You may. I'm here, but right now am generally limiting myself to posts that involve parts of history or the law I'm interested in, so not to be tempted to use the H word disrespectfully.

There's a really weird presumption I'm seeing where people hang their hat on whether or not it's a private entity that's controlling the thing without considering the role such large things occupy — MindForged

There's nothing weird about it. Private entities may certainly act to restrict speech. You may too. If you do, though, you do nothing illegal here in God's favorite country. The legal right to freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government or its agents. So it may not be good when private persons or entities restrict speech, but it isn't necessarily illegal. That's all being said by reference to private actors, as far as I know. There's the law and not the law.

You refer to governments doing so in some fashion you leave undefined (the reference to Israel being involved is somewhat ominous). If the federal, state or local governments of the U.S. are involved, then the right to free speech is being restricted.

Just what good the Abrahamic religions have generated, themselves, would be an interesting study.

The fact that they used different categories to name and regulate their sexual practices doesn't mean that sexual practices weren't problematised. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, that in itself means little. However, difficult though it is for us to understand what life was like before the imposition of Christianity in the Empire, it's at least probable that attitudes towards sex and sexual practices weren't then inspired by the belief that most sex was sinful, repulsive in fact to a remarkably prudish God. There were pagan thinkers who recommended and even preached abstinence (Pythagoras thought people were best advised to have sex in winter) and some of the pre-Christian Gnostics had peculiar views about sex, but I know of nothing which matched Christianity's association of fear and shame with sex prevalent among the pagans of the ancient Mediterranean (with the possible exception of the Jews).

The Catholics raising the female to an important spiritual/God position is interesting. — Athena

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church wisely co opted popular female deities like Isis and Magna Mater into Christianity through Mary, who was given titles similar to theirs (e.g. Isis, like Mary, was worshipped as "Queen of Heaven"), just as it co opted various minor pagan deities who became saints of the Church, just as it co opted the form and structure of the late Roman Imperial state into its organization. While the Roman family was subservient to the pater familias, the women of ancient Rome had significantly greater freedom and status in society than did those of ancient Greece.

But the Romans had their own prejudices even regarding sex. For example, as to (male) homosexuality the "passive" participant was regarded with a certain contempt. For example, Julius Caesar was described by those who disliked him as "every woman's man and every man's woman."

In ancient Greece and Rome, sexual conduct was seemingly much more a matter of casual public discussion and display than it is now. I have more knowledge of ancient Rome and its empire than I do of ancient Greece before its conquest by Rome, and as far as Roman attitudes are concerned we have the example of what remains of Pompeii regarding the display of erotic images, including their use as good luck charms. Then there is the example of Diogenes the Dog in ancient Greece, who delighted in public masturbation. There were, of course, social taboos and restrictions, and abusive sex and the oppression of women. But it seems that they were far less inclined to feel that sex was in some way to be avoided or kept locked away than we are now--thanks in part, no doubt, to the cheerful influence of Pauline Christianity.

And yet, to the extent we of the West employ and honor reason and self-discipline we do so because Greco-Roman philosophers and jurists developed them, considered them to be goods, and essential to living well. In fact, I doubt we know more of wisdom or right conduct than they did. We merely parrot what they had to say when we're not indulging in ennui orangst.

What rules the individual, physical urges or the mind? — Athena

I doubt there's any significant difference between those annoying urges and "the mind" myself. We're a part of the world, and there is no separate part of us we call our "minds" which isn't. We can conduct ourselves reasonably, though. But it isn't clear to me that the fact people enjoy porn or have sexual fantasies has caused or will cause human dignity to be trashed, or render everything meaningless.

We've always been uncomfortable with sex here in God's favorite country, preferring as we do to express our more primitive urges through the use of firearms and by watching professional wrestling or cage-matches and such. I didn't know other countries were growing repressive about sex, though.

Still, the fear of sex outside of dark bedrooms, the back seats of cars and convenient hotel rooms which motivates this kind of repression is that of the denizens of private corporations in this case, so this isn't a free speech issue in the legal sense--which, as we all know, is the only truly important sense.

Ah, Plato's Republic. Whatever it was intended to be, I suspect it's given comfort to all manner of totalitarians and fans of benign autocracy over the centuries. If we wish to assess the wisdom of philosophers in matters of politics and governance, however, I think we should bear in mind the results of his tinkering in Syracuse, and of Seneca's efforts to tutor Nero.

Because we're part of the world, we necessarily interact with other parts of the world. There's no denying that. But we have a certain, albeit limited, ability to govern ourselves, and how we interact. We can think, in other words. We can make judgments and assess the consequences of judgments. We can discipline ourselves. From the Stoic perspective, that's what it is to live in accordance with reason, which is to live in accordance (so say the Stoics) with nature.

I think a Stoic would say that desire related to things beyond out control leads to suffering. I don't know if that's what Buddha meant. And, I'm not sure what you refer to as "the inner conflict."

I personally don't feel that there is some "me" which exists apart from the rest of the world. I'm a living organism which has certain characteristics living in an environment.

I'm not sure I understand, but I don't think it's necessary to distinguish "inner" from "outer." It isn't clear to me that can be done, nor do I think it useful. It's possible, though, to distinguish what I think, feel and do as a part of the world from other parts of the world. We interact with others and with the rest of the world constantly; we don't live apart from the world. But, we each have the ability to not merely react to the rest of the world, but to interact with it intelligently. Understanding what is in our control and what is beyond our control is the first step, or one of the first steps, in living reasonably.

Well, if the point being made is that there were problems with the proceedings, that certain evidence was ignored or given short-shrift, that Dassey (who is a sympathetic figure) shouldn't have been interrogated as he was, that members of the sheriff's department shouldn't have been as involved in the investigation as they were, that the Special D.A. (from outside of the county) did things or didn't do things, etc., that the courts did things or didn't do things, welcome to the world of the law. Such has been, is and will be the case to a greater or lesser degree with every prosecution, every jury trial, every appeal. This shouldn't be surprising.

But that isn't the point, is it? If it was, we wouldn't be discussing the "documentary." The title--"The Making of a Murderer"--itself tells us what point the creators of the piece intend to make. No court has agreed with them. That may be the function of the standard of review on appeal, but if so then the question is whether the standard of review should be changed, which is another question entirely.

This is the exploitation of a tragedy.

As for the basis of my opinion, I'm loathe to do anything which would reveal in any respect my secret identity. I'm not anyone associated with or involved in any stage of the proceedings, thank God. But I know some who were, and have some knowledge of certain of those involved, and of the circumstances, and of the law.

Anyway, "indifference" (the central theme of Stoicism) is a two-edged sword. — Wallows

I don't think "indifference" is the central theme in Stoicism. I think the central theme, if there is one, is understanding the difference between things in our control, and things beyond our control.

Clearly, no Stoic would say that we should be "indifferent" to things in our control (essentially, and stated simply, our thoughts, feelings and conduct). Things in our control are to be directed to virtue and living "in accordance with nature." Things outside of our control should not distract us from the pursuit of virtue; they should not be allowed to disturb us, provoke us, render us hateful or fearful, etc. We should therefore be "indifferent" to them in that sense. Being indifferent to them doesn't require apathy, though. We simply understand that they're beyond our control, and are not paramount in determining how we feel or think, or what we should do.

Mere sensationalism. The creators of the "documentary" have acknowledged they left out evidence, claiming there was too much to include and none of the items they failed to disclose are significant. That's disputed, of course. There's no credible evidence someone else killed the poor woman. A couple of journalism students made it big, and want to stay that way.

Consider the wording of the paragraphs in which "the light" appears here. "The Word" in this Gospel was at the beginning, and was God, but "He" was also "with God" in the beginning. In "him" was life, and that life was "the light" of all mankind. That light shines in the darkness, but is not overcome or perceived or whatever.

A man named John was sent by God as a witness to the light, to testify to the light. He was a witness to the light, not the light. The light gives light to the world. "He" (the light) was in the world, but the world didn't recognize him. "His own" didn't receive him.

"The light" is clearly Jesus. He came among us, but was not recognized for what he was. "His own" (maybe the Jews?) rejected him. But of course, being the light, his is not overcome even if not perceived.

Jesus is/was God, and God is more than one Person. It's the most definite statement to this effect you'll find in the Gospels

Well, as for the last, and as for works:

Music--that's difficult. I have to mention three; two jazz, one classical. "Round Midnight, Thelonious Monk, Take Five, David Brubeck, Barber's Adagio for Strings.

Visual Art--I like photorealism. I like phone booths. Richard Estes Phone Booths.

Literature--Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited.

Philosophy--J.S. Austin, Sense and Sensibilia

As for a leader, I think the most recent great one was Lincoln.

Well, the Gospel of John is the last of the Gospels, and by the time it was written Christianity was absorbing pagan philosophy. So, we have reference to the Logos, which had been standard in pagan thought for centuries before Jesus lived, and the only reference I know of in the Gospels where it's claimed that the Word, or Logos, was made flesh--thus Jesus is God made flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity. "The Light" also was in common use as a metaphor for the divine or the good or wisdom. Maybe there are Gnostic influences involved in this Gospel; maybe the Mithras cult, which became popular in the 1st century and emphasized the light was influential; who knows? In any case, the divine light or good or wisdom is typically always present but generally unperceived by sinful, ignorant humanity. In this case, Jesus was the Light, ever shining, but unperceived until John the Baptist came along, etc. as in this Gospel.

One of the most grotesque aspects of the peculiarly grotesque Great War is that an estimated 11,000 casualties were incurred on the final day of the war, November 11, 2018, before the armistice came into effect at 11:00 a.m. Commanders (including our General Pershing) were aware of the time at which fighting was to cease but continued to send men "over the top." This was the subject of Congressional hearings, and excuses were given regarding the uncertainty of the timing of the armistice, communication problems, and the desirability of attacks to create a better negotiating position. Remember that as well.

The Latin is taken from a poem by Horace. The poem could be taken as urging that Romans appear to be so inclined to war, so filled with martial spirit, as to terrify their opponents (in that case the Persians/Parthians) into submission without the need for battle--why, those crazy Romans love war so much they even think it's sweet and fitting to die for the land of their ancestors! But, who knows the poet's intent?

The Great War produced many poets. Some, like Rupert Brooke, actually wrote of the impending death of war in an artful, compelling way, as being something even to be welcomed--":To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping, Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary." He joined the English Navy and died of blood poisoning on a ship bound for Gallipoli.

It was a peculiarly grotesque war, which nonetheless didn't stop us from having others. America didn't suffer the kind of horrible losses incurred by the European nations.

There are too many God arguments without proper definition of the identity of the God in question. If someone is referring to the Christian God, Islam God, Hindu God(s), etc., then please say so — BrianW

That won't necessarily help, you know, at least as far as the Christian God is concerned (I don't know much about the others, though I suppose I have the knowledge of the Hebrew God many who were brought up Catholic have, via what Christians call the Old Testament).

The reason it won't necessarily help is that Christians don't necessarily agree on God. For example, in talking or writing about God, certain Christians of a theological or philosophical bent came to describe him as being more or less like what Plato or a Neo-Platonist would describe as God, or as Aristotle would (Aquinas, for example), or as something else again, but in any case something vastly more than what one reads in the Bible. Jesus of the Gospels can become something of a starting point from which a "God of the philosophers" sort of being awkwardly emerges. Perhaps the early Christian Fathers were so intimidated by pagan philosophy that they felt it necessary to take on all its trappings but attempt to retain the Jesus story and the Old Testament through the careful and I think exceedingly liberal interpretation of Scripture. But Jesus has taken on many characteristics throughout history. Some thought or think him a revolutionary, a communist. It may not be possible to describe an acceptable Christian God.

When rights are given at birth what reason is there for people to believe that they should accept any responsibility? — Eric Wintjen

You should ask this of those men who drafted those "founding documents" you refer to, one of which claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain "unalienable rights."

We vote on a law -> The law is accepted by government — Eric Wintjen

Well, no, we don't. Except in the rare cases where proposed legislation is subjected to referendum (I know California likes to do this sort of thing), we vote for people who, when elected, adopt laws. That's fundamental to the form of represented government those men who drafted those "founding documents" created.

Whenever we vote in a democracy, we are using force, we vote because we want to impose our will on society, and with our will embraced by government, we want to enforce our will through threat of violence. — Eric Wintjen

I doubt most voters are the megalomaniacs you think them to be. Anyone who votes and thinks that by doing so they are imposing their will on society is delusional. The same may be said regarding anyone who votes intending to do violence if the candidate they vote for is not elected. It strikes me that if what you claim is true, we would have experienced a great deal more violence than we have. There've been quite a few disappointed voters in our history. I personally will not run amuck if I vote for someone who's not elected.

The important part is that this system have a strong, military-style hierarchy within it that demands a high level of responsibility from every member. — Eric Wintjen

The responsibility to follow orders, yes.

If what we hear is true, historically most of us have chosen not to vote in most cases. So, most of us have chosen not to "impose our will" on society. I doubt your fear that too many people are allowed to vote is justified, but clearly you must provide the justification if there is any.

There will be an answer... — unenlightened

Let be be.

If every order of reality is defined by its own essence, and every individual is possessed of its own existence, to encompass the universality of being within the essence of this or that being is to destroy the very object of metaphysics; but to ascribe to the essence of this or that being the universality of being itself, is to stretch a particular science beyond its natural limits and to make it a caricature of metaphysics. [Thus] all the failures of metaphysics should be traced to the fact, that the first principle of human knowledge has been either overlooked or misused by the metaphysicians (316). — tim wood

Well. Being, being being, is no being; or to put it another way,no being can be being, because being is being. While it may be true that beings be, by being they are not being. Thus we avoid caricature.

What do you think about the Platonic interpretation, Ciceronianus and BitterCrank? — Posty McPostface

To the extent I can judge from what is quoted by Bitter Crank (I'm too lazy to read any Plato), I would call it simple-minded and incomplete. Justice isn't minding your own business unless the failure to mind your own business morphs into seeking to control the business of others--something Plato seemed to favor and inclined to do judging from his Republic. There's a difference between not being a busybody and being just.

What does he mean by saying "Suum cuique"? — Posty McPostface

Cicero used the phrase in referring to the law, and "justice." I would say he refers to the need for the law to treat people fairly, impartially, by not favoring one person over another in applying the law. All are equal under the law, and what is due to each under the law is its impartial application. Rights and privileges granted by the law are granted to each person.

That was the idea. In fact, slaves were treated differently from those who were free. Roman citizens had privileges others did not. Citizenship was potentially available not merely to Romans but to all those damn non-Romans as well. So, St. Paul for example when being dragged away by a centurion supposedly said "I am a Roman citizen" (civis Romanus sum), thereby asserting his legal status as a Roman citizen which gave him a right to an appeal to the Emperor. He got his appeal for all the good it did him; he was sent to Rome and imprisoned until Nero or his surrogate got to his case and he was duly executed.

Later, in 212 A.D. or C.E., the reputedly cruel Emperor Caracalla, famous for his baths, extended Roman citizenship to all free men in the empire by edict. Before then, although it was gradually and fitfully extended over time, it was usually limited to inhabitants of Italy and those throughout the empire who had been awarded citizenship due to their prominence or by special favor.

The phrase appears near the beginning of Justinian's Institutiones: iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. (Inst. 1,1,3-4). (Translated into English: "the precepts of law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, [and] to give to each his own".) — Bitter Crank

This is a quote attributed to Cicero, my esteemed ancestor. Well, forerunner. Precursor, say.

NOW: How did Marx et al (whoever?) pervert that? — Bitter Crank

Being perverts, they pervert. Qui pervertit pervertant??

God can do anything, including lifting the rock he can't lift. — Hanover

Actually...
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1126cbCOMIC-gm-god-god-man.jpg

A conspiracy necessarily involves more than one person in pursuit of a common goal. If God is a conspirator, he conspires with someone.

My little comment was meant for JohnLocke, not you. And it was intended to be silly, I'm afraid.

You merely assume you're you. You may not be. You must first establish you're you before you can ask why you're you.

I think that "reason" was viewed by ancient philosophers in the West as something different from "reason" as we think it to be now, influenced as we are by the caperings of the Romantics. "Reason" construed broadly as the thoughtful, intelligent consideration of problems and questions (rather like Dewey's view of "logic" as inquiry) enthralled the ancients, who previously were subject to a mythical, mystical view of the interaction of humans with other humans and the rest of the world. The ancient philosophers saw reason embodied in the orderly structure of nature itself.

I think for the Stoics, selfishness to the extent it displays itself in greed, envy, jealousy derives from the desire to possess or have control over things properly considered outside our control. Selflessness is a function of the Stoic view of humans, and in fact all of nature, as being interconnected and a part of a single, living whole. Treating things beyond our control as indifferent was one of the means by which we cultivate tranquility, but the tranquility of individuals contributes to the good of the whole; people are not grasping, angry, hateful, don't seek power over others, etc. (don't push women down stairs when they're talking too loudly).

I don't quite entirely know how to build a higher tolerance for frustration or lower my anger when presented with ignorance, deceit, or plain idiocy. Is there anything you would recommend doing that would foster a better outlook on these matters? — Posty McPostface

According to Pierre Hadot, The Meditations were a part of Stoic practice on the part of the Emperor, which Moliere hints at. He wrote them to discipline himself to be a Stoic at all times, particularly at those times he became weary with what he had to encounter each day.

It's hard to come up with better reasons for tolerating others and respecting them even when they frustrate us than those he refers to in what you quoted. But there's one Stoic maxim, often employed by Epictetus, the Emperor doesn't mention in this passage, except perhaps by implication. That we should concern ourselves with what is in our control, and not disturb ourselves with what isn't in our control, to which we should be indifferent. We have no control over those who are envious, ungrateful, deceitful, etc. What is in our control is how we react to them. It's in our power to be undisturbed by them; we need be angry with them, or frustrated by them any more than we are with other things beyond our control, like the weather. "Our life is what our thoughts make it" as the Emperor said. We control our thoughts, and so need not make our lives miserable.

I've always had a fondness for Cynicism as practiced by Diogenes the Dog mostly, I confess, on an unworthy basis--I relish his mockery of Plato.

Stoics act secundum naturam, according to nature. That which most distinguishes humans as parts of nature is their ability to reason; that's a spark of the divine we each carry within us. Reason teaches us that we're social animals. As social animals, we necessarily interact with each other, and we owe a duty to our fellow humans who likewise possess a bit of divinity. So the Stoic can never isolate himself entirely from other people or be entirely indifferent to them, and must do well by them. So you see Stoics like Marcus Aurelius writing of the Stoic's obligations to others as a part of living according to nature. This may be something which distinguishes Stoicism from Cynicism. The Stoic does the best he can with what he has not just for himself but for others, and this may have inspired devotion to the public good (as it was perceived) which we can see in the better Roman statesmen and jurists, who favored Stoicism (including Cicero).

Strange how the law keeps being dragged into this preposterous debate. Is it thought that its existence somehow explains , proves or disapproves something or other? Leave it alone. It will go on functioning as it does whatever you may think.

The not YET born scenario is weighing options against never existing and simplifies the logic into stark binary/digital logic. — schopenhauer1

not existing is better off when considering the structural and continent harms. — schopenhauer1

There is nothing logical about comparing non-existence to existence, sorry. There is no thing that is non-existence; there is no person that does not exist, and therefore there is no person who is better off not existing. There is no condition of non-existence to be preferred to existence. You're using language which has meaning only in terms of who and what exists; not otherwise.

Anyone who think ethics and law are related has never, one imagines, had to deal with the justice system. — StreetlightX

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."--O. W. Holmes

I think most lawyers dread clients who go to court seeking justice; I do, in any case. Such clients are inflexible, incapable of understanding the wisdom of settlement, invincibly ignorant of the nature of the legal system, prolong litigation unnecessarily, and complain bitterly when things don't turn out as they think they should. I run from them as from a monster.

I was indulging in irony, I'm afraid. I'm reasonably certain a philosopher wouldn't be allowed to testify.

I must look into using philosophers as expert witnesses.

Well, certainly nobody can accuse you of understating the significance of philosophy. But I'm merely a practitioner of the law, and so can only know how it works in day to day life, not what it really is--which of course can only be known by a philosopher.