children and "coolness" as perceived among adults is that adults are more often forced to interact, collaborate, and put up with people regardless of their "cool" factor. Therefore, there is more room for heterogeneity and interspersion-I am friends with people I consider less "cool" than me because we have other common interests or were forced into similar or close-working situations.
Is it presumptuous of me to presume that you were not considered "cool" in school?

I appreciate your thorough response! I tell myself I am young enough that right now I can complain-and when I am older (and maybe very rich) I will start doing.

Regardless of personal experience-since I suppose I'm "bias" being a high functioning autistic student who never had any friends until about high school (when I started getting 'attractive')-and even those friendships were rift with drama and complications, what defines popularity is dependent on age (I work with children these days). Younger children; athletic ability, personality domination (ie. being very aggressive, upfront, talkative, precocious, bossy, gumption, and being able to manipulate the other children) and as they grow up, this of course, turns into 'charisma'. Appearance becomes more important around puberty. And then in my eyes, we are no longer observing child behaviour, but the behaviour of young adults and youth which mimics, in small and important ways, the behaviours and interactions of real adults. What is valued in adults (individually and culturally) is valued exorbitantly in youth, and it is also gendered. appearance being #1 (for both genders but most important for girls), athletic/physical ability being #2-but only for boys, and in my case at my school (and the schools I've worked in now)-is wealth, or at least, the pretence of wealth-new phones, flashy shoes, a different jacket for every day of the week, these are also status signs. Also "coolness" which can roughly be calculated by multiplying appearance value with wealth value divided by reputation; access to drugs and alcohol and other 'taboo' and infamous experiences being the ultimate deciding factor. A youth can come from a poor family, but with the right imitation of being wealthy (ie. working to afford their own designer clothes) and the right access to drugs/alcohol/sexual experiences/illicit gatherings) the youth in question can become very popular among peers. Nowhere is intelligence valued, outside of being the smart kid that gets hired to do the older kids summative essays...which was me! To all the boys that graduated because of me, they can thank this strange social maze for my willingness to do their work for their approval, and I guess, the money too.

Child and youth social behaviour and its complexities both within and beyond academic institutions and the education system should be a topic all of its own it seems.

Looks like I will have to check out Spillane after this-I liked O’Connor, but I also enjoy books that appal mainstream appetites

Gramsci and Goldman are two of my favourite thinkers-radical as they were-but I’m confused by your hostility? I had only now come across Rand (or at least had the opportunity to read her) so I thought here would be a good place to ask for some further information and opinions.

I'm not sure if this thread was directly discussing philosophy structure in university, but I do feel like chiming in here and saying I agree! Grouping schools of thought can be confusing, because so many thinkers have so many different conceptions of the same (largely abstract) ideal/theory. It gets overwhelming. Then again, some philosophers are ~easier~ to read on your own than others, some philosophers you can read their primary texts, do some background research, and maybe read a secondary/biography, and you understand their position...others, you can try to read their works but you get nowhere. More questions than answers, which is where it is useful to have an instructor guide and encourage helpful discussion. Beyond that, philosophy lessons, for their own sake , are useless. You have to come prepared to learn in philosophy...unlike in other subjects from what I've found.


Maybe I'm being ungrateful. My university here in Canada is beautiful, landscape wise...set in acres of woods-state of the art environmental science stuff ect. It was terrible in the sense of resources, because it was rural it had a very small/non existent library-no real public library in the town it is set in ect. Also did not attract very high achieving/scholarly people, mostly just middle class rural kids who's parents made them go so they can get a degree, or underachieving middle class kids who did not have the grades to go to "better" Canadian universities. My friends warned me not to go there actually-but well, I did. Ended up wasting two years of my life not really being challenged...it was challenging balancing a lot of coursework + substance abusing SURE less challenging was the actual content. I was taking third and fourth year courses at second year, and shocked by the state of some of my third year courses especially one I took called "Philosophy of Animals" which was cross-referenced with enviro studies (small universities = lots of cross discipline courses which are just as disappointing as you can imagine). Painfully easy. It was hard for me to sit through the hour seminar every week.

Public school here, despite provincial funding, is awful. There is still some class stratification re: area, ie. schools in richer areas get more PTA activity, bake sales, donations, ect. which equals a nicer school and better extracurriculars. My school was one such school-in fact, it felt like a private school seeing as most of the students drove better cars than the teachers in high school (Jeeps, BMWs). I had to apply to go to it (because I was out of area)-another public high school in my area, was also richly desired because it was "advanced" and thus you had to write an entrance exam. Such stratification also means that you get more "resources" for things such as university applications-we had assembly after assembly, while at my friends high school (in a less wealthy, high immigrant area) did not receive any information on university/college applications-I guess because none of the parents demanded it? Or expected it? Most of the students in my school did a lot of extra courses at a private online school as well-meaning while they managed to graduate, they also paid for their grade 12 marks for university applications. The school building itself though, was a piece of shit, worse still, are the adult schools here, literally there are holes in the wall and boarded up windows. It's awful. What conditions are the schools in Finland/Europe? I assume at least clean, and not literally falling apart (some schools in my city you can't even read the name on because of fading/lost letters/over growth). All the schools in my city were built circa 1920-1950, that's probably why.
Now my middle school was an arts "speciality" school, meaning it was publicly funded, but I had to audition when I was about nine years old. I have no idea what criteria they selected applicants, but race had a lot to do with it. 90% of the grade was white, skinny (there were two-three token "chubby" girls), blonde (literally), beautiful little girls (a pedophiles dream)-all "artistic" while the other 10% consisted of eight boys (also all white, save one) one token Black girl, three asians, and (if I recall) one brown/Indian girl. There were 120 children in my year. I'm unsure if its different now-but make no mistake, these children were 'handpicked' out of hundreds auditioning, it was no accident. We also had more $$$ than one would think possible, I mean, every year we had a huge concert to put on, we had a full Mac lab (more than my university does haha!) equipped with another full Mac lab x2 of MacBooks + the latest in graphic design software, photo developing, and SMARTBOARDS-They also, for no reason whatsoever, decided to create an "outdoor classroom" in my last year there, 10k on about a dozen large rocks set in a circle out front of the school. Again, this is a public school, where right down the street, there was another public school so old that its basement had fallen in twice...

I can't get anymore into the education system...it's eleven at night here and I don't need to get all frustrated aha. I have very strong critiques but for now, they are too strong, the memory is fresh seeing as I just graduated high school two years ago. If anyone cares though, I suggest starting with John Dewey-he writes a bit on Marxist critiques of the education system and actually championed anarchistic tenets with his Free Schools concept, same with Emma Goldman among others.

I read somewhere that American public education is municipally funded-which means obviously, that poorer/under privileged communities will have less resources, organization, and whole mass of issues. I presume that European countries like Finland have a better and less discriminatory funding system. That also explains @ZhouBoTong what you meant by America (certainly) having some of the best schools and best scholars in the world, but the majority are meh, are barely passable-some ridiculous. Canada is the same way (I went through the Canadian public school system) though we are funded provincially which is a bit more equal. Our adult education schools are deplorable though, and our universities are meh...I'm going to a British university in the fall so then I will be able to make a more adequate comparison.

Ive looked over your thread, its a bit waylaid by opposing opinions but I think I understand and appreciate what you are getting at. :)

by metaphysical antirealism, do you mean idealism? One such popular proponent, at least in early modern era, was of course Berkeley. But Berkeley's idealism is a bit different (as far as I can tell) from modern conceptions of antirealism, many of which are presupposed from constructionist perspectives...antirealism can refer to anything from skepticism (in epistemology) to better understanding the role language/society has on our conceptions of reality (intersubjectivity)...

I used to consider myself an antirealist, largely because I was led to it through the constructivist conception of reality-I still enjoy various tenets in antirealist thought, especially with regards to the problem of consciousness. New Mysterianism (or anti-constructive naturalism/cognitive closure) can be reconciled with antirealism, that is, it holds that certain knowledge is outside the domain of human understanding (if it exists at all), at least for now.
I've always seen metaphysics with a very definitive line between the two, that is, the "realist" and "antirealist" camp, and within these two dichotomies, one can (usually) reconcile various theories within and overlapping other areas of philosophy (this is a very over-simplified explanation, all of these concepts become increasingly complex in their own right)

realist: materialism, physicalism, reductionism, eliminativism ect.
antirealist: idealism, transcendentalism, subjectivism, noumenon?, constructivism, skepticism, post-modernism, qualia,

I'm currently putting forward an argument along these lines, that while an 'objective' and absolute account of reality may exist, us as human beings, do not have the capacities to appreciate or otherwise understand and comprehend such a reality-as we are forever entangled within our subjective realities (as @Wayfarer has noted)...for more on this, start with Nagel
I presume, that other beings, insofar as they experience subjective reality (I argue also that most, if not all, living things experience some form of subjective reality) cannot escape their subjective realities either, and while humans have made valiant attempts at categorizing, and otherwise understanding the (what appears to be at least) physical world, these attempts are incomplete, and in some cases grossly incorrect, laden with human biases and undetected human limitations.

To answer your original question, science is threatened. There is a large break between science and philosophy that occurred in the last century or so...hence why philosophy is largely relegated to the page of uselessness, while science is upheld as the new faith, new religion (scientism). Nagel mentions this too. Science reassures us of our human superiority, safety, and ability, it plays on the man vs. nature trend, and in recent times, is famed as being what will "save us" from ecological collapse. These are major issues within the theoretical understanding of science as a field, that I hope in the next decade or so will come under scrutiny.

In all seriousness though, I understand OP's original point; both God and the concept of a 'nation' are facets of intersubjective reality-not objective reality. There is no God objectively, He only exists (arguably, but I hold atheism) if one believes in him, and as for Canada, the concept of "Canada" that is our nation, laws, customs, culture, and otherwise social arrangements only exist insofar as those support and live in such an intersubjective realities...hence why it seems fictional to people who have never been to Canada

Canadais going to defeat the Warriors.

Also, as a Canadian, currently standing in Canada, it exists-but does Australia exist? No one here seems to know...

I agree with @Frank Apisa I'm not really sure what you're getting at-I'm currently working on a book discussing the umwelt, or perception of people vs. animals (arguing its not really a dichotomy or hierarchy as we assume it to be)-so when you discuss what it is like to think like a human, I can only think how we think, I cannot imagine what anything other than myself, let alone what other humans (like my dad who is sitting beside me) may be thinking. That is the nature of the subjective.

But my cage? Fear. Fear of failure, fear of suffering, fear of disapproval from my family and loved ones-life is full of cages, proverbially, literally, and metaphysically.

I'm suggesting (as per my original post) than any form of severe mental pain can warrant assisted
suicide, not just PTSD from rape. But I am also noting that rape especially, carries severe mental trauma-much more than any other violent crime. This needs to be noted when addressing the problem of rape, including its severe under-reported(ness), and often lenient sentences in cases of domestic violence/sexual harassment.

To echo what said, what gives you the right to determine an absolute threshold for pain tolerance, especially that resultant of rape...have you ever been raped? If you had, you would know that rape doesn't just go away, even if you are "clean and healthy"-it perverts your life and choices and decisions, it forever scars you in very subtle but powerful ways. Even for those who do manage to move on, and many do, not everyone can, it depends on the situation and the support systems people have in place.

Rape is certainly "that bad of a pain". In many ways, rape is worse than murdered-attempted rape victims suffer on average more PTSD than attempted murder victims. Not only do you have to live with the fear and traumatic memories, but rape carries a stigma. You can't talk about it. No one wants to listen.