My John Donne never saw a film and never wrote a screenplay. He died in 1631, London; he was 59. He is considered one of the greatest love poets in English. He was a poet and a clergyman, Church of England. What my Donne and your Dunne have in common is that they are both dead.

Here is one of his characteristic poems - about how likely it is that a beautiful woman will remain both both beautiful and faithful. It's read by Richard Burton who had problems remaining faithful, as I recollect. So did his wife, Elizabeth Taylor.

Donne doesn't condemn the lady in the poem, however.

In The Flea, he contemplates the parasite that has just sucked blood from him and is now doing the same thing to the woman sitting near by. In his day, people had fleas. Fact of life.

Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which thou deniest me is;
It sucked me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;
Thou know’st that this cannot be said
A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead,
Yet this enjoys before it woo,
And pampered swells with one blood made of two,
And this, alas, is more than we would do. (two more stanzas)

The flea has mingled blood that is not going to get mixed in any other way -- certainly not by he and she having sex. The flea is luckier than he.

Writers like Shakespeare's and Donne's writing was loaded with memorable phrases that have taken an independent existence -- like "for whom the bell tolls" or "First thing we do is kill all the lawyers".

What I said was in the context of, and stimulated (caused?) by TheMadFool's Latin quote. It directed me down a particular thought-path.

Generally, I am very tolerant of unproven, evidence-free statements--Not because I believe everything I hear, but as you said, "because it can lead to fruitful lines of thinking".

I do not have a dog in this fight, but it seems like Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur is valid. I can claim there is intelligent life on 23 planets, but I make this claim without evidence. There are quite a few planets that MIGHT POSSIBLY host life of some sort, and there is evidence for that claim. But there is no evidence at all for the claim that 23 planets host intelligent life. So you can say, "No there are not." with as much confidence as I said it with. "Donald Trump is a moron." can be asserted and dismissed with equal confidence. There does not seem to be any evidence for his being a moron. There is no evidence that he is a distinguished statesman, either. He provides daily evidence that he lurches from topic to topic in his Twitter pronouncements.

A lot of discussion that goes on here is based on assertions without evidence. This is an entirely normal state of affairs, because we understand that we all have opinions about all manner of things that are not supported with evidence. If we had to present evidence for all our opinions, we would become terminally constipated and would eventually explode.

There was a scene in a movie made from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, where a couple finds themselves in a bubble/cage in the middle of space. They are in a large bed. The aliens ask them, "Have you mated yet?" We don't know why the aliens care whether they have mated or not, but apparently they are scientifically oriented aliens.

The humans protest that they have free will and may or may not mate, depending on their wishes.

The aliens respond that they have studied millions of sentient cultures in the universe, and only on earth is anyone concerned about "free will".

POINT OF STORY IN THIS THREAD:

MAYBE what the aliens will tell us is that some of our philosophical concerns are nothing more than oddball hangups. Being concerned about free will and the meaning of the universe strikes me as hang ups. For one thing, we probably can not determine whether we have complete free will or are completely determined. And we can not determine what the meaning of the universe is, either. If we want the universe to have a meaning, then just fucking get on with it and give the universe whatever meaning we think it should have -- or no meaning at all.

From what I can tell, we are a mix of determinism and freely chosen acts. And if we are totally determined, then it still feels like free will -- so what difference does it make?

I do not think it is controversial to state that your childhood really sets a lifelong trajectory. Can we abandon this narrative that if you just work hard and make good choices you will succeed? — rlclauer

One's parents, and the head start they give their children (or not), does indeed plot much of one's trajectory. There are enough exceptions, though, to warrant working hard and making good choices. Up to the spring of 1964, I did not, could not plan on going to college. Several fortuitous events happened that made it possible for me to begin college in the fall. I did work reasonably hard (could have, would have, should have worked harder) and I could have made better choices about careers. I thought I would become a high school teacher, but I did not know myself well enough to realize how stupid that choice was for me. Things eventually worked out OK after graduation, without me teaching so much as 15 minutes of 12th grade English.

Children can often exceed their parents economic achievements under some circumstances, especially during a vigorous growth economy, and if one's parents weren't very high achievers. It's possible to exceed one's own predicted trajectory through life if one has at least normal intellectual assets and a lot of drive, and not too many unfortunate accidents.

Greatly exceeding one's own expectations and parental achievements shouldn't be counted on. In the long run of history, continual speedy upward progress is NOT normal. (In the long run of history, people more or less match their parents' achievements when things are going well.). Centuries have passed with no net economic growth. That doesn't mean life was terrible during those hundreds of years. Life was just very stable. One's life was like one's great grand parent's lives. Another angle to remember is that when economic growth does occur, it is never evenly distributed. The rich get richer, of course, and the poor get poorer. When England colonized North America, it was not the riff raff that benefitted economically; it was the leading families of England who owned the colonies, and made investments. "It's not the Earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt."

I believe we should temper the western narrative of everyone deserves where they end up, and place more emphasis on social responsibility and economic determinism. I would be interested in reading your thoughts. — rlclauer

Anglo-America, at least, has been fairly strongly flavored by Calvinist theology which holds that material success is a sign of God's grace. The successful man is successful because he was predestined to receive God's grace of salvation, and material success is a sign of grace. The poor couple with 5 sickly children are also evidence of God's plan of salvation. Their wretched state is a sign of their damnation by God, and their poverty is a mark of God's displeasure.

God's pleasure or displeasure is a flying fickle finger of fate, as it happens. It is quite often IMPOSSIBLE for us to perceive the virtues of the elect and the flaws of the damned. I mean, a lot of assholes seem to be among the elect, and a lot of very decent people seem to be among the damned. I say fuck John Calvin and his theology of fucking predestination.

So I have heard that "no man is an island" phrase hundreds of times. I just assumed it was some idiom. Thanks for the cultural learnin'. — ZhouBoTong

And now you also know where Ernest Hemingway got the title for his novel, "For Whom The Bell Tolls".

The movie wife of W. C. Fields, who played comic drunks, said in her usual harsh, stentorian voice, "You're going to drown in a barrel of whiskey." Fields' movie reply was "Drowned in a barrel of whiskey! O death where is thy sting?" Another line from a John Donne poem.

The source of power is the desire of those it subjugates. — Tzeentch

How does that work for slaves?

No, individuals determine their own fate, collectivism is a hindrance — rlclauer

I disagree with this option.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. JOHN DONNE, 1572 -1631

You understand, of course, that "man" is the generic for humankind, which includes men and women.

Certainly, individuals play a part in their becoming; we are not automatons. "Fate" is a really old-school concept; Fate deprived the individual of ultimate autonomy. (Or in the words of the Roman poem, La Fortuna, "Fate crushes the brave".) Our 'fate' for better or worse was determined by The Fates – or Moirai – who were a group of three weaving goddesses who assign individual destinies to mortals at birth. Their names are Clotho (the Spinner), Lachesis (the Alloter) and Atropos (the Inflexible).

The 'self-made individual' is a fiction of the narcissistic personality, the rugged individualist, the deluded loner.

We are social creatures, and without society and everything involved in society, we are no more than wolf-children, clods.

Exploitation is a recurrent feature of human behavior -- whether it is exploiting the land, the sea, the air, animals, plants, or other humans. It's what we do; it is a feature of our species, not a bug. So, as much as we depend on collective society for our existence, we also can count on probably getting screwed by our society. No one is exempt: one is either a member of the small group of beneficiaries of past and current exploitation (rich people) or one is the object of exploitation (that's most of us).

Now, despite all this verbiage about collectivity, it is also the case that individuals, singly and in combination, are critical drivers of society. Being a driving force doesn't mean one wasn't affected by membership in the collective community. Indeed, their particular community is where individuals learn how to be drivers/leaders.

here has been for quite some time an obsession with power and looking at everything through the lens of power, domination and exploitation. This narrative sells so well. Especially to young students. — ssu

what you say is true enough. The current crop of students (and maybe the theorists from whom they get ideas) seem to think that power comes by way of race and gender. Power iS connected to race and gender, but the source of power remains exploitation of resources--mineral, plant, and animal--including our esteemed animal selves.

Your Philoscience prof was probably correct. My impression is that the the old whore of philosophy has been more than adequately plowed. However, I doubt that either AI or aliens will change the situation.

Our putative replacements (computers and aliens) will have to deal with the same problems every other conscious, knowing species have had to deal with.

College does not seem to consist of strictly 18-22 year olds, anymore -- it has not for quite a while, actually. Good luck to you on your education project. It is a good idea to focus on study while you are in school.

As for unionizing a work place, one needs the support of an established union--there are a couple that represent restaurant employees.

I have shoplifted in protest before. — thewonder

I used to do that -- back in the 1970s -- until I got caught and had to pay a hefty fine. My partner was nearly arrested at a local grocery store for sampling chocolate covered something or other that were sold out of a bin. He was very humiliated, and was not doing it for politics, but because it was a convenient snack item while he was grocery shopping.

I spent a lot of time in gay bars once upon a time. (I'm 72.). Cruising for sex, of course, and to chat, listen to the music. I sometime drank too much, which sometimes is the point. So, at this point I've settled on being as suave or gauche as I am. I am what I am.

The IWW was/is an interesting group. The do exist, but nothing in the way they did 100 years ago. But I think their theory, their songs, their attitude was all good. You familiar with Billy Bragg -- a British folk singer?

Here's his version of the Internationale.

The Internationale
Billy Bragg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v85NWc0RIKc and Pete Seeger doing the original version in French

Stand up all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all

So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one earth on which to live

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armor
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above
Billy Bragg

So, again, good luck to you, and much success.

I'm a bit of lifestylist and a utopian idealist who isn't too terribly involved with the labor movement. — thewonder

I've was involved in a leftist political group for 15 years, but was a union member all of about 15 months. I've always worked in the NGO sector of the economy -- the non-profits -- and they are very rarely unionized. The one time I was able to join a union was when I worked for the U of MN, for a short period of time. I wasn't impressed by the AFSCME local.

Many of us are life stylists and utopian idealists. My favorite political day dreams are utopian. The problem with me was that I didn't really practice the kind of lifestyle I would have liked to lived on a sustained basis. Had I done so, I'd probably be dead 20 or 30 years ago. I wanted to be a man-about-the-gay-town; suave; a coherent radical (some were, some were not); a notable person. Trouble was, I didn't know how to be all that--at least not until I was too old to be that kind of person.

Plus I was pulled in other directions. That was really the problem -- I was pulled by short-term enthusiasms rather than sticking with the main chance. And all of this is about life style, ideals, and all that.

I actually think that too much of the Left is ostensibly opposed to radical reform motivated by some sort of revolutionary notions. — thewonder

Much of the left has its collective head up its collective ass. The insistence on revolution over reform gets one off the hook of having to figure out what to do to make things 10% better right now. It's easier to just say, "oh, woe, reform just undermines the revolution. We mustn't settle for reform because then the revolution won't happen." Bull shit. Get out there and work for whatever gains you can get. Everybody will be better off, and you just keep working for the revolution.

Do you think that the political system could be meaningfully, substantially, and radically altered without waging something like a general strike? — thewonder

No. Though, when you think about it, "a general strike" in this country would already be pretty radical. Workers in France have done it a number of times; students have joined in (and visa versa). But France's history and political experience is much different than hours.

But it would take more than a general strike. It would require a genuine political alternative that was organized, powerful, extremely broad based, and popular. It would take a disciplined movement of workers, unemployed, youth, and seniors. The protest movement in Hong Kong demonstrates discipline. Without it, they would have fizzled many demonstrations earlier. The labor movement in the US has demonstrated disciplined solidarity, like when they forced the Big Auto companies to negotiate with them back in the 1930s. A lack of discipline is revealed when union members cross their own picket line. That has happened on more than one occasion.

Very eloquent. Now follow that up with a full faced grovel on the floor of the main drag in St. Pete's big basilica while the college of cardinals walks all over you, and maybe then we'll reconsider your case.

Or... maybe not. It depends on whether your act of contrition meets the hazy qualifications for being genuine, authentic, and true.

The whole idea of either convincing the United States Military to wage a coup d'état or to actually combat them is, to me, just totally absurd. — thewonder

Wise revolutionaries do not take on powerful armed forces even with a batch of citizen soldiers armed with assault rifles. Daniel DeLeon proposed that socialists living in democratic countries would be best advised to use the available democratic machinery--free speech, the right to vote, freedom of assembly, and so forth. One key element which for DeLeon was key was extensive union organizing. Laws have been accumulating on the books for the last 60 years which heavily tilt the field (not a level playing field) against organization and unionism. That creates more obstacles but does not make organizing impossible.

Heavily unionized work forces, on industrial lines -- all auto workers, all oil workers, all maintenance workers, etc., have real leverage to force changes in the work place, including less opposition to unions. The well organized workforce, and the well-educated public can complete some of the central revolutionary tasks at the ballot box, but they have to be widely and well organized, both. 4%, 7%, 12% of the population isn't enough. Socialists need to be able to turn out majorities in elections (or at least, people who vote for socialist candidates, whether they themselves consider themselves socialist.

I don't see 12% of eligible voters casting ballots for socialists in the next election, let alone a majority. Success in this endeavor is many years away, following a lot of very hard work in the political/union/propaganda fields. There's nothing impossible about it. (I'm quite aware of how strong the grip of the existing political system is.).

Chou Enlai, the former PM of The People's Republic China (back in the mid-20th century) was asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing. He said, "It's too early to tell." The story is almost certainly apocryphal, but it suggests that one should be cautious about judging revolutions too soon, or maybe too positively or too negatively.

The American Revolution took quite some time to deliver on its Enlightenment heritage (per @Schopenhauer but it did, eventually, deliver some of the promise. It took at least 200 years for some of the promised goods to arrive.

The Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 in Russia (which brought about the USSR) was a mixed bag. The 300 year rule of Romanov despots (only occasionally enlightened) was nothing to celebrate, something that needed to end. The Russian Revolution was fucked from the getgo. Russia had little experience with industrialism (some, not a lot), no experience with democratic government, low levels of educational attainment in the masses, an entrenched wealthy class, and so on and so forth. It's not surprising that it didn't turn out well.

Germany was a much better location for a socialist revolution, and there was a good chance that a socialist revolution could have succeeded there, had it not been for the crude political/violent methods of the German national "socialism" (sic) aka, the Nazis.

I totally agree about the importance of the enlightenment in establishing the concept of universal rights and unifying concept of man. It is a long bridge from positing the rights of man to institutionalizing them. We're still working on that part. And I agree on the desirability of abandoning tribalism.

Your opinions stated here are vulgar and absurd.

Merely being born somewhere does not amount to signing a contract — alcontali

"Merely" being born somewhere is all that it takes to become subject to this unwritten, unsigned "contract". You are taking the libertarian approach here, of course. "I owe no one anything! I touch no one and no one touches me. I am a rock, I am an Island, and an Island never cries..."

As far as I am concerned, the millennials have no obligation whatsoever to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. — alcontali

Of course you would think that, given your peculiar view of the world. [Not you, personally, but the entire cohort of all you ungrateful wretches.] Of course, in your scheme the baby boomers had no obligation to nurture, house, feed, and educate you either. They could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by not conceiving you in the first place, or having the misfortune of giving birth to you, dashed your brains out on the nearest brick wall.

And since you resent the favors done for you, you can start paying for all the products and services which you received before becoming a libertarian.

Just don't pay! — alcontali

Stop with the whining and get back to work. Earn as much as you fucking can so the government can rob you of enough to keep me in the lap of SSA luxury.

Obviously the attractive "universal rights of man" were a problem right out of the gate. We had been practicing slavery for a century, in 1776, which fits poorly with the enlightenment ideal.

Colonial North America was a very stratified society, nothing like an egalitarian community. Most Americans did not have suffrage, for instance -- only about 6% did, propertied white male citizens. Most Americans were counted as riff raft by the elite. Our elite inherited the attitudes of the British elite who considered the poor, the landless, the worker as little more than white trash.

Yes, they were making it up as they went along. That's pretty much what people do, everywhere. There aren't any manuals that tell us how to assemble a society from scratch.

The slave-holding FF probably recognized the contradiction between their ownership of slaves and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". etc. but... Jefferson was chronically in debt and freeing his slaves would have had very negative economic consequences. When the push of ideals meets the pull of economic necessity, it's always a risky bet to assume that ideals will rule the day.

The elites were not happy about the riff raff taking off over the Appalachian Mountains into Kentucky Territory, western Virginia, the Northwest Territory (Ohio), and so on. The elite planned for them to do the heavy lifting, of course, but they didn't want the white trash rushing out ahead of them, settling, establishing communities, and so on -- without their express permission, and profit. And, of course, many of the riff raff often had difficulty once they arrived wherever they thought they were going. Successful settling unsettled land all by one's self was a really difficult thing to succeed at.

Our current system of government no longer works. — Pantagruel

Of course our current system of government works -- it works as well now as it ever did. Just because the current system is not working for you, or for me, or for most people, doesn't mean it isn't working as designed.

As far as I can tell, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Most people (like 94%) couldn't vote in the US in the 18th century. White men who didn't own property finally gained suffrage in all of the states around 1850. Black men didn't get voting rights till after the Civil War. Women didn't get the vote until 1920. The political and economic elite of the United States has neither liked nor trusted working class people. Most people (at least 80%) are working class. That there is a huge population of "middle class" people is a falsehood aimed at class division. There are some middle class people -- maybe 10% - 15%of the population.

It seems to me that a real, "informal" social contract covers much more than government. It involves how we interact with each other. The informal social contract seems to operate pretty well most of the time in most places. There are continual isolated breakdowns -- like drunk driving, public fighting, gun play (not talking about mass killers -- more the idiots who start shooting at each other and the wildly fired bullets go through houses and kill people), child neglect, etc. -- but by and large people stay within the "social contract of common behavior" because it works, it's safer, it's more effective.

we can manage to live without the printing press, internet and other facilities — Wittgenstein

Of course we can -- our hunter-gatherers managed to live without all of it, for what, 200,000 years? But without the Gutenberg Revolution maintained, intellectual life as we have known it for the last 580 years will come to a screeching halt. We don't absolutely need all the tech we have used for the last several hundred years, let alone the 20th century tech. Remember, though, that the Grecian and Roman philosophers operated at the top of the social pile, with a lot of human labor needed to maintain the upper levels.

When the Western Roman Empire fell apart, the intellectual traditions of the ancient world were just barely preserved, or they were lost. The Medieval elites of Europe, and the monasteries, held on to a hunk of it, but most of it disappeared. Life was much simpler in the centuries following, closer to the soil for sure. We don't want to repeat that sort of loss.

Look, I agree we are suffocating in material excess, and the heaps of stuff that tower over us are mostly entirely unnecessary and/or run counter to our good health and happiness. Circumstances may yet require us to learn how to get along without all this accumulated dross, but let's not throw out the gold with the trash.

Living in society involves negotiating the rules and regulations. IF one wants to be naked in public, one should expect a certain level of resistance. One can probably find a beach or park where people can get away with nakedness, but walking stark naked into Macy's or Target will not fly 99.99% of the time.

I approve of gay sex in the park and nude beaches (preferably with sex options) but I don't want sex and nakedness everywhere. It's distracting, for one thing. It's a major crossing of boundaries, which most people find annoying. There are reasons why stores and restaurants have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules.

Though, as far as clothing goes, I'm pretty tolerant. I find overly weird costumes off-putting, but I don't call the cops whenever I see somebody dressed strangely.

Materialism is a spiritual sickness and progress always happens in ideals and ideas not in building skyscrapers and countless industrial units. — Wittgenstein

Ideals and ideas are a fine thing, but The Philosophy Forum, Wikipedia, your favorite publishing house and preferred media outlet, and so on wouldn't exist if it weren't for all that plethora of industrial units (computers, cables, routers, server farms, high speed printing presses, broadcast equipment, electricity, telephones, and so on.

It takes a fair amount of devotion to material stuff, unless one is going to live in a box under a bridge, and even then, you need the box, the bridge, a blanket or two...

The idea of a universal salary is naive and l doubt if it will stop people from participating in a rat race. — Wittgenstein

One of the reasons it won't stop people from running the rat race is that the "universal wage" is, in one version, intended to provide a survival income base for people whose jobs have been eliminated by computers or automation. It's nothing like a 'living wage'. Another version of the universal wage is that it would be available to everybody -- universal. It would allow more self-development (education) and allow for more risk-taking. It is pitched as a good sized supplement. The universal wage isn't intended to finance a nation of philosophers and artists.

Such a goal is not only naive, it's absurd. Most people don't want to spend their days studying philosophy or very much else. It isn't that most people are stupid, or troglodytes, or beer-swilling slobs (even if some are). A lot of people are not adept at productively filling vast stretches of time. They like structure; they live and work well with in a structured environment. Or, they might spend their days listening to National Public Radio, or laying on the couch, smoking, and watching TV. And so on.

The rat race yields rewards--like money, social contact, a sense of belonging, having a role.

I'm not sure that "production" can be de-ratted. It's a treadmill, and once on...

people cease to be people, instead functioning as cogs in a machine whose purpose it is to produce the necessities of life so that people can afterwards be and do the things that what I would argue is what makes us people, viz. the act of socializing, Art, philosophy, and exchange of ideas, beauty, truth, humor, love, and community and belonging to reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors found the necessities that allowed them to "be people". They left behind some stone tools, the very occasional piece of art, and bones -- their own and bones what they ate. They had time, presumably, for art, philosophy, ideas, beauty, truth, humor, love, sex, community, and all that--including "belonging to reality".

Did they live in a Garden of Eden until they were expelled by agricultural statists who made everyone work in the fields from dawn to dusk? Or did they live in a great emptiness of few people, no great ideas, certainly not truth, and maybe not much humor either?

I don't know. Nobody else does either.

Once we settled down and reaped the grain we had sown, built our mud hut villages and later stone cities, it was a long time before there was a great flowering of what we would call art, philosophy, beauty, truth, and all that. It took about 10,000 years.

There is a very real question of whether "Society" which enables individuals to be artists, philosophers, thinkers, creators, ingenuous inventors, and so forth can exist without a lot of excess labor. Again, I don't know.

It seems to me that it just does require an awful lot of work to keep society going so that great things can happen. It takes a certain amount of hard-work necessities, and then beyond that, it takes a hefty hard work surplus.

pretty much every church that I have attended has had the same or similar messages and talked about similar things during the Sunday service — Maureen

Seems reasonable, since the thrust of "The Church" from the get-go was to preach the Gospel of salvation. All Christian churches share the same foundation document (NT).

I have nothing against the Mormons, but they are beyond "denomination" and head into heresy and new religion. Their peculiar set of beliefs place them outside Christian theology. That said, they do a fine job of missionary work, they have numerous healthy social practices, and, of course, their great choir in Salt Lake City, the Mormon Tabernacle Cheese Press (as one sarcastic guy called it).

The Church (all of them) are continuing to decline, and religion is continuing to evolve and devolve. There is perfectly normal, and we should not lament it.

What is lamentable is the extent to which real estate concerns drive the church. Lots of institutions the world over have edifice complexes, and that is certainly true in the United States. I love a nicely done building, but for churches, the needs of the building drive the program of the church. Keeping the thing up takes so much money (the roof, the heating/ac system, drainage and leakage problems, repainting, the mortgage, etc.). Then there is well paid staff, office equipment, healthcare plans, and so forth. After all that, the churches do not have enough money left over for the corporal works of mercy, to do much about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, visiting those in prison clothing the naked, teaching the untaught, and so on--which should be their primary concern.

As for WHY there are so many denominations, it's because the US never had an established church, or law limiting the formation of churches--as still is the case in some European countries. The process of denomination formation (biologically speaking, its meiosis rather than mitosis) has kept the churches more vigorous in the US than in countries with established churches. That's my theory, anyway.

In On Organization, Jacques Camatte basically calls all political organizations "rackets". — thewonder

Let's start with a basic definition:

an illegal or dishonest scheme for obtaining money. "a protection racket"
synonyms: criminal activity, illegal scheme/enterprise, fraud, fraudulent scheme, swindle, scam, rip-off; shakedown

"he was accused of masterminding a gold-smuggling racket"

"Racket" may be used in a 'self-disparaging way; when some one says, "I'm in the insurance racket", they mean that's their line of work. — dictionary

Political parties might qualify as rackets IF they engage in illegal schemes to obtain money. The law is such that political parties have numerous ways of obtaining money without the violating campaign laws. Political parties are more likely to qualify as "rackets" if they regularly raise money on the understanding that they will pursue a designated policy, then do nothing in pursuit of said policy, or worse, pursue politics opposite the designated policy.

Idealists are most likely to think political parties are rackets. Realists understand that politicians generally serve the interests of wealthy and economically powerful individuals and groups, and they expect politicians and political parties to behave in their usual and customary groveling and ass-licking manner.

Lower case "new atheists" of the world UNITE. Since we've already lost our tickets on the Hallelujah Express Salvation Train to heaven, we'd best take care of one another in this world.

I'm a lower case "new atheist" because I became an atheist in middle age and worked on it for quite a while. Unpleasant atheists? Indeed there are. I had not heard of, and did not read, any of the New Atheists back when I was busy uprooting the sacred tree in the garden of good and evil.

I don't argue with believers; first, as a former believer I know where they are coming from. It isn't all bad; it isn't all good either. Two, if they think they are missionaries to the heathen or apostate damned, they will derive more fulfillment and a sense of justification from haranguing and arguing with you than one may wish to give them.

IF, and only IF you enjoy arguing with believers, and derive a commensurate satisfaction from attempting to undermine their sense sanctified entitlement, then you can productively argue with them. Otherwise, tell them to take a flying fuck at Ezekiel's wheel (Ezekiel 1:16).

"Heathen" is a Germanic word (Dutch, German, Old English) but the concept derives from the Middle Eastern 'received' religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. People who don't believe (from the perspective of those who do believe) are "heathens".

Lately, people want to associate everything / anything with white supremacy. Braunschweiger, Bach, and Bier. "Oh, oh--having a beer & bratwurst while listening to Bach -- must be a white supremacist.

Totally agree.

But also, the dictum is used in the service of censorship, so I think some opposition to it might be necessary. — NOS4A2

I'm all in favor of resisting the censors and their wishes to silence people. You can find much better examples of censorship vs. freedom of speech than defending the rather weak, alleged "right" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. How about banned books? The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, or To Kill a Mockingbird... How about bans on teaching evolution (not in 1924, but in the present year)? The right to discuss organizing a union among fellow workers?

I think science assumes free will is real. — Gregory

Really? Why do you think that? Is 'free will' even a suitable topic for science?

matter is the prime mover — Gregory

What about matter would make it possible for the laws of nature to change arbitrarily? Matter seems to be pretty reliable.

↪Bitter Crank I'm concerned about the consequences. If value is measured in terms of money then everything is on sale. All you need to do is agree on a price. If I'm not mistaken even God is on sale now. — TheMadFool

Something as specific as "money" or "currency" isn't the problem. It's a whole economic system that is the problem. Capitalism (which has been developing for the last 4 or 5 centuries) is that system. Apart from capitalism, hunter-gatherers were organized into field hands and started cultivating grain and living together in fixed places around 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Land became a thing to possess, produce from the land became a thing to tax for the benefit of the organizing state, and so on and so forth.

If we want to escape the whole money, economic exploitation, and burdens of living in a mass society, we will have to return to a hunting-gathering culture where possessions are minimalist, place is not fixed, and society consists of maybe 20 people. It was a good way of life -- it lasted at least 100,000 years, and in the process didn't have much effect on either the planet or it's flora and fauna--including the hunter-gatherers.

Unfortunately, the boat that takes us back to living the simplicity of hunter-gatherers left the dock thousands of years ago. We're stuck in a world where everything is for sale. We can't escape it, but we don't have to be utterly debased by it either. It's one thing to buy a $50 book so that you can learn from it, and something else to buy a $100 book which will convey status, sitting on your coffee table. It's one thing to buy a good pair of shoes so your feet don't hurt; it's something else to buy expensive shoes to walk all over other people. And so on.

Just live as simply and authentically as you are able.

Yes, we can resist our inclinations and go against them but it's an uphill battle. Moreover this is strong evidence that we didn't choose our preferences at all. — TheMadFool

If we can resist our inclinations, even only some times, isn't that a demonstration of us having at least some free will?

I don't know for sure what I chose or didn't choose, which brings up an issue relevant to the free will discussion: can we determine with certainty whether a given act (choice, decision, action, etc.) was the result of "free will" or "determination"? If we can't distinguish between the two, how can we even begin to discuss the question?

"What to do with a mentally ill commander in chief?"

Involuntary commitment; locked cell on a locked floor; thorazine, electro-shock therapy ("Here, let me set the voltage on that dial!"); long term custodial care. And perhaps there would be an unfortunate accident, so round-the-clock security (no Secret Service; just regular hospital psychopaths).

Something along those lines; make One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look like enlightened care.

Are you finding that the law is crimping your style?

Law or analogy, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater remains a bad idea. Unless, of course, the theater is packed with Republicans, then it might be classed as a public service.

Wouldn't it depend on whose children you are talking to and under what circumstances? Like, telling the neighbor's children that their mother is a whore might result in harmonious neighborly relationships. You can probably tell your own children whatever you want. If you are a teacher, there are all sorts of things you ought and ought not say, if you want to keep your job.

There are some laws against making indecent proposals to children. Should there be? I read in a book that people are stupid, so there probably have to be laws to deal with stupid people.