I work as a pediatric nurse and helping people is one of the only things that I still find worthwhile. — Nicholas Mihaila

Your situation is MUCH better than I first thought. You find helping people worthwhile. That's solid rock! Were you so alienated, so mired in anomie, so pessimistic that "helping people" didn't seem worthwhile or meaningful, you'd be in a very dark hole indeed. But you are not.

We all have to put together a suite of workable beliefs that help us get through the day. Well, I suppose we don't have to, but having them makes life better.

BTW, there is indeed plenty of pointlessness and meaninglessness in the world. Try to avoid that kind of quicksand. Nobody is doomed if they stumble into it, but they are if they don't crawl out.

I see almost everything as completely pointless — Nicholas Mihaila

I make good money and can afford to do what I like, but there’s nothing I want. — Nicholas Mihaila

If everything is pointless and there is nothing you want, then why on earth are you working? Is working not pointless?

I don't know how you arrived 'where you are', but I don't think it is difficult to get there. One starts down a downhill path, and before long you are picking up speed, and in no time you have arrived at an impasse of pointlessness.

The point is: It has always been our human task to provide meaning; the universe doesn't provide it. Since you are working and making good money, you must be a fully functional person. Coming up with some positive thought is well within your operational capabilities. Step One is to stop staring into the abyss. There is nothing to get from it. Step Two is to wean yourself off the cycle of meaningless thinking.

The goal isn't some syrupy, candy-flavored fantasy. Rather, dry solid rock. A positive philosophy may not make you happy, but it will get you a lot farther than nihilism. There are whole libraries stocked with positive options.

Indeed.

Somebody -- don't remember who -- said we must stop talking about 2030, 2050, or 2100. No more 5 year plans. The movers and shakers need to be held to a time horizon of a year out, at the most. Better, "What are you doing RIGHT NOW?"

If their piles of money were burning, they wouldn't talk about future plans to reduce the fire. They would swing into action with big hoses IMMEDIATELY. No such urgency for the future of the planet.

Dilution is the perfect solution to pollution when we live next to an infinitely long river. Unfortunately for us, the finite river into which we dilute our waste is always upstream from us. And 9 times out of 10, we draw our drinking water from the insufficiently diluting river. Whatever it is, polyfluoroalkyl, polychlorinated biphenyls, or just plain chickenshit, "the diluting stream" is too short, to shallow, and too slow. So--the oceans are also finite--we can't dilute our way out of pollution.

There is no chance that we will stop polluting; it's a question of what kind of pollution we will produce. Maybe we should stop producing "forever chemicals like polyfluoroalkyl. Maybe we should stop losing so much nitrogen fertilizer through field runoff. (Stopping wasteful field runoff is not rocket science.)

There was at least an attempt. The Australian PM was obliged to stand up to a world audience and say climate change is something that has to be dealt with. — Wayfarer

With such a display of bold, fearless, undaunted courage, surely salvation is at hand!

Kindly forgive my sarcasm, if you will.

The first big climate conference was in Geneva in 1979. "It issued a declaration calling on the world's governments "to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-being of humanity". 42 years later, there has been action -- however modest: Consciousness of global warming, modest efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels, a considerable effort in wind/solar power generation, and so on. Still, global monthly average concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen from around 339 parts per million in 1980 (averaged over the year) to 412 parts per million in 2020, an increase of more than 20%.

So it isn't that NOTHING has been done, but that not nearly enough has been done to change the dire outcomes before us. "Crisis" has not mobilized the huge range of actions that are required by the small population who own/direct the world economy.

the lion lays down with the lamb — James Riley

They may lay down together, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb.

Your response gets an A+.

when I was watching documentaries in the TV about wild life where huge amount of pain, fear and starvation are present — richard77

TV isn't reality. On THIS OLD HOUSE work is done without fuck ups. One has to remember though, THIS OLD HOUSE is a produced show and is tightly edited. We just don't see the screwups.

Nature documentaries are also produced shows with plenty of editorial decision-making going into the final results. A film about birds which showed our feathered friends flitting about, pecking here and there, squawking and whistling, hopping along the branch, etc. for 90 minutes (or 5, maybe) would be quite tedious. The editors will look for footage which shows conflict, suffering, pain, hunger, brutal attacks, etc. -- because that stuff attracts our attention. And just so you know, there is a lot of nature footage available to draw from. You could make a documentary about tropical birds without ever leaving your house.

True enough, lions and wolves don't check to make sure the wildebeest or deer is 100% dead before they begin eating it. It may be pretty much alive. The only reason predators would have for a quick and total kill is self-protection. And, remember, they are hungry. Waiting for the rabbit's heart to stop is just not part of SOP.

I've eaten shellfish that was still alive. They were delicious, screams and all.

I've labored within the social service industry and have observed various kinds of problems. What I have not seen first hand is anything like the kind of behavior you ascribe to doctors -- "screwing portions of the population into submission to a system that exploits them, and if drugging you or driving you insane". Frankly, that just sounds like capitalism at work.

Are you thinking of doctors over-prescribing addictive pain killers? Very bad. The doctors, the pharmacy suppliers, the manufacturers--all sorts of people--were in it for the money--not much else.

"Wisdom" covers a lot of territory: prudence, cleverness, intelligence, shrewdness, sagacity, insight, understanding, knowledge, perception, sense, reason. Apparently wisdom is cumulative -- one gets more of it as one ages. (However, one 'wise saying' is that "wisdom does not necessarily increase with age". There are plenty of old fools who should know better (this observation is based on solid autobiographical information).

Some people are "wise" (in any of the above terms) much earlier than others. When I was 40 I had a boss who was 30 years old, and she was far wiser than I. However, even "wise ones" can make colossal errors and blunders which are decidedly not wise.

We deploy words like truth, beauty, wisdom, sublime, and a batch of similar words even though the precise meaning of the words are difficult to pin down.

What hasn't changed over the last several hundred (many thousand) years is basic humanness. Part of that is a variable ability to cope with stresses. Some people manage coping very well, others not. There are mental illnesses that apparently arise without excess stress, coped with or not, like schizophrenia and bipolar. Migraine and epilepsy have long histories. Intelligence varies now and has varied in the past.

I think we can assume that there has been a more or less constant level of mental dysfunction. It may not have been recognized (or recognized as something else), and may have been more or less debilitating.



I find most social media to be tedious and annoying. I don't like to have information 'pushed' at me; I don't like the chaotic sharing of significant, trivial, and often enough completely false and misleading information.

Social media applications are designed to engage -- and keep users engaged -- for extended periods of time. It supplies rewards; new posts generate just enough pleasure/stimulation to keep you on site. A "sort of addiction" develops. That is slightly true even for The Philosophy Forum. One continues to use static sites (like dictionary or encyclopedia sites) because they supply a certain kind of service, but they aren't "addicting" to 99.999% of the population.

What social media and advertising are particularly good at is arousing us, to a greater or lesser degree. The arousal doesn't have to be pleasant or positive -- it can involve irritation, cognitive dissonance, strong disagreement, disgust, embarrassment, anger... all sorts of reactions.

Some people become over stimulated, excessively aroused, and so on. Excessive arousal and over stimulation over a long period of time are unhealthy and very wearing. Outright false information (Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election) is believed by some share o the social media audience and can lead to social conflict. People who believe Trump won, that Covid 19 was a fraud, that vaccinations are very dangerous, and so on may run into a lot of friction when they air their false beliefs.

People whose base line mental status isn't all that stable to start with can end up much worse off from engaging in too much social media.

Limiting global warming requires accuracy, precision, and honesty in reporting greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. There is a lot of inaccuracy, imprecision (or worse crudeness), and dishonesty in reporting national and industrial emissions. Honesty/dishonesty is a major problem, but in the context of this thread method, accuracy, precision, consistency, and so forth of measurement is critical.

One more reason for failing to limit global warming (regardless of what the reps at the COP26 say) is inaccuracy and imprecision in measurement. The result is a kind of climate-fraud, where officials claim accomplishments which simply do not exist. A report in the Washington Post noted that carbon from SE Asia palm oil production is underreported, thanks to both imprecision and willful errors. In the US, the Post reported that 25% of the gas in retail cooling systems is lost every year. Is that because of neglect, indifference, imprecision, inaccuracy, or what?

We will not be able to save ourselves if we continue sloppy manufacturing and agricultural operations. Without precise data we are wandering around in the hot dark.

Does what Lord Kelvin (aka William Thomson) had to say about physics apply to philosophy and your example of asking what good is utilitarianism?

There are various definitions of fascism, for instance; of democracy, of capitalism, of imperialism, of all sorts of things. What may be a good definition of fascism in 1925 (near the time the term was coined) may be less apt in 2021; same for democracy. Democracy in 1776 and 1976 may be dissimilar. Democracy in England may be quite unlike democracy in India. Greater precision doesn't seem to be the critical factor (though precision may be helpful).

if one is a molecular biologist wielding CRISPR, more precision is definitely a good thing.

"We will do [something] by 2030" is a dodge. What matters is the politicians commence to a) stop de-forestation IMMEDIATELY b) begin re-forestation IMMEDIATELY c) lower CO2 / methane emissions IMMEDIATELY d) build wind generation and solar facilities IMMEDIATELY e) start building up mass transit (rail freight, passengers) IMMEDIATELY.

Why all the "IMMEDIATELYs"? Because few if any politicians in office in 2021 will be in office in 2030. They can be held to account for what they do this year and next year, and the year after...

I feel / fear that what 2030, 2050, or 2070... deadlines mean is that "We'll worry about it then. In the meantime, we'll wait and see how fast things get worse. With any luck, things will get so bad that nothing can be done about it, and then we'll be doomed; but at least I'll be off the hook for making difficult decisions."

You have quite the hard-on for the United States. Since you are very well versed in our heinous history, perhaps you happen to know...

When did "colonialism" and "imperialism" shift from being at least a merely descriptive term to being a highly pejorative term. I suppose this shift in connotation happened in the early 20th century, particularly in connection with the British Empire. As their grip over their colonies loosened, the colonial residents were able reinterpret their experience.

It isn't clear to me exactly what foreign policy objects were being pursued in many instances. For instance, what did we have to gain in Ghana, Oman, Albania, Angola, Congo, Somalia, or Uganda and Kenya? How much effort and material were involved? How much effect did our involvement have?

Mentioning US activity in a place like Congo without mentioning the very thorough fucking-over which King Leopold II of Belgium administered in his personally owned estate of 2,344,000 km2 seems like overlooking a lot of history.

Selling opium in Laos? Old news. The US and UK were both busy selling opium to China in the 19th century. The fast yankee clippers operating out of Boston and New York were designed for the opium and tea trade. (see Warren Delano Jr. (1809–1898), a grandfather of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief of Operations of Russell & Company, whose business included the opium trade in Canton).

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

From the viewpoint of people on the receiving end of the world's dominant powers, "imperialism" is at best not a good deal. For the people on the delivery side, it's not such a bad thing. Ever since Ur, there have been dominant and subservient people. That's real politics. The Romans dominated the Mediterranean world over several hundred years for their own benefit. Starting with Portugal, then Spain, England, France, Netherlands, Russia, et al, exploration of the globe by Europeans quickly morphed into imperialism.

Exploration turned into imperialism because it could, and because there were all sorts of benefits to be gained -- wealth, principally. Who doesn't like accumulating wealth? We do, and if the peasants from whom it is accumulated don't like it, they learn to live with it.

I would highly recommend visiting a psychologist - NOT a psychiatrist — I like sushi

Good advice. If a patient needs psychiatric help, the psychologist will refer him or her on to a psychiatrist. I've seen a number of psychiatrists over the years; their role is mostly medical management of patients with moderate to severe conditions. As an empathetic pair of ears, most psychiatrists suck -- partly because they usually don't have time (thanks to insurance companies) to give patients much personal attention.

It's a rare psychiatric practice that schedules 30 to 45 minutes per visit, and those are usually for patients with major mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, bi-polar, psychosis, etc.

sounds a lot like what they classify as hypomania — I like sushi

That's quite plausible, provided that what @Yohan is hearing are intrusive hallucinations and not just annoying mental chatter (which a lot of us hear a good share of the time).

I feel cut off and alienated from nature and the world at large and from myself. — Yohan

Feelings of alienation are not signs of insanity. A lot of us live in circumstances which are very alienating. Alienation is unhealthy, but a psychiatrist can't cure it. You have to find meaning and purpose in your life.

When I sleep, I have crazy dreams — Yohan

Everybody has crazy dreams.

I feel like most of my thoughts are subconscious. — Yohan

Your thoughts come from the unconscious, a place to which consciousness has little access.

My mind is constantly moving and agitated. ... Some voices say things to me like, "you are an awful person." while other voices say megalomaniacal things to me which I am too shy to share. — Yohan

This is the the sort of thing that you should see a psychiatrist about. How dangerous do these voices get? Do they tell you to do something harmful? I can't tell for sure from your description, but it sounds like you are having aural hallucinations, which is not normal. "Hallucinations" are different than mental chatter, which can be bothersome in itself, but which usually is not a sign o anything serious.

Knowing you are crazy just means you know you are crazy (to use your terminology). Some people have symptoms of mental illness which are very unpleasant, and they very much desire to get better. Some people can not identify the irrationality of their mental state on their own. A very depressed person may not recognize that they are depressed.

The proof that you are not stark raving mad (to use the highly technical medical term) is your OP. You were able to write a sensible description of how you feel. But you should still get evaluated at a mental health clinic. You should, ESPECIALLY if what you experience becomes debilitating or more frightening to you.

Not a very helpful tip: Don't know where you live, but it can be difficult to locate a clinic with openings in the near future. So, start looking before you are in crisis.

I like Bernie; I voted for him. Neither Senator Sanders nor any other single person can effect systemic change by themselves. That's is just the fact of the matter. Capitalism is an interlocking global system worth mega trillions and protected by armed forces. You think you know how to disestablish capitalism? Tell us.

I saw a news program quite a few years ago in which Miami's ground water upwelling was just beginning to be a visible problem--little pools of water rising in yards. They asked real estate agents what they said to prospective buyers. "Nothing." Just guessing, they probably have to deal with it more frankly now.

I'm 75; I don't have a lot of water and climate worries, provided I don't live too much longer. I wonder what plans informed adolescents and young adults are making in light of the ongoing crises which they will have to live with.

William Lane Craig will not avail. Nor prevail. He'll derail in the loathsome vale. He'll suffer much travail which no one will curtail. He'll vomit in a pail. I'll spare us all detail.

"And time itself The magic length of God ." 1966 Leonard Cohen

God is alive, Magic is Afoot Recited by Leonard Cohen



God is alive, Magic is Afoot sung by Buffy St. Marie

I like Bernie, but it's not a "one man problem" -- it is a big complex systemic problem.

Shankar Vedantam, the host of the public radio program, Hidden Brain, put it this way: We face an existential threat from survive climate change. Compared to WWII, are we at D Day, or are we at Dunkirk?

Dunkirk! Like the British Expeditionary Force, many localities around the world (including places in the US) will have to retreat to survive. D Day--the long-awaited massive counter offensive against Hitler's western front--isn't in the offing. Global sea level rise (between 3 feet and 10 feet, depending on the model, and whether its the middle case or worse case) is baked in -- even if we stopped producing CO2 right now.

There aren't any great alternatives; there are no over-looked wonderful solutions.

I'm pessimistic about climate change -- not a fatalist. Too bad we didn't act sooner, too bad things are going to get worse, regardless. But we can, we will adapt to the consequences of bad decisions. I don't like it, we could have done better, but here we are.

What you say about "our" political leaders [sic] is true enough, but you don't think the political system is actually left unattended, so that We The People would ever be able to elect a Congress that would liquidate the fossil fuel and other oppressive corporations... do you?

As Uncle Karl said, "The government is a committee to organize the affairs of business." We The People are SOL.

We could have a revolution, of course, and just do away with capitalism. There are reasons why that hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. In order to have a revolution, a popular political movement is required to inform, educate, and organize We The People. Such organizations have appeared. Then what happened? They were vigorously attacked and crushed--like the labor movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the Socialist Party (first third of the 20th century); the Communist Party; and anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (the McCarthy witch-hunt); and the labor movement again in the latter part of the 20th century.

Americans are quite literally schooled to accept the lies of big business. It takes heroic efforts to break through the smoke screen -- literally that, in countering the denials of the tobacco companies in the 1960s and forward (and still not finished).

Careful where you aim your spit, please.

Hold on Olivier5. The stupid crass people and their kids never had a say in the future at any critical stage. The boards of directors of banks, mining companies, power generating companies, auto companies, petroleum companies, etc. are the small exclusive group of people who made the major decisions at critical stages over the last 150 years. Individuals like Senators Mnuchin and Sinema are in a vastly more powerful position than 99% of the population to decide whether we have a strong effort to lower CO2 or not.

What is stupid and crass is sizing up the overwhelming majority of people who had no say about past or future energy policy and calling them stupid and crass.

On the other hand, I agree with you that climate pessimism makes more sense than climate optimism.

In the case of major technological change, Parkinson's law isn't the problem (but it's an otherwise sound principle).

1) Once a technology is created, it takes time for public acceptance. Wind-generation first met with opposition (owing to its unfamiliarity). Opposition in the upper midwest, for instance, is uncommon 25 years on.

2) Production of new technologies takes time to build up and perfect. Worker require training and supply chains need to be created (or repaired--currently).

3) Infrastructure has to be put into place -- another major operation. Wind generation in the narrow band running from North Dakota to west Texas doesn't work unless the transmission lines are in place. Transmission lines (high voltage wires on towers) are very strongly resisted by affected populations.

4) The end user of new technology (the all-electric home or factory for example) require time and financing to be in place. 90% of Minnesotans, for example, heat and cook with natural gas. Transitioning from gas to electricity is another major undertaking.

That's why it takes more time than one might think. And wind generation is just one set of technologies. Solar, electricity-driven transportation for freight, mass transit, energy-use upgrades in housing and business buildings, and so on also require time. We have hardly begun.

Mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public — FrankGSterleJr

The larger public has never had much say in how major new technologies will be deployed. "The People" were not crying out for crude oil. It was people like John D. Rockefeller who decided that his fortune could be made in petroleum. It wasn't the general public who decided that individual cars were going to be the only way to get around. You can thank GM, Ford, et al. They made the decision that America run on cars.

The public has basic needs they have to meet, and corporations provide it, quite often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

It isn't the public that is addicted to fossil fuels, it is major corporations.

Here's an interesting fact: There are about 1.4 BILLION cars on the world's roads. Producing and fueling these billion+ autos was / is a major contributor to global warming. The only area we MIGHT get rid of vehicles in the next 10 years is Antarctica (but don't hold your breath).

1). Asia: 518 million vehicles on the road -- 0.14 vehicles per capita
2). Europe: 419 million vehicles -- 0.52 vehicles per capita
3). North America: 350 million vehicles -- 0.71 vehicles per capita
4). South America: 83 million vehicles -- 0.22 vehicles per capita
5). Middle East: 49 million vehicles -- 0.18 vehicles per capita
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles -- 0.05 vehicles per capita
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles

There just HAS to be a better idea than replacing 1.4 billion cars powered by internal combustion engines with 1.4 billion cars powered by wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. We can not conger up 1.4 billion cars and the means to power them electrically without causing further damage to an already ailing world. It isn't the case that what's good for Tesla is good for the world. We used to think that what was good for GM was good for the USA.

Part of @Unenlightened's "poorer and learn to live simple and consume little" will be doing without a car, electric or combusted. Therefore, mass transit or walk. Americans especially find the idea of using mass transit every day bizarre and/or distasteful. We will have to get over that. No flying around for meetings, or lounging on the beach, either.

it's just going to be brutal beyond words — Manuel

There's nothing else I can see that can be done — Manuel

Yes, both.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. We may have already completed that most unhelpful achievement.

Expect to become poorer and learn to live simple and consume little. — unenlightened

This is a critical part of the solution about which one hears almost nothing. The economic status quo has to give way to economic contraction (in terms of volumes produced and consumed, as well as the kinds of materials). The immediate effect of contraction will be economic depression, probably severe and long, until a new, reduced equilibrium is reached. Given resource redistribution, retraction could be achieved quite sustainably and humanely. Resource redistribution will of course be resisted, as in "over my dead body".

I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. That is, no status quo anywhere is safe or untouchable. — tim wood

Climate-displacement is going to be a touchstone for all kinds of disruption, everywhere.

the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area. — I like sushi

Actually humanitarian billionaires? Dream on.

I missed the Beats (beatniks) the first time around. They were 'too far out' for my midwestern mind in the 1960s. I don't love their poetry, their novels. In 1965 they would likely have sailed over my pumpkin head. Now I recognize in them a kindred spirit.


A Supermarket in California

BY ALLEN GINSBERG - 1955

What thoughts I have of you tonight, Walt Whitman, for I walked down the sidestreets under the trees with a headache self-conscious looking at the full moon.
In my hungry fatigue, and shopping for images, I went into the neon fruit supermarket, dreaming of your enumerations!
What peaches and what penumbras! Whole families shopping at night! Aisles full of husbands! Wives in the avocados, babies in the tomatoes!—and you, Garcia Lorca, what were you doing down by the watermelons?

I saw you, Walt Whitman, childless, lonely old grubber, poking among the meats in the refrigerator and eyeing the grocery boys.
I heard you asking questions of each: Who killed the pork chops? What price bananas? Are you my Angel?
I wandered in and out of the brilliant stacks of cans following you, and followed in my imagination by the store detective.
We strode down the open corridors together in our solitary fancy tasting artichokes, possessing every frozen delicacy, and never passing the cashier.

Where are we going, Walt Whitman? The doors close in an hour. Which way does your beard point tonight?
(I touch your book and dream of our odyssey in the supermarket and feel absurd.)
Will we walk all night through solitary streets? The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses, we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent cottage?
Ah, dear father, graybeard, lonely old courage-teacher, what America did you have when Charon quit poling his ferry and you got out on a smoking bank and stood watching the boat disappear on the black waters of Lethe?

Berkeley, 1955
Allen

"Howl" is maybe his most famous poem; Here is the link to the Poetry Foundation text. Below is a link to Ginsburg reading the poem. I honestly don't know if the poetry is better coming out of the authors mouth or not.

Howl, read by Allan Ginsburg

epistemology is what matters — T Clark

What did he know, and when did he know it?

A critical piece of my wrestling match with faith, was whether or not we live in a 'knowable world'. I decided I wanted to live in a 'knowable world' without divine, esoteric mysteries. The turning point wasn't the usual youthful rejection of religion that many seem to experience. I was around 50 at the time. Not that I had been deeply immersed in faith up until then, but I had been struggling to get free of it altogether.

So yes, epistemology is what matters. There are a lot of practical applications in that sentence. It's also humbling to think about how long it can take "to know" something confidently. Curious people were noticing interesting things about rock types and layers well before geology became a science, 100 years on. It took 2 or 3 hundred years to get from an inkling that diseases might have specific causes (rather than 'vapors') to Koch's Postulates in 1875.

John Dvorak's How the Mountains Grew, a geologic history of North America from dust ball to the Anthropocene, is as good a read as a great novel. Putting together scattered bits and pieces of information to read uplift, or ancient erosion, is no small achievement in epistemology. Or, different field, that Sanskrit and ancient Greek were related languages.

In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. — StreetlightX

Like 'garbage in, garbage out', nothing in, nothing out.

They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something. — T Clark

Mature, well read, urbane, intelligent people are like that. Those features are more important than the particular field of study--just my opinion. These features are often gifted by one's parents (or not). Genetics, sure, but also by their own style. And luck. One has to have patience and curiosity to read widely and well, but one also has to be lucky enough to be able to do so. Luck has something to do with maturity and urbanity too. If life is too short or too rough, one might not get either one.

shut up, sit still, think. Repeat.

I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! After reading philosophy for years, the learnéd fellow will still put his pants on one leg at a time; he will still need to eat and drink about the same as ever; he'd best get up and move around periodically; he will still sleep around 8 hours a night; the cat box will still need to be tended, as will his own fecal habits.

Actually, a lot of the writings in any field are pretty tedious, whether it's a publication of the Internal Revenue Service explaining Form E-10923-B3, a post-modern journal article on the gender of protons, or the ten-millionth rehash of Hegel (or Hegel himself).

I am 100% in favor of learning -- from cradle to grave. And the world is a fascinating place, full of interesting things to think about. The important thing is that one investigate this world, and think about it.

If all the writings about Yoga, and all the people who know anything at all about Yoga were to disappear, it wouldn't be the end of Yoga. It would be rediscovered and redeveloped. The same thing goes for philosophy: If the whole field disappeared, it would be constructed again. Maybe better. Why? Because the the world abides, and humans will continue to have difficulty coming to terms with it and themselves.

That is my biggest caveat against evangelical Christianity — Leghorn

The hard-bitten Puritans, early exemplars of what would later be evangelical Christianity, believed that it was anything but simple. The 5 points of the Puritan faith were extremely harsh:

Humanity is totally depraved
Salvation is beyond mortal striving
Grace is predestined for only a few
Most were condemned to eternal damnation
No earthly effort could save one

Hard-boiled Calvinism!

The Puritans had some very beneficial influences on the United States, but I find their Calvinism abhorrent.

But yes, salvation can become simplistic and formulaic -- bastardization.

if the love of each other, the love of other people, the love of other people for you, could take away blame... — T Clark

We project human traits onto God and describe them as perfect and transcending or exceeding the human domain. The love that Herbert depicts is perfect. Is our human love capable of transforming ourselves or someone else?

It is, of course. The experience of human love is how we know love can be transformative. Human experiences of many kinds are transformative. In tact, we don't have any experience except human experience--of anything.

So one can read Herbert's poem as an account of human love -- maybe exceptional love, but human love, nonetheless. Do people ever display exceptional love? Yes, sometimes. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for an example of exceptional love, but it sometimes happens. When experienced, it is transformative -- as much so as the experience of God's love would be.

And by "love" I am not primarily thinking of ordinary romantic love. I'm thinking more about the selfless love of Agape. We might experience Agape and romantic love at the same time, but being the species we are, we'd probably be more fascinated by the erotic aspects of an erotic/romantic love / agape combination.

In objecting to the idea of giving to the poor because one might "entertain angels unaware", some dismiss the angels from the equation. The reason to tend to the poor is that they need care, and there but for the grace of God go I. Never mind angels--they are without need.

It is explicitly Christian.

Why would it have been better had a pagan said it?

LOVE bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack’d anything.

‘A guest,’ I answer’d, ‘worthy to be here:’
Love said, ‘You shall be he.’
‘I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on Thee.’
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
‘Who made the eyes but I?’

‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat.

George Herbert 1593 -1633

Cue the doleful violas.