As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek. — Apollodorus

Which was the native language of neither of them?

I imagine that Pilate, in his official capacity as a Roman governor, would speak Latin and that he would not lower himself to speak the native language of the people who were subjected to him (even if he were fluent in the language).

It's a power play: In a conversation, he who speaks the other's language thereby becomes the inferior one. It's why old-school politicians and academics insist in either speaking their own language, or a language that is a foreign language for all participants (but which they're all fluent in).

It seems theoretically possible that Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke Aramaic and that both understood eachother's language, but insisted on speaking each their own.

I appear to be a genuine agnostic - i.e. I am genuinely unsure as to the existence, or not, of God, or supernatural realms and life after death etc. in general. I've never seen an argument on either the atheist side or the theist side which I have found wholly convincing. This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance,

if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

Then you need to check out the actual doctrines of those religions that teach eternal damnation.
Such as study the Catechism of the RCC, Islamic doctrinal texts, and whatever others there may be relevant (such as the Mahayana teachings on icchantikas).

Regarding this Z business:

Why would people who normally write in the Cyrillic script use the Latin one?

Most people who consider themselves Christians don't read the Bible, or at least not much.

But perhaps that's all we should want schools to teach. Even so, though, do we want or need laws which preclude the use of certain words or topics in schools? — Ciceronianus

Will, or can, a school district prohibit discussion of such topics by students, in order to protect itself from litigation? — Ciceronianus

Such is democracy. One must bend to the dictates of those who have been elected into positions of power.

And they say the Talibans are imposing restrictions on people!

So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect. — Xtrix

That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. You have the attitude that others should make the first step, others should take responsibility for the quality of communication. Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. I just used you as an example for your thread topic.

I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.

I never once said others don't want to get together with me.

The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context,
/.../

Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested. — Xtrix

See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person.
I've brought this up before with you in the covid thread, and I'm bringing it up here only because you said in your OP:

But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out. — Xtrix

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

The theme of this thread is solidarity, but above, you're talking about different settings, where some of them have a category of relating to other people that other settings don't. While one may be solidary with acquaintances, strangers, and also with friends and family, there is another category of relating that applies only with friends and family. This is having cordial relations with people.

I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others. — Xtrix

Rather, the love of comfort and convenience.

Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do. — Tom Storm

Yet we can see that every right, every privilege that was won through a revolution is eventually taken away from people, usually indirectly.

For example, women have won themselves the right to paid work, but the trend is that more and more employers try to diminish that (such that a woman must sign her resignation papers if she wants to get the job in the first place).

At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. — Xtrix

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you.

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities. — Xtrix

Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue.
Once people are relatively materially comfortable, they feel no real, urgent need to get together with others, other than for the purpose of obtaining more power or for entertainment.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others. — Xtrix

No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this.

Many "collaborations" have as their goal an utopia. And I'm not making here a cynical remark about "human nature". It's that people want things that are realistically, practically, physically not possible. For example, it is not possible on planet Earth that everyone would live a first-world lifestyle. It isn't, because there just aren't enough natural resources for that.

And while many people try to "make life better" for themselves and others, they also have some measure of awareness that there are practical limits to how much better a particular person's life can get. It's because of this awareness that their heart isn't quite fully in their activism.

If anything, the "deconstruction of self" is a means to an end, namely, to nirvana, the complete cessation of suffering.

This is a bit tricky ... There is a lot of literature written about what @Possibility is talking about. But if one isn't familiar with it, it's very difficult to discuss it. It's a huge topic (in fact, in some Buddhist traditions, it is considered so problematic that insiders are forbidden to discuss it with otusiders and newcomers). It's quite optimistic of her to think she can properly present it within a few forum posts.

Yet this self-hood is at the heart of being born at all.. The fact that we even need a way out is something to look at first. If a perspective change happens through some Buddhist technique, the fact is, we were in place A (not Enlightened), and we need to get to place B (Enlightened).

Also, I just don't buy it.. The self-hood thing is part of moving through the world. Most people just can't become Enlightened ascetics (if that's even a metaphysical "thing" to become).. I may want to be the best X, but doesn't mean I will achieve that.. Same with this. In a way it is aligned with a radical perspective in anthropology that sees humans very cognition as being radically different. Sapir-Whorf like.. You see, Eskimos understand snow better because they have more words for different snow... — schopenhauer1

Earlier in the thread, a poster was especially displeased by our suggestion that he is at all times, basically, acting out of boredom.

I wondered thene whether to stop posting in this thread or at least send you a note about where it's likely going to head, given the displeasure of this poster (and some others), and that it might be best not to continue.

You're in a similar situation now like the other posters who took a dim view of your suggestion that they're acting out of boredom. Now, another poster is suggesting something that is outside your scope, and you take a dim view of it.

Just like you're at ease enough with the idea that humans act essentially out of boredom (while not all other people are at ease with this idea), some other people are at ease enough with the idea that selfhood is a construct (while you (and many others) are not at ease with said idea). It's why some people can discuss a particular topic without such discussion causing them unease, and others cannot.

So individuals choose to form an identity.. But that's just not true. Humans function (normally) via enculturation using socio-cultural cues aligning with a whole host of human-traits that we evolved to survive and live in the world. If anything, the desire to shed one's self-hood is simply a recognition of the disappointments of the self that must form as being a functioning human. First comes the identity and then comes the detaching from identity.. There is still a "deal with" situation of moving from attached to not attached.. So now there's that put upon the human born into the world...

There is in some religious/spiritual traditions a warning given that one should not discuss certain religious/spiritual topics with just anyone at just any time in just any setting. This warning is given with good reason, it is intended as a measure to avoid unnecessarily upsetting people, and to avoid wasting one's time.

I haven't seen such consideration emphasized in Western philosophy, but I think it is very much in place.

You are implying that with some sort of dialectic, using your New Age Hegelian approach, I would move "past" antinatalism/pessimism (meaning that this isn't the right view, but I will move to the "right" view).. I will move to the view of the agenda.. that is more people born, more people that must "collaborate". Collaborate (happiness placement holder) damn you! Follow the Possibility self-help plan! Collaborate, connect! By my interactions I will "grow" and "grow out of pessimism" because pessimism is a self-contained thing and not "truth" which is only had by this instrumental process of connecting and collaborating, that leads to awareness.. Yes, yes, this isn't subtlely just asserting that your view is just "right" by using terms like "collaborate, connect". Just hollow buzzwords if said without context. However, what is YOUR agenda with these words? Certainly you think that collaborating and connecting would never lead to Pessimist conclusions.. No, no, so it is MORE than collaborating.. but collaborating towards SOMETHING that YOU HAVE IN MIND. What is that? Oh right, I'm sure if we examine it more it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit. You can always just dodge this with more obfuscation around your use of those words or more unnecessary and non-analogous connections with how this algins with physics concepts.. but, go ahead continue.. Or am I isolating you, and thus not ":hearing" you and thus I just won't ever "get it".. again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN just CONNECTION and COLLABORATION! — schopenhauer1

I'm having the impression that Possibility is actually getting at the constructed nature of selfhood/identity, saying things like this:

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ [note the quote marks] whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence. — Possibility

The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about.

Ignore, isolate, exclude... — Possibility

Whatever management seminar you were at where they teach all that about "awareness, connection, and collaboration" ...

Collaboration can only take place between equals. Most of a person's relationships are not with equals, but are hierarchical, so there is actually very little collaboration possible in life. To say that one is "collaborating" with one's boss, one's employees, or one's children is a gross euphemism at best.

Connection is also very limited -- not everyone wants to connect with just anyone else.

For example, from what I've come to know about you here, I am sure that you wouldn't want to "collaborate" or "connect" with me (however you are "aware" of me), but I am sure that you would blame this on me, that I am the one who refuses to "connect" and "collaborate".

How is Schop wrong about the idea that we have a "striving-ness" to us that when not occupied by "something" is sort of idling and cannot stand its own striving nature.. thus returning to "something" (usually de facto related to survival.. whether through "work in an industrialized economy", "hunting-gather", "subsistence farming", and all the other things we as humans must do to survive, find comfort, and entertain ourselves (lest we idle again and try to banish this emptiness feeling). That is to say, we are striving, struggling, getting "caught up" because we cannot stand existence sui existence, but only in so much as we can distract, plan, flow state, etc.

It's also not just "bored" in the sense that we mean with just "nothing to do".. It's a much more fundamental kind akin to Ecclesiastes.. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle.

Yet anyone can have the same experience:
When lying down with an illness, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When hungry for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When cold for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When doing work that is either far below one's ability and interest, or far above them, what does one eventually feel? Bored.

“A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way."
Jer. 5:30-31

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed.

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Is it truly aporia, or is it a case of finding oneself in a socioeconomic situation where one "far behind others"?
There is a difference between aporia, and the overwhelm that a particular person may feel upon realizing how much they in particular would need to do in order to barely measure up as an "average citizen".

This overwhelm also has the two elemetns
1. One doesn't know where to begin or where to end.
2. One is paralyzed as to what's one's next move.
but in this overwhelm, there are practical, tangible causes for the confusion and paralysis.

People actually get better, regain control and an ability to fight the system and if psychology is working, people are less miserable and more effective in life. — Tom Storm

Of course, if they can become successful capitalists (to whatever extent that is possible for them, given their socioeconomic status), then they are indeed less miserable and more effective in life. They might even "fight the system". But they are still consumers at heart.

Or the other side does it. Or maybe they even already did it.
I actually don't know whether to prepare for planting season or not.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans.
— baker

I think that is true some of the time. They are certainly a very popular target of hate in pop culture. — Tom Storm

Said pop culture misses the point. Psychology and psychiatry work in favor of capitalism. Capitalism wants people to focus on themselves, isolated from society, to see themselves as flawed and thus needing all those products and services that capitalism so readily provides. Psychology and psychiatry do just this: they get people to focus on themselves, to lose sight of the big picture, to see themselves as the source of their problems. This way, people don't rebel against the system (they don't even see the system), but they just buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. And capitalism, psychology, and psychiatry are happy, while the people are miserable.

Whatever goals we have, I’m thinking more and more there’s only one way to get there: through collective effort. That’s not to say we lose our individual identities— but that one person, isolated, simply can’t take on an entire system. — Xtrix

No, but the system has to be taken on an individual level. It's what "consumers" -- every individual person can do.

In order to bring down capitalism (more like: render it economically unviable), one would need to do things that are counterproductive to capitalism, and those things are sometimes counterintuitive and come with a cost to the "consumer". Don't buy stuff at sales and at discount prices, don't buy fast fashion, buy less, buy relatively good quality, treat your things well so that they last. Don't buy junkfood. Don't buy pseudoluxuries (like storebrand versions of luxury items, like storebrand champagne). Buy as few imported goods as possible.

Capitalism understands only profit. If nobody buys stuff that is on sale, they'll stop putting it on sale. Note that when things are on sale, this means that somebody isn't getting paid properly in the process. This is usually the people who actually manufactured the items on sale. It's impossible to tell whether they'll be paid less unfairly if people buy things at the full price, but the important thing is to fight the idea of "getting something for very little or nothing".

It seems inevitable, though, that there will be suffering in the process. Many people who are involved in the production of relatively cheap and relatively low-quality items will lose their jobs. The fact is that it was ethically wrong to produce and to buy such items to begin with. Everyone involved will need to pay the price for this eventually.

Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth. — Bitter Crank

But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive.


There are still big airplanes flying overhead, several per hour. Hungary said it won't allow transit of weaponry and soldiers over its territory. But what are those airplanes carrying? They won't say on the news.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. — Christoffer

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars.

Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. — Christoffer

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries.

They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia.

Russia will also be cast off the world stage in every other regard. — Hanover

To which they have never been truly accepted to begin with.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe. — frank

Or may make it function well, just not at the elite level at which Western countries aspire to be.
In the long run, this may actually be better, and ecologically more sustainable.

It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it. — FreeEmotion

The Ukraine.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also.

So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question. — Isaac

I think this also has to do with what I call "modern city people". I live in a rural area that is rapidly undergoing suburbanization and gentrification. People from the city are moving here, building their homes (destroying first-grade arable land and forests!). The older culture of mostly farmers is rapidly disappearing, along with its dialect. The new people show a remarkable lack of consideration for others. Earlier on, everyone would greet everyone when meeting in the street. Now it's like in the city, it's normal to walk around with a grim face, silently. Even neighbors don't greet.

An example from traffic: There are many hills here, the roads are old and narrow, with many sharp curves, steep slopes. In many places the road is too narrow for two cars to meet, but there are occasional niches built where one car can move to the side for the other to pass. To the "old settlers", it's normal to take this into consideration and to drive in such a way as the narrow roads permit, so that everyone is safe. But not the new ones. They just drive, like they own the road. They have no qualms about endangering others.

These modern people apparently have a very limited understanding of what it means to live together with others, as neighbors. I see this reflected also in the way Russia's intentions have been interpreted by so many. This modern idea of "I'm going to live as I please, others be damned, and if they don't like it, that's their problem".

That's just not the way to live with other people, with neighbors. But these modern people just don't understand this.

Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice. — FreeEmotion

It only takes one freeloader, one person who doesn't want this brotherhood of men, and the whole project collapses.

Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. — ssu

They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing.

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. — Apollodorus

But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.

(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)


Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences.

I don't see how the world is "at peace" when there are wars of various degrees of intensity in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. and when people are suppressed, persecuted, and killed in many countries around the world. — Apollodorus

And in the first world as well.

The only difference between dying slowly from overwork exhaustion and poverty (as is the fate of more and more people in first world countries) and dying in a bomb explosion in a war is how quickly it happens.

Simple answer: Because it's constantly changing it's borders! It has problems to know just where it's country ends. Just look at Ukraine now and what Putin is saying about the country. — ssu

*sigh*

Russia's defense of it's country has been for others Russia's invasions and imperialism. Is that hard to understand?

That's what I'm talking about. So many people simply refuse to look at the matter from Russia's perspective. In fact, they refuse to acknowledge that there are perspectives at all. To them, there is just their own perspective, which is The Truth, and all else is wrong.

If one is going to think in such ways, then why bother with philosophy?

In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. — javi2541997

Democarcy comes with a cost. Everyone is responsible. Nobody is innocent.

From the NY Times

"The sanctions “are severe enough to dismantle Russia’s economy and financial system, something we have never seen in history,” Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote this week. — frank

And the NY Times etc. think that the Russian government hasn't taken this into consideration?

Does nobody play chess? In chess, in order to win, one has to be willing to sacrifice all figures except one.

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense and see springboards everywhere where they are threatened. And of course, the threat of the enemy serve authoritarian regimes well. — ssu

*sigh*

Why is the notion of "protecing your own country" so hard to understand when it is applied to Russia?

Yes yes but what for? What is the end game here? What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? Is that what the human race was meant for? — FreeEmotion

What else?

Human existence is a mixed bag, and living on a planet where resources are scarce and relatively hard to obtain, this mixed bag is all it can be.

What is amazing is how philosophically unprepared most people seem to be for this. They are operating on the conviction that life on earth not only should be heaven, but that it _can_ be heaven. And that the only reason why it isn't is because some people are just evil.

They keep having those WW II memorials, saying "so that things like that would never happen again", but they never actually analyze why those things happened in the first place. And more, they fail to understand that merely remembering them is _not_ going to prevent them from happening again.

Of course, bringing up heavy existential topics in the abstract at a time like this will by many be judged as nothing other than perverse ... but it's the same in peace times, when nobody wants to think about such things because they're enjoying themselves too much.

So it's never the right time to think about heavy existential topics, while time marches on.