Criminalizing the verbal/written expression of hate IN ITSELF is too much like criminalizing thought or feelings, for me. I'd rather avoid implementing thoughtcrime.

Now and then, I take comfort in in the fact that the law (at least here in God's Favorite Country) has not (yet?) made the use of "hate speech" a crime. But perhaps because we're sadly and self-righteously inclined to equate the law with morality, there are laws which penalize hate of a social group when it motivates commission of a crime. The combination of this kind of hate with an already defined crime results in something described, ingeniously, as a "hate crime."

Certainly it exists. It's over there, next to somethingness.

My understanding is, very simply put, objectivity in ethics is the view that moral claims aren't merely personal beliefs and opinions, but their value and validity may be determined regardless of personal preferences. For a more sophisticated and complete discussion see 180 Proof's post or do some research.

Just thought I'd note that the definitions you're referring to are those used in epistemology and metaphysics. You might find those applied to ethics are a trifle different.

Subjectivity in ethics, as I understand it, treats moral assertions as expressions of opinion; nothing more.

Well, feel free to send me messages without using words, then, or incoherently and without explanation, so I'll understand. I'm waiting. I'll let you know when I receive them.

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad?

One of the things I like about analytic philosophy and OLP, by the way, is their emphasis on care in defining terms and using language.

As you know from reading Pierre Hadot, there were ancient schools of philosophy that taught ways of living that promoted what they considered happiness. They were founded on reason, though, following from in the case of the Stoics compliance with the Universal Reason they thought was the generative force of the Universe.

I think philosophers should have the courage to admit that they aren't poets or artists, and the wisdom to acknowledge that what poetry and art do is much better done by poets and artists than by philosophers.

Assuming you "became a human" in the normal way, then the chances that you wouldn't be a human are "vanishing small."

Why not just say that, based on the evidence we have, humans are rare?

Why do you think that you, a human, could have become something else? Do you think that you existed before you became a human, and that the Universe or someone or something made you a human instead of, e.g, a bunny?

So much for consistency and clarity. What a relief it is to dispense with them!

My little comment was addressed to the consideration of the existence of God. I feel it's futile to discuss whether God exists. That question, if it is a true question, won't be answered. How or why the universe exists is a question which may be usefully discussed, but if it can be answered it will be answered by science, not by philosophers thinking about it really hard.

What the concept of God means and whether it matters will vary from person to person, I think..

We've led different lives. Mine was more traditional middle class. The usual trek through the education system; working factory jobs to help pay the way. I'm a younger Boomer, and they stopped using the draft lottery with those born the year before I was, so even Vietnam didn't sufficiently radicalize me (or frighten me). I see how the recession impacted you more than it did me.

And I've always been cynical, alas. So, it didn't surprise me that much when Boomers fell under the spell of filthy lucre. But the extent to which the elites want to control our choices and lives as well as profit from them does surprise me.

I think we agree that the mood of our nation has changed. I think we agree that the difficult times our parents faced shaped them.

But what generation since theirs has (as a generation) experienced similar times? Most Boomers, I think, abandoned any desire they may have had to serve others and elected to serve themselves. They were used to being served, and accepted it as their due. They became the self-indulgent elites that, together with their progeny, rule us now. They feel entitled to rule and tell others what to do, and more than ever have the means to convince us that this is the way it should be.

This is the example they set.

Such a witty fellow, Roosevelt. Happy Days indeed. Songs like Brother, Can You Spare a Dime rang truer in those dark times, and were even popular.

My parents lived through the Great Depression and WWII. If we Boomers carry the attitudes and memories of those dark times, I don't think they weigh on most us very heavily, or that they've ever done so. Many of us were and still are positively wanton in comparison with our mothers and fathers. We have some responsibility for today's expectations.

How nice to see this subject still being addressed.

You seem to address the beauty of people, as opposed to, e.g., works of art.

As to the former, I think it becomes a subject of philosophical discussion mostly in the case of older men and women; primarily men. They feel its loss or the loss of their ability to fully enjoy it, and dwell on it. It's a kind of romanticized lechery, perhaps. Ever read Thomas Mann's Death in Venice?

To the extent philosophy "teaches" us anything about everyday life, it is that it serves to distracts us from it.

I haven't been here for some time. I forgot (if I ever knew) that I'd be sent an email if I was mentioned. I thought I'd respond in this case. I am responding.

I should say first I don't like large law firms. Skadden is very large. I was once associated with a much smaller "large" firm, with over a hundred lawyers. It was a snake pit. Happily, my experience in opposing large firms has been good. This has been gratifying. Their litigators, at least, are unimpressive in my experience.

Regardless, it must be understood that ultimately, they're devoted to making money, and nothing else. Even their "pro bono" work is done for marketing purposes. They generally have departments devoted to soliciting work from politicians and lobbyists. They're not strangers to the world of politics and its peculiarities.

That said, I feel as Cohen does. I suspect Paul Weiss made a decision it thought was best based on monetary considerations. I suspect Skadden will as well. If they conclude defying the contemptable conduct of this regime won't significantly effect their profits and book of business, they may do so. If not, they'll comply, possibly hoping they'll outlast the regime and have the opportunity to do what's right in the future.

Thank you.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world. Once, lightening was considered supernatural. I get in my car, talk into a little handheld device, and it directs me to a destination 100 miles away (i.e. mobile phone and GPS) or allows me to talk to someone on another continent. A few centuries ago, that would have been called supernatural. — Art48

In an earlier post I noted that I'm uncertain whether what you refer to as "The One"

is meant to be supernatural (outside of or apart from nature) or a part of nature (the universe). — Ciceronianus

For purposes of this thread, that's how I'm using the word "supernatural." Do you think "The One" to be outside or apart from nature/the universe, or a part of nature/the universe?

If you think "The One" is apart from nature, then you may if you wish ascribe to it whatever characteristics you like, and claim that nature isn't really true because only The One is true. That sort of thing's been done by some philosophers and most religious believers who worship a transcendent God for many centuries. It's not a position I can take, as I think there's no basis on which we can know what "transcends" the universe. But if "The One" is a part of nature then I don't think you can distinguish it from the rest of nature because it's the only part that's "true."

The new physics isn’t simply ‘more true’ than the old, it is qualitatively different in its concepts, but in subtle ways that are easy to miss. — Joshs

The OP, or rather the attachment to it, seems to me to err by contrasting "what works" with "what's true"--e.g., Newtonian physics may work, but it's not true. It reminds me of Russell's criticism of Pragmatism, or more accurately the straw man he called "Pragmatism." The notion that what's true is different qualitatively from what is established by our day-to-day interaction with the rest of the world minimizes the significance of our lives as part of the world, and separates us from what is significant, what is "true."

It's unclear to me whether what's being referred to as "The One" is meant to be supernatural (outside of or apart from nature) or a part of nature (the universe). If it's supernatural, it seems to me to suffer from the problems which result when a transcendence is assumed rather than immanence--I don't think we can know anything about what's "outside" of nature/the universe. But if some aspect of nature/the universe is being referred to, why can't that be a kind of materialism (in which what is "material" would include all of the universe)?

Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over. — ENOAH

Well, that at least provides an explanation.

I think it's more a case of degenerating myself, but I've never watched an entire season of American Idol, I must admit.

seemingly bona fide interactions are hard to come by outside of the law and jurisprudence system(?) — Shawn

Well, they constitute quite a bit of society and human interactions and always have, before and after the time of the Roman Republic.

At long last, American Idol takes its rightful place as a topic of discussion in philosophy. Alas, we must still await the time when it's recognized as a branch of it, along with epistemology, metaphysics and ethics.

I proposed in a thread some time ago that philosophy is in certain respects an affectation (or affectation on the part of certain philosophers). For example, the claim that what is "really" real isn't what we interact with every day; a claim philosophers blithely disregard every moment of their lives; in that sense, an unnatural claim.

But it's not clear to me what you mean by "self-deception."

The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias. — Outlander

Well, I disagree. I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense.

Ciceronianus is your source on all things Roman. — BitconnectCarlos

I enjoy irony.

Then there's the distaste for philosophers like Heidegger, who stands out for his personal life associated with Nazism. — Shawn

Distaste for Heidegger? You astound me.

He certainly was a stand out Nazi. Stood by them as well.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large. — Outlander

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him.

I referred to indifference to sex in the Roman and Greek (perhaps I should use "Hellenic") world compared to what came later. It may be more accurate to say that sex didn't have the significance it came to have. Sexual relationships could be significant (like convenient marriages), but not so much the sexual act. I think that, then, people weren't as disturbed by it as they are now, particularly as to sex of certain kinds, it seems.

An example, ever been to the ruins of Pompey, or seen them on video? If so, you may have noticed the appalled reaction of some visitors, or the giggling of others, at the frequent depiction of the phallus and the occasional paintings or murals involving various sexual acts. Such things weren't thought forbidden or depraved at the time; a phallus could even be considered "lucky".

We come to attribute too much significance to what we think is forbidden, especially when we believe it's forbidden by God. This strikes me as particularly the case here in our Glorious Union. So we tend to see such as Anthony Comstock, Carrie Nation, Billy Sunday (who was it seems a good baseball player) and other preachers against purported vices of all kinds). We also see others who like to appear to glory in those vices thinking it makes them remarkable in some sense.

I usually delight in quibbling, but don't feel you must peruse your cache of quotes regarding the naughtiness of sodomy on my account. I don't doubt there were those who disapproved of it and pederasty in particular, but I think most were indifferent to it compared to the angry fascination with it we see later.

As to Caesar, as I noted, the Romans thought a man taking the passive role in gay sex was ridiculous. So, Caesar was mocked for taking the passive role, in other words becoming another man's woman.

understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became.

For example, both ancient Greece and ancient Rome were largely indifferent to same sex relations at least where men were concerned, though the Romans considered it unmanly and rather ridiculous for a man to assume the "passive" role in those relationships. Julius Caesar was mocked by his detractors for being "Every woman's man and every man's woman." The regard the Romans had for the family under the stern supervision of the pater familias made it difficult and dangerous for a woman to be sexually active with more than one partner at a time, but I think the men were mostly free to do what they liked.

The Sacred Band of Thebes, a select group of warriors, was made up of male couples in a same sex relationship, one older and one younger. Alcibiades supposedly was in love with Socrates, according to Plato. Hadrian had his Antinous. Same sex relations and bisexuality were rather common, it seems, and depicted in such works as Petronius' Satyricon.

Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

All those Mongolian tourists. I understand.

That's something that someone who has never been to Europe would say. Of it, Rome and Greece are places that exist outside of history books, they can be seen physically today, the glory is still there — someone who ignores it today would ignore it back then too. — Lionino

I've been there five times, and hope to return. Only once to Rome and once to Greece--Athens and the day trip to Delphi, and Santorini. I had hoped to get to Eleusis to see the remains of the Telesterion and other sites related to the Mysteries, but couldn't.

They're wonderful, of course, but in many ways we can only make educated guesses regarding what they were, and I think it's what they were that laid the foundation for Western civilization. We should be thankful that so much survived the ravages of Christianity.

This thread really serves to spotlight your pedantry, I must say. Sorry, I will say. No, I have said.

Oh, Europe's just fine. You needn't worry about it. We continue to look back on the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome as Poe would say.

Not much, I think.

I am hoping we might discuss what Scholasticism had to do with the change. — Athena

It isn't clear to me it had anything to do with it, if I understand your question correctly. Are you asking whether the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle and other ancient thinkers by monks influenced the change?

the mad god Dionysus
— Ciceronianus
i.e. life-affirming ("ja-sagen") — 180 Proof

Not id est, I think, but quite literally mad because Hera made him such when she finally located him. But his worship was also associated with wine, revelry, fertility and festivity as well. I'm sure N knew this all very well.

There is an abundance of such testimonies in interview form, from people alive today who have prayed and had such visions — Hallucinogen

So "visions" are observations of reality, it seems.