I don't buy it either. On the other hand, there are some people I know who at this late date seem not to have developed much consciousness.

My main objection to his idea is that consciousness probably exists in other species, but to a lesser (and much lesser) degree. I don't think consciousness sprang into existence with us and only us. Brains have been evolving towards complexity for a long time. A dog, for instance, is not a 'conscious being' like us, but it seems like they have some consciousness.

I get beaten to a figurative pulp — T Clark

As well you should, being the most conservative person in the room!:lol:

"More liberal than thou" liberals can be vicious, vituperative vipers.

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning — SmartIdiot

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

The question of meaning arose late in the historical game (just my guess). Tyrannosaurus Rex probably didn't worry about the meaning of existence. Five million years ago, our predecessors weren't worrying about meaning either, We, on the other hand, do worry about it--a lot. (At least people on this forum do.)

We need some context in which to fit our good and bad experiences. Even the idea that there is no over-arching meaning that is certain, is a context that is better than endless confusion.

I grew up in a protestant home and received a clear religious framework of meaning. I have since become a non-believer. Starting out life with a clear structure of meaning enables one to change without falling into nihilism. Nihilism (no meaning, nothing matters...) is probably the worst of all possible worlds.

We can fashion a positive 'meaning of life', and live it.

On the other hand, family fights over politics are not a new thing.

During the Vietnam War, lots of families had lots of arguments about the premises of the war (domino theory), about the intentions of North Vietnam, about the effects the war was having on the troops, the policies of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, or about patriotism. Ronald Reagan was a lightning rod for arguments.

Family is one of the places where children (and parents) can stake out claims for what they believe, or what they don't believe, as the case may be, then defend the territory. Family argument is the cradle of opinion making, and learning the skills to have and deploy opinions.

Better to learn how to argue than to learn how to shut up.

people can be civil about these contentious topics — FlaccidDoor

They absolutely can be civil. A civil discussion between a Trump lover and a Trump loather probably won't result in changed positions, but if they can at least get to what it is about Trump (or any other politician, political issue, religious question... all sorts of things) that they love or loathe, that would be good.

And if "civil" isn't possible (sometimes it isn't) then one just has to leave it alone--the other
er civil approach.

Yes I am self centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to belittle your position or even trying to prove you wrong in the topic, but merely trying to convince you that conversation isn't futile. — FlaccidDoor

Mea culpas are not in order. You've started a good thread and you are tending to it. Looking forward to more good topics from you.

hank you for teaching me the word "echt" — counterpunch

There's that toy, the 'echt-a-sketch" -- police use it to make authentic drawings of suspects.

I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. — counterpunch

True enough, if the several great religions (Hindu, Buddhist, the 3 Abrahamic faiths) didn't originate with primitives, they were certainly picked up by them. The relatively small group of people who were critical in forming the great religions were probably sophisticated creative types. Just my guess.

As for

Peterson is a genuine believer - and maddeningly, makes no effort to reconcile these antithetical narratives, while depending on both religion and science for his arguments! — counterpunch

I don't think that one can actually reconcile them; one lays them down side by side--separate, not equal, one not advancing the other. I am no longer a believer, but I took my moral core from Christianity. Way too late to renovate that part of the castle. I look to science too. Science though wasn't intended to provide moral or ethical guidance. Guidance doesn't have to come from religion, but it's the handiest source for most people.

It's sort of like the paradox of Christ -- fully man, fully god. You have to have faith to deal with it. Science doesn't care and has nothing to say about it. So, go with science in the 99.999% of situations where faith doesn't help.

If you think I'm using a "strategy," let me go back to the abortion issue as an example. — FlaccidDoor

I was referencing "people in general", not you in particular. For "people in general" acting as if they were deliberating is a strategy, because most people's thinking (maybe everyone's) is, to a significant extent, shaped by their biases and steered by their emotions. When I hear a comment on Planned Parenthood, I have a positive knee-jerk response. I am biased in favor of the work they do (family planning, for instance, and yes, providing abortions).

As a gay male, abortion and family planning have never been a relevant issue to me, either. I've long had an interest in the Kinsey Institute, the Guttmacher Institute, a batch of gay organizations, AIDS research, and various other loosely connected groups, like PP. I don't know where all of my biases come from, but they are there. Experience, peer influence, work--stuff like that, I suppose. Maybe all the demonstrating by conservative Catholics against Planned Parenthood had something to do with my positive view of them.

At least for me, anyway, when I hear about the issues of the day my knee-jerk response is pretty quick. Not always -- Every now and then I do stop to consider and sometimes change my mind.

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. Pretending that we have not, that we are weighing the two sides on a sensitive scale, is a strategy more than a fact. We choose sides before we know it, given the heavy wash of social engagement.

George Floyd has been elevated to local sainthood, but here is a man with a string of criminal convictions, drug addiction, and petty crime--of the sort he was engaged in at the time of his final arrest. He wasn't resisting arrest so extreme that a fatality should have been expected. What the role of the fentanyl is on behavior, not sure. Probably not beneficial.

We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. — javi2541997

Very true.

Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better.

Do you believe that your family members' conservative views are due to their environmental upbringing? Do you think these environments create echo chambers where people radicalize? — FlaccidDoor

Environmental determinism? Could be -- something about cows, pastures, rolling hills, Minnesota weather... I'd say we all started out in the middle of the political road and then differentiated. The brothers lived in cities and became liberal, except for the one who lived in Colorado Springs (military town) who became a Trump man before Trump was a thing. The 4 sisters stayed in the small town and became more conservative in one of MN's congressional district that has always been Republican.

I think long-term social environment is extremely influential. We stay in places where we find like kind and then we become more that way. Or, we don't like where we are and move--and we don't have to go a long ways. The liberal core of the metro Twin Cities area has a radius of 10 miles. Outside the circle it's pretty much all conservative. This pattern holds in all of the large metropolitan areas of the country.

It is also the case that the political parties have shifted rightward. The Republican Party was once considerably more liberal, having a large wing of fiscal-conservative/social liberal members. They were driven out in the 60s and 70s. By 1980 it was Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party also shifted to the right. After all, ending welfare-as-we-know-it happened under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

A lot of the rightward shift has been driven from the top of society, by people most of us never associate with.

As for my leftward shift, it was driven by association too--liberal gay men, some socialist friends, and the like, and living in a liberal city.

Today (St. Patrick's Day) there was a long article in either the New York Times or Washington Post showing how segregated conservatives / Republicans and liberals / Democrats are. Liberals tend to occupy urban areas, conservatives tend to occupy suburban and rural areas.

Whether people moved to be with people whose thinking was congruent, or whether after moving their thinking changed to become congruent with their neighbors, I don't know. The movement of white people to the suburbs was completed maybe... 40 years ago, or more. By the mid-80s, there were some very strong conservative trends in the suburbs. Strong liberal trends have been present in urban areas since the 70s.

So, it's no surprise that family members shift to opposite sides of the debate table, depending on their circumstances. All of my conservative family members are rural. They are politically, religiously, and socially conservative. All my urban friends are liberal in the same ways, pretty much. Education doesn't account for this as well as geography does. Neither does economic status.

I do not get very far talking politics with very conservative people, especially blood relatives.

Additionally there are cases in which children, without the consent of their parents, was allowed to be given hormone therapy and such. — FlaccidDoor

With or without parental consent, it seems extremely hazardous to give anyone younger than 21 sex hormones for purposes of treating 'gender dysphoria'. Giving sex hormones to children might border on criminal medical malpractice.

Even if I don't accept their premises, some people believe they will benefit from gender-reassignment therapy. I have known a number of transgender persons and they seemed happier after they completed the treatment they desired. My sample is small, however. All of these people were adults --some middle-aged. They had had enough time to mature and work through their various issues. a 10 year old or 16 year old has emphatically not had enough time. Besides which their brains are maybe a decade or two from maturation (which is around age 26).

One of the older men I knew who transitioned had been trained in college as a behaviorist. He had no patience for humanistic psychology. He was also a vet, a recovering alcoholic, and homeless when I met him (in the agency I worked for). He was about 42. As far as I know, he did not have anything removed, but did get hormones and developed a somewhat feminized body. So, he reported feeling like he had the wrong identity since being a child. The amount of harassment he went through on his way was too great to justify a moderate desire to become the opposite gender. He REALLY wanted it. So, it worked for him.

Will it work for him or anyone else in the long run? Who knows. Not my call.

so I regret making this thread. — Gregory

So fine: you regret it. But you did, and it's a perfectly fine, if somewhat hazardous topic.

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity — Gregory

In a sense, yes. Religious interpretations are not restricted by physical realities. One can believe that a little guardian angel perches on one shoulder, and a little winged devil perches on the other. One can believe in souls just as easily as not. One can think one's soul / or body will get brought back from the dead one day (actually it IS the body that gets resurrected). One can believe in heaven or not, because there are no local, state, federal, or international laws forbidding it. (Well, usually not, anyway.).

Thinking that one is actually a female trapped in a male body (or some such rendition of that song and dance) is like religion -- you can think whatever you wish. Of course, if wishes were horses the peasants would ride. As it happens, they are not.

I suspect that much of the gender stir is actually a proxy for the more traditional and harsher realities that people are being forced to deal with.

I don't think genitals define the soul they are just body parts designed for pleasure — Gregory

Well, I don't think the genitals define the soul either, but they certainly define the body--the part that we actually know something about. Pleasure is the bait to get us to reproduce. Maybe orgasms are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, but probably not.

I think why people find this topic so engaging in a bombastic way is worth a discussion on it's own but I'll leave it alone for this thread. — FlaccidDoor

You can't get away with putting that interesting bait out there and then covering it up!

Sex / gender are bomb-making materials because they are such a basic part of our self-definitions. We are sexed one way or the other because we are embodied being, and how we are embodied matters to how we experience the world. Embodiment is THE fundamental fact of our existences. Start screwing around with that and you have trouble on your hands. (Not you; anybody)

I've even said that reproduction doesn't even define the sexes — Gregory

No? What are those various reproductive parts for, then--whether they get used or not?.

I'm trying to let this thread die because my ideas were causing people distress — Gregory

While I warned you away from the topic, there's nothing wrong with, on the one hand comforting the afflicted and, on the other hand, afflicting the comfortable (my favorite activity).

I am an old, ornery, binary, cisgender, gay, male, democratic socialist, W.A.S.P. (without the money and more of a Protestant atheist).

I view humans as one of many vertebrate species (and many invertebrates and plants) who are hatched out as either male or female. That physical reality is why we have 2 genders and not 3, 4, or 50. Individuals can imagine that they are not simple male or female (as per the evidence presented from an ultrasound or at birth), but almost always they are one or the other. Yes, that does limit people's gender identity options. Just drop the focus on gender. There are many ways of being in the world. There are plenty of options in that sense for everyone.

As to souls, I know nothing about them. "Soul" is a rather spongy noun.

Whether, and how quickly, one can 'let things go' and move on depends, to some extent, on how our personalities work. Some people are 'grudge holders' -- they don't forget bad things--not because they want to, they just can't do otherwise. Other people are more 'water off a duck's back'. They are able to forget, or move on with ease--not because they are virtuous, but because that's just the way they are.

Some depressed people perseverate -- 'repeat or prolong an action, thought, or utterance after the stimulus that prompted it has ceased'. Dwelling on bad events is a feature of depression. When depression passes they stop perseverating. (Not that you or you son is depressed - this is just a general observation.)

What happened to your son is most regrettable. Fortunately he is 21 and not 12, so he'll be able to put racist crap in context. All sorts of bad things happen to people: we live in a society where increasing economic and social pressures distort how people behave towards each other, and whether it is at work or on the street (or even at home) social friction has increased a lot. We definitely should not ignore it, nor should we think about nothing else.

I've never warned anyone off a topic before. It's for your own good, of course. You'll just get dumped on a lot.

I also would warn you away from this topic--NOT because you know less about gender, sex, transgender, etc. than banno or wood--but because it's a political minefield. You may know as much as the rest of us. Look:

Most people do not understand what being a trans person means
Many people do not have clear ideas about gender and sex -- or they have extremely simple ideas
The whole topic of transgenderism may be a crock. My suspicion is that a good share of it is a crock.

Quoting Jung about males castrating themselves is not a good idea. My suspicion is that a good share of Karl Jung may be a crock (along with much of Sigmund Freud).

I do not know why transgenderism is such a hot topic now. Probably the algorithms that determine what the New York Times, New Yorker, National Public Radio, et al will natter on about decided that transgenderism was hot.

Out in the real world, it's about the argument from power. In the real world, the argument from power is always the most powerful one, "criticial thinking" be damned. — baker

The Uber-powerful don't require your critical reasoning when it comes to doing what they tell you to do. It just requires your obedience. But you vs. the top dog isn't the only relationship you have. In many contexts, critical thinking is essential. The top dogs expect their minions to solve problems, and for that you need to think.

Another thing you need to think about critically is what answer the top dog wants. Guess wrong, and it's off with your head.

The uncertainty wasn't taken seriously, clearly. — schopenhauer1

No, it wasn't. 911 brought about some fairly radical moves -- grounding all air traffic for a few days, for instance, It was mercifully quiet without airport traffic. Now we have the stupid theater of safety at the airport. Last summer was pretty wonderful though -- there was very very little air traffic. Much less auto traffic around town, too. The weather was great -- except for police murders and the riots (which were diverting, at least) it was perfect.

In fairness, though, Covid-19 was a new disease, even if it belonged to a group of viral diseases that had already been identified. We should be able to respond to new diseases quickly and effectively, but that expectation depends on knowing the future.

When the disease that would soon be called AIDS was first identified in 1981, it was anomalous, involving some very odd, but very serious, symptoms, like Kaposi Sarcoma and Pneumocystis in atypical patients. Had public health officials known then that this weird new disease would kill 700,000 Americans and 32,000,000 people around the world in the next 40 years, they might have been more proactive.

Ebola and Marburg viruses, both fairly recently identified tropical hemorrhagic fevers, were instantly frightening and had a fatality rate close to 90%, so people gave these diseases (and the infected) a very wide berth. Covid 19 and AIDS killed nowhere close to the speed of Ebola.

Influenza kills between 30,000 to 50,000 people a year, give or take a few thousand, and makes millions of people quite sick. Still, less than half of adults bother to get vaccinated. Covid 19 has killed over 500,000 Americans, and quite a few people (they tend to be Republicans) fail to see a reason to get vaccinated.

A good response to a health threat requires two things: An alert and proactive public health establishment, and a responsive public. If the public isn't paying attention, it becomes difficult to protect people. It took a long time and a lot of effort to drive smoking down from the one-time level of over half of adults smoking to the current 14%. Some people still don't believe seatbelts are worth a slight inconvenience.

Some people have their heads permanently stuck up their asses.

Typically they claim that God is beyond our comprehension. — frank

One approach to God is to present the deity in altogether familiar, knowable terms. The opposite approach is to define God as unfathomable, incomprehensible, unknowable.

I hold that man created the gods, not the other way around, and defined the gods in various ways. The most problematic approach is to define God as unknowable, then to go on and explain why and how God does this, that, and everything else. It becomes nonsensical. I was raised to believe that God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. Fine, except that we have no idea what "being everywhere in all time, past and future" would / could mean. Ditto for God's other omni-features.

If God is a mystery, then shut about it.

Back in my religious days, I had no problem thinking that God caused the Big Bang. I never believed in the 6 day creation presented in Genesis. My then religious conception of God was that he was outside of time and space--he had to be, since he created the cosmos--God was before the beginning, At the same time, he inhabits his creation. Science accounts for the God's methods. Big Bang, evolution, pandemics, supernovae, etc.

That was my solution before I threw out the whole religious framework. Things are clearer now. There was a big bang which is still expanding, we are here on this minor celestial ball, and our prospects are partly-cloudy to dim.

If one were to estimate the number of people who are non-binary or trans by counting media references, one would come up with double digit figures. I don't know, how about 20%--that's a nice round number. Don't like 20%? Well then, .05%? 9%? 13%? 17%? Take your pick.

Or, how many homosexuals are there? By 'homosexual' I mean someone whose sex life is focused on same-sex relationships and who self-identifies as 'homosexual. It "used to be" a small number--around 2.5% Over time, gay activists / advocates jacked up the figure to 10%. If 1 in 10 men are homosexual, I'd like to know who was getting my share all those years!

Are the varieties of sexuality actually increasing in number, or is this an illusion produced by the chattering classes?

The Media tend to like 'hot topics'. No surprise, there. Soybean production figures make for extremely dull talk shows and imminently boring New Yorker articles. Let's talk about the exciting, hot new trans-sexuals / trans-genders, Heinz 57-categories of non-binary and asexual identities. It doesn't matter how many there are. They are the latest cause celebre.

Oppressed minorities are also a current hot topic among the chattering classes. Women, of course; but also blacks, asians, indigenous, illegal immigrants, et cetera. White male homosexual had our moment in gay liberation, around 50 years ago, with up-ticks for AIDS and gay marriage. We are passé at this point. I guess we've been mainstreamed, so... just another bunch of privileged white guys.

What individuals say and display about themselves may be a proxy for something else. A non-sexual example: Back in the day, images of Che Guevara were ubiquitous among "hippies". Were they really interested in the genuinely revolutionary politics of Guevara, or were they using his image as a proxy for their mildly counter-cultural rebelliousness? The latter, clearly.

"Trans" and "non-binary" identity may also be a proxy for other dissatisfactions and conflicts that people experience. I wouldn't say that is always the case, but it may be, quite often.

Keep a bucket of salt handy, so you can take the several grains needed when you hear or read about this stuff.

look at the spending habits of the young people — synthesis

I agree: The spending habits of young and middle aged people are very poorly informed. One doesn't need the top of the line cell phone, and -- by the way -- a decent phone lasts a lot longer than a year. A 5 year old phone will usually perform its primary functions just fine,

One of the reasons I could save money on my low-paying Catholic Church job was that I didn't consume much. I covered larger expenses with cash--no credit cards.

Granted: the economy now is not the same as 50 years ago. The value of $1000 in today (or to be precise 2019) would be worth $158.31 in 1972. MEANING $1000 has lost over 6 times its value since 1972.*** Declining or stagnant wages compound the problem.

True: some people are leaving colleges and getting high paying jobs that enable them to live on their own, travel, marry, have children, buy 4 cars (for 2 drivers), and have a mortgaged house full of @crap


*** Inflation Calculator

@crap Crap: A History of Cheap Stuff in America by Wendy A. Woloson. Buy this book and have yet 1 more piece of crap.

if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose — Arthur Schopenhauer

Then people could wish to be happy with whatever they had and to wish for nothing more. The wish would be granted. And they all lived happily ever after.

People can be content. It may not happen when they are 5, 15, 25, or 45, but as one ages (and understands the limitations of wishes) it becomes increasingly possible. Do we ever become totally content? There is no discontent in death, so there is that.

For most people (everywhere) the desires are for more materiel, because materiel is concrete, easily conceptualized, and (maybe) available. Better "art" (more moving, thrilling, unforgettable, riveting, meaningful, satisfying, complex... novels, poems, sculpture, music, painting, etc.) are more difficult to conceptualize, therefore more difficult to wish for.

We don't have to worry about it too much, because most people are about as close to paradise as they are ever going to get, and it isn't all that great.

So, question: do philosophical optimists wish for more, or are they content with what they have? I'd say the latter.

the percentage of adults receiving government benefits (over half) — synthesis

Working people pay taxes; they should get benefits. Rich people pay few if any taxes. They should not receive benefits (like tax give-aways). Better yet, just expropriate the to .001%. That's right: Take it all away from the billionaires.

the number of young adults (under 30) dug into their parents' basements — synthesis

The prime reason for this is the 50-year decline in income (and/or purchasing power) of working class people, and the maldistribution of wealth in the United States. Young adults can not earn enough to set up a home, even in dilapidated efficiencies. Comparison:

1971 - my take-home income: about $100 a week (worked for the RC church--last of the big spenders)
- my rent on a nice efficiency near work: $90 -- that's slightly less than 25% of income.
2020 85% of rental units in the same city are more than the cheapest $700 - 1000 range. To spend only 25% of one's income on rent one now has to bring home $48,000. Young adults might not be able to find a $1000 a month rent

Nanny-state — synthesis

The United States is the stingiest, least proactive nanny state among G20 countries. It's the most incompetent, negligent nanny that ever was (maybe after the Soviet Union).

the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up — baker

Personally, I haven't found that a desire for fine art follows sexual satisfaction. A cigarette, maybe, but please, no fine art in the bedroom.

Are you sure the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model is valid? Left to our own devices, I think most people would be reasonably satisfied once their broadly-defined basic needs are met. We, though, are NOT left to our own devices. For at least the last 100 years, retailers and manufacturers of all sorts have been using an array of communication methods to entice us into continually desiring more and "better".

The amount of consumption that occurred in most households began to rise sometime in the late 19th / early 20th century. Why, in 1915, was a house with 850 square feet of floor space considered adequate for 2 adults and perhaps 1 child? It was adequate because people didn't buy so much stuff! A typical man didn't own 5 suits, 20 shirts, 6 pairs of shoes, and enough underwear to change at least once a day for a couple of weeks. Same situation for women. One small closet and a small dresser could contain a couple's clothing. Books were usually borrowed from a library. A couch, a chair, and a lamp furnished a living room.

People with a great deal of money have usually accumulated a much more stuff than ordinary people -- nice, expensive stuff because it helped them maintain their status.

The argument about taxing parents vs. the rest of us is just not interesting; I don't see it as a problem.

But, the bigger problem here is that you claim that the hermit has rights but you haven't indicated how or from what source these rights came to him. You haven't claimed that rights are from God. That would be one way for him to have rights. You haven't claimed that they are from anywhere else, either. Did he just declare one day that he had rights? You or I could claim that we had rights, but how would the hermit, you, or I make it stick?

Have you heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It's a United Nations document. It grants numerous rights to everyone. But is the United Nations a sufficiently authoritative and powerful organization that it can create rights for everyone? Seems doubtful.

The Constitution of the United States enumerates the "inalienable rights" of American citizens. The authors of the Constitution thought the nation they were creating had the authority and the power to create rights. Citizens of the newly hatched country also thought that their nation had sufficient authority and power. As it turned out, the nation did not have quite enough authority and power to fully establish the rights the constitution enumerated. It's been a struggle.

The hermit has rights. It is wrong to kill him, yes? He is entitled to defend himself against your deadly attack. So he has a right to life. — Bartricks

Personally, I don't have any problem with the hermit having rights as an individual. It would be wrong to kill him. He has a right to life. So do I, so do you. THAT isn't the question. The question is where do the rights that we have come from? I think they come from a society that has enough authority and power to establish them. When states fail, the rights that they had once created begin to evaporate because the authority and power of the collective society is gone. A once orderly society becomes a chaotic and frequently fatal 'all against all'.

Once upon a time there were 10 early Homo sapiens adults kwho happened to be the only sentient species within the very large valley they found themselves in. The 10 were not related (beyond being the same species) and they had never met each other before. Each person was on his or her own, wandering about, foraging for nuts, berries, and tubers or fashioning spears and killed small game.

When one of the early people wanted to engage with someone else they used gestures and inarticulate noises, since they didn't have language yet [note, language isn't the issue here]. If one of them wanted to trade a roasted squirrel for some nice currants, the trade could be worked out.

Questions:

Did any of the 10 people have any rights? No.
Did any of the 10 people have any property? No.

Fast forward 100,000 years.

Once upon a later time, 100 people happened to live in close proximity to each other. Some of the people were children, some of the people were their parents, and some of the people were not related to anyone else. They tended some plantings of grains, but they still foraged and hunted. They could communicate with each other, so if they wanted to engage with each other, it was easy.

The place where they lived did not have a name. It wasn't organized. Shelters and piles of garbage were helter-skelter. There was no communal storage bin. Everybody kept their own little store of grain.

Questions:

Did any of the 100 people have any rights? No.
Did any of the 100 people have any property? No.
Did a government exist? No.

Fast forward 10,000 years.

Once upon a still-later time, 1,000 people lived together in a city with stone buildings. They raised grain and lentils, onions and parsley. They do not hunt or forage. A very minor potentate rules over the city and controls everything.

The very minor potentate divided up some of the land into little plots and said each person could raise whatever they wanted on the and, and they could keep it, except for 2% of the crop which the very minor potentate said belonged to him. People didn't have much in the way of material stuff, but they did have a little.

Questions:

Did any of the 1,000 people have any rights? Yes.
Where did their rights come from? From the very minor potentate's government.
Did any of the 1,000 people have any property? Yes.
Where did their property come from? From the very minor potentate's government.
Did a government exist? Yes, if you can call a very minor potentate a government, which you can.
Where did the very minor potentate get permission to rule over everybody? Executive Fiat.

The people didn't give themselves property. Until someone came along and created the idea of "property" and said, "All this is mine, and that little bit over there is yours. Keep your hands off my property or you'll be dead meat." the idea of having property couldn't exist. "Rights" to having property couldn't exist either until they were created by (in this case) the very minor potentate. "You have a right to grow whatever you want on your little plot of land. Remember to keep your hands off my property. You have no right to it whatsoever."

The government, such as it was--a tin-pot potentate--gave the people rights. Maybe he shouldn't have, but he did.

What happened to the 1,000 people living in the city run by the very minor potentate is a crude model of what would happen in the future:

a) people live together in large numbers and need a coordinator
b) the coordinator of all the activities a large number of people undertake becomes a government
c) the government, with the assent of the people, creates rights, or revokes them.

In time, people become very accustomed to the various rights they have and come to think that rights, like apples, grow on trees. They don't. They come from a collective of some sort that has the necessary power to either create or destroy rights. It might be the collective of all the king's horses and all the king's men, or it might be the self-constituted revolutionary government, the junta, or a committee democratically elected by the citizens to form a government snd define rights and responsibilities.

However it is done, rights are granted.

if they so wish, can decide to protect my rights — Bartricks

You talk of rights, but you do not explain where rights come from. Did you create your rights ex nihilo? Did you just decide you had something called rights? Why would anyone else care that you "had rights" all by yourself?

They wouldn't.

@Banno called this kind of thinking "the sovereign individual". In another discussion I called it "atomization" which you said you didn't understand.

You didn't invent the concept of rights; that was done long before you were born. Besides being born to parents who were playing an exceedingly cruel hoax on you (probably you in particular) you were born into a society of non-sovereign, non-atomized individuals which granted you rights.

It's way too late (by centuries) for you to invent your sovereign individual rights. You missed the boat -- sorry. [individual creatures, no matter what species, are always enclosed in a matrix of other individuals and other species. There are no 'sovereign individuals' anywhere!]

Look: I can understand the wish to be a sovereign individual, having the privileges of an absolute monarch. The desire is latent in our id-self per Dr. Freud. It happens to be an infantile, narcissistic desire. It is embarrassing to see an adult elevating the self-centeredness of a helpless infant to a philosophical platform.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, — I don't get it

Most people don't have to even try.

I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. — I don't get it

Well, look: In the BIG PICTURE, everything is screwed no matter what. In the end the sun expands and the earth ends up a cold cinder. Death is the end. Sic transit gloria mundi. We may not like it, but that, as they say, is tough.

Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. — I don't get it

"How to live one's life well" is a huge topic. Sorry, I'm not up to answering it just right now (not that I have the answer anyway). There are lots of guides that have been written over the last few thousand years. Start with the Stoics, many here would say.

First, understand that the world was not organized for our convenience or designed for our continual happiness. Accept the world as it is; that's where to start. Accept yourself the way you are, too. You can improve, but the place to start is self acceptance.

Set reasonable goals to work toward for the next few years. What's important to you? Work towards your goals. If you achieve them, great. If you don't, reconsider the value of the goals and try again, or try something else.

Do things that make you feel good (happy) and avoid optional things that makes you fl unhappy. Work is often a major pain, but that's how we get money to live. Don't look for fulfillment in a job, unless you just happen to be lucky and find a fulfilling job. Even if you do, it probably won't last (the fulfilling part).

Live frugally. Save money. The less you need to live, the less you are dependent on specific jobs. Having money in the bank will solve a lot of problems.

Do what you can to maintain a positive outlook on life. Yes, it helps.

You are running your life. You are not a robot or driven by an algorithm you have no control over. You have some choices.

that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. — I don't get it

Yes, there is an end. I'm 75. I used to be very sexually active. Over the years, the urgency with which I have desired sex has gradually decreased to where it is now seldom. And even when I do desire it, it is sometimes more bother than it is worth (takes too long, doesn't feel all that great, etc.)

Frankly, if my sex drive disappeared 100%, it wouldn't be missed. That would not have been the case even 10 years ago.

Lots of things I used to enjoy are not that much fun now, I still like to ride my bike, but what was once a short ride (10 miles) is now a long ride, and I have quite a bit of pain. I don't go for long walks for the same reason. Food isn't quite as enjoyable as it used to be because the senses of taste and smell are not as sharp as they used to be.

This is the way aging works, and it's OK.

Once more: if I have an illness that can be cured, but I do not wish to take the medicine that will cure me, am I entitled not to take it? Would you be doing me wrong if you ignored my wishes and forced me to take it? — Bartricks

The wish to die from the course of a disease can be addressed in an advanced directive. In the directive you inform your doctors of the point at which you wish treatment to cease (especially if you are unable to speak for yourself). If you are awake and apparently mentally competent you can refuse further treatment live and in person. So, yes, you can refuse care, and it makes sense to do so IF and WHEN you have determined that life will not be meaningful to you even if you survive.

I have been present with friends who refused further care, and they went home to die (not very quickly, in one case).

Well, by the same token, if I know that by visiting Jane I will die, but I wish to visit her anyway, then you're not entitled to stop me. — Bartricks

So yes: You, individually, are free to visit Jane, even though you know you will contract her disease and will then die. Jack is free to visit Jane and Harry, even though he knows he will contract their disease and die. Jane and Harry are free to invite Jack to attend their party, as long as they have informed Jack of the risks.

There is a shift there from you knowingly taking risk upon yourself with Jane. Jack is similarly free to knowingly assume risks. Jane and Harry would be acting in very bad faith IF they invited Jack to a party (or a game of croquet) WITHOUT informing Jack of the risk.

Are 100 people free to hold a really big, wild sex orgy where several diseases will be contracted by many people?

There is another shift: large numbers of people accepting an ambiguous risk.

I would say that the public's stake in individual behavior increases as the number of people involved increases. You deciding to die from your illness is tolerable from the public's point of view. You are competent to discharge your life in that manner,

The further we get from one person deciding how to dispose of their own life, the more freighted the matter becomes. The 100-person orgy will eventually affect many more than 100 people who did not consent to the consequences.

These are not hypotheticals. People do, actually, organize sex parties where many people will engage in risky behavior. People serve alcohol to people who will leave the place very drunk,People hold weddings in indoor spaces where everyone will be at some risk from Covid-19. Bar owners open up and maybe 200-300 people show up at an indoor space where Covid-19 can be transmitted.

Your individual situation doesn't map to large social gatherings.

So, put down your big book of laws, and engage your reason. Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment? — Bartricks

If it is reason you want, then our response is obvious:

Not only do we think you are entitled to turn down life saving treatment, we INSIST you turn it down. In fact, you should avoid coming anywhere close to a health care facility -- even veterinarian. Who knows? You might have kennel cough. Best start digging a hole and then get into it.

The problem I have with this natural tendency, is that it appears to be totally insatiable. — I don't get it

Of course, and obviously: our needs and wants are satiable, and are regularly satiated. There are outliers whose only response to desire is MORE. They are both outliers and abnormal. Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally.

Most people desire more money, but not an ever-enlarging absurdly huge pile -- with the exception of the most wealthy people who appear to have no limit to their pursuit of money. (Remember: the love of money is the root of all evil!)

One might love learning, and spend a lifetime learning more and more (quite possibly about less and less). I have engaged in life-long learning, but like sex, like fine oysters, like perfect pears and the best cheese--we reach a plateau of accomplishment. We reach a point where we say, "I now know as much as I desire to know about the Romanov dynasty and it's rule over all Russia from 1613-1917." Or "I have learned as much as I want about the Chicago Public Housing Authority. I could learn more, but... No."

Moderation is actually necessary to maintain pleasure. If one drank only the finest and rarest of whisky in quantity (as much as one could drink) it would no longer be a pleasure. One would be too drunk to care what one was drinking, and one's taste would become jaded.

am I now entitled to regulate your behaviour? Am I now entitled to insist you stay indoors if a virus is on the loose? — Bartricks

Public Health officials have the authority (and power) required to regulate behavior and impose quarantines or vaccination requirements, if the threat is dire and high enough. For the common cold, no. For ebola, yes. For Covid 19, yes. For polio, yes. For mumps, measles, and chickenpox, yes.

Of course you know what an atomized society is -- all individuals without social obligations -- Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as 'society'" ideal. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, since you need reading assistance, we do live in a society with obligations, Maggie T. not withstanding, and what we do individually affects other people.

Obtuse abject obliviousness would 'work' for you IF you lived in an atomized society (like the isolation wing of a prison) but you don't--as far as I can tell, but appearances can be misleading.

It's about one's right to take risks with one's own life if one wants. Imagine everyone apart from you gets an illness that can easily be cured, but no one wants to take the cure and would rather die. Well, that's everyone's right, yes? — Bartricks

In an atomized population your argument works. In a society where individual behavior makes a difference to other people, whether intended or not, your argument doesn't work, because:

individual risk taking has social costs -- HIV is a very good example, and so is covid-19. Caring for sick people requires an allocation of resources which can be exhausted by excessive disease. The set of covid-19 control measures was designed to prevent scarce resources--icu departments in particular, and hospitals in general, from being overwhelmed.

"Individuals can do whatever they want to do as long as it affects only them" does apply in many situations, but public health costs isn't one of them.

The fentanyl deaths even right here in my little town? — fishfry

But fentanyl, oxycodone, heroine, meth, other drugs, and alcohol have been a leading cause of death in the affected demographic for 2 or 3 years, at least -- haven't they?