I absolutely agree with you that there may be significant points of convergence between the two sides in the debate. I've actually spent a good deal of time thinking about this very issue and typically get positive feedback from those I pitch my ideas to.

It clearly involves clarifying terms and engaging in other tedious but essential legwork, but it's an important topic that I'd like to discuss elsewhere. I don't want to distract from Roke's topic any more than I already have, so let's start a discussion on that one and get to work.

I wonder if the methods of science are the only ones that count as empirical?

I'm thinking for instance of Heidegger's phenomenological investigation (his "existential analytic") into the basic structures of human existence (Dasein) - and Being more generally - as being highly empirical if not scientific in the traditional sense.

But I'm admittedly out of my element here and will just throw that out there as a possibility for others to consider.

No no not your conclusions, but the conclusions of those who hold the position that change ipso facto is positive. I should have made that clear.

PS I certainly don’t see the ancient Greeks as the good old days lol — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Most don't of course. But the larger point is that one can be a radical historicist, a fierce critic of the modern world as being essentially nihilistic, and a proponent of radical change all at the same time.

The only relevance of this I guess is that it challenges the standard and IMO oversimplified progressive/conservative dichotomy.

I'll re-read the specific post I responded to - and I only responded to one of the many questions you posed - before commenting in detail.

Quickly though, I assumed I was offering support of your intuition that change is not always for the better. That seems a questionable modern prejudice which I'm pretty sure you don't share based on the overall tone of your post and the specific questions you raised in it.

But yeah, I'll read again and check back...

People are saying because it’s different depending on cultures that it is therefore malleable, but my question is, because it is malleable on a societal level, does that then imply that it is also malleable on a individual level? And also does the fact that it changes mean that all forms of change are good? Can there be change in a negative sense or is it always positive? (Like is implied with this ‘accept the change’ narrative) — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Seems a bit of a non-sequitur. I don't think accepting the malleability of cultural norms precludes one from taking a harsh stance towards specific changes occuring in their society.

There have been some prominent culturally conservative philosophers who've embraced the notion of the historicity of human values, practices, etc. while also thinking the modern world represents a sharp decline relative to previous eras. I'm thinking along the lines of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and a few others who compared our situation unfavorably in many ways to previous eras, especially the glory days of the ancient Greeks.

They, too, wanted change, but the type of radical change they longed for would be a nightmare for most political and social progressives out there today.

That doesn’t mean you’re not manly. Jordan Peterson never made a claim to the extent you’re suggesting there. When talking about men that work 80+ hours a week he was referring to an extreme minority of males willing to commit themselves to such things. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yeah I could be overstating the case, but, going off recollection, a connection was made between traits such as that and male psychology. The opposites of course implying the standard female disposition. Not all men embody these characteristics, which is a claim he didn't make, but they are nevertheless seen as "natural" signs of (extreme?) masculinity which are then used to explain the gender pay gap.

The point I was trying to make, I think, is that these traits seem more likely the results of historically and socially conditioned ideals than natural expressions of gender differences. Think about it: What would ancient or medievals have to say about a human being who spent the bulk of his time thinking about and chasing after money as a means to success and recognition?

I don't think that behavior would be perceived as very masculine in other contexts - nor necessarily feminine - but as a slavish and debased form of existence unworthy of dignified men who were the cultural exemplars of their time(s) and place(s). That's why I think the linking of a willingness to work absurdly long hours with some unconditioned notion of masculinity seemed arbitrary.

So Peterson seems to take one contingent manifestation of manliness and then uses this to extrapolate on what he understands to be natural characteristics - ahistorical and decontextualized - separating the drives and aspirations of men and women. This in turn is used to justify (in part) the discrepancy in pay between the sexes. Generally speaking and exceptions notwithstanding, the impression is given that women are much less interested in pursuing the things that men who become CEOs are, and this can be traced to the natural disposition of their sex.

I'm open to the idea that men are more prone to pursue "immaterial" things like recognition from peers in a Hegelian battle for prestige (or Fukuyama's "desire for recognition"), although I'm skeptical of this too. Women seem just as desirous of gaining the respect and admiration of others as men - I see little difference in that ostensibly "natural" desire; only in the way it expresses itself. That obviously appears to be changing and women are no longer content with things that in previous eras may have conferred social status and respect.

Anyhow, my first post here was really bad, embarrassingly so after re-reading, and I don't think this one clears it up much. My basic contention, if it can be called that, is that ideas of masculinity and femininity seem to undergo significant historical shifts that aren't grounded in innate gender differences. I may very well be wrong, but shifting conceptions seem to explain the general expressions better than natural gender differences, and I think Peterson offers up another socially and historically conditioned understanding of masculinity that will eventually give way to something else.

As mentioned, the model of masculinity that JP uses to highlight these supposedly natural gender differences, at least as I understand it, would not be seen as such in other premodern or maybe even contemporary non-Western contexts, and the macho CEO (even if a woman) who's preoccupied with his or her career and moneymaking at the expense of all else, would likely be perceived as much less manly than (e.g.) the poets and philosophers sitting around drinking and conversing on love in Plato's Symposium. In today's world that would be seen as a waste of valuable time by powerful CEOs, not to mention pretty unmanly by our society more generally.

I'll go back and watch the interview again to make sure I'm not strawmanning Peterson. By the way, thank you @T Clark for linking it.

These discussions regarding gender differences and gender equality are really confusing to me.

Based upon standard depictions of (supposedly) masculine and feminine traits, I'm apparently not very manly. I realized that while watching the now famous Jordan Peterson interview that's been the topic of much discussion lately.

Quick examples: I'd rather spend time with my family (and friends, and books, etc.) than slave away at a job 80+ hours a week; I'm not much interested in chasing after the social status and recognition that allegedly inspires manly men to achieve monetary success and career advancement; I would rather engage in cooperative endeavors with others than battle them in a confrontation of egos perceived as a zero-sum game; I'm more interested in the humanities than the sciences; etc.

So I found myself preferring the feminine in these dichotomies as presented by the likes of Peterson. Rather than question my manhood (not that I really care to defend it either) I started questioning the guiding assumptions at work concerning what the term implies.

In addition to the supposedly feminine preferences I mentioned above, I can be extremely assertive when the situation calls for it, I will not shy away from a violent confrontation if I feel myself or those I care about to be threatened or even blatantly disrespected, etc. Not trying to sound like a tough guy but I do think those silly personal examples call the rigid stereotypes and sharp contrasts into question.

Also, not to be overly concerned about what others think of you seems much more manly than being enslaved to their opinions, and that latter phenomena seems to drive much of the behavior typically perceived as a characteristic of masculinity. Likewise, to engage others in ways that are more friendly than adversarial may be perceived as a sign of confidence and strength rather than timidity and weakness. Etc.

In fact, I'd imagine that one who feels genuinely secure in his manhood may have an increased openness to other, more "feminine" traits, whereas a lack of confidence in your prowess as a man may lead to the opposite. "Real" men being much less concerned about things normally associated with manhood, like power and status and assertiveness, than insecure men?

There may be and almost surely is a natural component to these gender traits - I admit my ignorance of the relevant studies here - but I do feel like they're socially constructed to a certain (maybe even a large) extent, and also highly exaggerated. I wouldn't say they're completely arbitrary, but they're surely not beyond being challenged either. Maybe even inverted.

The tacit assumption seems to be that the masculine is superior to the feminine: working a lot in order to make money and impress people is superior to choosing other values to order your life, being assertive and combative is superior to being polite and amiable, etc.

I obviously reject these hierarchies, and would even suggest that authentic manliness may involve such seemingly unmanly things as embodying a poetic and "meditative" way of being (so to speak) over the more masculine attributes underlying the autonomous, egotistical, and "calculative" values that have come to dominate our modern world.

Maybe there's a way of integrating these different aspects of ourselves into a more inclusive and harmonious whole. Something akin to what Nietzsche intimated with his hypothetical "higher" man: a Caesar with the soul of Christ.

Apologies for the largely rambling and irrelevant digression here (a quick and obvious example of my non-confrontational feminine nature) but I just wanted to express in some awkward way how much I disagree with the way this conversation is normally pitched in an either/or way.

One can be like me - a straight male with an active sex drive, a love of sports, etc. - while also being (to repeat) generally non-confrontational, non career-oriented, not obsessed with money and status...

Why would women even want to be the "equals" of modern men as long as definitions and indicators of success remain the same is something I find strange. We should all aim beyond that IMHO.

Another problem in people's thinking about foreign policy (among other things) is that they 'personalize the behavior of nations'. "The United States is a bully." Syria is crazy." "France is snobbish." "Italians aren't serious." and so on. Diminishing a nation by characterizing it as an annoying person gives one simple objects to think about, but gets in the way of a complex nuanced view of reality.

Let me be the first to admit -- I too have difficulty remembering that nations have interests, not friends. It's just easier to think about world affairs in simplified form. — Bitter Crank

But Crank, after making that great point about erroneously personalizing nations' behavior you seem to do that very thing by talking about a nation's interests. Nations don't have interests (or friends), people do. I'd imagine there are times when consensus arises -- e.g. when class and race and other differences between citizens are temporarily set aside in the face of a threatening foreign enemy -- but it seems like these various interests don't always, or even often, fall into perfect alignment without a significant amount of propaganda. Again, it seems like controlling the patriotic narrative is key.

Maybe I've become too cynical these days, but I find it odd that I should have more in common with absurdly rich and well-connected people living in the US than with other working class stiffs abroad. There are obviously linguistic, geographic, and other commonalities that unite U.S citizens beyond their socio-economic status, but IMO the discrepancy on that front is so massive these days that it renders those other things somewhat insignificant by comparison.

I think one practical reason to pitch empire in humanitarian terms is that it would be much harder, almost impossible in fact (unless the pay and benefits were exceptional), to get average folk to enlist in the military and potentially sacrifice their lives without doing so.

If it were acknowledged that the primarily goal is to expand the economic (and other) advantages of the already wealthy and powerful within the imperialist country, then you'd not only have difficulties finding people to sign up, but there'd likely be more anger towards how much taxpayer money is spent in the endeavor and how they've (hoi polloi) been lied to for so long.

I'm not going to risk my life for some oligarchs who don't typically send their kids to fight in these wars, but if it's for freedom, democracy, and other elevated values that I think my country stands for and that I've become emotionally attached to, then I may be willing to make that sacrifice. A good deal of effort is expended by those in power on maintaining the illusion through continuous manipulation of the feelings and perceptions of the populace.

So, as I mentioned last time, it appears as though the masses aren't generally aware of the blatant hypocrisy that their country is guilty of. This scenario not only helps push the imperialist agenda but it also shields the "elites" who benefit most from the arrangement from resentment on the domestic front. They play a profitable but dangerous game and keeping control of the narrative is vital.

I was a patriotic fool until my early twenties when I began to learn a little bit about the wider world and noticed the distinction, to put it mildly, between the actions and the rhetoric of the U.S.A. I'm still a fool but not foolish enough to think that "we" really care about values beyond self-interest. Even here I'd question the notion that there's a unified national interest to be found, but I'll once again admit my ignorance and defer to the wisdom of fellow posters.

Average people in the U.S. have seen their standard of living decline in recent decades while imperialism and the further enrichment of the already wealthy has continued unabated.

Do Americans have a feeling of superiority over others, or a sense of Manifest Destiny to this day? — René Descartes

Some clearly do buy into the idea of American exceptionalism, but it doesn't seem nearly as pervasive as it once was.

Why do Americans need to be so involved in other nations affairs? — René Descartes

We don't need to, but the assumption is that we're a force for freedom and democracy in the world, and if we didn't take on the role of global guardian then tyranny and oppression would be widespread.

Why is America a hypocritical country? — René Descartes

The United States is made up of people and people are generally hypocritical. Politicians more than most I'd imagine, and I wonder if there's ever been a powerful nation that willingly let go of power or didn't justify its aggressive policies through appeals to higher values.

It's hard to see the double standards on a personal and collective level--I hate to admit it but I can be a hypocrite--given the subtle workings of the mind. Maintaining a positive self-image seems to require a significant level of self-delusion for most of us.

I think an important distinction to make, though, is that many average Americans are oblivious to the hypocrisy you outlined whereas most of the political, economic and military "elites" are not.

When will America cease it's Imperial ambitions? — René Descartes

When the people in other countries overcome their differences and band together to drive them out. Or when those of us who are American citizens become aware of the situation and call on our leaders to act according to principles which supposedly ground our own political system. It does seem like there will always be specific groups within any country (typically the wealthy) that benefit from the American imperialist situation, so the temptation will be there on both sides. I'm pretty sure most of those who object to the pro-American relationship would gladly call in foreign allies as well if it were possible and if it served their interests. So maybe this is a wider human phenomena of greed, corruption, lust for power, etc. rather than something specific to the USA.

Are we much different than the Persians, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Turks, Iroquois, Aztecs, Spaniards, French, Dutch, English, Soviets, Imperial Japanese, Nazis, etc., etc., etc.? I appreciate attempts to distinguish between the "goodness" of America and the evil of other expansive powers like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and I think there are differences to be found in the way they use their power, but I also wouldn't completely dismiss points of convergence shared by aggressive and expansive powers as proponents of the above view are wont to do.

Who will take over from America IF they ever collapse? — René Descartes

China seems to be the consensus among educated opinion, right? Interestingly, they apparently had opportunities to expand beyond East Asia at previous points in their history and chose not to do so, so perhaps they could serve as a good counter-example to the notion that all powerful peoples and nations have imperialist ambitions.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure, but (relatively) recent actions seem to suggest that the more current Chinese government has larger global aspirations than their predecessors. This shift in perspective from isolationist to imperialist may just be a pragmatic response to the Hundred Years of Humiliation they suffered at the hands of Western powers not so long ago.

When will Americans realise what they are doing is wrong? — René Descartes

I think it was much easier to justify US internationalism--including supporting oppressive dictators--within the context of the Cold War. We supported bad guys because the alternative was much worse sort of thing. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism we needed a new enemy to justify continued military, political, and economic influence around the world. 9/11 came just in time for the Neocons and we had our new justification for foreign aggression and influence. Now that political Islam seems to be waning a bit it's swinging back to the Russians. Same group of intellectuals agitating for the use of American power against foreign adversaries, just a different target.

Trump spoke of a new sort of American isolationism--insincerely of course--and it really pissed them off. What's crazy to me is that many progressives have fallen for the bait. They dislike Trump so much that literally anyone who opposes him for any reason is seen as a true patriot of the real America predating Trump, including hawkish Neocons (redundant expression) like Max Boot and Bill Kristol who clearly don't share most of their "progressive" values.

As usual that's not meant to support Trump in any way but simply to show how manipulative some of those opposing him are. If you can even get political progressives to support American global hegemony by contrasting this vision of, say, Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's America with Trump's racist populist one, then you're pretty damn clever. I'll give that to them. Hell, even Reagan and Dubya are seen in a favorable light by many on the Left these days. Insanity.

Solid progressives are now ready to go to war with Russia and reclaim America's place as sole global superpower. It's not pitched like that, of course, but Noble Lies are always needed, even if they're being peddled to a more educated and affluent segment of the population than the perceived simpletons that form Trump's base.

Someone like Chomsky, i.e. someone who's been documenting international abuses of the US and the media's shameless complicity in this hegemonic arrangement, is too knowledgeable to be taken in by the most recent attempts to justify global supremacy through contrast with Trump. I know it's hard for some to fathom, but one can vehemently disagree with Trump's vision for the United States while also refusing to long for a return to what preceded him.

Unfortunately many are falling for the false dilemma of supporting either a racist and nationalist America or an internationalist one under the leadership of oligarchic elites. This is clearly a false dilemma, and it appears as though a justified hatred of Trump is blinding a large number of otherwise decent people to other possibilities. Without exaggerating one bit, this position I just laid out could be (mis)interpreted as pro-Russian propaganda and I could be accused of being a Russian agent. More insanity of the sort that was previously confined to the Right.

Lots of intelligent people even here at TPF spend a great deal of time fulminating against Trump for supposedly destroying America, more specifically, his destroying what America stands for. American history doesn't support such simplistic narratives, although I also think us critics should point out the redeeming qualities. Not doing so also presents a simplistic and distorted image, and I haven't done those aspects of the nation's history justice here. My bad.

Maybe I'll try to think about those legitimate (non-propaganda) good things and respond later.

Lots of truth in what you wrote there. I think I was just a really dumb kid. Not dumb as in doing stupid things all the time--that came in my late teens and early-20's--but as in "I'd rather sit in my room and watch television all day than get out and experience the world" dumb. That's what I chose to do with my time and I didn't learn much by doing so. If anything it made me dumber.

What do you do with a kid like that? Serious question. I think that may be where the theory of complete childhood freedom breaks down for me a bit--again I'm only going off my own example--and you may have to (at a bare minimum) force them to get outside and live a little.

The assumption seems to be that kids are naturally active and inquisitive, that they will explore and learn many things through their experiences, but what if they choose to do nothing at all? For kids who do like to get involved in a wide variety of activities the more disengaged style of parenting seems fitting.

I agree that some kids need more guidance than others, but I really can't see any justification for this constant need society seems to have to insist it knows best to such an extent as to actually ban them from certain activities and make others mandatory. Even so much as a cursory glance at the adult world will tell anyone that what modern culture thinks is best for everyone, most assuredly is not. — Pseudonym

Missed this last time but it's a huge issue. This captures the dilemma of parenting these days when the culture your kids are immersed in will significantly shape them in ways that you personally find abhorrent, or at the very least less than optimal for a human being's overall development. You want them to learn to think and act for themselves instead of feeling like they're your puppet, of course, but at the same time there are larger social and cultural forces out there that will provide them with a sense of personal identity and a set of values if you don't step in to challenge these.

The situation is like a tug-of-war in which radically opposed worldviews are set off against each other competing for the "soul" of your kids. But I think this comes back to the importance of positive examples in their development, which are then contrasted with the ideals and images of what they should want, how they should act, what they should think, etc. that they're constantly subjected to outside the home. I like the subtle and unpretentious nature of your approach just as much as its pragmatism.

What I've personally found to be really important is setting a good example and providing a positive environment. Given those two things, kids tend to make the right choices. — Pseudonym

I agree completely. I think it's safe to assume that the personal example you set for your son is a huge factor in his positive development. This subtle way of communicating your values and beliefs is probably a lot more effective than imposing these on him in a browbeating way. Reading books rather than watching TV, cooking and eating at home rather than going out all the time, having great conversations and soliciting my kids' views rather than imposing mine on them, etc. will hopefully leave a lasting impression on them.

With regards to your 'bad' choices, a lot of what this thread has been about is the ability (right, I would say) for kids to make some poor choices and see how they turn out, they've got to stand on their own two feet someday and the ability to know a good choice from a bad one doesn't magically arrive at 16,18 or whenever. I wouldn't presume to comment on your own experience, but I suspect you learned some important lessons from those early choices and I doubt you would have the motivation to be who you are now without having discovered for yourself what happens. — Pseudonym

Agreed again. The tough thing is that the stakes become really high when issues like sex and hardcore drugs are involved. You can become a parent before you're ready, you can become a drug addict, etc. I'm not trying to sound like a prude here--I definitely speak from experience on these matters rather than from some holier than thou standpoint--but there are obviously some legitimate risks involved in experimenting with "serious" things in a capricious manner, which is precisely what I did.

I was fortunate to come to my senses in my mid-20's, but it was a dangerous stage in my life that could have (and nearly did) turned out much different. I learned a lot about myself and other important things, that's true, but at the same time I'm not sure I want my kids to take that path. But it is a difficult call, and your point is well taken about learning from mistakes and using these to make good choices moving forward.

It's refreshing to hear someone else thinking there's more to an upbringing than acquiring knowledge. Children actually have a 'right' to an education under the UDHR, they do not have a right to play time. Does that sound right to you? — Pseudonym

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what UDHR stands for, but I love playtime for my kids! Learning through play and other informal/unconventional educational strategies are great IMO. I always felt like my natural inquisitiveness (which was strong until I was around 7-8-years-old) was sapped by having to sit in class for 7 hours a day; I came to associate school and learning with drudgery, and it took me a very long time to recapture that fascination and interest in the world around me.

I've said this before around here but I'm a bit of a conservative hippie, and it's been one of my pet projects to try to articulate a position which aligns a form of cultural conservatism (anti-consumerist, pro-environmental, artistically-inclined, pro-family and community, etc.) with a progressive social and economic agenda. I think there are possible areas of overlap worth exploring that could eventually lead to a significant grassroots movement, although this would likely be way down the line. (Apologies for another digression)

Education and child development loom large here, but my ideas are much more experiential and intuitive than scholarly and well-researched. I'd like to change that, though, so I'm open to any suggestions on books, articles, etc. that you think I may benefit from. I'm intrigued enough by your responses to look into your position on parenting in more depth.

Sounds like you're an exceptional parent who's thought this through a great deal. The way you pitched your parenting philosophy here--specifically the reasoning behind your (in)actions--actually makes a lot of sense and there's really not much to disagree with. Your son has a good example to follow and I'm sure he benefits from that exposure quite a bit.

In some ways think I kind of fall into the category you mentioned regarding those who have to figure things out for themselves, but unfortunately it took me a long time to do so and in the process I was (e.g.) a mediocre student when I could have been exceptional, a slightly better than average athlete when I could have been much better, etc. If I had someone behind me pushing me I think the trajectory of my life may have been much different, probably even much better.

Not that I completely regret the path I've taken, but I did make some poor choices that I look back on with a sense of utter disbelief. Who was that young man who did those dumb things? Yeah, that was me. I see the person I've turned out to be, I compare that with my youthful self, and the contrast is pretty extreme. Frightening even if I'm being honest.

To switch gears here for a minute, I'm of the admittedly antiquated opinion that developing certain character traits is even more important than acquiring knowledge about things. Parenting, and education more generally, should be just as (if not more) concerned with the development of a certain way of being as with the accumulation of information, however useful the latter may be. Both are important, obviously, but I feel like the character development side of things is often overlooked these days if not outright dismissed as a remnant of an obsolete past.

In my estimation, if one has a virtuous, inspired, thoughtful, perpetually inquisitive character, then one has "succeeded" in life, and this regardless of how much money or what type of social status one has attained. I know that sounds a bit corny and probably unrealistic, and it definitely runs contrary to modern ideals and the dominant values underpinning notions of personal fulfillment and happiness in a liberal democratic consumerist society, but that's what my experience so far has led me to believe, and it's one of the few things I'm not agnostic about.

I should also clarify my own upbringing a bit since I think I gave the erroneous impression that my parents were horrible, which wasn't the case. They were very young when they had kids (my mom was 16 when she had my older sister), neither one had great parents or other role models to follow, both worked very hard with long hours at their jobs to provide a decent material existence for us, and they eventually divorced and kind of moved on with their lives when we were in our teens. All of these things (and others) led to maybe a lack of time and attention being placed on our overall development.

So they did the best they could given their personal background and circumstances, and under the guiding values of our commercialized culture. I don't resent them at all for not doing what they didn't know how to do. But still, sometimes I think of what could have been had they been more involved in our lives on a daily basis. I'm thinking primarily along the lines of Aristotle's emphasis on character development through habituation sort of thing, which in turn may have positively impacted other areas of our lives like school, personal relationships, work, etc.

But yeah, I'll leave it at that while acknowledging the difficulty I have in abstracting too much from my own concrete experiences on this topic. I'll just add one final thing, and that's that it's not just me I think of here but even more my older sister, who was always super smart and extremely talented and capable of great things, but who was also given way too much leeway to do what she wanted to do (which was usually to ditch school, hang out with older people, drink alcohol and do drugs, etc.) when what she probably needed--she readily acknowledges this now--was some parental guidance, direction, and discipline.

I do think there's a wide gulf separating your thoughtful, purposeful strategy on raising kids on one side and parental indifference or (as perhaps in my case) just plain honest ignorance of how to parent properly on the other. There was really no conscious strategy being implemented to help us develop the necessary skills and traits to prepare us for adulthood. Lots of kids are in that predicament, I think, and as you suggest many seem to stay that way through adulthood. So it takes great parenting to cultivate the specific conditions under which your kids to learn to think rationally about things and to solve practical problems on their own.

Not sure if any of these somewhat disconnected thoughts add much to the topic under discussion, but I will say I think you made some good points here. Maybe it depends on molding your style to fit the particular kid's disposition and other natural qualities. Some kids may thrive under your approach--as it sounds like your son does--while others may languish (as I in my youthful stupidity may have).

I recall a famous retired baseball coach saying something that I found very interesting when asked what made him so successful on the field and so respected among his former players. He became a good coach, he said, once he realized that it was a mistake to treat all of his players the exact same way: some needed a kick in the ass, some needed a pat on the ass, and some just needed to be left alone.

Not sure if that's relevant to the topic at hand but it struck me as being indicative of a sort of practical wisdom which can be applied to teaching, coaching, parenting, or any type of mentoring relationship.

Ah just noticed your positive response to Sir2u's post, so we're probably in agreement because that was indeed a good one.

I took it as articulating the importance of the sort of active parenting (for lack of a better term) I was fumbling to outline above. To be honest, that seems much different from what you expressed in your most recent post, although I may very well be misinterpreting your position (or his).

Boy I'm not so sure I share your confidence when it comes to giving the average 16-year-old the type of complete freedom over their lives it seems you're advocating for here. At the very least, I'd imagine most people that age (and maybe even a few years older) could benefit a great deal from the benevolent guidance and personal examples of those around them, be they parents, teachers, coaches, or whomever.

To me, parenting is a good example of something which (on average) there's a golden mean to be aimed at and extremes to be avoided. It depends on the particular kid, of course, but finding the right combination of encouragement, involvement, discipline, and occasional tactful pulling back to let them make mistakes, all within the framework of unconditional love and support, seems far preferable to both the laissez faire "do whatever you want it's your life" and the overbearing "you're going to do exactly what I tell you to do" approaches.

In hindsight, I think I could have used more "active" parenting of the type I just briefly outlined during those impressionable childhood and teenage years. Left to my own devices I pretty much took the easy road in everything I did, which for the most part wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great either, and I basically tried to just slip in with the crowd and do what everyone else was doing. At sixteen I had little clue as to who I was or what I wanted out of life, and I don't think I was atypical in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would have HATED being given periodic pep talks, being encouraged to give my best effort at everything I chose to do, being encouraged to reflect upon the long-term consequences of my immediate actions, being reminded that my life was intimately connected with those around me, etc. But in hindsight I really think I could have used one or two older and wiser people in my life to offer some conventional wisdom (however banal it sounds to sophisticated ears) guided by their genuine concern.

Anyhow, this topic clearly flows into wider issues of parenting and the difficulties of trying to be a positive influence on your kids without having them resent you for being too controlling. I have two boys and their personalities are way different, so again I realize there's no one size fits all approach and would acknowledge the dangers of trying to force your kids to become who YOU want them to be and not who they want to be.

I'd re-emphasize that most teenagers probably aren't thinking of those major life issues during this transitional time (nor should they be IMO), and because of this shortsightedness many would likely benefit from the positive involvement and active concern of their parents rather than disengagement, however well-intentioned that may be. It's somewhat of a nuanced position, I guess, and I do get your concern about over-parenting to the point of being detrimental to the development of the teenager.

For Trump himself I think there's evidence of obstruction of justice (e.g. firing Comey "because of the Russia thing" and trying to fire Mueller), and possibly also money laundering (e.g. the $100 million sale of a $40 million property). His refusal to admit that the Russians interfered, coupled with his refusal to enact the sanctions that were near-unanimously passed by Congress suggests a very strange loyalty to Russia, which I suspect is due to blackmail (e.g. the piss tape, and possibly also evidence of money laundering). — Michael

Firing Comey seems really dumb, but then again there were tons of leaks coming out during his tenure which seem to have now largely stopped. Coincidence?

Maybe Trump's professed "nationalist" agenda is interpreted by the Russians as being more aligned with their national (and regional) interests, at least much more so than previous administrations--or a Hillary Clinton administration--which pretty openly sought U.S. global political, economic and military hegemony. I just don't see how loyalty to Russia is implied in trying to ease tensions and find some common ground upon which to build a better relationship. I'm not saying that's what Trump is trying to do, but that's what I would try to do if I were president, and I don't consider myself to be a Russian agent.

I'm under no illusion about what type of leader Putin is or trying to dismiss his government's flaws, but whether a more cooperative or more adversarial relationship serves the interests of average U.S. citizens is something to be considered. Why are pundits like the old neocons--with their bogus WMD claims fresh in our minds--so hawkish about engaging in renewed hostilities with Russia? Who benefits from this? Is it OK for us to foment anti-Russian sentiment in places like the Ukraine? Etc.

Also, other nations (e.g. Israel) lobby U.S. politicians all the time and they do so largely by emphasizing mutual geopolitical interests, but those who take money or other benefits from them aren't accused of being foreign agents. And while I don't like the idea of foreign governments meddling in our domestic affairs or us meddling in theirs, it does seem pretty commonplace. Now if you're an American and you're actively (and knowingly) working against our interests (but again, whose interests are represented in this "our"?) then that's another matter.

I just can't see what's truly unique here. But again I'll acknowledge not keeping up with it as much as you guys and looking at it through an extremely cynical lens, knowing how the U.S. government has repeatedly engaged in efforts to prop up friendly but unpopular regimes around the world for a very long time now, and has done so through the use of nefarious tactics. Tu quoque fallacy? Perhaps, but the hypocrisy of many of those who appeal to the "sanctity of democracy" is pretty amusing given our nation's record. Not as bad as Russia's, admittedly, but we've done many things that run contrary to our professed principles. Much of which predates Trump.

I find that last scenario to be the most plausible. The first part of it.

Many people will take your (Susan Rice's) depiction of events as outlined in an email sent to yourself at face value assuming it's an accurate portrayal of what happened, whereas I in my cynicism would make the opposite assumption.

This line of paranoid thinking falls under a similar class of counter-intuitive observations made by Machiavelli: "when one sees an enemy commit a grave blunder, one ought to believe that there is deception beneath it." Differences, obviously, but that same "don't take things at face value" political warning.

I could very well be wrong though and I'm hoping we can get to the bottom of this Russian collusion thing in the near future. I don't doubt that Trump could and would do something like that if given the opportunity, but I've not seen any solid evidence as of yet that he did and it's been some time.

Even some leftists like Glen Greenwald--no fan of Trump at all--have found this whole thing to be baffling.

Here's the published parts of Susan Rice's email to herself (to keep an official record, which would be a strange thing to do were this some illegal or unethical conspiracy): — Michael

What if this email served as a preemptive attempt to give the appearance that she was doing things by the book? "The lady doth protest too much" sort of thing.

If you send an email to yourself reminding you that you've done everything by the book--which you likely know may be used as a reference at some point in the future--then I'm inclined to think you're probably not doing things by the book.

I'll admit I'm not following this Russian collusion thing closely at all and have limited understanding if sending these sorts of emails to oneself is standard practice.

I am suspicious of all the actors involved, regardless of political affiliation, and I think this cynicism is warranted right now. At all times, actually, when it comes to the machinations of those in positions of political power.

I don't see this as being a problem personally. Racism is quite clearly defined as being treating someone differently because of their birth parents. If people wish to have a net migration target, for example, there's clearly no racism involved there, but if people want to have an immigration target (regardless of emigration) from particular countries, I don't see how that's anything but racist, it's clearly saying that the potential immigrants are somehow of a lower value than the native population, or some other population, purely on the basis of where they were born. — Pseudonym

Yeah I agree with this. This is a good example of what I was getting at because disagreements over immigration policy these days are often interpreted by one side (pro-immigration) as being covers in which racists safely hide their views behind specific policies. That obviously does happen but there's no necessary connection. I know quite a few Mexican-Americans who support Trump's position on building a wall between Mexico and the United States and their reason(s) for doing so have nothing to do with hatred for other Mexicans.

Sometimes--actually oftentimes--support for Trump is seen as implicating one in racism and general bigotry. Again, that may be the case for many of his supporters but there's no necessary link between the two. It's a debatable point, especially given his own statements concerning Mexicans, Muslims, "shithole" countries, etc. but I can imagine how some people could (e.g.) find his economic policies to be preferable to alternatives.

I'd like to emphasize here that my own personal views run completely contrary to Trump's economic agenda, but I also try to be charitable enough to assume that people can have honest disagreements over important issues like this (and the related immigration one) without implicit racism or other nefarious character flaws being involved. My fear is that there are others who wouldn't be nearly so charitable in their dealings with ideological foes. By making those connections between racism and policy that I've mentioned they'd endeavor to eliminate more than just obvious forms of racist speech.

But perhaps I'm overly paranoid. Maybe what bothers me is this: it's not that I distrust the public's ability to make rational decisions if given all the facts in a fair and charitable manner--it's that politicians can't be relied upon to be moderate and fair and to encourage honest, non-manipulative debate.

Do you think that comes first, or do you think we actually need to decide what method we're going to use before applying it. By that I mean, if we were to exclude racists from the debate, why would we be doing so? Once we've answered that question it would become a matter of arguable (but ultimately resolvable?) fact as to whether a particular point of view fits this criteria or not. I don't know if I've just missed it, but I don't feel like we've actually decided, as a society, what it is about racist views that makes us feel able to flatly deny them. Is it the fact that they're unfair (no-one chooses who they're born to), or the fact that they're wrong (you race does not determine your character in any way), or that fact that they're harmful (potentially)? The problem is I can think of lots of commonly held ideas that could fall into any of these categories (though perhaps not all three). — Pseudonym

I'd say laying out the basic features of racism would come first combined with giving reasons for its incompatibility with the guiding cultural and political values underlying our multiracial society. Racism is antithetical to everything our nation (should) stand for and I think something like your three basic reasons for this being so would convince most people--on rational and non-rational grounds alike--as long as the rules guiding the elimination of racist speech were applied impartially.

I don't find the idea of personal identity being essentially bound up with one's racial background to be a compelling position at all. I've actually listened to lengthy interviews with Richard Spencer a few times and found his ideas of "racial identitariansim" to be pretty silly. The idea of United States becoming a racially homogeneous nation at some point in the future seems both absurd and impractical.

I also think the main reason he draws interest in his views is because of perceived hypocrisy surrounding this topic. It seems to be acceptable for some groups to form racial identities and to attack other groups on those grounds (whites) but not acceptable for that latter group to advocate for their own collective racial identity and attack back. The standard justification for the discrepancy ("one can't be racist if one doesn't have power to adversely influence the dominant group...") is a good example of how an argument may be rational but also completely alienating on emotional or non-rational grounds.

Circling back to the topic I'd say lay out the rules, explain why they're necessary, and apply them impartially. That'd be the simple formula I'd use to justify de-platforming racist speech. Only if each of these conditions were met would I consider limiting freedom of speech, and this despite the fact that Mill's spirited defense of free speech in On Liberty has always resonated with me a great deal. It'd take a lot to get me to change my opinion on the matter but I'm open to the idea of limiting it in this case.

Getting back to the point/question you made at the very start, I guess if I had to pick I'd be in the camp which values free, open and rational debate as a means of influencing popular opinion. I'd add that the more reasonable position--especially in this particular debate--is usually the more emotionally-satisfying one. The two are mutually reinforcing IMO.

I actually tried reading Being and Time many years ago and found it utterly impenetrable. My thought recently has been that some of his shorter essays might be more approachable. I have a Basic Works of Heidegger on my list as well as the Safranski biography, so I do hope to have at least a baseline knowledge of him. — Thorongil

I'd suggest tracking down a copy of his Introduction to Metaphysics. Much more readable than Being and Time and it's largely an extended reflection on the issue you raised here.

There are quite a few political and cultural asides thrown in throughout the work that you may find off-putting (or maybe not if you're not a big fan of modernity) and, if I recall correctly, the book is based off a series of lectures that were delivered in 1935, which was shortly after Heidegger had become disillusioned with the Nazi movement.

Anyhow that's the backdrop and IMO it's no exaggeration to say that he felt that the only hope of saving the West from nihilism involved bringing back the question of Being.

(Y)

Great contributions to this discussion, especially concerning the relevance of Heidegger's thinking to the subject.

Interesting and important conversation.

I think advocates of this position should lay out some specific guidelines for determining what types of speech would be banned. Would certain groups be exempt from the constraints that will clearly be imposed on the likes of Nazis and KKK members? This sense of a double-standard IMO does more to harm the cause of de-platforming than the ostensible added attractiveness of ideas once they've been shut out of public discourse.

Another concern I'd have surrounding this topic--based on similar discussions with people who'd like to curtail free speech on the grounds of racism--is that there seems to be a strong tendency among many to extend the notion of racist speech out to include non-overtly racist groups, such as traditional, small government conservatives.

I'm not a big fan of that particular small government conservative position (nor do I want a massive administrative state), but the idea that holding certain political and economic policy preferences can be seen as implicit forms of racism, on par with (or even more sinister than) explicit racist statements, is extremely disconcerting. Sensing a possible slippery slope here may not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Concerning the paradox you wanted to focus on, I may be way off here but it seems like you're separating the rational and emotional/non-rational (social influence?) sides of our being in a way that doesn't seem to reflect how people typically form beliefs. I can't think of too many people who are sincerely willing to follow the argument wherever it leads regardless of how the results may fit into their larger sense of identity and overall worldview.

Look at all the thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable people here at TPF and ask yourself how many times you've seen one of them thanking another for pointing out a flaw in their position, for helping them arrive a bit closer to truth, or even acknowledging that they've lost an argument. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

Some people are clearly more logically-minded and rational while others may be more intuitive or emotional, I'd grant that, but I don't think there's a sharp dichotomy, and that being the case the either/or scenario you laid out which results in a paradox seems to rest on a questionable assumption.

I'm probably just misunderstanding your position. If so my apologies.

This is interesting. In broad outlines it resembles my own take on modernity and possible means of overcoming its more damaging aspects on an individual and collective level..

I think it's also unique in that these basic positions may have some appeal to both political progressives and cultural conservatives, albeit of the now largely forgotten Counter-Enlightenment "Romanticist" form.

Seeking out those points of possible convergence and laying the ground for a new social movement is something I've been thinking about for a couple years now. Nice to see there are others out there engaging in a similar endeavor.

Yes the Chinese often do use the excuse of being the "liberators", but having read seven years in Tibet, I can assure you that the Tibetans were not happy of losing their independence to the Chinese. They loved their simplistic lifestyle, even if they had barely any medicine or much at all and very archaic laws because that is how they have always lived and that is how they want to live. They may have better healthcare but I don't think they are as happy as they once were. — René Descartes

Good stuff. I'm definitely on the side of the Tibetans when the issue is framed as a contrast between voluntary simplicity vs imposed technological progress.

Thank you, I appreciate that. It may be poor taste to discuss these sorts of things--things which adversely affect actual people--in such a detached manner. I'll let it stand though now that so much has been made of it, and hope that those more informed than myself will dismantle the professor's positions point by point.

For the record, what I presented was NOT my view. I'm honestly not trying to hide my position behind some fictional teacher. The impromptu talk he gave on the topic was precipitated by some students walking around campus with a Tibetan flag, and it left an impression on me not so much because I found it compelling, but because it was the first time I'd been exposed to that alternative standpoint.

But I do apologize to you, Wayfarer, for the offense I've caused by bringing up possible arguments against Tibetan Independence given by an obviously biased source. I will gladly remove the post--however relevant it is to the topic at hand--if there's even a slight possibility that it may lead to negative consequences for others.

I think it's generally a good idea to get opposing viewpoints on contentious geopolitical topics like this one. I'd say the same for Israel-Palestine (in which case I strongly side with the Palestinians while still trying to understand the Israeli perspective(s)), the dispute over the Kashmir between India and Pakistan, etc.

Oh yes, I hope I made it clear above that I was skeptical of the simplistic and one-sided narrative that he pushed on us. I present the viewpoint of the professor primarily as a way of understanding the obviously self-serving perspective underlying the Chinese domination of Tibet.

But again, even though I sensed the heavy partisanship of his position I like to think I have enough integrity to admit that I may not be sufficiently informed of the political, social, economic or religious aspects of his argument to speak with confidence as to what really is (or has been) the case in Tibet.

I'm eager to learn more, though, and perhaps you can make some general remarks concerning Tibetan Buddhism, with specific mention of the allegedly lurid aspects of it that the prof felt were incompatible with the teachings of the Buddha. Or maybe that's better left for another time?

Many years ago I took a class with a professor of Han Chinese ancestry who tried to make a case for Chinese influence in Tibet. This was during the heyday of the Free Tibet movement which has unfortunately lost a lot of its steam in the US.

Anyhow, going off memory (been a very long time) these were some of his major arguments:

1. Tibet has been part of China's sphere of influence for hundreds of years--ever since Mongol Yuan Dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries.

2. The Chinese government gave the Dalai Lama the option of remaining in the country as either the political or the spiritual leader, but they were adamant that he could NOT serve both functions at the same time. He refused of course, and then fled to India.

3. The Tibetan political and economic system was extremely exploitative before the most recent episode of Chinese involvement in the 1950's. For average Tibetans literacy rates were low (5-10%), access to medical care was almost non-existent, etc. All of these idealistic students flying the Tibetan flag around their college campuses had been hoodwinked by religious exiles into thinking the place was some sort of spiritual paradise, when in fact (according to the teacher) it was a backwards theocracy heavily tilted in favor of the religious elites at the expense of ordinary Tibetans.

4. Tibetan Buddhism is not aligned with the genuine teachings of the Buddha. I remember thinking this rationalization for Chinese domination was silly and absurdly petty, but the professor seemed sincere in his belief that certain alleged sexual views and practices found among Tibetan Buddhists were perverse distortions of the Buddha's teachings. Tibetan Buddhism represented a sensuous and debased offshoot of a noble spiritual tradition which, once again, placed the lamas in positions of power and domination over their countrymen and women.

So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests. This is clearly a one-sided view, but I think it's good to offer up an alternative perspective even if it's not one that we could lend our support to.

As for my opinion, well, I still don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter, but I am inclined to support the right of self-determination for the Tibetans. Probably a little late for that with all the Han migration, I suppose.

I had my first panic attack--assuming that's what it was although it was never officially diagnosed as such--while in the shower getting ready for work about 20 years ago. The mundane setting made it all the more disturbing and it was so intense and out of the blue that I literally felt I was going to die. The traumatic event led to many, many years of anxiety and depression mixed in with the periodic panic attacks and even a few strange and completely irrational phobias that I'm too embarrassed to talk about even today, here on an anonymous message forum.

After a while it became clear I wasn't going to die, at least not right away, so then my thoughts shifted to the idea that I was going insane. Maybe an even more disturbing feeling than impending death. I contemplated suicide rather frequently as a means of escaping the nightmare I was living, and in hindsight I'm thankful for (what was at that time) my new wife and child for giving me something to try to fix my attention on besides those intrusive and debilitating thoughts. I never went to a doctor or psychologist but I read everything I could about anxiety and other forms of mental illness.

Not sure what the cause was but it was likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors. I've always been introverted and somewhat detached from others, and there were some familial things that probably contributed, too, like going from never having had a girlfriend to being married and having a new child all within a year.

Anyhow, it screwed me up big time and there are still some lingering effects, but oddly enough I'm a bit thankful for the experience for a number of reasons, including the fact that it served as a sort of existentialist wake up call and led to me being extremely appreciative of the small but meaningful things in life. That's where I think the wonder you mentioned comes in, and for me it's related to being shaken out of your everyday routine and the complacency which comes with that. I wouldn't be the person I am today--not that I'm great by any standard but I am myself--without going through that trauma. Wish I had more than platitudes to convey the experience and its results but that's all I got.

Not sure if any of that is relevant other than to say that there may be some overlap between our situations. Yours sounds even more intense than mine, though, so it would probably be best to follow the advice of other forum members and seek out some professional help. I'm actually shocked that I was able to go through the motions for so long without suffering a complete breakdown, without resorting to self-medicating, without anyone really noticing a difference in my behavior, etc. I slowly got more comfortable with the discomfort I felt and was able to process what happened. Actually, I'm still not sure what happened or why it happened, but I've managed to put my own positive spin on it.

Oh, I would also add that my attacks were not precipitated in the least by grappling with those "deep" philosophical issues that someone like Nietzsche was obsessed with. In fact, it was only after I had them that I became remotely interested in the subject. I do think Heidegger's Being and Time contains some interesting and insightful things concerning this (and other related) phenomena, but if you haven't read it yet it's an extremely difficult work. That's probably an understatement.

I haven't read the other answers here, but I can imagine some scenarios in which certain types of philosophy may help ease some types of depression and improve one's self-esteem. Significantly even.

Basically, it can do so by giving us a little critical distance from which to judge the dominant values and ideals underlying our society--which we've unconsciously imbibed throughout our lives--and which some of those with a latent philosophical disposition may not find congenial to their own "true" selves.

You've tried to fit in and fake it, but ultimately the disconnect between who we are and who our society tells us we should be leads to feelings of self-alienation and the resulting isolation, depression, anxiety, etc. which accompanies this.

I imagine the likes of Plato, Augustine, Rousseau, and Nietzsche similarly felt a bit out of touch with their contemporaries, and through their works a space may open up for us in which we feel more at home in the world.

Getting in touch with that core of who we are admittedly sounds corny--a life of "authenticity" and self-realization type stuff--but I think there's something to it. I recall reading Rousseau's Emile about twenty years ago and it having that powerful effect on me; it was like he was the first person who spoke to me on a deep level and distinguished between what truly matters in life with what's typically held in the highest esteem but is of much less importance (money, status, etc.).

I didn't articulate this idea very well but I hope the basic idea comes through in spite of that.

Philosophy as a way of being or "condition of the soul" sort of thing. This may be an antiquated notion today, especially among most academic philosophers (no offense intended), but I do believe it still harbors that genuine possibility for some people.

I see no problem with 1% owning even 99% of the wealth, so long as the other 99% have what they need to survive, take care of health, education, food, shelter, and the necessities. — Agustino

Do you think that hypothetical scenario would be compatible with social stability? I think it would instead lead to widespread resentment of that 1%, even if the basic needs of the other 99% were met, and this would consequently increase the likelihood of the breakdown of democracy.

I just don't see how we can isolate economic considerations from larger social, cultural, and political ones.

In my ideal (and admittedly unrealistic) world we would collectively and freely choose to simplify and re-prioritize our lives around values less enamored with material prosperity, and less beholden to narrow definitions of "success."

I would not want to force my views on others, however, and would much rather live in this debased capitalist world than one in which communist aims and values were imposed on the populace by some class of intellectual elites.

I guess I'm a sort of culturally conservative hippie--combining aspects of libertarianism, communitarianism, environmentalism, and anti-hyper-consumerism--if such a thing isn't a complete contradiction.

I'm not a fan of Ben Shapiro but why wouldn't he be considered an intellectual? He has a very impressive academic background and also has connections with the Claremont Institute, which ipso facto makes him a legitimate scholar and thinker in my (biased) opinion since that's the most interesting source of conservative thought I've stumbled across as of yet.

Credibility by association, I guess, even though I don't particularly care for Shapiro's brand of libertarian nationalism or whatever he calls it.

Ah got it lol.

Seriously though, in addition to all the other problems with grand conspiracy theories, if there were a legitimate secret society--ooh!!--wouldn't the members come up with a really sophisticated name to conceal its function?

Granted they were communicating in a way they assumed was private, but still this is childish to the point of being unbelievable. Imagine me asking you, let's say a fellow worker or even friend - Hey, wanna ride to the secret society meeting together?

I know that's not a great objection, but the whole thing is too inane to take seriously. Having said that, these are FBI employees and the nature of the organization is somewhat secretive, so that gives the conspiracy a hint of plausibility it would otherwise be lacking.

Haha but doesn't that violate the club's first (and second) rule?

LOL that sounds even more benign than I thought it would. I can't imagine anyone taking that literally and seriously, assuming that if there were a real secret society it would be referred to by its members simply as the "secret society."

I haven't been keeping abreast with the latest developments on this front, but I did hear rumblings about these text messages and some reference to a "secret society" that's got Trump supporters all flustered.

My guess, admittedly based on limited info, is that the term was used in jest as it relates to Trump's narrative about a "deep state" working for elites against the interests of average Americans. In that sense this sarcastic remark can be taken out of context (intentionally) and then used as confirmation of the notion of a secretive association it was attempting to ridicule.

Conjecture of course but I feel like I have an intuitive understanding of the Trump strategy and the mindset of his typical supporter. The general Democratic strategy, too, if I may be so bold. With few exceptions they both seem predictable and unprincipled attempts to manipulate the emotions of their constituents. But I guess that's always been the case in politics so this is nothing new.

Thank you! I tried my hand at teaching but couldn't hang and eventually settled on the restaurant management biz.