Exactly.

The reason why "self-defense" in the moment of imminent or ensuing harm is acceptable is that the central nervous system does not allow reflection at the moment of crisis. Instead, physical resources are marshaled and directed against the threat. We either survive or we are dead. If we had time to carefully sort out the moral implications and then act, we probably were not existentially threatened.

If you can flee, you should flee.

Needless to say, provoking an attack so that self-defense can be invoked is immoral.

I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate — Vera Mont

One Art
Elizabeth Bishop 1911 – 1979

The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.

Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.

I lost my mother’s watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn’t a disaster.

—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident
the art of losing’s not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.

Certainly related, but not the same.

Having spent days... months... years... in a state of delusion or deep misinformation about all sorts of things -- all of which seemed perfectly clear and sensible at the time -- it seems that most people are, at times, incapable of distinguishing shit from shinola [a fine brand of smelly brown shoe polish].

Over time, IF we are persistent and studious, we can reduce the amount of delusion and misinformation on which we were operating, say 10 years ago. In other words, rear-view vision is better than forward-facing vision.

The delusion de jour is that I am less deluded in my old age than I was in youth or middle age. One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. Not nearly as much. Age and the ever-closer proximity of death eliminates many of the issues that concerned us in the past. Numerous options are closed now, and over which one might have dithered in the past.

Nature isn't "the peaceable kingdom", but it isn't entirely "red in tooth and claw" either. Take a lion and a herd of grazers. The grazers can tell if the lion is stalking them or not. If not, they graze on. If yes, they take evasive action, collectively. Lions have limitations, they don't want to get kicked in the head, so they look for a the lame, the halt, the old, and go after them.

Many animals live in status systems. The top chicken gets to peck at the choice kernel first, on down to the lowest chicken who is lucky not to get pecked to death. The top cow goes through the barn door first; a challenger might try to go through the door first, in which case, the top cow and challenger right get stuck in the doorway.

Many animals also communicate with scent. They may not "design" the scent, but they take the initiative in marking territory. Tall male dogs try to piss higher up on the tree than everybody else, the better to establish 'place'. Please don't leap to any semblance you may see in human male behavior.

It all amounts to a reasonably decent arrangement.

BTW, I'm not finding this thread very interesting.

Certainly there are many meaningful and meaning-giving endeavors which we can undertake. But for better or for worse, we are made by our relationships with other people -- parents and siblings first, then peers, teachers, neighbors, gangs, acquaintances, partners, lovers, etc. There's nothing simple or guaranteed about any relationship. Living in relationship with others can be hard -- maybe impossible with some people.

On the one hand, you could spend the rest of your long life sorting out just some of the issues tangled up in the theology and history of Judaism and Christianity -- and it would be quite interesting, but it won't in itself make you a better person.

On the other hand, you could try to apply the summation provided by Jesus: Love one another as I have loved you. (John 13:34) Doing this will make you a better person, whatever else you decide to do in your life.

You have a scholarly bent, and that is a good thing--don't lose it. But when you are looking for meaning in this life, you will find it in your relationships with other people. There's no contradiction here. Practice good scholarship with your books and practice loving kindness with your neighbors.

I hold that it does, but you have track it down like anything else to discover what the essence of religion is. — Astrophel

And what is the essence of religion, which I assume you have tracked down?

You must begin and end with the world. — Astrophel

I totally agree. This world is all we know, and all we can know, however much we rattle on about God, heaven, hell, etc.

I guess all who want to be more critical, and dubious about the set of norms, tend to be against the Church. — javi2541997

And, sometimes, the church is against members who deviate too far from the tenets of the faith.

These days, people are usually not thrown out of main stream churches for disagreements over theology. Back in the 1980s, two theologians studied what active church members in Minnesota actually claim to believe. The results were sometimes very surprising. About 7% of active church participants did not believe in the resurrection, for instance. Were the study, Faith and Ferment, repeated today, it is likely that the results would show decline in belief in basic tenets, like the resurrection,

And, as it happens, nobody is going to get drummed out of a mainline church for not believing this or that tenet.

In the same way, mainline churches are more accepting of homosexuality than they used to be. They may not approve, but they won't stone their gay members. They just won't marry or ordain them (which is the situation in the Methodist Church. The Methodists are splitting the denomination over the issue of homosexuality, letting the least tolerant congregations leave (there is a substantial monetary penalty for leaving, however).

Conservative churches (like Southern Baptists, tend not to be as tolerant as Lutherans or Anglicans. African churches tend to be more conservative than North American congregations.

I am not even baptised. — javi2541997

Do you think you would benefit by being baptized? In mainline theology, Baptism provides for the erasure of original sin, something cooked up by the early church. Baptism doesn't make you a church member, it makes you part of the body of Christ. It's all very mystical, but you do get wet.

The main problem I have with "spirituality" among the people I have talked with who claim to be "spiritual rather than religious" is that when pressed for details, they are unable to explain -- even generally - what spirituality means to them. I think what a lot of them are doing is "dodging". They don't want to say they are atheists, which has a bitter flavor to them, so they just say they are "spiritual".

There was a popular comedy show in Minneapolis a few decades back titled "Being Atheist Means Never Having to Say You're Lutheran". The title might have been the best part of the show, for all I know. Minnesota is the land of Lutherans.

Do you feel the same? — javi2541997

I'm not spiritual. What I have is a very conflicted relationship with religion, church, and God, who I am fairly certain does not exist.

I like formal religious ceremony; I like the music of the church; I like the social connection which belonging to a congregation can provide; BUT I don't believe in the creed. The first sentence is tolerable: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen..." But then it gets into the dicier matter of Jesus' divinity, death, resurrection, and co-existence with God: "For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man." And "On the third day He rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.".

Unitarians (something like your non-theistic Quakers) do not believe in the Trinity; there may or may not be God. Jesus was an ordinary man. The Holy Ghost doesn't figure into it at all. No virgin birth, no resurrection, no kingdom. There aren't many unitarians here, but I probably belong more with them than Lutherans or Methodists.

Aside from theology, millions of contemporary people have had very unpleasant experiences with The Church over homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and various other issues. So have I.

Former church members who are now "spiritual" are probably trying to preserve a memory of what they once had in their hands. I can understand that. Their children don't have a memory of church membership, and for some or many of their children, "spirituality" will fade out.

Your situation, Javi, isn't the same as the former church members. Your spirituality appears to be 'de novo'. I wish you every success in developing your own spirituality.

Like the police chief, you are comically shocked--SHOCKED!--to find contradictions, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy in the institutions and practice of religion.



In what context are humans NOT contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical?

Now try to name one step along this road which was not bitterly opposed by the Christian religion. The emancipation of women; birth control; the abolition of slavery; universal free education; inoculation against diseases which cripple children; the universal franchise. Every modern development which has tended to reduce the sum total of human misery, and increase the general balance of health, happiness and prosperity, has been fought on the beaches and in the streets by one section or another of the Christian church. — alan1000

Sometimes liberation was sponsored by Christians, sometimes Christians were opposed to liberation movements at different times and in different places. Your blanket condemnation of Christianity overlooks a hell of a lot of historical complexity.

Which Christians opposed Jenner's smallpox vaccination in 1791, or the polio vaccination in the 1950s? Are you proposing that anti vaxxers are all Christians? (Some of them are.).

Apparently you think that Christendom has been an entirely religious playground for the last 2000 years? Are you not aware that there were other powerful institutions operating along side the church from St. Peter on down to 2024? Food for thought: Christianity was as strongly influenced by the Roman Empire as the Empire was influenced by the church -- maybe more so. It was corrupted from the get go.

Anyone familiar with the history of Christianity is aware of both its egregious failures and its shining successes. The church is a human institution and as Kant said, "nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind."

The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. — Ciceronianus

This is a feature that many faithful are loath to claim. Fundamentalists (whatever faith) not only claim it, they get high on it.

Relatively conservative and liberal values slosh back and forth in the bucket of mainstream American Christian politics. Sometimes some Protestants have been liberal, same for Catholics. There have been progressive Protestants and progressive Catholics; there are more often conservative Protestants and Catholics.

A lot of people have left the church; I suspect many of them took their politics with them. If they were liberal Catholics, they are now liberal ex-Catholics, and visa versa.

But it isn't the mainstream where the danger of Christian Nationalism lies: It's in the extremely conservative branches of Christian political behavior.

The Church hatches a few liberation-oriented movements every now and then. One thinks of liberation theology in South America. Or the Catholic Worker Movement in the United States (it's tiny). Even mainstream Protestants can lay a progressive egg or two and hatch a little progressive flock.

Still, as a group (and it's a big group) American Christians do not buck the system.

The pope seems to be having difficulty running his own shop, never mind the U.S. But Christian Nationalism is a real and present danger. Its main feature is its irrationality. A complaint I heard yesterday: Palm Sunday was not listed on a bank calendar -- proof that the state is trying to suppress Christianity. Other themes: White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat.

Really, just about anything / everything. It's difficult to argue with people who are receiving these crazy bat signals. A lot of Nazi dogma was irrational too -- complete nonsense -- but it tied into inchoate prejudices of various kinds. White Christian nationalism likewise taps into discontents that arise from various sources (like the stresses of scientific rationalism on traditional beliefs; increased economic insecurity; social disruption; unwanted social change, etc. etc. etc.) Right-wing propagandists fan the flames of discontent.

Your 1913 book is a reminder that this kind of conspiratorial thinking is not a new phenomenon in American culture, and it isn't so small and weak that it amounts to only a curiosity. The KKK of the 19th century is gone, but new versions have sprung up: different leaders, different followers, different centers of activity, the same bat-shit kind of thinking.

"Mind the gap!"

Biblical studies are fascinating, partly because there is a critical gap between the content of the New Testament and the events which may have inspired the various authors that cannot now be illuminated, if it ever could have been. This isn't a significant barrier for most believers, while being catnip for scholars.

The real Jesus may not be represented in the Gospels (all sorts of biographical pieces are missing) and that's not a barrier to most believers either, because each believer conjures up the Jesus they need. Believers do the same thing for God.

In all, an excellent thread for Holy Week.

formal education versus autodidact learning: the absence of studied criticism in the latter — jgill

This is quite true. Self-directed learning can turn out very lopsided, just owing to the lack of direction and resistance from other students or teachers. I was not a very reflective student in college, and I wasn't a very reflective student out of college, either. I became a much better 'scholar' after I retired.

The big mistake in my state college experience was my plan to teach English. I just wasn't cut out to be a high school teacher, and was blind to this fact. I don't regret majoring in English; maybe a BA majoring in social science (or sociology/psychology) would have made more sense. I ended up in social service work, where Chaucer and Keats were not all that helpful.

State colleges and Universities are still a pretty good deal. In the 1960s state support of higher education was still strong, and tuition and housing were very affordable.

Let me know your thoughts and any additional knowledge and views on the education system and schools. — pursuitofknowlege

Question: Does education enable children to exceed their parents' economic performance?

Answer: Yes, IF the parents' economic performance has been very good.

Successful, affluent, socially connected parents give their children the means to success through education, social experiences, and connections. Working class parents usually do not themselves achieve economic affluence and extensive connections among the managerial and professional class. Consequently, many working class children match or fail to match their parents economic achievement.

This is especially true given the decline of real wages over the last 50+ years. The post-WWII economic boom which enabled a lot of upward mobility was dead in the water by 1970. After 1970, economic success has become increasingly more difficult.

Question: Is economic success equivalent to Aristotle's "flourishing", achieving the potential of what I could be whilst enjoying and finding value in all the suffering, hardship and pain It would take to get there?

Answer: No, it is not, but a certain level of economic security is necessary to have the leisure to flourish. Wealth isn't necessary, but a balance between income and expenses is. One can choose to live frugally so that one can spend the time needed to flourish intellectually and emotionally. Working 60 hours a week plus commuting time to cover the mortgage, car payment, credit card bills, student loan, plus all the expenses of a family will not leave much time for Aristotelian flourishing,

Wealthy people don't have to balance a small budget. Educated but poor people have to find a way. It is possible, but (especially material) sacrifices have to be made.

At 77, it's been a long time since I was in school, but I've been professionally interested in education. Schools have several functions: teaching basic skills, imparting a minimum body of knowledge, basic vocational preparation, citizen training, crowd control, consumer education, etc. The emphasis varies from school to school.

Children of the upper middle class who will fill managerial and professional roles receive excellent education. Their parents locate themselves in communities where good schools are well financed. Children of the poor get the least in quality and quantity of education. The middle may or may not receive fairly good education, depending on where they live, community standards, etc.

About a third of the population completes a bachelor's degree, which by itself is no longer a ticket to economic success.

I was an unlikely and unpromising college student back in the 1960s. I had not done well in high school and I had no great expectations of a career. Thanks to an intervention, I attended a state college. It was tremendously valuable in terms of acquiring some social skills and general knowledge (I majored in English). The degree itself was still very useful in 1968.

Maybe the most important thing I learned in college was what an education is supposed to be -- and I have continued to pursue it since graduation, sometimes by attending class, mostly through experience and reading.

People would rather convince themselves it's not raining despite being soaking wet if they felt strongly enough and had the ideological motivation to do so. — Outlander

Exactly!!!! One of my elderly sisters, a fundamentalist and Trumper, maintains all sorts of illogical, unreasonable ideas about religion and politics. When countered, she flies into a rage. On other matters, lie medical care or car maintenance, she is very rational.

Now imagine, unbeknownst to this person, that he's actually *bad* at applying reason and logic to things. — flannel jesus

Based on my personal experience of not applying reason and logic to things, I can attest to the unpleasant consequences that can result. However...

Man does not live by logic and reason alone. Our very robust emotional systems are often first on the scene of decision making, and they have little interest in logic.

The only way to get more radical or catastrophic than global economic collapse, is to nuke ourselves. — Vera Mont

Which our dear leaders might just do.

The thing is, "the system" we find ourselves in escapes our control from the beginning. We can't even be precise about what "system" is operating today until some indefinite time in the future.

Nobody announced that the Medieval Age was over and that the Renaissance had begun, The Enlightenment was not televised. There was no notice in the paper that an Industrial Revolution had happened. When did our "modern period" begin? 1600? 1760? 1823? 1880? 1910? 1922? 15 minutes ago?

The system, whether we like it or loathe it, will become something else right under our noses, and we won't register the change. It isn't that we are too stupid to notice: it is that large scale gradual changes are too large for us to notice.

I'm not suggesting the futility of understanding our circumstances. I'm just pointing out that we better understand what happened 100 years ago than we do what is happening right now.

nobody seems to have any idea how direct or control the change — Vera Mont

You put your finger on one of our (humanity's) great problems. We have never known how o direct and control change in a way that benefits the largest number of people, only how to benefit our little group of controllers, and not always then.

We could arrange society, and our daily lives, much differently than we now live them. (Not everyone, but) many people would enjoy a simplified life.

The problem in a mass simplification of life is much like the problem of radically reducing CO2, methane, and other emissions in a short period of time: If (somehow) we could cease all the industrial activity going into wasteful production, transportation, and consumption, we could reduce, slow, and eventually reverse global warming. However, too radical a change in economic structure would be catastrophic. Accidental catastrophe is bad enough, and no one wants to deliberately cause a catastrophe.

Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

One line of American leftist theory is "industrial democracy". The idea is that workers own, control, and operate the productive business of society. Industrial democracy was the core idea of Daniel DeLeon, a 19th /20th century Marxist. The Socialist Labor Party promoted DeLeon's work, but (unfortunately) ended up deep in the weeds of bureaucratic despotism. Their core message was taken up by the New Union Party, which gave up the ghost about 15 years ago.

Industrial Democracy does away with owner-management in favor of worker management.

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". — Vera Mont

Jobs, and work, are necessary because our individual and collective needs do not grow on trees, just waiting to be plucked. Life is quite literally difficult. It's hard to extract food, fiber, and metal from the earth. Our hunter-gatherer forebears were few in number, lived in a moderately abundant environment, and had few requirements beyond food, water, some sort of shelter, a few stone/wood tools, and survival knowledge. They didn't have to spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, hoeing corn, picking cotton, tending cattle, and feeding the chickens. They didn't have to mine iron, smelt aluminum, haul coal, and so on, life was comparatively simple for them.

We've been on a 12,000 year project of making life better or worse, depending on your POV. During the last 150 years, the complexity of life increased a lot.

"Jobs" consist of tasks that have to be repeated continuously over a long period of time. A big share of the tasks that need to be done are complicated enough that one has to learn how to do them, practice them, and be rewarded (intrinsically and extrinsically) enough to keep showing up and doing the same thing over and over.

Got milk? If you do, it's because somebody was milking cows twice a day, every day--doing their jobs. Mail arrived? If it did, it's because thousands of people were doing their job. Drive to the store? If you can it's because many, many people were doing their jobs to make cars, build roads, and haul groceries across country, and putting them on the shelf for you to buy.

"The function of Existentialists values is to liberate humankind from craven fear, petty anxiety and apathy or tedium. Existentialists values intensify consciousness, arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies." — Rob J Kennedy

How does existentialism liberate anyone from 'craven [contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly] fear? Petty anxiety? Apathy? Tedium?

There are various meditation practices that can 'intensify' consciousness.

Is arousing the passions and committing the individual to a cause that will engage their total energies a desirable end? What if the cause is evil?

The program on YouTube dates back to 1961. Nothing wrong with 1961. It's just that "educational television", the video style, soundtrack, and so forth are very dated. I'm an old guy and I remember the period. Ten hours of Hazel the talking head? It sort of looked like more tedium.

One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."

That sounds nice, but from whence came the content of my mind which was capable of grappling with my purpose and meaning? The church, school, parents, peers, etc. had a lot of opportunity to provide content before I got around to defining purpose and meaning. How we exist in the world isn't our choice either -- not for the formative years, anyway. After one has existed for a couple of decades, one can pompously declare one's authentic purpose and meaning, like it was a revelation.

Baloney. People do what they can to get through the day in one piece.

The twentieth century had so much activism for the quest for liberation for women, black people and LGBTIQ people. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Peak activism developed after 80 years of Jim Crow oppression of black people. There was an upwelling of activism which was well led by a core of very talented activists. The 1950s brought a release from the economic restrictions of the 15 years of the great depression and WWII. Women's liberation wasn't triggered solely by The Pill, but it helped a lot. Gay Liberation, like the other liberation movements, had been percolating slowly, and burst out in 1969. There was a synergistic relationship among the various liberations.

Mentioning Bertrand Russell brings up the strong anti-nuclear weapons demonstrations which were perhaps more active in the UK than the US. There was the anti-war movement in the US and the student-led protests in France (don't remember what that was about). It was a heady time!

Did all these movements change policy/behavior in a major way?

They did. But there are limits. Nuclear policy was too massive to be turned aside. 70+ years after Russell was active in anti-nuclear demonstrations, production of new plutonium pits for atomic weapons has started up at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Women's and GLBT liberation panned out pretty well. Black liberation moved mountains, but the fundamental disadvantages imposed on black people in the US are very difficult to remedy.

Success on the one hand; fatigue on the other. There are strong efforts by citizens to slow down climate change, but there are stronger efforts by Big Carbon to keep petroleum front and center; then there is coal and meat production (I'm not a vegetarian).

For myself, it just seems like we are screwed. Triumphant capitalism will solve the problem of global warming as soon as it figures out a way of making it very profitable. So far it hasn't.

I'm old; I will be surprised if I am still here 10 years from now. Maybe my "sell by" date is considerably closer. Keep up your courage.

if sex is “assigned,” then we’ve officially rendered these words meaningless. — Mikie

According to Google Ngram, "gender assigned at birth" didn't show up in print very often until the mid 1980s. "Sex assigned at birth" didn't appear in print until around 2000. Then the curve was almost straight up for both phrases.

When I first encountered trans people in the 1970s, they presented to other people very much the way gay people did: "I'm different than most people; I've been dealing with this difference for a long time and it's difficult; I want to express the 'real me'".

Gay people and transgendered people both had to 'make it up as we went along'.

30 years later, the situation was considerably different for transgendered people. There were now publications, medical support, groups, and politics. Trans people were more likely to take risks and push boundaries. And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!!

Must we resort to Professor Milgram's shocking experiment to illustrate obedience? It isn't that Milgram has been invalidated. His experiment has been replicated with pretty much the same results.

It's just that blind obedience in some common settings is a virtue. We expect people to obey traffic laws--preferably without question. Drive on the correct side of the road below the speed limit, while obeying all the other rules of the road. Failure to do so results in death often enough.

People in ordinary work experiences generally obey the authority figures who supervise them. If they do not, it isn't an actor on the other side of the glass who will be punished. It's the disobedient worker. Quite often it's important that the workers follow instructions exactly. The books won't balance if accounting workers make up their own rules. Steel won't be strong if foundry workers don't follow the formula.

I have not been in a Milgram experiment. I don't know, for sure, how I would respond. My guess is the participants saw no alternative. There was probably no "heads up" alert that they were going to be asked to do something highly questionable. There was probably no discussion in a group before individuals agreed. They walked in to the lab, alone, and were told by an academic agent that they should push the button, again/.

The Milgram experiment reveals the risks of operating in life without a constituency (i.e., a circle of friends or associates who provide feedback on right-behavior). Left to our own devices without a reference group, any one of us can go off the deep end of ethical choices. I was once brought up short by a co-worker who correctly saw my research plan as unethical. She was right -- it was, but before her confrontation I was ready to do it. (It was psychologically invasive, didn't provide for consent, etc.)

BTW, you started yet another good discussion here.

It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. — Jack Cummins

No, you didn't but the psychosocial aspects of rebellion or obedience are very important. Many who chafe under authority are unable to take off their sabots and throw them into the gears, so to speak. This isn't a fault; it's just reality. Over time, non-conformists develop capacity to resist, to man the ramparts, so to speak.

Resistance and rebellion require justification. One has to keep one's mind clear about why one is making the sacrifices required to challenge authority. resisting the system, rebelling... because the system will strike back. Challenging the boss will. as a rule, result in one's firing. Getting fired (especially too often) may result in dire poverty (like, unhoused homelessness). Usually not, but good competent people do end up on the street, even if they didn't rebel.

The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities.... This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression. — Jack Cummins

I'm in favor of 'chosen destinies' over being a slave to tradition and authority. Where, when, and whether one can manage that depends on just how many "chosen destinies" society is willing to tolerate. I grew up in a time when American society was reasonably tolerant -- the '60s and '70. Not so tolerant that rebels were given medals, certainly. Challenging the authority of various institutions was expensive.

But it was possible. Over time it has become more difficult to to challenge the system, and more difficult to bear the costs. In addition to society changing, I was getting too old to put up with the downsides of a precarious existence -- so I settled for as much security as I could eke out.

At some point, rebels retire. They don't become conservatives because they are now living in a high rise elderly apartment. That is the story of the best rebel I knew: he had become homeless and was living in some unidentified space, when somebody hooked him up with social services. Plus he was finally old enough to qualify for senior housing and was literally penniless -- general assistance covered minimal living expenses. He lived the last 7 years in decent housing, finally getting medical care and enough food. He remained a rebel till the end.

Congratulations! You are the first person to use 'antidestablishmentarianism' on TPF. Other than in the context of vocabulary practice, you are one of the few people I have read who used the word in an ordinary sentence.

embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion — Jack Cummins

Usage varies, but some people do not count non-conformity as a form of rebellion. Conformity / non-conformity are not very far apart. One might dress in a non-conforming way without being a dissident in any significant way. On the other hand one can dress with complete conformity and be a bomb-throwing anarchist revolutionary.

I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins

And the conformity enforcer at the office demands to know what right you have to avoid automated robot hood which everybody else accepts!

I am quite sympathetic to your plight. At various times I have found it difficult to blend in, successfully be part of 'the group'. In my case, political views were not the cause. The cause was a set of behaviors and personal flaws. I have been at times and in some important ways, socially incompetent. The personal became political. I gravitated toward out-groups because I fit in with them better.

So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction...

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

Undifferentiated rebelliousness against authority, for example, is probably mostly affliction. We run into somebody's authority no matter what we do.

I define 'rebellion' as material action aimed at degrading the status quo; subverting the dominant paradigm; destroying 'the system'; etc. Nonconformity doesn't cut it, not matter how outré. Anti-war demonstrations are not rebellions. A riot might be a rebellion, if it is aimed at something higher than looting the local Walmart. The Declaration of Independence wasn't rebellion; rebellion was shooting redcoats. Demanding an end to monarchy isn't rebelling. Chopping off Charles I's head was, or Charles III's would be.

Karl Marx had revolutionary ideas, but publishing them was not revolutionary. In his personal life, Uncle Karl was a slob (but Hail Karl Marx, none-the-less). Organizing the working class in London or Detroit was the significant political act.

For most of us, the opportunity to materially rebel will occur at work. In capitalist society, work is where the boss extracts value from workers. Whatever the operation, there is a lot of similarity from office to office, factory to factory, non-profit to non-profit. Engaging in union organizing is a form of rebellion; stealing time or materiel from the boss is another way. Refusal to perform demeaning tasks, especially in front of other workers, is a form of rebellion. Bosses generally do not like confrontations. They prefer workers to do what they are told to do, and shut up about it, thank you very much.

I resisted, rebelled overtly at work several times. Once or twice it had beneficial results. Mostly, though, they were glad to see me gone. covert rebellion (like stealing time for my own purposes) was more successful. I wish I had found ways to rebel more effectively. Better to be part of a pack of wolves rather than a lone-wolf who is easily picked off. Too late now.

Some movements are slippery and pinning them down is difficult. One author said that the behavior of fascists (how they operate) is more important than what they believe. If Huey Long, George Wallace, Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump can all be defined as "populists", then apparently what is unique about populists is how they engage in politics Bernie Sanders and George Wallace are far apart ideologically, but both of them had a mass appeal (just not 'mass' enough to win). They were both 'insurgents'. So was Donald Trump, who did get enough votes (once and never again we hope).

Long, Wallace, and Trump also smelled more than a little like fascists, something I wouldn't say about Perot or Sanders.

The language of "elites" is as screwed up as the language of "class". A sociologist looks at society and sees classes -- working class, middle class, upper class, ruling class, etc. Class is definable by various features (blah blah blah -- you know this, so I won't go on). "Elite" is a familiar adjective when applied to athletes--think gold medal olympians. "Elite" also applies to those who have, guide, and execute power--the Power Elite of money, military, and politics. The power elite is a fraction of the wealthy top class. There may be 5 million people in the wealthiest class, of whom maybe 50,000 compose the power elite. Some of them are technocrats; quite a few of them are extremely successful capitalists; a few of them are politicians (politicians usually come from below the elite classes, but serve the elite if they want to stay in office); some of them are military elite; there are artists who are elite in their field--most of them nowhere near as wealthy as Taylor Swift

The elite class supports both political parties, more or less consistently, but not strictly; they occasionally support counter-cultural movements like the civil rights movement which was bucking the Jim Crow system 70 years ago.

So much of what goes on in society is managed by the power elite directly or indirectly. How much will we give to Ukraine? How much to Israel? Taiwan? How many millions of asylum seekers/border crossers/migrants will we accept? How much will the rich be taxed? How oppressed will the poor be? How much are we going to do, or not do, about global warming? So on and so forth.

The elite are not sitting up there pulling strings; they aren't puppet masters because the masses are not puppets. It's much more a trickle down process, where the stated interests of the elites flow downward from on high through various academic and institutional channels until it reaches the pavement.

It is important to bear in mind that the Elites are not necessarily nice. It may suit them to have someone like Donald Trump stumbling around in the china store; maybe some of them feel that the liberal establishment needs to be braked. One thing IS quite certain -- the ruling class has class consciousness, and they know (in detail) what is good for them. They don't like chaos, loss of control, uncontrolled violence, and so on. They prefer to operate in an orderly society where people do what they are told to do, so up about it, thank you very much.

So, a lot of the discourse about privileged elites, progressives, populists, authoritarians, fascists, and so on is just peripheral chatter.

G. William Domhoff has done extensive research in the American Ruling Class, the power elite, and how it maintains and perpetuates itself. Here is aYouTubetalk by Domhoff. He did his main research and writing decades ago, but got it right. In his later hears he has turned his attention to neurocognition and dreaming.

Maybe it's odd that the United States hasn't had more populist movements?

On the one hand, 'the people' have been ruled by a small elite since the beginning. During many of the past 250 years, the elite has run rampant over 'the people'. On the other hand, the elite has successfully convinced 'the people' that there are no elites (against whom to fight). 'The People' rule! God bless the United States of America!"

Better than not having any elites at all, the American (and other) elites have done a good job depicting themselves as an attractive group of people. The Beautiful Rich are over there having a good time. Why should they not?

Why should they, one might better ask, given that their wealth has been stolen from the labor of the working class (either recently or in the past).

Is there a difference between a leftish populist (maybe Bernie Sanders) and a socialist committed to revolutionary goals? I think so. The socialist revolutionaries may not be in close touch with reality, but they do have a plan, a method, a goal which encompasses the whole population. Where socialists have dry, cold plans, it seems like populists have hot steamy resentments--directed at any number of deserving groups: muslims, immigrants, welfare mothers, women, gays, etc. etc. etc.

No.

No one is isolated from the or their outer world under generally normal circumstances. We aren't just conditioned rats. We are our impulses, desires, urges, fears, etc. etc. etc. It is our striving, conflicting, conflicted nature. That why life is difficult.

See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception. Neither are any other creatures on earth. We can't lose something we never had to begin with. And that's perfectly OK.

...is satisfying your desires such a worthy business? — kudos

It depends on the nature of the desire and the cost of achieving it. Most of us have desires which we do well to leave unsatisfied. .

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. — kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?

During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. — kudos

During earlier times women and children were thought to be innocent. What applied to men and adults didn't apply to them. They were exempt. Human beings--men, women, and children--whatever they might think about their personhood and being, from childhood to senescence, are not innocent. I do not mean they are evil, disfigured by some sort of Calvinistic stain, original sin, or any of that crap. I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence. This is not a bad thing -- it's all necessary for us to become effective agents in our own lives.

Innocence is the perfect dismissal: "Oh, you are too good, too pure, too 'innocent' for the real world." Bullshit!

Sorry, getting carried away here.

I would not.

Did Miss Brontë greatly desire bestial sexual escapades on the mountain top?

I don't have a personal definition. The dictionary says "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

The rituals of the church are no more magical than the various rituals we perform every day, like saying 'hello' to people on the street, or thanking the bus driver for letting us off the bus.

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence? — baker

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.

subconscious thermodynamics — wonderer1

:100:

One of the ways the magic of the eucharist affects reality is that it unites communicants in the magic. The bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ for those who embrace the magical spell, even if the bread and wine maintain their appearance. Taking communion is participating in magic.

Baptism affects reality more subtly. Most Christians are baptized as infants and the magic is performed only once per person and is not redouble or undoable (according to the theology of the churches). Most people will work out the meaning of their magical baptism quite a few years after the act, unless they are baptized as adults. Or, they won't -- in which case, the magic is greatly diminished. The magic of the eucharist comes to naught as well if the individual just 'goes through the motions'.

This is all true for the rituals and magic in daily life as we know it. Air heads miss out on it.

I tend to go for Guiness. — wonderer1

Stella Artois for me. And I like it cold, even though it is a superior European product.

not every ritual is a superstitious one — schopenhauer1

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you") has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual.