Red can not be found in Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something that transcends these things. — SteveKlinko

If colour is not contained within objective parameters, why does having no intrinsic properties mean it transcends? Notwithstanding your authoritative tone, particularly with your random capitalisations of particular - albeit not so important - words, you seemingly ignore any explanation of the reasoning behind the subjectivity of perceptions. Colours don't exist, but light does.

I am unsure of the reasoning behind your post, but nevertheless I think a good 'picture' of the subject is comparing its apparent spherical shape to cosmic inflation and the multiverse theory that depicts the universe as potentially flat. Is the universe ever going to 'crunch' and die, or are we expanding exponentially? Though curvature is noticeable, the density parameters being so close to 1 is mind-boggling, unless you accept possible inflationary theories and the ever elusive cosmological constant where gravitational repulsion pushes exponential expansion.

It completely backfires when we think of the 2nd law of thermodynamics too, because the CMB is practically homogenous in temperature and smoothness. What the heck happened to entropy?

Ahh, frick cosmology is hot :-*

The hot and cold spots we see represent places where more photons were released more quickly from given regions of space (back when the fog became opaque). — VagabondSpectre

Are you talking about the acoustic oscillations detected by WMAP? If so, this is wrong. ;)

He is so gorgeous in this video... just chillin' while cookin'

(L)

What I mean or what I ask - is there a thing which surpasses everything else in your existence in value? I say it is consciousness because everything is contained in it. — woodart

How can something that surpasses everything be contained within it?

This is sort of similar to comparing the human mind to a computer, however a feedback control system and a computer are similar in some ways and different in others. For one feedback can be purely analogy where as computer are almost always pure digital. — dclements

Well, that is all well and good, but the problem I am still having is why you are talking to me about this 'feedback' analogy and what balancing regulatory networks has to do with anything. Are you saying that you drank yourself to near death because it provided you with the pleasure that enabled you to survive the feelings of madness until you reached a point where it no longer gave you that pleasure? That, in the absence of this regulation between pain and pleasure - subjectively - inevitably leads to our doom?

If that is the case, well, it is a trick. The mind makes you believe that if you come face-to-face with this darkness or terror that it will somehow mean you will experience a perpetuity of pain (hence the "myth" of Sisyphus) and as we are programmed to seek happiness, we assume that the fleeting desire that pleasure provides will enable us to avoid facing this darkness. As it starts to terrify us, we become neurotic in our attempt to completely delude ourselves, pretending that we are happy in our relationship and life, when clear signals for this unhappiness is always alcohol and recreational drugs.

You are right that eventually these temporary albeit pleasurable solutions to avoid accepting that your reality is the cause of your misery will collapse, but if you face this mighty fall with integrity and honour - rather than being cowardly by continuing to lie to yourself - and as such build a new life for yourself with honesty, a life you trick yourself into believing is not possible, you will see that it is in honesty and authenticity that the eternal happiness resides.

You can build a wonderful 'show' and have everything that you are supposed to have but be completely miserable, the cycle or repetition is the lies we continue telling ourselves, relying on others rather than what you feel is right and thus being honest to yourself inevitably leads to your own destruction. That is, the real YOU as you slowly murder it with your dishonesty until you get so used to your own lies that you become comfortable and dependent on it.

The question is, why is this not happening in Israel? I am very ignorant of Israel's constitution, but I presume (from the news, which are hardly trustworthy, but that's what we have) that it is equally democratic. Meaning, if there were an inflow of foreign people who peacefully started to participate in the political process, then there would be (in the long run) a shift in the political landscape. Why isn't this happening there? — Mariner

There is a high number of emigration in the country because of a strong social dissatisfaction and due to the State' ongoing security issues - particularly internally, but the external threat of Arab States as well - identity politics or Zionism plays a strong role in the attitudes for exclusivity. It is why there is currently a strong trend to influence the immigration of young Jews from Western countries to Aliyah.

You have to also appreciate the vast difference in the political and social landscape between places like the UK and Israel and even so, having a Muslim mayor has not been without its controversy even in an advanced State. When I was recently in Tel Aviv, there was a huge public 'meeting' between Israelis and Palestinians to discuss the two-state solution, protests against the far-right Orthodox extremism [something clearly seen following the death of Yitzak Rabin and the continued anti-Palestinian behaviour in the occupied territories viz. the building of Jewish settlements] and the fact that this is allowed exposes a strengthening democracy.

Comparably, I think Israel is doing pretty well considering the extreme circumstances, but sure, it is not without its flaws particularly legally, such as the recent legislative changes that is causing difficulties for anyone who supports Palestinians from entering the country. While they are welcoming foreigners, like most countries, that is exactly how they will remain 'a foreigner' and border control will remind us of that. In addition to Jamal' post, acquisition of citizenship can also include marriage [not without its social and religious issues for the ladies] as well as the honorific righteous among the nations concept, whatever the heck that is. Naturalisation - though difficult - is perhaps the only way to go.

we are often faced with the nearly identical problem which is mainly maintaining our biofeedback pain/pleasure principle good enough that we do not lose our little minds. Or perhaps for some just maintain it long enough to go out with a 'bang' — dclements

I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds to me more like you are screaming for attention because of an absence of love.

And it wasn't just the feeling of paralyses, it was the feeling of blackness and me sinking into my own mind and body and getting trapped in it.... The mind and body instinctively fear darkness and getting trapped by something, but combined it is the kind of terror that quickly overcomes the rational mind attempts to overcome the situation. I eventually wondered somewhere I didn't know, loss my glasses and backpack, puked my guts out (luckily while I was face down and not face up), and withing a half-hour to an hour regained consciences. — dclements

Now, while I have never drank alcohol except for Chianti wine from Tuscany and the occasional social dribble to pretend I resembled the morons I was forced to socialise with, I have found it to be a lot more satisfying being brutally honest while in control of all my faculties, facing the terror with integrity. I think you are right when you say that over time, as one continuously seeks alcohol or other types of methods to escape or paralyse themselves from facing whatever it is that they are afraid of, tricking themselves into thinking that if they face this reality then they will experience something devastating (when it is the exact opposite), they become dependent on objects like alcohol or recreational drugs or other people like their partner or social customs etc in order to continue avoiding. The myth of Sisyphus.

My apologies to the Romans. A display of common objects from Pompeii (fish hooks to frying pans)--and Pompeii itself or any other contemporary site--shows their handling of the material world was about the same as modern peoples'. That alone can shock our sensibilities. "What! They solved these problems 2000 years ago?" — Bitter Crank

Damnation. I didn't anticipate such a response. I actually have nothing to say. :-O Well, I guess there's a first for everything.

On the other hand, Greco-Roman religion is more of a challenge to us militant monotheists. To us, the improper Priapus, the child of Dionysus and Aphrodite (who had their own weird origins) presents something of a challenge to understand. As an unreliable prick joke, we can understand him well enough; but as a god he had other functions aside from simple up-front fertility, or so I read somewhere, and that makes him more complicated. All the gods back then seemed to have had multiple personalities. — Bitter Crank

Nike is still hanging around my local gym, strutting her stuff.

I find ancient hellenistic mythology and the myriad of gods rather simple characteristically, particularly for their semblance to human form, and there was neither any codified structure or divine revelation. People just made things up as they went along, continuously influencing changes - hence the multiple personality - as a way to ameliorate the importance of changing moral attitudes. This was particularly the case by the 300s bc when Greek civilisation began to develop and the influence of Egyptians. The hierarchical structure and rank in authority was considered morally at the time the rank of what was most to the least important; Zeus and Hera, Aphrodite and Apollo, Hephaestus and Hermes etc. On the contrary, I find it way too simple to understand, if anything, Judaism as an ancient religion is a great deal more complex and much more interesting to me.

As again, to reiterate, it is the mythological symbols that represent a contrast to human nature and behaviour and thus attempts to exemplify moral attitudes - of what was acceptable behaviour, of humanity' weakness and lack of power - and being an orally transmitted tradition that resembles the Near Eastern syncretistic religions such as Yazidi - an Islamic sect that has been influenced by Hinduism - where music and culture plays a greater role than codified practices and where stories are orally transmitted generationally vis-a-vis a unique system that shows the importance of family and a paternal structure. Ancient Greeks had the same process.

Why do you think I love this painting so much? Because CARAVAGGIO ROCKS!



... AND because Narcissus is one of many symbols in Greek mythology that describe immoral or incorrect behaviour and the punishment that follows.

Some glassware dug out of Martin Luther's parents' midden from 600 years ago (+/-), where presumably it ended up because it wasn't valuable, looks like nice modern stemware (in shape, thickness, etc.). Maybe they had far better glasses to drink out of, but we don't have them. — Bitter Crank

See, this is just awesome.

This Roman drinking glass was made about 1900 years ago. Nice. But... a glass is a glass is a glass. — Bitter Crank

But a glass is not Julius or Augustus Cesear, or Crassus, Nero and Commodus. A glass is not the axion room in the house of Vetti or the Villa of Mysteries. A glass is not Arch of Constantine or Byzantinian art on the walls and ceiling of the Hagia Sophia. You have reduced the history into a mere object so no, it is not just a glass. It is a gateway to understanding what people were like 1900 years ago.

Is "Classical Music" any better than Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Romantic, or late 19th/early 20th century music written for orchestra? No, but it's definitely not the same. — Bitter Crank

I initially assumed the same, but when you look at the question, he was talking more about classicalism methinks.

No, how could you? A painting is far more complex than the reality it alludes to. The camera's glaze is inherently dumb. Give me David's Death of Marat (which not so incidentally is also idealized) over any celluloid pastiche...any day >:O — Cavacava

How very dare you mock the cinematic medium! Give me the Seven Samurai over "Police Gazette" by Kooning anyday. On a serious note, though, I must agree since the overwhelming rubbish pouring out of hollywood only proves a painting' complexity is much more intriguing. You had to select Death of Marat, didn't you, to put me in my place! :-# I love neo-classicalism, but baroque just hits the spot for me.

People who go through experiences will often see and hear more than those who don't. It can be transferred through communication, but only that way. — Moliere

Whilst this is understandable, what exactly happens to empathy? Are we unable to recognise and understand another person' emotional state? I have never experienced something like rape, for instance, but would that mean that I am unable to simulate the possibility and imagine my emotional state as though I were a person who has experienced it? This may be a question of aesthetics, I guess.

Our relationship with the outside world, of perceptual encounters and external relations, it all depends on empathy, for instance like feeling shock and wincing when someone is hurt etc. We would not be human otherwise. So, how does your theory correlate with that?

She is an outsider. She should be treated as one. And, what's more, often times the suffering of African American's is used as a sick form of entertainment more than a bridge -- a kind of cathartic entertainment which is meant to alleviate guilt and help us feel pure and free of racism at last. — Moliere

Again, this returns to my original problem, that somehow because of mad people who entertain horrible realities that suddenly Othering appears justifiable and unequivocally, even to those who are sincere. This is inexcusable. She is not an outsider, in fact, looking at what you wrote, conversely it is her empathy that helps us feel pure and free of racism, a united cohesion between those who are 'good' and those who are not; those who are human, and those who lack empathy. That should be the only division. In reverse, are we not being discriminatory back to her?

Since that is the case it really does make sense to treat people like outsiders rather than members. Our coming from different backgrounds makes it so that I am not the target of these persecutions nor do I feel their ramifications -- as such, I just won't ever be a member of the group. — Moliere

Perhaps outsiders to our personal emotions, but not outsiders to our experiences. If I had an extremely violent father that caused me to become afraid of men, surely you can understand that. You cannot understand how isolating the pain feels of being hurt by someone who was supposed to love you, but nevertheless it would be wrong of me to say that you are an outsider to the concept of familial violence, even if you have never experienced it. It may frustrate me to see you underestimate the pain, but if you adequately express it somehow, you should not be treated as an outsider only because you have never experienced it.

1.
Specifically, the Palestinians, even if considered wholly right and unfairly oppressed by the Israelis, are not experiencing systematic slaughter with an express aim to eliminate them genetically. They are not placed in workcamps and forced to labor until death. They are not starved to death and thrown into mass graves. That is, should I accept the Palestinian position in its most extreme form, the Holocaust is disanalagous as a matter of historical fact. That you can't see that says to me that your empathy toward Jews is minimal. — Hanover

Absolutely; it is incomprehensible to form an analogous view between the two as the holocaust is unequivocally brutal vis-a-vis genocide, but this is not a comparative. It is unfair on Jews and Israelis to brush aside the horrors of the holocaust because of current political activities as much as it is to brush aside the devastation and difficulties experienced currently by Palestinians. But, that was never my point. My point still - which you continue to ignore - is about you being in the minority when it comes to appreciating outsider' expression of that brutality. If I do something that may slightly be misinterpreted, I am immediately guilty.

You assume that there was a comparative, which is still nothing short of your own injecting or presumption into the argument. That is, somehow there was a comparative between the current plight of Palestinians and the experience of Jews in the holocaust; that was and remains your own presumption, but again, I can understand why you made it. But, I wonder whether you would have made it had I said I was Jewish living in Israel rather than a human rights activist who is politically neutral?

Why do we still read Homer and other ancient writers? I think that there must be something timeless about them, something quintessential. Or, are we just recycling the canons of art due to someone else's tastes? I admit that with open canons we must agree that tastes play important roles in creating our interests, even if we end up opening our hearts and thoughts to other art. What say ye? — Preston

My broken heart continues to hurt at the choice I made to study political science and law, even though I was accepted into a prestigious school to learn classical antiquity and ancient history, which has always been a great love of mine. I collect rare books and I have a fondness for classical art. When I went back to Italy again a couple of years ago, I nearly fainted when I saw the works of Titian or Carravagio. The choice to pursue a different study was not even for professional or financial purposes, but it was a moral one and paradoxically made because I spent my early teens and adulthood engrossed in old books. As a consequence, my moral attitude is very traditional and it reflects in the choices that I have made that completely contrast with the culture of my environment.

There is a universalism and even a parallelism in the classical that has a depth and passion regarding moral and immoral points of view held at the time and is a reflection of the culture. Terms like honour, love, pride, strength or cowardice, were not terms used loosely as it is today, where people just shrug their shoulders and behave like morons. Those of us are drawn back to it because we may feel that we have lost that uprightness and want it back again. I theorised this vis-a-vis my interpretation of why people can become extremists, reverting to a more strengthened identity formed through traditional albeit misinformed avenues, because most of our understanding of history is symbolic. It symbolises the Forms, non-physical representations of what is truly worthy and perhaps something that we yearn for.

It could also be a form of escapism since it often expresses mostly of what was glorious, even if our conclusions of matters pertaining to history are fictional and will always remain inadequate. We desire to be entertained by a sophisticated fantasy without all the hullabaloo that our noisy and banal reality is filled with, shielding ourselves and our lives from being consumed by the boredom that those around us inflict.

And I have to admit that though I do not think you intended this, that one fair interpretation was that Jews are to blame for the suffering of Palestinians and therefore we shouldn't have compassion for the Holocaust. — Moliere

No, the point is, however, that the Jews are sensitive to anything about the topic of Israel and Palestine together with the Holocaust and the concept of 'outsiders' is fairly strong, which is why I mentioned that he was in the minority. I agree that I perhaps was not clear, but my recent experience in the country made me think that - like the OP - controversy around the artist not being African-American and therefore not having the authority to paint the subject would be the same in Israeli culture, which is tied closely to the Holocaust. To be called anti-Semitic for saying that? That is just insane, whether what I said was out of the blue or not.

As for your interpretation, no, but I do see your point. I support Palestine, but it doesn't mean that I hate the Jews or Israel but every time I mention something about Palestine, the same reaction comes up. The one Hanover had, the incorrect interpretation you made, being called anti-Semitic. If I said I was in a relationship with an Israeli Jew, if I were Jewish myself, if I lived in Israel, would that reaction have been made? That is because I am an 'outsider' so if I were to depict anything about their history including the holocaust, it would be viewed with suspicion.

It doesn't help that there are so many horrible people who deny the holocaust, but even so, does that mean that I am not allowed to say that there are also many Israelis that deny anything bad going on in Palestine too, unless I am a holocaust-denier, anti-semite? In Palestine, the same sensitivity causes reactions when I mention Israel. I feel so sandwiched as a white, Western woman who will apparently never understand both of them and so I should just keep my mouth shut. Revisionist Zionism. PNA. Both do the same thing.

I do think that the ethics of insider/outsider is worth exploring. But maybe the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isn't the best ground in which to explore it? — Moliere

I think it is, only because of the above mentioned complexity and sensitivity, but certainly it must be carefully explored. Clarity that I am not anti-Semitic would need to be understood and avoided. Otherwise, certainly, the subject frustrates me on many fronts. Including, for instance, appreciating the philosophy of authors who are 'bad' and so, though they write really good theories, because they have done bad things in their life, their authority on the subject is shaken.

Yes, its on my iPod. Deal with it.

Perhaps Schultz's painting depicts the mother's view of her son, where he remained beautiful to her in spite of his brutal disfigurement, and horrendous death. She sees past the surface disfigurement to her remembrance of her son is all his innocence, the smiling boy we see in the photo prior to this heinous act. The passionately colored flower, symbolizing love. — Cavacava

I assumed that the colours symbolised innocence just like the little girl in the red dress in Schindlers List. A child-like purity. But the difference is that symbol was represented in the moving image because it ameliorated the horror surrounding her symbol - that all the victims were innocent as she was - which is why paintings may be inadequate when discussing such horrors and the impact the violence has not just to the victim and his family, but to all those who belong within the social and political problem itself. It is no longer about the victim and thus more than just a mothers love in the eyes of those who claim authority.

For me, though, a mother's love represents unconditional love and I believe this even though I never had a mother, because I feel that way, always. I teared up when I saw the photo, but I know that the best way to remember victims of heinous crimes is to remember them and not the criminal.

I also don't recall accusing anyone of ant-Semitism for anything and everything. I accused you specifically of it because you were. It was just an observation. — Hanover

How was I anti-semitic? By saying that you are in a minority of Jewish people who would appreciate art that depicts the holocaust from those who are non-Jewish? I will concede, my response lacked clarity on a touchy subject that causes reactions and I should have been more vigilant, but blimey, I never anticipated your reaction. When people like you assume such negative opinions and rather immediately throw out the term 'anti-Semitic' for an unjustified cause, it is accusing anyone for anything and everything. You didn't think your accusation through and even you were aware of your doubts, so nice try.

What happened is that I noted an instance of unambiguous Jewish victimization and you felt it necessary to insert an instance where you felt Jews were oppressors as if it added anything at all to the conversation. — Hanover

No, you mentioned art depiction of Jewish victimisation by non-Jewish artists and how you would welcome it, and I responded by saying you are in a minority. I knew it was a touchy thing to say, so I tried to clarify by showing that I experienced some negative reactions as a neutral outsider. I never said Jews were oppressors and this is precisely the purpose of my initial post, that sensitive topics always bring out and highlight reactions such as yours. You can assume my saying I am neutral and a human rights advocate that does not involve herself in politics to be merely a tool to covert my anti-semitism, but you are a fool for thinking that. End of story.

Schultz denies that it was her reason for the creation and she says she will never sell it. She agrees that she does not know what it is like to be black in America, but she said she does understand what is to be a mother. — Cavacava

I apologise for the digression in your thread. I have a hard time understanding how particular people must have authority on a subject based on their personal experience or relationship. I am not a mother, does that mean that I would not feel or understand the sadness the image of that young boy would convey? Does that lessen my authority? If the artist was African-American, would that enable her the right? This kind of thinking is regularly and rather fallaciously used and I am intrigued that the community reacted in such a negative way towards her. Setting aside cultural appropriation, I am of the opinion it was because of the message that it was sending, the horror of a historical reality where the aesthetic medium is preferred not be used to convey such a message. A painting, basically, is not doing the horror justice, nor the victim or the history. It is not enough.

In addition, art is also desirable, beautiful. It is a movement, perhaps, to challenge that stereotype. Her brush strokes - so thick and almost distorted - I feel is a great depiction of the confusion I felt when I saw the image, almost like I quickly looked away because of the abhorrence and her image represents that quickness. But, it is also colourful. The picture is not and that representation - whilst perhaps showing love - is probably not appropriate.

I realize you self declared this, but I was questioning it obviously. All I said in my post was that I'd stand by those who stood by me in their opposition to the holacaust, and you then started talking about injustice in Palestine. If you can't see why that might be construed as anti-Semetic, then maybe think a little deeper. — Hanover

Sorry buddy, it was your so-called 'deep thinking' that led to an accusation of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. If you cannot see just how ridiculous you were, I suggest you take some multivitamins or whatever that may assist in better cognitive function.

If a Muslim were beaten to death for being Muslim and a Muslim poster expressed gratitude for non-Muslim support for the victim, do you think me bringing up the topic of Muslim terrorism would be in order? Do you really think it'd matter if I just said "Oh btw I'm not racist, so don't take this the wrong way"? — Hanover

Perhaps, but take a look at it from my perspective. I told you that I just came back from Israel and that contrary to your opinion would not be the case for many others; in line of the OP that meant that there is reason behind the controversy she is experiencing. Spitting out venomous notions of 'anti-Semitism' and holocaust denial to anything and everything is embarrassing and shameful.

What this means is that you wish to interject a non-sequitur regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations into the question of whether one should be opposed to the Holocaust. As you may realize (but maybe not), it's entirely possible to feel unmitigated sympathy to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and still side with the Palestinians in the current Israeli situation. — Hanover

Actually, no, not at all. Whoever denies the holocaust has lost his/her sense of humanity and I am offended at the suggestion. The holocaust and the victims of African American slavery both heavily involve racism, discrimination, lack of self-determination and extreme violence. Comparatively, the Palestinian situation is the same. My interjection essentially lies in the fact that should artwork depict a child who has been shot and killed in Bethlehem for throwing a stone, would you feel the same way? Judging from the tone and complete misrepresentation of my post, I can see that you would.

And so, back to what I said, in the hopes that you'll clarify what appears to be anti-Semitic comment. — Hanover

*sigh*

Even though I said:

I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics — TimeLine

I would embrace anyone who creates art expressing opposition to the Holocaust. That you might wish to say that you stand by Jews in the Holocaust, but you want to be very clear that you don't like them always, isn't terribly laudable or necessary, and it's unclear why that clarification needed to be made to my uncontroversial comments regarding the horror of the Holocaust. — Hanover

Look, not sure where you jibbed expressing opposition to the Holocaust from, you've probably been involved in way too many conversations about Chomsky that you are failing to read the point I was attempting to make, but 'outsiders' speaking about Israel and Jewish history is not often welcome. As an 'outsider' - whatever that actually means - and the controversial point of this OP relating to her artwork is what I wanted to understand. This African-American man, who was beaten to death, also shows the brutality and violence of White America, which is why the artwork is controversial.

As for not liking them always, the problem of a female 'outsider' getting involved with a Jew is a subject that hurts me as a female 'outsider', but that is a different story.

I can say for myself that prior to reading this thread, I was unaware of the Till tragedy, which means that but for Shutz' cultural appropriation or whatever it should be called, I would not now be educated. Surely there is some value in that. — Hanover

I, likewise, agree and though controversial for a number of reasons, education on the subject vis-a-vis the controversy is much more valuable. I should note, however, with:

I welcome those of all colors and stripes to produce art depicting the horrors of the holocaust. — Hanover

You do make up a minority should you think of the Palestinian subject. I am completely neutral, anti-racist and my only concern is human rights and not politics, and having returned from Israel not too long ago, I learnt that as an outsider discussions on the subject was often viewed antagonistically, except in Tel Aviv. I care about the Jews, trust me on that, but I also care about the Palestinians. So, what does it mean to care?

Alrighty then.

I was talking about this so-called "horror philosophy" particularly in reference to Lovecraft and if you have read any of his works, you would understand my reference to existentialism, but anyhoot...

Saves typing. Compared to you, anyone with a vague interest in this subject will be an expert. Is your vacuous virtue-signaling over? — tom

Are you still talking?

Isn't this just existentialism?

I don't disagree with you, but there needs to be some line drawn otherwise we will find ourselves in an even more absurd position, namely solipsism.

I cannot tell with certainty whether someone truly loves me but I calculate according to a number of historic and logical inferences to trust that his description of love must be an accurate description of his feelings. I have nothing to offer, no family, no popularity or many friends, no money, no capacity to have children, heck, if I were to get married there would be a tiny handful of people on my side of the church. I have experienced a history of negative misuse of my social vulnerability from people who care about their social position, so a declaration of love in addition to my testing the authenticity of his expressions for me must logically mean that there is no other reason for his love other than 'me' since I have nothing else to offer. It is a completely subjective certainty based on the authenticity of the symbols he uses to describe what he feels and since I feel a similar way vis-a-vis his articulation, I trust that he must love me. I will never know for certain, but again, you need to draw the line somewhere before things start to get absurd.

In the end, though, it could simply be psychological based on my own existential vulnerability and therefore remains unreliable. But since I feel, at the very least I am capable of expressing this feeling and that should suffice; things change when you take out the 'I' and start to just live, even if it is all a dream-like vanity state of mind.

... circumcision for men.

Sure, nothing is to do with Islam, even if it is mandated in the Hadith. — tom

There is no the hadith. There are a number of different hadiths. I implore you to speak only when you know what you are talking about.

Well, yes, as I said it is a cultural practice that has become embedded in some Muslim countries, the Sudanese referring to FGM as pharaonic circumcision to imply its relationship to the Sudanese practice in Egypt that spread through sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East through the Arab slave trade.

It is called the spread of stupidity. Not an uncommon thing in human beings. Still got nothing to do with Islam though.

Hey there Jempy. A good start would probably be Aristotle' Eudemian Ethics but you can traverse through all of his works on Ethics and whilst I am a fan of the Tao, it may be a tad bit wishy washy for a newbie.

Regularity of character and the balance between extremes is the only way to establish peace both subjectively and objectively... despite the 2nd law of thermodynamics :-O

The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive. — VagabondSpectre

It isn't Islam, but there are certainly cultural attitudes amongst certain Islamic communities that are violent. Think of Sudanese Muslims circumcising women; it is not a practice by all Muslims, but rather a cultural practice that has become embedded into a religious one in that region, albeit a ridiculously stupid, vicious and violent practice. But the reality of perceptions against Islam in the West is exactly as you say, too simplistic. Not many people are aware of the various Islamic jurisprudential divisions - Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Shafi'i, Hanafi and Maliki - then you have Shi'a Islam, then even further still you have the syncretistic religions of the Near East such as Alawi, Ahl-e Haqq, Druze, Yezidi, (I published on this subject) and its relationship to historical and cultural traditions.

Further still, there are even more variations formed by the number of different hadiths that tend to be utilised more predominately than the ever ambiguous Qu'ran. These so-called 'teachings of the prophet' are the direct result of different interpretations and many of its sources are dubious to say the least, compelling some groups to justify violence.

Whatever the case is, though, there is a clear difficulty or tension between Islam and Democracy but to ignore a history of Ottoman rule in the region and post-colonial ramifications, factious international relations, proxy wars, globalisation and economic/social transformations and quite simply state that it is 'Islam' is just moronic.

...Descartes took one step too many by injecting "I" (self). — jorndoe

Peculiar how the 'I' was supposed to establish certainty :-}

How can you be certain that what you have is a migraine then? You might be quite sure that your head hurts, but a migraine is a certain type of headache. From what you've described, it doesn't sound like you're at all certain about having a migraine — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not certain, hence reliabilism. I have never had a migraine before but yesterday I woke up with a sharp pain in my head, my eyes were sore and I felt unwell. Similar symptoms have occurred in others who have had migraines, so I can only assume that it must be the case that I too had a migraine. My only certainty was that I felt pain in my head, but was it even pain, and in addition I did not have any of the preceding underlying causes i.e. sleeplessness, stress, so the 'migraine' was quite random. I understand the possibility of an infinite regress of reliable causation because while we may have similar perceptions of experience it does not necessary make it identical.

Probably not the best example, but I cannot agree that my belief that I have a migraine is epistemically justifiable, though the product of my experience of pain in the head can perhaps be articulated. In the end, as jorndoe pointed out: to you the bare existence of those experiences is certain, albeit perhaps not quite what they are (quiddity). At base level, it is a mind/body problem or conception and cognition, but think of pseudocyesis and it is easy to see why psychological certainty is never reliable.

I am interested in how to define universal notions (I mentioned the categorical imperative) and I think Spinoza' scientia intuitive in his ethics is interesting in that the types of cognition must equally balance between belief, reason and intuition [subjective and objectively], though I fear the result of his certainty may rest on the idea that 'cognition depends on the knowledge of its cause' and that - similar to the cartesian angle - fundamentally attributed to God (or nature).

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire

I think the categorical imperative is a type of certainty, that some actions should never be done and the case in the philosophy of law, but perfect certainty is complex least of all in the sciences. With regards to indubitability, I agree with the legal sentiment 'beyond reasonable doubt' vis-a-vis certainty, thus Klein' view that it needs to be both subjectively and objectively immune to doubt.

Nevertheless, it could all be psychological in nature and the latter is quite simply unsatisfactory in my opinion. I am certain that right now I have a migraine - even though I have never had one before and I have no idea why I have one today - yet, right now I am certain that my head hurts. I cannot guarantee a sufficient explanation to prove my migraine and thus will always rest on probabilities. There is no justification we can make other than through a historic approach by selecting the most reliable belief as truth with certainty.

I agree and postcolonial states that have transitioned to a democratic state often trended toward one-party systems because of their struggles to transform to the precipitating social demands that democracy negotiates. It needs to be a natural development where the community or citizens themselves demand it rather than it being imposed by and consolidated through global forces. In many African cultures, leadership is often dominated by tribal lineage but I think Mandela modelled his sociopolitical platform on a unique version of democracy that nurtured the continuity of democracy by adapting to tribal attitudes at large.

(Y) Nice, different, weird. Why would you draw that? Why not? I like it and I don't like it all at the same time.

Anyway, I think you imply a significant point – the paradox that in practice a human being can be either happier, or conversely unhappier than he personally believes himself to be. Regarding this idea, we are all of course capable of rationally acknowledging the received truth – as distinct from personaly bearing a psychological witness towards it - that the gratification of pleasure, both physical and psychological (psychological in terms of the elevation of personal vanity and the massaging of the ego) is capable of presenting to an individual a prospect of happiness which effectively is a mirage, so that if the experience of the individual concerned was deficient, and therefore he had no other reference point with regard to which to evaluate this semblance before him, he would most likely be persuaded of its plausibility. — Robert Lockhart

A man whose existence is levelled through the applause of his peers, on having the image and tools that showcase his social and economic success by his submission and adherence to the system - such as having a beautiful partner, happy family and friends, and money - will never attain genuine happiness because his entire existence is superficial. His happiness is wholly dependent on others. This is ultimately cowardly and being subjectively aware of this but nevertheless suppressing his cowardice, develops a type of ressentiment where he neither ever feels satisfied [you can never satisfy a superficial existence] and also projects his hatred of himself to the outer world in ways that confirms his lack of moral fibre.

Happiness is only possible through authenticity, when we are honest to ourselves and the process of reaching this authenticity involves moral consciousness. I see so many people consistently lying to themselves and using justifications and even others to maintain this lie, but ultimately only honesty can enable genuine happiness. And he doesn't need to believe in happiness, it will happen all on its own when he takes charge of his life as a genuine man without concern or the need of others or other' opinions of him. Otherwise, he will continue to suffer but pretend he is happy only because other people think he is.

... such revelations sometimes conferring a surprisingly affirmative realisation and, sometimes, a sense of regret and remorse regarding the irrecoverable nihilisms of the past but, more importantly, assuming such experience was valid, also an increased awareness of those objective moral values on which – so we are instructed anyway - sustainable contentment is ultimately contingent! — Robert Lockhart

Having been hurt quite incredibly by people who completely refuse to acknowledge or even apologise, on the contrary, found it justifiable to hurt and humiliate me, it does cast a great shadow of doubt that the likelihood of such a recovery is minimal, but indeed, should they feel a sense of guilt and remorse they would truly able to "see me" as I say, something they are blind too. They become honest to themselves.

The movie Dead Man Walking is amazing and exemplifies this concept of remorse. It is virtually impossible not to forgive someone who is genuinely remorseful, but unfortunately I have never had the luxury of such an experience. I have, though, confronted my own wrongdoing and it is certainly a very difficult thing to do. Once we achieve this level of integrity, you are absolutely right, contentment becomes sustainable through the honesty we have to ourselves.

Haven't yet managed personally however to attain that Nirvana by educating myself out of envy for what I, of course, perceive to be the undeserved success in relation to my own efforts of others! :) — Robert Lockhart

Haha, well admitting it is a good start. Life is full of blunders, it is what makes it interesting. Better than those living day to day in a repetitive life that is just barely satisfying as long as it is safe and like everyone else.

Timeline: - Without intending to be patronising – it’s refreshing to hear a female voice, for a change, in this forum! I’ve always been a bit curious as to why most philosophy sites don’t appear to have that many female members! (Though who knows what is disguised, both nefarious and worthy, behind the pseudonyms by which we choose to publicly represent ourselves!) — Robert Lockhart

I think it boils down to accessibility and just like the field of science and engineering, philosophy has never been promoted as an accessible study to women due to a culture of gender bias. Promotion and accessibility is changing this but for me, well, I was initially compelled to philosophy as a way to articulate the difficulties that I was experiencing, since I grew up and spent most of my life alone and under difficult circumstances. I picked up an old, second-hand book when I was 15 - The Last Days of Socrates - that I read on a long train ride from the country to the city and was amazed at how some of the wisdom within it made sense of certain ideas that I had been thinking and thus my journey started.

Plus, I know more about the Cardassians than the Kardashians.

Do something about it !?

Like what, cryogenically freeze myself for millennia until the triviality of modern civilization has melted away? Only problem there is that humans 1k+ years from now would have no reason to wake me up in the same way that advanced aliens have no reason to presently contact us... — VagabondSpectre

Come now, life is but a damp squib without a bit of action and surely cryogenics is merely an excuse you are using to not do something since it is clearly ridiculous. I'm not saying change the world; start small and influence the next generation and there are a multitude of ways anyone can do this. I get your pain, the world seems to be repeating itself and the repetition is pure idiocy. 99% of humanity is suffering incredibly and then you have a strange minority getting plastic surgery and mindless morons following the herd and you think that there is simply no hope. How do you get those morons to wake up? Using that fire within brings me joy because I HATE injustice, and I mean with a passion so fighting the good fight has brought some amazing changes in my community but also within me too.

What bothers me isn't that the world is facing trivial problems, it's that what comes afterward is sure to be much more interesting and current climates are a source of delay. My contribution is to spread awareness of problems and possible solutions as I see them, and that's appropriate for my station, but no amount of hard work or dedication will get me to the other side of them. The only way there is through time. — VagabondSpectre

(Y) But it depends on how far your influence can reach and thus the arrow of time can easily be shortened. Never underestimate the power you have as a good and intelligent man with a strong voice. There have been many and in that passion have influenced huge changes, even if they come from very humble backgrounds. Don't get disillusioned.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced humans are currently about as interesting as a fly-ridden wildebeest. — VagabondSpectre

Relax. It is quite empowering using what agitates you right back and against it: clearly you are conscious of the damage people are doing to the world, why not do something about it? Seriously, do it.