What do other people do with their degrees. — anonymous66

The two best jobs I had (14 years worth for the two) were:

tutoring college students in how to study and trying to get them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives (since the students I was seeing were likely to flunk out of college) and

conducting AIDS prevention outreach in high-risk environments for AIDS transmission (gay bath houses, adult book stores, gay bars, gay cruising areas...)

Both of these jobs were very satisfying and I had no specific academic preparation to do either of them.

These jobs were serendipity. I had no intention of working in these areas.

How would you respond? — anonymous66

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes

What isn't stupid and meaningless from the Teacher's perspective?

I tried Philosophy in college and didn't like it, but Philosophy isn't stupid, and a degree in Philosophy is no more stupid than a degree in English Literature, which I enjoyed getting, pretty much. There is no field of study that somebody has not declared "stupid".

Whether a degree in Philosophy, or English Literature, or fine arts, is a strategically sound decision depends on what your life plans are, and how the degree fits into that.

There is the question of resources: can you finance the degree (one way or another) and can you afford to not earn an income while you are pursuing the degree?

If you really want to be an electrical engineer, but find philosophy interesting, then getting a degree in philosophy first might be considered ill advised. If you are really interested in philosophy but get a degree in electrical engineering because you think you will make more money in that, then it might or might not be ill-advised. It depends on what you want your life to look like 5 to 10 years after you get your degree.

Any degree in the liberal arts (philosophy, history, literature, language, sociology, etc.) will have a similar value on the job market. Degrees are positive assets. But again, it depends... If you want to teach philosophy and can barely squeak through a bachelors degree, then it's probably ill advised. If you can't afford graduate school no way no how, then starting that course might be ill advised.

As Mariner noted, degrees-in-Philosophy are to Philosophy what a degree in English Literature is to becoming an author of English Literature -- probably no relationship whatsoever.

I know people who are philosophers, pretty much, but who have no more than a high school diploma. I know people who have several degrees who are philosophers, pretty much, and we all know people who have several degrees and manage to be nincompoops, pretty much.

The philosophical question that you need to answer is "What should I do?"

Rather do something (or try to do something) you can be proud of, and be an upstanding character. — Agustino

I think I did that. Though probably much closer to the grave than you are (at 70+) I haven't ceased trying to achieve, and be an upstanding character.

You know the fable of the grasshopper and the ant. You are exhorting the grasshopper to be more like the dull drudgery drenched ant. But, you know, the drudgery of the ant doesn't survive the grave's doom any better than the joyful music of the grasshopper who won't survive winter. But what is better? joyful music in the summer or drudgery all the way to the grave?

What's the point of enjoying yourself BC, you'll end up in the same grave, and it will be as if the enjoyment never existed. — Agustino

The same thing can be said for everything that humans are or might be. "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes.

From one perspective, everything is meaningless. From a slightly different angle, the things of life have great meaning, whether they endure to the grave - or survive the grave - or not.

We have the political power to enact trade policy which prohibits trading with countries that don't have strong labor, environmental, and human rights protections. We also have the power to prohibit corporations that don't operate at those standards from doing business in our country, but we don't do any of that. In fact we do the opposite, we ratify trade deals which encourage that kind of malfeasance and give huge subsidies to vicious corporations who in turn offshore most of their profits. — Sivad

I agree with you -- entirely, actually, not just 97%. The People should be aware. The People could become an overwhelmingly powerful political force. Individuals should make ethical decisions about what they eat, how they move from location A to location B (ride a bus vs. driving a car), what they wear, what gadgets they buy, how large a house they live in, what they do with their fish wrappings, and so forth.

The People could become politically active and assert their power to shape foreign policy, trade policy, and every other kind of policy. I've exhorted people to do all these things (with dismal returns for my efforts). So: WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY DO WHAT IS BOTH ETHICAL AND SENSIBLE?

Instead we have human herds trampling themselves on Black Friday to get sweatshop swag at insanely low prices. — Sivad

I don't like referring to The People as "human herds" or "sheeple". It's bad practice, however tempting it is.

The People are targeted with a lot of heavy duty manipulation. Just consider the 30 year mortgage. In exchange for a house, you get a 30 year debt. If you fail to keep up payments, you are subject to the due process of repossession and you lose your house and whatever you've put into it. That tends to keep people's noses to the grindstone.

Wages and savings have fallen over the the last 50 years, resulting in a gradual impoverishment of workers. Most workers have no assets outside of their house and car, which is usually not paid off. Many workers have insecure employment--and not just unskilled workers whose jobs get replaced by automation. (Maybe 25% of the working class have really good, solid jobs. I'm not including professionals here.)

Many workers from across the spectrum of employment experience "social disorganization" -- the effects of inadequate education, drugs and alcohol abuse (directly and indirectly), mental illness, maldistribution of wealth (a major factor), the effects of the military industrial complex, and so on.

The answer to the question, "So: WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY DO WHAT IS BOTH ETHICAL AND SENSIBLE?" is fairly straightforward: most people are working hard to stay afloat, and they do not have the time and energy to become politically active agents of change.

I don't like that conclusion, but it seems to be the case. Yes, people could throw off the chains of illusion and other yokes of oppression. The workers of the world could unite. I have some hope that they might. If you've figured out a way of making this happen, please let me know as soon as possible.

it is well within their power to change those policies and the only reason those policies remain in effect is a lack of widespread, committed opposition to them. I don't think the working class can be so easily absolved. — Sivad

I wish what you say was true and practical, for then we could change the world. Alas... No.

Well, what you say is in a sense 100% true--in the sense that society operates by the cooperation of the people in the society. Workers cooperate with corporations, so therefore the workers share some of the blame.

In another sense what you say is 100% untrue. The dense network that enables a modern society to operate can not be disrupted very much, and still allow the society to go on functioning. Too much disruption and society falls apart. This is more true now than it was two centuries ago. More true now than one century ago. Anyone stopping the economy would be shooting themselves in the head.

Workers actually have very little leverage in some industries. Apple doesn't make it's products in this country, and no other electronics company does either. A majority of our autos are made elsewhere. A lot of many products are made elsewhere. Until recently, the US was not energy self-sufficient. Many industries employ a very small fraction of the population. Automation, robotics, digital control, etc. make workers less important in many companies than they used to be. (This is a crisis in itself, but let's talk about that in another thread.) I'm not suggesting that workers have become unnecessary -- just that they don't have the amount of leverage they once had.

Consumers have a considerable amount of leverage. If consumers stopped buying products, that would also bring the economy to a screeching halt -- but again, a modern society can not survive without all parts pretty much functioning normally.

So, workers and consumers can apply pressure. The trick is targeting precise pressure in the right place. Very difficult. Remember, corporate America is not defenseless. They can also apply pressure to workers and consumers, and chances are the government will help them.

given that we do buy many products with full knowledge of the abuses that went into the production — Sivad

Really? You may be exaggerating how much people know about the conditions under which the food they eat was produced, or the products they buy were made.

Many of the top fortune 500 companies exploit labor, pollute the environment, corrupt political processes and governments, destabalize economies with reckless speculation, and then lie about all of it through their controlled media outlets. — Sivad

The middle classes are heavily invested in these corporations and take healthy profits from their unscrupulous activities. The poor can't really be considered victims either because 1) they're mostly politically apathetic, they've demonstrated very little concern for or solidarity with their fellow paupers and 2) most of them aren't living in poverty due to any protest of conscience, they're poor by happenstance — Sivad

There's a disconnect between the first quote and the second quote. First you properly accuse the big corporations of being corrupt and callous, then in the second paragraph you blame the workers for the consequences of corporate America bastard policies.

I'm not quite sure who you are counting as "middle class" but as it is usually used, you can rest assured they are not taking healthy profits from corporate activities. Only a small percentage of the population own enough stock to worry about corporate misbehavior.

People become politically apathetic when experience shows them that their votes do not matter. It is true that many workers are illogically opposed to unions and it is true that many workers have no sense of solidarity with fellow workers -- much to their own suffering. But, bear in mind, please: organized labor didn't get sick and die of indifference. Organized labor was murdered by those fortune 500 corporations you mentioned. The USA now has an extremely negative legal and political structure which hinders workers from successfully organizing unions. Employers have way too many legislated advantages over workers attempting to unionize.

A small fraction of people are poor because they were too lazy to go to work. Most people have been shoved down the economic ladder into poverty through no fault of their own.

Micro-economics and macro-economics operate on vastly different scales. When people buy strawberries at the market, it isn't possible (at that moment) to perceive how they might be part of a macroeconomic trend.

It isn't immediately (or even not immediately) obvious that when you buy strawberries grown in Mexico, you may be causing starvation there. But you might be. If multi-cropping subsistence farming has been driven out of an area by berry producers like Dole or Driscoll, maybe local families are unable to feed themselves. Or, maybe the subsistence farmers now work for Dole and are better off, or worse off. We don't know, and can't figure that out by logic. Research would be in order.

>:O "We are not here to enjoy ourselves" - Ludwig Wittgenstein — Agustino

If Ludwig didn't enjoy himself while he was here, I see no need to follow suit.

and who have refused it because of the risk involved, instead preferring the safer — Agustino

Some people are just more risk averse than others, and most people are more risk tolerant for one kind of risk than another. Some people will take great risk in athletics (climbing dangerous mountains) but are totally risk averse when it comes to money. I think risk tolerance/risk aversion is determined biologically -- at least to some degree.

This pessimistic claptrap, no skills, no education, etc. is nothing but excuses. — Agustino

No one can argue that there are no lazy, no stupid, no ambitionless, no too risk averse to try anything people. They are out there. But, Agustino, most people do not excel, do not exceed expectations, do not achieve miracles. They just get along fairly well, grow old, and die. People like you excel first, achieve miracles, then get old and die. Of course, you haven't gotten old yet; time will tell whether you die first.

This attachment to the enjoyment of life, instead of to more objective goals... — Agustino

The fucking nerve of these lazy sons of bitches -- wanting to enjoy life. Take them out and shoot them!

Opportunities abound. Seriously. — Agustino

Perhaps opportunities abound, but not everyone is able to identify them. Not everyone is able to exploit the opportunities they identify. I would say many unsuccessful and unhappy people have lacked the knowledge (from an early age) to identify a bona fide opportunity. I blame ignorance of how the world works more than laziness.

building a family, spiritual enlightenment, building a business — Agustino

Projects of this sort require a foundation of skills and knowledge. If one is ignorant of what the required skills and knowledge are, they can't develop a plan to obtain them. Again, ignorance.

Survival comes at a cost - discipline, hard work, and intelligence. — Agustino

True enough, but someone must be raised in an environment where discipline, hard work, and intelligence are fostered. Reaching adulthood without these traits, without a foundation of skills and knowledge, and ignorance of how to identify a practical opportunity (one which can actually be exploited) leaves one pretty much screwed.

So, astute, but poorly prepared adults can put 2 and 2 together and understand that they need to get what is needed, and some people rehabilitate themselves, even if they were raised to become economic cripples.

I can cite my own case: even though I did OK during my working years, there were times I made strategic errors that many of my peers didn't. For instance, as the AIDS crisis expanded in the late 1980s, smart people abandoned the non-profits that were first responders and moved on to city/county/and state programs which would be doing the heavy lifting over the long run. I stayed glued to to the non-profits. By the time I figured out that I should jump ship, the city/county/and state boats had filled up.

OR, I should have moved on to a new problem -- which I did, but didn't find something even remotely as interesting as HIV and AIDS. I would liked to have worked with tuberculosis, but unfortunately there were not enough cases around to support much work with TB.

The thing that bothers me about mild depression (NOT major debilitating depression, just mild chronic depression) and the various chronic objective social problems that we develop (alcoholism, drug addiction, bad management of money, abysmal performance in school, religious extremism--basically incompetent life skills--is this:

Are people functioning more poorly now (now = the present and back... 50 years) than they functioned before? And if so, why?

Are economics the problem--Too many people pursuing too few opportunities?
Is life becoming too complicated for people to manage? Too many options, too many details?
Is (American) society deteriorating -- becoming too incoherent, not cohesive enough, too chaotic?
Is the cause external to individuals: easy access to drugs, credit, too much exposure to media, etc.?
Is "the family" failing its function of preparing children to succeed in this society?

People say all of the above, none of the above, don't know, impossible to tell, it's the same today as it has always been... But it seems to me that a really significant number of people are doing poorly in this society -- and not because of major mental illnesses, which don't seem to be increasing in frequency.

My view on the topic is so simple to the point of being simplistic: depression is a mood, not an illness, treat it accordingly. — Noblosh

So, depression is classified as a mood disorder. But our moods (read 'emotions') are extremely influential to our thinking.

Ah, well... 250 mg isn't a lot, I don't think. I was taking 2000 a day for a while for arthritis -- yes it helped, but my doc told me to stop taking that much routinely -- save it for really bad pain, he said. So I stopped, and now take maybe 500 mg for bad pain, and it seems to work fine.

You've seen a psychiatrist about depression? Personally, I'd consider persistent suicidal thinking (even without planning) a serious symptom if it were myself. I know that many people have their doubts about anti depressant medication -- as well they should, because any given Rx might not work for any given individual. Just because Zoloft doesn't help, doesn't mean Effexor won't, and just because neither Zoloft and Effexor didn't work, doesn't mean that Seroquel or Cymbalta won't.

I always tell people to see a psychiatrist rather than a family doctor, because--while a family doctor can prescribe antidepressants and might hit on the right one, psychiatrists are usually better at the problem solving process of finding the one that works. They just have more practice at it, and just as people don't go to ophthalmologists for a broken leg, one should go to a psychiatrist for depression.

Major depression is a bigger deal than minor depression, especially if minor depression is rooted in practical solvable problems. CBT alone might work for minor depression; it seems to me that major depression needs more.

I've put up with depression for a long time -- 30 years. Some of the drugs we tried did not help much. There were many years where I just wasn't functioning well. For the last 7 years I've felt pretty good, and part of that was a change in life circumstances. Sometimes those can be engineered, and sometimes not.

I do wish you maximum success in dealing with this difficult stuff.

"Normal" people -- whatever the money manager meant by that moniker -- play a significant if unwitting role in the economy. Millions and millions of people make billions of economic decisions; this has an effect, intended or not.

For instance, in 2007, whether bad mortgages were being palmed off as grade A instruments by default swap operators or not, millions of home buyers were willing to pay ever-increasing prices for real estate which wasn't in critically short supply, which hadn't been improved, and which (in some cases) wasn't even in very good shape. Thus a bubble developed and eventually broke, to many people's harm.

The fluctuations of prices in cotton, pork chops, iron ore, and oil depend on supply and demand which is determined by the actions of many producers and consumers. When 300 million Chinese all (individually) decide to go home for the New Year holidays, it has a massive economic effect.

The difficult part of your question is that individually, most consumer decisions are too insignificant to matter. So, "normal" people are not at fault. On the other hand, if the manager of Calpers (California state employees retirement funds) decides to dump all their coal stock, he or she will have had a direct and significant effect on those stocks, and maybe the whole energy field.

It's a bit moot, at the very least, because I don't think we can tell with 100% validity that we have, or don't have, free will. For instance, if we are very very hungry, we probably don't have much free will in how we react to the offer of food (we'll eat just about anything offered). If we are not terribly hungry, we can be quite choosy about we will eat next.

Fascinating. I take Aleve semi-daily. — Question

Sorry you're troubled by recurrent thoughts of suicide. Think about something else (Seriously... don't dwell on those kinds of thoughts.) While it's good that you are not making plans, it's also not pleasant to have these kinds of thoughts. On the other hand, many people probably think about suicide sometimes, and not always because they feel bad. One hears about suicides, one speculates about it. Do you find the idea of suicide somewhat attractive?

I've also heard that NSAIDs have an impact on moods or depressive feelings. I find NSAIDS, especially ibuprofen and naproxen, to be far more effective for pain relief than aspirin or Tylenol with codeine (which I have taken for severe headaches).

What kind of pain are you taking Aleve (naproxen) for? Aleve, Tylenol, and Advil (Ibuprofen) are all non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID); NSAIDs work on a chemical level. They block the effects of special enzymes -- specifically Cox-1 and Cox-2 enzymes. These enzymes play a key role in making prostaglandins. By blocking the Cox enzymes, NSAIDs stop your body from making as many prostaglandins. This means less swelling and less pain. — Web MD

How large a dose are you taking? Some people have had significant side effects from NSAIDs involving blood pressure, kidney function, heart function, digestive tract irritation, and so on. The side effects seem to be dose-related--the higher the dose, the more likely the side effects.

Hope brighter thoughts occur to you soon.

This is the logical endpoint of the liberalizing of Christianity:

Unitarian Universalism

There is no content to UU that the wider secular culture does not provide (itself threadbare and defined negatively, in terms of tolerance). — The Great Whatever

The Unitarian movement began almost simultaneously in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and in Transylvania in the mid-16th century. In England, the first Unitarian Church was established in 1774 on Essex Street, London. In the United States, it spread first in New England, and the first official acceptance of the Unitarian faith on the part of a congregation in America was by King's Chapel in Boston, from where James Freeman began teaching Unitarian doctrine in 1784, and was appointed rector and revised the prayer book according to Unitarian doctrines in 1786... — Wikipedia

So, UU believe that God is a single person, not a trinity. They don't believe that Jesus was a deity, on earth or later. They believe

[*] God is the loving Parent of all people, see Love of God.
[*] Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind, see New Covenant.
[*] Humankind is created with an immortal soul which death does not end—or a mortal soul that shall be resurrected and/or preserved by God—and which God will not wholly destroy.[8]
[*] Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife. All of God's punishments for sin are corrective and remedial. — Wikipedia

Liberal Christianity certainly but not nearly as daft as the jokes would have it. ["What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness? Some one who goes door to door, but doesn't know why."]

Unitarian Universalists do what other religious people do: They gather regularly to learn about their faith. They teach their children how to behave in accordance with their faith. The engage in worship. They have fellowship together. They, like other Christians, believe in doing good works. They are not a liturgical denomination.

Without content? Hardly.

Lots of "mainline" Christians find the Trinity very problematic. I don't find it necessary or helpful. Jesus was not a Trinitarian, and as far as I know, God never claimed to be Trinitarian either.

Right, directors find Bergman tempting, but his worst films are already awful and shouldn't be imitated and his best films are difficult to imitate.

The Seventh Seal is one of my favorites. Wild Strawberries; Fannie and Alexander (vastly different films) were good, too; Winter Light about a pastor's existential crisis--(as one theologian noted, "The church was so dead that not even God showed up"). I've seen maybe 10 of Bergmans films and have forgotten most of them. Some of them were repellent.

Good art leads to reflections about life. Good cooking, Babette's Feast (Gabriel Axel, dir.) lead to spiritual renewal; Like Water for Chocolate, a film of 'magical realism" and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover--an absurd film but very good--may or may not have any "philosophical content but they were all compelling cinema experiences.

A great film (about anything, any style, any director, any cast...) like great music, great stage drama, a great book, a great conversation... great experiences in general have "philosophical content" in that they leave us wanting more of the good stuff.

Cool Hand Luke (Paul Newman)--great movie--makes several faith statements which are memorable and may or may not represent a practical plan for traffic safety. If I remember, Cool Hand Luke sings this after the warden tells him his mother has died.

Plastic Jesus Ed Rush and George Cromarty 1957

(This favorite book, No More Plastic Jesus: Global Justice and Christian Lifestyle--about the church and wealth--came out in 1977. Still relevant, but inflation has to be figured in for the last 40 years. .

I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jesus
Sitting on the dashboard of my car.
Comes in color, pink and pleasant,
Glows at night cuz it's iridescent
take it with you when you travel far.

You can buy a Sweet Madonna
Dressed in rhinestones sittin' on a
Pedestal of abalone shell
Goin' ninety, I'm not wary
'Cause I've got my Virgin Mary
Guaranteeing I won't go to Hell

Most religious people want theocracy — Sivad

This claim needs some elaboration and corroboration.

Certainly there are religious people who hanker after theocracy and having priests of one kind or another running their lives; but there are a lot of religious people who most decidedly do not desire having theocrats in charge.

I don't know how the numbers stack up.

First, you have to experience the world.
Second, you have to understand the world

If you have experienced the world and understood the world, then
You may wish to explain the world to others.

To explain the world to others, you must gather some people and speak to them.

The people you gather may find your explanations helpful. Or... not.

You have to vote to see the results.

God is love, but love is not God (Except in a poetic way, as in this poem):

Love III, George Herbert, 1593 - 1633

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

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

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

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/resources/learning/core-poems/detail/44367 for annotations (and a reading - which I wouldn't call definitive).

The scriptures are revelatory. No outside decision as to their reliability needs to be made – reading them ingenuously on their own terms inclines one toward belief. — The Great Whatever

This is a critical insight. Ingenuously* is the way they were intended to be read. The narrative of scripture is compelling.

The "trick" for secular educated people who are disinclined to take anything on faith is to hold on to the noble, generous reading while at the same time understanding that the history of the texts and the faith is not simple and straightforward. Fundamentalists are people who can not tolerate the cognitive dissonance required to hold these two ideas together.

*"The original sense was ‘noble, generous'"

Where I live there are no sidewalks, only dirt roads. They say that it will be paved within the next five years, but they have been saying that for the last ten. — Sir2u

Oh, dirt roads -- ready made sandboxes.

For tiny babies yes but talking to them normally has exactly the same effect so I don't see the value of it. It is positively damaging once the child starts to imitate others speech. — Sir2u

Well... I feel too inhibited to emit baby talk to a baby or a puppy if there are other adults in the room. But I've heard that it's useful for baby-parent bonding, and they all seem to do it. And infants don't talk that way when they learn to talk, merciful god.

My apologies for not acknowledging your good post on the history of the early Christians. I was thinking about what you said, but was drawing on other sources than you relied on. Not better, just different.

So here's another book which nobody will read, most likely: The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine by John Fry.

Fry observes that Christianity's founding documents, the New Testament, was written and/or edited by itself. From the beginning, "The Church" had a stake in how Jesus was presented, and which of his sayings and doings would be immortalized.

When Jesus says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in Matthew, words are possibly being put into his mouth from a century into the future. Similarly, take this bread, drink this cup, etc. may have been said by Jesus, or it may have evolved as part of a liturgy of agape meals held in house churches. In time, the liturgy became so central, it needed to be put in Jesus' mouth.

We know the four Gospels and Paul's letters are not the only accounts of Jesus and the early church in existence. We know other accounts were suppressed. The suppression isn't the point: The point is that there was an editor who decided what should be left out, and what should be included. Nothing against editing here, just that there was one. (My guess is that the editing was probably done by a committee with an executive editor.)

The church ended up in the saddle of the Roman Empire, an event that profoundly influenced how the church, churchmen, and so forth have behaved from Constantine on up to Donald Trump's prayer breakfasts. A Divine Gesture on behalf of human Kind initially involved a "diverse" group of people. It didn't take very long before poor people and women were being shoved into the figurative church basement.

I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken — Metaphysician Undercover

The Trinity isn't found in the Gospels. Yes, it may say "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is likely a back-reading of current liturgical practice. At any rate, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated 2 or 3 generations after the Resurrection. Right?

"Love" isn't the personification of any one person in the Trinity. Neither is Wisdom. Neither is Mercy. Right?

Love is manifested by God. God loved the world so much, He sacrificed his Son for the salvation of the world. Love is the reason for keeping God's commandments. John 14:15 -- If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Love is the beginning and end of the story. Right?

A large stack of theology is a good thing, but it isn't scripture.

Here's Cantus, a hometown choir, singing Thomas Tallis's wonderful 16th century setting of the the verse. It's only 2 minutes long.

I usually refuse to give advise to future parents — Sir2u

I enjoy telling parents what they are doing wrong. It's usually so obvious, even the dog is appalled.

While all he really wants to do is paint — Sir2u

Why don't you give him some finger paint, then he could enjoy actual tactile sensations as well as a computer screen. You could make some thick white unflavored gravy and then color it. If he ate it, it wouldn't matter (just don't use cadmium or chromium as yellow or blue tint. Stick to edible food colors.) Have him play with it on the sidewalk; when he's done, just hose the kid and the sidewalk off.

Nonsense baby talk is definitely off the list of topics. — Sir2u

Nonsensical baby talk isn't as nonsensical as some of the nonsensical adult talk here. At least baby talk serves a useful developmental purpose. If someone handed you a 9 week old puppy I bet you'd be emitting baby talk in 2 seconds. (Puppies respond favorably to baby talk; once they are 9 months to a year old, they don't respond to it more than they respond to normal language.)

I'm a scorpio; I think Myers Briggs and horoscopes are both piles of crap. Myers Briggs is a self-perpetuating fad. A well-written horoscope column is more interesting than MBTI jabber in the employees lounge.

Personality tests are difficult to construct and prepare for real-world use. Take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, for comparison: It consists of about 600 mostly non-inferential statements, such as "I like to paint flowers." The questions are answered with agree/indifferent/disagree. Some of the questions are designed to test whether the test-taker is answering the questions consistently, and thoughtfully. The test was administered to thousands of psychiatric patients with known diagnoses, then the responses were characterized by diagnosis. When individuals take the test, their responses are (statistically) compared with the responses of the mental hospital patients.

Most people score as "normal". Their responses don't match the patients' responses. But gay men, for instance, tend to show up as notable on the masculinity/feminity scale. (there are no specific questions about being gay.) People who are bi-polar tend to score high on that measure, and so on.

Even so, the test is not as reliable or as valid as the best intelligence tests.

the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again,”

“A test is valid if it predicts outcomes that matter. Few consistent relationships between type and managerial effectiveness have been found.”

"Those who love MBTI have been seduced by an image of their own ideal self.”

* How much is it worth in terms of money? Since 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a human life at $9.1 million — intrapersona

And what does $9 represent -- the value of the life so far, or the value of the income likely to be earned in the future? That's how insurance companies figure it: how much wealth are you going to earn in the time you probably have left. Therefore, a 90 year old is worth about nothing, whereas a 19 year old is worth much more.

I like your formulation: "How much value could I create with my life?" I assume you mean more than monetary value. A mother might not earn any cash in her life, but give birth to and nurture a person of future enormous worth to the world. (The same could be said of a father.)

Like... what topics would you suggest for the average toddler <2 years old?

You teach an infant to talk by talking to them and listening to them — unenlightened

Talking a lot, and nicely, to children is critical.

Children from middle class homes hear many more normal conversational words by first grade (5 to 6 years of age) than children in poor families (referred to as the 30 million word gap). The quality of conversation is also quite disparate between middle class (or higher) and working class (or lower) families. Poor children tend to hear far fewer conversational words; more command words; more negative words ("SHUT UP YOU FUCKING BASTARD!" as the kid is slammed into the seat on the bus) and far fewer positive words. Children in prosperous families are read to, hear many praise words, and much less negative or command language.

What difference does this make?

Poor children often begin school with more than a 2 year deficit in language. Not only do they know fewer words, their word response time is slower. They learn less well. Some children can not overcome these deficits even with tailored remediation. Children who begin school 2 years behind have difficulty catching up, and in fact fall further behind as time goes on.

For a while, back in the 1970s was it? people liked to brag about whether they were "linear thinkers" or "non-linear" thinkers. I think "non-linear" was supposed to be cooler than "linear". That would be like, logic vs. intuition; step-by-step thinking vs. the leap to a conclusion, science vs. art. In fact, we all use both kinds of thinking all the time.

I have a hard time with numbers. I could blame it at school, but that would only be partially true, because almost every other pupil exceeded me at math. Being almost innumerate hurts my self confidence. — Avidya

I also have had a hard time with mathematics. I am not quite "innumerate", but my arithmetic skills have a low ceiling. Mathematic skill would have come in handy, but since I didn't have it, I coped one way or another, which is what people do.

How big a problem innumeracy is depend on what you want to do for a living. High finance is probably not going to work and neither is nuclear physics or chemistry. It also depends on the actual level of skills you possess. If you can manage the 4 basic functions (+, -, x, and ÷) in everyday kinds of situations, innumeracy might not be that big a problem. Your cell phone has a calculator on it. If you can't manage +, -, x, and ÷ then you probably have already developed some coping skills, just like people do who are dyslexic. We all figure out ways to get around our deficiencies whatever they are.

Don't know jack-shit about algebra? Geometry? Statistics? Billions of people have been very successful in life without knowing much about algebra. Most of the world's people have been illiterate since writing was invented, and yet managed to do just fine.

I protest that I am not a follower and try to convince myself that I am not, but for all practical purposes I'm a believer. I grew up in the Methodist Church and became a Lutheran for convenience because the front door of the church is about 150 feet away. My state of belief is confusing to me because I spend so much time quarreling with the tradition and its presentation.

I liked my religious up-bringing, so I have not found fault with religion, per se.

Being philosophically minded I find I can over critique these methods when I am trying to us them. I tend to feel my anxieties are rational. But I am not opposed to trying things, I just struggle to get into a positive headspace or body state — Andrew4Handel

Of course you can over-critique any solution offered. So can I. Quibble, quibble, quibble. IF you can make a technique work for you -- even if you can see minor flaws in it -- then try it. Some people wear crucifixes to ward off vampires. My guess is that crucifixes made in China stopped working on vampires years ago, but if it helps people get through the day (and the night even more so) then it's worth trying.

Personally, I eat lots of garlic and never open strange caskets in dark basements.

The topic of self driving cars was discussed at length. Would the car steer into 3 elderly persons to avoid killing a toddler? What kind of judgements could A.I. make and what would be its motivations? — Andrew4Handel

Good question. This is actually going to happen at some point, not very far into the future. The AI in the car won't be capable of making a moral decision. It may run over both the 3 old folks and the toddler, and it won't care--it can't care. What matters is the morality of the AI producer, the AI-driven car owner, and the people who write and enforce laws.

The designers of the AI have to decide how their creation is going to operate and make logical decisions. If the logic instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN run over the fewest number" the toddler get's killed. If the logic instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN run over those who have lived the longest" THEN the old folks get killed. If the instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN instant self destruction" and the owner get's killed. If the instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, then terminate senior company officers instantly" and those responsible for the AI die.

It seems like the designers should pay the ultimately price, then the owner of the vehicle. I don't see why anybody should get run over by an AI, and I don't see why the designers shouldn't suffer the consequences if someone is run over by an AI.