They would be able to appreciate finer grades of porn, for instance. — Bitter Crank

Yes, there's no doubt. With my bachelors degree in civil engineering, I tend t be very sophistomicated in my erotica selection.

Everything else you wrote makes sense. I know two of my three children were not ready for college and neither of them graduated. One is back in school now at 36, which is when I went back to get my degree.

For a minority of high school graduates, the function of high school is college prep, and for this minority of students who go on to professional work, the culture of education, and their lives later on is excellent. — Bitter Crank

For what it's worth, according to the web, more than 60% of high school graduates go on to college. That surprises me. I can tell you from my family's experience significantly fewer graduate in four or five years. It took me 17.

Those who like classical music are alive at a time of abundant high quality live and recorded performances. This area of culture is better off now (IMHO) than at any time in the last 100 years. Bookstore (local or Amazon/Barnes & Noble, etc.) now have more high quality science fiction than ever before. They also have a lot more schlock. I find too many interesting historical and sociological studies to read should I live another 25 years (I'm 75 now). The INTERNET makes a huge amount of interesting and at least very good quality material available that would once have been very inconvenient to access. That's a cultural improvement. — Bitter Crank

I'm not a classical music fan, but the sentiment of this section is paragraph is correct. There are thousand and thousands of books written in English every year. If only 5% are good, that's more books than I can ever read. That doesn't even count older books, which are often available electronically for free from libraries and other sources. I'm not a big movie or TV watcher any more, but an incredible amount of good video is easily and cheaply available. My children are pretty sophisticated music listeners. They like a lot of the music around today, but they also listen to and know more about the music of my youth than I do. You can take free college courses by famous professors on-line. Wikipedia is wonderful. Google Earth is fantastic. If you can't find high-quality culture, you're not trying. "Caddy Shack," "Animal House," "Evil Alien Conquerors," "Dumb and Dumber."

I think you and I are fortunate. We came along at just the right time. We can pick and choose the aspects of the newer technologies that we want and discard the rest. My children; 39, 36, and 31; can also. Partly because of their age and partly because I was too cheap to get a computer and cable until they were mostly grown. Anyone younger than them will be immersed in the technology like fish in a pond.

Existence can be seen as stacked layers that start with art at the bottom as an emotional representation, science in the middle as analytical understanding of nature and finally philosophy at the top as a desire for truth that ties everything together which altogether creates a unique singular entity we experience as a conscious being. — seaofgems

Art, science, and philosophy are human-created ways of knowing the world. There are others, most significantly, religion. Seems to me they are ways of understanding existence, not existence itself.

I think the rest of your post is a vast over-simplification of what has happened to the world over the past 2,500 years.

An Absolute, such as 'God' cannot go away or have a beginning, or it wouldn't be Fundamental and 'First'.

Further, a Mind couldn't have been fundamental, for it would have parts necessarily more fundamental. — PoeticUniverse

God is whatever God is. I don't think It is constrained by human interpretations of what it can or should be, can or should do.

Eurgh, the usual suspects: Terribly-Condescending Clark joins the 'arguer, not the argument' party. Focus. On. The. Argument. — Bartricks

You're right, I shouldn't have jumped in.

I think he just means he doesn’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re an obnoxious douchebag. I could be wrong but it follows from how much of an obnoxious douchebag you are. — DingoJones

It's totally improper for me not to castigate you for your egregious abuse. Also, I hate emojis. But still:

:up: :up: :up:

I too will plead, as at this time, especially as I am rusty in the subject, I wouldn't be able to marshal enough knowledge to explicate the details of the mathematics mentioned there. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm back and I've read the texts you referenced. They were very interesting but not very helpful in answering my questions. I don't need to go any further with this except to say I was surprised to see that some of the philosophical claims associated with Godel's theorum are similar to the mystical/philosophical claims associated with quantum mechanics. These in particular struck me:

proves that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines.

They all insist that Gödel’s theorems imply that the human mind infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine or formal system.

I'm going to leave it here. I appreciate your help. This was fun.

Or, just as well, some(one) to blame, a Feuerbachian scapegoat ... — 180 Proof

Otherwise, our in-gratitude signifies taking 'the living – boredom and spite, joys and sorrows, loves and strangers – and the dying' for granted (i.e. neglecting, or denying, that we are called-into-question by these (our) givens). — 180 Proof

I have wondered whether how we take this is a matter of temperament, something we're born with, rather than anything learned.

The hard or brutal facts of our existence demand an effort from us to continue living. I think a balance between the brutal act of living and a spiritual or transcendent source of connection (finite/infinite) to potentially be a more realistic solution (if the problem we're addressing is spiritual despair). — CountVictorClimacusIII

I can't speak for you, but I am one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world. That hits me every day, with most things I do. If I can't be satisfied with that, who can be satisfied with anything. So - I don't see the act of living as brutal and I don't see the source of connection as transcendent. God, Buddha, the Tao, and all those guys are always right here. I can see them in my peripheral vision.

Surrendering to a spiritual path is an attractive thought, I just see it as difficult to properly apply in practice. — CountVictorClimacusIII

We can leave it at that.

There's an SEP article on Russell's paradox here. So it may not matter in the practical sense of you and I carrying on with our lives, but it is a philosophical issue of great significance. — Wayfarer

I resist philosophical labels, but I've come to the conclusion that I probably am a pragmatist. I have a strong resistance to philosophical issues that don't have practical consequences. As I said, let me spend some time reading.

Hey we're all in the same boat! In fact I bet my ignorance is bigger than yours! — Wayfarer

Oh, yeah! We'll see about that.

See sections 4.4 and 4.5 here: — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'll spend some time with your referenced text. Then I'll come back later and demonstrate more of my mathematical ignorance.

Thanks.

I suspect there's something you're not seeing here. — Wayfarer

I think you're exactly right. That was the point of my post. It's not that I think they're wrong and I'm right. I just don't get it. I'm hoping someone will answer my questions - why do these seemingly trivial paradoxes and inconsistencies matter so much? Where do they meet the world?

When Bertrand Russell told Gottlieb Frege about the 'barber paradox' it had a momentous impact on Frege's whole life work. I think, in layman's terms, what is at stake is elucidating a set of mathematical and logical principles which are both consistent and complete 'all the way down', so to speak. — Wayfarer

But why, in any practical sense, does that matter? Does it make mathematics less useful or effective in any significant way? It seems Platonic. Forms existing without relation to physical reality.

Basic mathematical curiosity alone leads to the question whether there is a mechanical procedure to determine whether any given Diophantine equation has a solution. And there are other answers in mathematics that incompleteness elucidates. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Basic mathematical curiosity is a pretty good reason to study something. I don't have any problem with that.

I just want to make it clear - I don't doubt the results of these brilliant mathematicians work. I'm not like one of those relativity deniers who think that I can see something that mathematicians and scientists have worked on for centuries.

Do you truly believe the world to be wonderful, do you truly enjoy the company of your fellow man, have you shouldered the burden of your responsibility with commitment, passion and love? Do these convictions truly represent you, your beliefs, your ideals, your desires, your motives? If yes, then perhaps you're on the path of inner peace and true harmony with yourself, others and the world around you. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you're making is sound more complicated than it really is. We don't need to reach enlightenment to feel the way I've described. We don't need to be on some difficult, arcane spiritual path. I think it's more of a question of temperament. I am far from inner peace, but I see I'm responsible for my life. I don't think that's all that uncommon, although it probably is here where philosophers roam. Philosophers are an unhappy bunch.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. With all our effort. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think most spiritual paths lead to a cessation of effort, surrender.

The philosophical implications of Godel's theorems are usually very overblown. — Pfhorrest

All of the various self-reference paradoxes have always seemed trivial to me, e.g. "This sentence is false." Who cares? Russell's paradox seems just the same, just dolled up in mathematical/logical language. Ditto with Godel's incompleteness theorem. Do these "paradoxes" really have a significant, real-time, practical impact on the effective use of mathematics and computer science in the real world? Or is it only guys who are too smart playing around with trivia as if it mattered?

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? Of course this would be subjective. A matter of perspective. But within the confines of "serving" our time out, we could at least perhaps, try to make the act of serving that time slightly more pleasant for us. Sure, rebellion might be pointless since there is no escape, but not if we subjectively find meaning in the act of that rebellion - rebellion here being to find beauty in the dissonance of life, to reduce our suffering and maximize our joy. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you referred to this previously - what about those of us who find the world wonderful and who enjoy the company of our fellow humans. Who aren't in despair. Who recognize suffering for what it is. Who may even believe as Buddhists do that we are responsible for our own suffering. Our goal, to the extent we have one, is not to find meaning, but to make ourselves work the way God or Darwin built us to do. Tune up the machinery. Replace the framajamit. Polish up the chrome.

the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer

This is the story I was referring to in my previous post. Your explanations are always better than mine.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. — James Riley

I have thought that one of the reasons we need God is so we have someone to be grateful to.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's a great story, and very well presented. It reminds me of something I read. I think it was in Alan Watts - God was all alone in the world. Lonely. She wanted someone to play with, so she split herself into many pieces, us, and then made herself forget.

I still think your anger is clouding things for you. Baden made excellent points in that exchange you had. — DingoJones

You and your damned reasonableness. Would you please stop it!!!

I've been in quite a few exchanges like this one, both as a participant and a bystander. In those situations, censorship by bullying is a common tactic. Moderators sometimes are part of that, although others certainly participate too. When a moderator does it it can be a lot more intimidating.

Now we dishonor the memory of those who did all the hard work by allowing these people to crawl back out from under the fridge. — James Riley

So, you think those wars for freedom were fought to protect your liberty and not those you disagree with.

I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this discussion.

Thats what woke is about. That’s textbook behaviour of the biggest dicks in history. The self righteousness is in the act of viewing “woke” as a moral high ground over other views. That’s the direct implication of saying opposing views to wokeness are the views of dicks. — DingoJones

It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point:

As if being gay stops you from having regressive views on Palestinians or your voting pattern has to conform with what you actually believe. Your views are pretty clear snowflake. — Benkei

There are plenty of other forums less concerned about quality who do. Just go there. — Baden

If you mistreat others then you're a dick, plain and simple. That doesn't make me self-righteous; that just makes me right. — Michael

It's not self-righteous if they're right. If they're right then the people who believe otherwise are wrong, and so therefore dicks (given that this term "wokeness" seems to refer to views on ethical matters). — Michael

Ah, another right wing prejudiced poster complaining about quality because not enough people agree with him. Whatever snowflake. — Benkei

It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators.

The fact that evil can use a gun does not mean that goodness should forgo the use. — James Riley

If you're saying that because others restrict speech we think is valid, we should do the same, I disagree.

Your post makes a good case against the kind of self-righteous suppression of speech we sometimes see here on the forum. I appreciate that.

...I have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform. — James Riley

That's pretty much the argument used whenever speech is censored by those in power. Facism and racism - or communism, Marxism, socialism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and on and on - are often in the eye of the beholder. That's certainly the case here on the forum.

Ah, the internet. In less than a minute I can learn not only something new - that at first sounds like a disturbing effluvium from orifices to remain unnamed - but also what it is where it comes from and from Youtube videos how to make it - no effluvent orifices required. — tim wood

Actually, the Jimmy Neutron purple flurp was plagiarized. The one I was referring to came from Cracker Jack commercials in the 60s.

perpendicular pronoun — Banno

I was not familiar with this term. I will store it in my library for future use. Thanks.

This is a well-written and thought through post. It's a good idea for a discussion.

On the other hand, I have beaten my ideas on metaphysics to pulp in previous discussions throughout my time on the forumm. The thought of getting involved in a new one gives me the purple flurps. @tim wood and I share some understanding on this issue. I'll let him speak for me.

This is just a repeated assertion of your position without any accompanying argument fro that position. — Janus

Do you agree that the scientific method is made up of the rules by which science is practiced? Do you agree that the provisions of the scientific method have no truth value? Are not true or false? Do you agree that the scientific method is metaphysics?

Are you claiming that the assertions in the quoted example are neither true nor false? — Janus

Yes. They are presented without justification or proof in Einstein's paper. He calls them a "conjecture."

Each of us "narrates" by internally characterising, contextualising, narrativising, emphasising and interpreting the content of one's observation of and interaction with one's environment. — Judaka

Just to clarify, when you say "narration" I assume you mean speaking actual words to ourselves in our minds. You don't mean just our temperament, attitude, or outlook. Is that correct? I certainly experience that. I'm a very verbal person. I have trouble stopping the voice in my head. On the other hand, during most of my waking hours there is no narration of that sort at all. It pops up intermittently when I need it, as when I need to get my thoughts together or talk to someone, or when I don't need it, as when I worry or fantasize.

Am I talking about the same thing you are?

Science is pragmatics, not metaphysics — Janus

As I indicated, the scientific method is metaphysics. It establishes the rules by which science is performed. Science is the systematic study of the world following procedures consistent with the scientific method.

Can you give an example of a coherent metaphysical statement that is not truth-apt? — Janus

Einstein's principle of relativity from his first paper on Special Relativity is a good example:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)

No, you've avoided it and you don't get to do that. If you make an accusation, you need to justify it, or retract or it is presumed unfounded. If someone starts a thread accusing you of racist language, you'll be done the same honour. — Baden

I'm not going to justify my statements further. I'm also not going to retract them.

Again, I haven't accused anyone of using racist language. "Racist" is not a word I use.

Then don't call. Your thread was initially tilled "is racist language acceptable". — skyblack

I was wondering about that. I guess the title was changed without my knowledge. I think the original language was "Is this racial language acceptable." "Racial" and "racist" are not the same thing.

Justify your presumption that this language was exclusively about whites or stop repeating the accusation and retract. Those are your choices. — Baden

I've had my say about that in my previous responses to your posts.

On a philosophy forum, it should go without saying that people would do their due dilligence and check with the potentially offensive poster as to what they really mean, before accusing them of racism. — baker

As I noted. I have not accused anyone of racism. All my comments are about the text. I didn't even call it racist. I just asked if it was acceptable as a description of white people.

Maybe it's not. Go change the world instead of expecting others to change it for you if it's that important to you. Man "some people" are lazy af. Think everyone is just created to do things for them. — Outlander

I don't understand what this has to do with this thread.

We can talk about white people in various ways, and we need to be able to, to make sense of history, of the whole colonial story of which the slave trade and colonisation of the Americas was a large part, and the troubles social and psychological that we inherit on all sides. We need to make sense of it and take steps to ameliorate the ongoing damage. — unenlightened

This answer makes sense to me, although I don't agree. This is the question I was trying to get at.

I think there are two questions here 1) Do different rules apply to white people because of historical conditions and 2) Is the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post acceptable.

As for 1) - If I thought that criticizing white people for current and historic wrongs would help solve racial problems or make things better for racial minorities, I would probably support it. It is clear to me that that type of criticism makes things worse rather than better. Calling people "racist" doesn't make things better for anyone.

And 2) - The contemptuous language in the post won't help solve any problems. It just makes the poster feel better but makes everything else worse. Beyond that, as I pointed out, I think this type of disparaging language would only be allowed about white people. I think that is a mistake.

That's the thing, by the plain language alone, it would only be about some white people, not all. — James Riley

I don't understand. What difference does it make whether it refers to all white people or just some? It definitely doesn't refer to me. I'm a northern white liberal

Finally, when a heritage that you choose to venerate and hang on to is one of treason, slavery, racism, confederation, and anti-intellectualism, then you get to play the enemy of America. You probably don't want or need T Clark to come to your defense. Let the hate rain. — James Riley

This is the issue I had hoped to discuss. It looks like the thread won't go in that direction though.

I don't think what the language describes is a "heritage." Actually, I think that was the posters point - he was describing what he considers to be the heritage of white southerners.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist — Baden

For the record, I didn't call the poster a racist. He's not. I like and respect him and he and I agree on a lot. I didn't say anything about him. I only asked about the post he wrote.

Now, please answer my question: — Baden

I don't intend to answer your question. In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. I don't feel any need to justify that. If other people agree with you, this thread will peter out quickly.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation. — Baden

I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. If, as a moderator, you disagree, and if you think that the thread is unacceptable, I am not going to raise a ruckus if you remove it.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts. — Baden

Of course I do, or, when you say "you have no right" do you mean that as a moderator you won't allow? If so, just stop the thread now. As I said, I plan to keep my input civil and low key.