To the extent that naturalism rejects the view that we, as individuals but also collectively, are somehow apart from the world instead of being living organisms that are a part of it, and that there is something, or someone, situated in some place or some sense outside of the universe, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable. We know only what we experience in our interactions with the rest of the universe, and to purport to know something outside of the universe or claim that there's something apart from it is necessarily to make claims that can't be made intelligently. I suspect that's why we routinely ascribe characteristics we know through being parts of the universe to what we believe to be beyond it.

Masculinity becomes toxic when men begin worrying about their masculinity.

The only way to really appreciate and ancient language is to first embody their way of life because that is the focus Or central point around which their linguistics revolve. — Benj96

Well, it's a good thing I'm not interested in understanding Maya or Nahuatl, then, as it seems I'd have to practice or at least witness ritual human sacrifice to do so.

I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries--places I worked at when I was fitter and healthier, and much younger than I am now and was disliked, though I always believed it was due to my ineptness. Or for that matter at law firms. There are fit, healthy lawyers I heartily dislike, God knows.

I'm ashamed to admit my only feeling regarding the thread was one of satisfaction, that I was able to mock its premise just before it was closed. To those who think to renew it, I give warning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM

Alas, how difficult it is to be a man in these times, particularly a healthy, fit man, without any disabilities! And don't get me started on the inequities visited upon such man who is white as well.

If what evidence we have indicates that "sucklings" was defined in a particular way at the time, that's part of the information we have available in understanding the sentence in question. Presumably there's no confusion over what men, women, infants, camels, etc. were or meant at the time.

The best information we have (including archaeological evidence) indicates that certain of the ancient American civilizations practiced human sacrifice. We may not be able to understand, fully, why they thought it was necessary or proper, but it wouldn't be correct to say we can't know they engaged in the ritualistic killing of captives and others because we didn't live and weren't part of their society at the time, any more than it would be correct to claim we can't know that people were burned at the stake centuries ago in Europe. We have a reasonable basis on which to make claims regarding history in many cases, though sometimes there is no such basis and we can only speculate.

Beware generalization. As to ancient language, sometimes it seems clear enough. Sometimes it may not be. To claim that we can never understand ancient language or culture is a bit extreme.

From the cheerful First Book of Samuel, Chapter 15:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

This seems fairly straightforward. What reason is there to believe it doesn't mean what it says? On what basis could we claim that the destruction of the men, women, infants, etc. isn't being referred to, or ordered? Why would we have to live then in order to know that?

I thought the soldier's name was Naughtius Maximus.

Much as I delight in a post in which Stephen Hawking is compared, unfavorably, with one of the creators of The Man Show, I think that it must be acknowledged that questions regarding why the universe exists and why we exist are more likely to be answered by science than philosophy, if what's sought is an explanation. But it doesn't follow that philosophy is dead, although if philosophy is defined as being confined to answering those questions I doubt it has anything to contribute beyond what philosophers have already toyed with in the past. I'm inclined to think philosophy involves more that Hawking gives it credit for.

Also, Hawking by stating philosophy is dead isn't claiming that philosophy or philosophers must be silenced. All in all, using his example to introduce or as representative of what's referred to in the trailer is confusing at best.

As to the trailer. For a lawyer, the right to free speech applies only where government or its representatives seek to restrict it. The right itself is subject to restriction in the law; it isn't absolute. The right to free speech being referred to in the trailer, and by others, therefore, isn't a legal right. It merely happens there are people who think people should be free to say anything they want, and generally they claim that this should be the case because, e.g., we otherwise would never learn and people shouldn't stop other people from thinking or speaking, and that we should have diversity in thought and speech. J.S. Mill used to speak of the good results of having a "marketplace of ideas" or words to that effect, where views compete and bad ones fall to the side through the workings of a kind of invisible hand of communication.

It's difficult, however, to claim that people should be allowed to communicate hateful, bigoted, violence-inducing claims and ideas, for example promoting genocide or slavery or inferiority of races and such things. Mill notwithstanding, I wonder if anyone really does claim this. Instead, they claim "free speech" is being restricted whenever it's maintained that people shouldn't be allowed to do so.

The fact is that some speech is inappropriate. But the determination whether it is or not isn't a simple thing, and such devices as the creation of "safe spaces" treats it as a simple thing.

Thomas Carlyle believed that it was the role and duty of the aristocracy to rule for the benefit of the working class. A kind of hero-mythology. — Pantagruel

Yes. Sadly, at least during his more Romantic moments, J.S. Mill believed in rule by an elite as well. But it wasn't all that uncommon a belief in the 19th century.

It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition. — Todd Martin

I'm not a moderator, but my guess would be that none of them (or anyone else for that matter) would care much regarding what you read. For my part, you may read what philosophers of the past wrote about any number of things to your heart's content. It should be apparent, though, that what you choose to read and what you choose to post in a forum are two different things.

My question is, just how bad is it going to get before an actual adult from the ruling class stands-up and says, "Enough is enough!" ? — synthesis

I'm uncertain about this "ruling class" and those who are a part of it. I've some familiarity with the working class, the middle class and the upper class, but this is apparently another class altogether. Is it anything like "the master race"?

If you look at the charity organizations in your community, like the ones that run thrift shops and soup kitchens, you'll probably find that most of them are Christian organizations. I'm not a Christian, but that 'love your neighbor' actually is a thing. — frank

I suspect Sasse wasn't referring to these charities when he opined regarding Americans no longer believing as he thinks we did once. If he was, though, then it seems he is wrong. Because in that case what happened, and is happening takes place despite the fact that Americans still believe themselves to be children of a loving (Christian) God, and love their neighbors and see themselves as having a role in lovin their neighbors.

But my guess is that Sasse, like me, doesn't think these charities are representative of American society at large. If they were, it's likely they wouldn't be needed.

For generations, most Americans understood themselves as children of a loving God, and all had a role to play in loving their neighbors. But today, many Americans have no role in any common story.

This is how Sasse explains the "bad" Republicans and Trumpists, you see. The members of the Republican Party and others accept Trumpism (I like "Trumpery" myself) and wacky conspiracy theories because Americans no longer understand themselves as "children of a loving God" and no longer see themselves as having "a role to play in loving their neighbors."

But when, I wonder, and how often have we (or American Christians generally, as it's clear enough he refers to the loving God of Christianity) actually "played" such a role? Was the Capitol building attacked, and do conspiracy theories abound, because we no longer love our neighbors, or no longer "see" ourselves as doing so? It can't reasonably be claimed we ever loved our neighbors except in odd moments, no matter how many times we may have thought or said we did or should.

A conspiracy theory offers its devotees a way of inserting themselves into a cosmic battle pitting good against evil. This sense of vocation that makes it dangerous is also precisely what makes it attractive in our era of isolated, alienated consumerism.
— Ben Sasse — Wayfarer

I hadn't seen this before.

Sasse writes that he's an evangelical, and claims conspiracy theories are a substitute for faith. But he says it's the deviant evangelicals that that fall for the conspiracy theories. This means, I suppose, that the true religion will save us from conspiracy theories--spawned by evil consumerism--believed by bad evangelicalism. Jesus--the right Jesus--will save us from the effects of rampant secularism.

Where's Dr. Mengele when we need him? He'd start all sorts of threads about defective people.

Perhaps not already knowing is a defect? — unenlightened

My compliments. The "Bigotry is a defect" thread is yours to begin.

I would like a chance for that person to respond. Isnt that why are here? To learn? — DingoJones

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect.

1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?

The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]

2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?

The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.] — TheMadFool

In this matter, as in all matters, it's useful to consider the law. In the case of nun's, or sisters, Canon Law governs.

First:
Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

Second:
Can. 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty. (An "institute" is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common.)

Third, and also in Can. 669:
§2. Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of can. 284.

Now consider the words of John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, in 1996 at the end of a Synod, Vita Consecarta 25:

The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ.Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.

The habit of a nun/sister therefore (and others, e.g. priests and brothers), is worn to establish their membership in a particular order of the Church, and as a witness to of poverty. It also serves witness to the fact that they "belong to Christ" and "makes the Church visible in everyday life." Its form is not mandated, but varies according to the rules of the order to which the member belongs, as approved by the appropriate bishop, and may be adapted to time and place. Where no particular form of habit has been designated, then the dress of the member of an order should be simple and dignified and accord with local customs, and an appropriate symbol should be displayed.

The habit therefore is worn to reflect membership in a particular order of "institute" of the Church (the piety of such member being taken for granted), as a form of advertising for the Church and a particular order (loosely speaking). It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. Simply put, it's in the nature of a uniform more than anything else.

Meantime, some big-celebrity fans will continue viewing their favourites nonetheless, while others may indefinitely remain in denial, as superstardom’s brightness can be blinding—especially when the product becomes legendary. — FrankGSterleJr

I'm surprised you didn't mention Woody Allen in this context. The controversy surrounding him, who sometimes appears to be an old man lusting after young women and girls, seems more current than the controversy regarding Michael Jackson. I think the old saying "there's no fool like an old fool" is quite true, but there are old fools who have the wherewithal to succeed in being as foolish as they please. Did he do what's alleged regarding him? Does it matter if he did if his work is admired? I've enjoyed some of his films but have also found the level of his self-involvement tiring, so feel no need to rush to his defense because of his creations, but clearly others have.

he idea of Novatore is to use nothing to create something, not to turn nothing into something. Therefore, this quote, in the context of this discussion is wrong. — Gus Lamarch

I haven't read him, so I'm sure you know better than I. But as God is described as "nada" according to this version of the Lord's Prayer in Hemingway's story, "nada" is God", and so "nada" is the creator of all. So, from nothing comes something--creatio ex nihilo. That of course isn't necessarily what Hemingway intended to express, but it's an interesting inference from the substitution of nothing for God in the prayer.

As Hemingway put it: "Our Nada who art in Nada, Nada be thy name."

I'm curious about the picture of the nuns. The ones I know of stopped wearing that sort of habit when I was being taught by them in elementary school, and that, alas, was a long time ago. Thereafter they wore shorter skirts (not miniskirts, of course) and a kind of small jacket or vest, and a smaller veil. But for the viel and the uniform color of the rest of the outfit, they looked much like other women here in God's Favorite Country (the U.S.A.). I suppose the habits change according to the order.

I'm so used to my male heroes in the arts turning out to be assholes and monsters that it would shock me if anyone I admired artistically turned out to be a decent man. — Kenosha Kid

Well, we couldn't have that, could we? Decency is so bourgeois. We've come to associate the arts (and philosophy?) with peculiarity; the more bizarre the artist, the finer the art.

Some works of art could certainly be re-titled, when you think of it. For example, Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Asshole.

The ominous reference to the dreaded "communist wolf" seems more like an argumentum ad metum, but it has a kind of nostalgic charm.

The kind of concerns you raise-- those related to the character and personal morals of someone of philosophical note--aren't of much concern in this forum, in my experience.

I'm currently reading this, but also these:

Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Clifford Ando;
A Cultural History of Chess-Players: Minds, Machines and Monsters, John Sharples;
Ars Vitae: The Fate of Inwardness and the Return of the Ancient Arts of Living, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn;
John Dewey's Ecology of Experience, Kai Alhanen;
The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, Michael Strevens;
Nature's Mutiny: How the Little Ice Age of the Long Seventeenth Century Transformed the West and Shaped the Present, Philipp Blom (Long title award)

Bill Buckley would be proud, though probably a bit more restrained. Except where Gore Vidal was concerned.

Maybe not when the General sent off the B-52s. Now I suppose it would be distilled water, but for all I know that's got flouride in it too.

Makes you long for a drink of pure grain alcohol and rainwater, doesn't it?

When communists accuse others of a coup, they are preparing one. — Banjo

They're also planning to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. We've heard this before, Jack old boy.

Fake news, the crowed was HUGE. No ones ever seen a farewell crowd so massive. — praxis

I was surprised by some of the choices of music for the event: Journey's Don't Stop Believing, famous for its use in the final episode of The Sopranos (which made it rather apt), and the Village People's YMCA, the use of which I find hard to explain.

I was just telling Athena about Heidegger's view of technology the other day. Although that is not the topic under discussion here. — Antony Nickles

Yes, but Sacred Cows are allowed to wander where they will.

Do you often make ethical judgments about people based on ‘feeling’ and a profound lack of knowledge of their work? You may be less immune to the sort of errors Heidegger made than you think. — Joshs

Sigh. Very well. Nazi, schmazi let's say. No harm done. Vale.

Infused with Romanticism? How so? BTW, I think that essay would be almost impossible to understand without first having read Being and Time. — Joshs

Well, it's been quite some time since I read it, and I'd rather not read it again, but if you're really curious about what I thought of it you might check this:

https://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-romanticism-and-technology.html

Hannah Arendt , his lover of many years , was also Jewish. I think she was pretty cool, and she didn’t seem to find him loathsome. — Joshs

No doubt, but there's no need to address the psychology and consequences of love affairs between young students and their middle-aged professors.

I speak only for myself, really, and the fact that there are or were Jews who admire Heidegger isn't relevant to my feelings about him. It wouldn't matter to me if he is considered a hero by all good men and women. I understand many think him a great philosopher. I don't, though.

I would feel the same way if they were hoarding limited resources, but not necessarily for wealth, which is what I thought we were writing about. — NOS4A2

What is wealth but an abundance, a profusion, of possessions and money?

The fact that Dewey used a more ‘ordinary’ vocabulary(did he really? You think his notion of pragmatic is the everyday notion, or a profound change in its sense?) didn’t seem to help him gain acceptance. He was ignored by mainstream psychology for 90 years. In some ways his vocabulary was less accessible or ‘ordinary’ than Heidegger’s. — Joshs

Well, let's not judge others by their popularity, particularly in philosophy (or did you mean psychology?). There seems to be a resurgence in interest in Dewey, and not merely because Rorty thought he was an early postmodern thinker (mistakenly, I think). It appears that some now see him as anticipating continental philosophy and even Wittgenstein in many respects. Some have thought that Dewey's pragmatism bridges the gap between the continental and Anglo-American traditions. Some even have claimed that Dewey and Heidegger held similar views (there is a story, I don't know how accurate it is, that Dewey read something of Heidegger's and remarked that "Heidegger reads like a Swabian peasant trying to sound like me")

Dewey is hard to read, in fact, but not because of his choice of words. His style is simply too dense, and can be tedious.

I can't bring myself to read more Heidegger. It's true I think he was a loathsome man, and unlike others I find it hard to dissociate the man from his writings. I've been told before that if I knew what he meant by the words he used I'd understand him; regardless, I don't feel any need to break the "Heidegger Code." Perhaps some of the fault lies with translation. But I find even his clearer work, such as his essay on the question of technology, to be so infused with Romanticism as to be meritless. Oddly, he wrote very clearly when drafting the speeches he gave as Recktor at Freiburg, praising Hitler and providing philosophical support for Nazi ideology.

If it occurs through mutual contract I can respect it. If it is stolen my blood boils.

What do you think about it? — NOS4A2

I think of those who acquire and retain more than they could possibly need as being similar to gluttons and hoarders ("misers" may be more accurate, though, as hoarders may suffer from mental disease). I see nothing admirable about them, just as I see nothing admirable in gluttony or hoarding. Where resources are limited, those who accumulate them and retain them when they already have more than enough for their comfort and security and that of their families are merely selfish.

I like "Ceremony featuring." It has a nostalgic, charming quality to it. Reminiscent of high school athletics awards ceremonies, featuring the marching band and cheerleaders.