Oh, personally, I'd go by the one drop rule.

Practically, I think this is a lost cause, the damage is done, and the system will just have to gradually purge itself from intruders in indirect ways, such as by increasing scholarship tuitions, increasing competition between students and between academics, allowing for (more) nepotism and cronyism. This should bring the educational system back into the domain of the elite, where it belongs.

I bet this really really riles up every democratic, egalitarian bone in your body. That is not my intention. I think though that many people waste a perfectly good lower middle class life trying to be something they are not when they try to join the elite by trying to get a fancy education.

I know quite a few of those: the universe was created just so that I can have a relationship with some supreme celestial creator/father figure, and all of his edicts in my special book are truth. — ToothyMaw

The thing is that in the mind of such a person, there is objective morality. I mean this in the metaethical sense. Such a person has an unfailing conviction that they know objective morality.

Perhaps this is the most objective that morality can get.

The examined life is both an examination of life and a life of examination. It is both theoretical and practical. It is a critical examination of what I think, and say, and do. It is an examination of desires, and goals, choices, and values. But since we do not live in isolation, it is also about what others think, say, do, and so on. — Fooloso4

This is very general. You could say this same thing about Hitler and about Mother Theresa, for example. Or the Dalai Lama. They all live(d) examined lives.

Do we create morality and then it takes on it's own existence? Or perhaps the whole of existence is aware and no event is truly unobserved. — Cheshire

I think that for one's moral stance to be strong, one has to believe that it's not merely one's own, subjective, partial, biased view, but that it intimately has something to do with "how things really are", ie. that it is objective, beyond mere subjectivity.

So how is following what 'seems best to me' not precisely relativism? — Isaac

It's not relativism if the person is a narcissist, or, specifically, an epistemic narcissist or egotist. Such a person is firmly convinced that "the way things really are" is precisely as they view them. Such a person has no sense of their perspective, instead, they believe they can directly perceive the truth. Such a person is, for all practical intents and purposes, a solipsist.

But I think moral absolutism might be possible, along with objectivity. — ToothyMaw

The closest candidate for moral objectivism/absolutism being the solipsist.

That's what is called 'cynicism'. — Wayfarer

What you quoted above from Tolstoy, this idea I first heard from a Hare Krishna devotee. Then from a Catholic. Then I read it in a book on literary theory. Then I remembered hearing such things from my wannabe bourgeois extended family as I was growing up. Then I heard it from a Bahai. Somewhere inbetween I read it from Tolstoy. And, of course, I had heard it from several of my teachers in elementary school and some in highschool. In elementary school, our teachers routinely considered us stupid, primitive.


I used to go Nordic walking. On the trail, I'd often meet a lady, about 25 years my senior, and she always wanted to engage me in conversation. (She is a certified Nordic walking instructor. But she wants to talk while walking. Which is odd, given that the relative suitable speed of walking is at a pace where one cannot comfortably talk anymore.) She was always full of advice for me. One day, she told me that it would be really good if I learned English, that it is important to know foreign languages, esp. English. I gathered that she was sure that I don't speak English, given that she was so persistent. I think I even replied something in English, but she was not impressed. Out of respect for her seniority, I didn't say anything further.

I know several such people. They consider me really dumb and primitive. That I don't understand this or that; that I am, in fact, incapable of understanding those elevated topics. It's rather ironic, but it does get boring after a while.
So I'm reminded of that scene from Legally Blonde:

In the essay in the OP, Benjamin talks about translating Dichtung. A word that has no English equivalent.

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't have anything whatsoever to do with the diagnosis of mental disorders. Nothing. — Isaac

Sometimes, you can be really narrow and petty.

Sure, you, in particular, might not be in the business of diagnosing some other people, but you have worked in a field for which as a whole, diagnosing people is an important activity, both theoretically and practically. You belong to that field. What applies to that field, directly or indirectly applies to you.

That, and you were the one bringing up the issue of wanting to reduce the stigma of psychiatric diagnosis, and asked for suggestions on how to do this.

Or maybe it's because you're forming your judgment about an entire international field of research, teaching and practice based on the six people you happen to have met...?

*sigh*
No, my not so favorable opinion about psychologists is based primarily on knowing the laws of the land that give psychologists the power they have, and on their interpretation of psychological experiments and psychological phenomena.

For example, take the standard interpretation of the Milgram Experiment, namely, that people will go to great lengths because they obey authority. To me, this is an interpretation entirely foreign to life. I'd need a paragraph or so to sketch out in brief why I think so. Or some "scientific" ideas on why people procrastinate and how to cure that ...

The most universal criteria for examining whether or not you are living your life is the question of whether or not you have the courage to own your fears and failings, and do your best to overcome them. — Janus

This sounds like something out of an American self-help book, and certainly not universal.

Its the thought that counts. — DingoJones

Tell that to yourself next time when you're hungry.

An objective morality would still examine an action within the context it takes place. It seems like it sterilizes the matter for the sake of maintaining the position. Plenty of artist have destroyed works for materials or even burned them for heat. Ignoring the context just doesn't seem reasonable. — Cheshire

Are you familiar with Kohlberg's theory of the stages of moral reasoning?

According to this theory, people at different stages of moral reasoning reason differently about issues of morality. On a metalevel, this explains the differences between people and how the same person can reason differently about the same moral issue, in different times of their life.

I firmly believe things are right or wrong apart from who does them. — Cheshire

Possibly many/most people have this belief.

But, I can't account for how this could be; because every case seems to be about an observer.

This is where you differ from the people above. A consequent moral objectivist would either not ask about the origins of morality, or would be certain of a particular source of it. Either way, he would not struggle how to account for objective morality.
It appears that you're not a consequent moral objectivist.

If so, one only has to read the book of Genesis to realize that if humamity started off with one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), incest was/is inevitable. — TheMadFool

I pointed this out to a Catholic once, and she was deeply offended and called me immature and disrespectful. There appears to be an unwritten agreement that the biblical account is not to be taken literally.

As usual you've grabbed a barely connected sentence out of context just to use a a springboard for some general whinging. Not even worth a reply really, I'll just quote the rest of the post you decided to ignore — Isaac

*sigh*

I pointed out the trouble ahead. I didn't elucidate all the steps because I figured readers can fill them in on their own.

I keep thinking about this topic as I dig in the garden and pull weeds ...

An example:

"Life is not a game of luck. If you want to win, work hard."

A saying that can be found in popular self-help literature, which also happens to be a genre that is widely popular and widely translated. So translation issues occur.*

In my native language, a Slavic one, we have no word that would have the same cluster of meanings as the English win. (To the best of my knowledge, neither does German.)
So how can I translate this motivational saying into my native language, while 1. preserving its original meaning, and 2. still keeping it short and succint enough to be a motivational saying in my native language?

I ask myself why the author of that sentence used win, and not succeed, or prevail. Did he intend a double entendre or not? The English win can be used in a wide spectrum of meanings: it can be used in the context of luck, in the context of competition or conflict, and generally in the context of making an effort. For each of those contexts, I would need to use a different word in my native language, but this way possibly losing the originally intended meaning.


*American self-help texts can sound stilted, unnatural, clumsy in translation. While some of this can be attributed to an insuficiently trained translator, some of the problems are definitely due to the major cultural differences.

Another example: emotional rollercoaster. This phrase implies that Americans view emotions as a dangerous, fast, up and down movement or process. We have no such notion, and no verbal equivalent.

The emergence and spread of postmodernism is an indicator of how the world of academia exists primarily for its own sake, catering to its own needs, interests, and concerns. It's also a cautionary tale of what happens when academia is opened to plebeians, ie. people who don't belong there.
— baker

I don't disagree but this latter part involving the plebeians - how do you see this working? — Tom Storm

How do I see what working? Kicking plebeians out of academia?

I don’t “bitch” about atheists
I just tell it like it is — Jan Ardena

No, your just giving your view. A view of a non-committed theist.

Permissible by whom?
— baker

Permissible as one's own ethical guideline. — schopenhauer1

What are you, five years old, a handmaid, or a slave to need to ask for permission for what to have as your ethical guideline?

The solution is to not start the suffering. — schopenhauer1

But how does it help you with _your_ suffering?

You were born, the damage is already done.

Your suffering on account of having been born cannot be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born.

Antinatalism isn't the solution to the problem of _your_ suffering.

It also isn't the solution to the problem of mankind's suffering either, because if there's nobody there, there's also no suffering, and thus, no problem to solve.

If your suffering on account of having been born could be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born, then don't you think this would have happened already by you (and some other people) not having children?
Yet here you are, suffering.

I don’t understand why we hate incest if we acknowledge that homosexuality is ok — TheHedoMinimalist

Do we??

It seems to me that very few people actually support homosexuals and think they are normal human beings. It seems to me that most people think homosexuals are bad, wrong, immoral, but they just don't say that in public because thy don't want trouble. Just because homosexuals might not be stoned to death in a particular community anymore doesn't mean that the community supports them.

c

It's about reasonable expectation. Having a child at all does not lead to a reasonable expectation that the child will have genetic defects. Having a child with your own sibling or parent or offspring does. — Kenosha Kid

The question is whether it should be taken for granted that people know or believe this, or that they should.

A while back, in Germany, a brother and a sister who grew up separately in foster homes, found eachother after many years, got romantically involved, and produced, IIRC, two children at the time, and promised to have more. None of their children that far seemed genetically defective.

Even in an incestuous relationship, it's possible to have luck in the genetic lottery. So in the face of that, it can be hard to believe in the principle that incestuous couples are more likely to produce genetically defective offspring.

A socio-economic argument against incest is that if everything "stays within the family", the family will have less influence over other people in the community, thus weakening socio-economic cohesion.
— baker
I don’t think it’s common for any family to have any involvement or influence in the community in this modern age to begin with. — TheHedoMinimalist

Last I checked, nepotism is still going strong.

I think most people interact with the community to put food on their table more so than anything involving romantic relationships.

Then this here is a clue to some underlying assumptions for why people marry: I think strategic alliances to improve one's socio-economic standing have been the main motivator for marriage throughout history, and still are nowadays, once people mature a bit.

I guess I should also point out that seems highly unlikely that incest would ever be so widespread in any society that it would have this sort of big macro effect.

It would have a considerable effect for those involved. Historically, this is one of the reasons why some for of incest was practiced by royal families. For those families, it was important to stay in power and to increase their power, and marriage was a strategic tool for this. As needed: sometimes, to keep the power all in the family, a marriage between close relatives; other times, marrying outside the family for political and economic gains.

Again, we'd need to consider the miscarriage rate and the abortion rate, as compared to those rates in the normal population. I imagine they are both higher in the incestuous population.
— baker
I don’t think those are overly high either. I think older couples that try to have children also have really high miscarriage rates but I don’t think you would use that as an argument against them having children. — TheHedoMinimalist

No, but those rates being higher would be something to consider when trying to estimate the frequency of incest. If no children are born from a relationship, then it can be harder to prove a relationship exists at all; assuming that incestuous couples are more likely to try to hide their relationship.

So, I do think it’s a pretty weak argument against incest myself. — TheHedoMinimalist

A socio-economic argument against incest is that if everything "stays within the family", the family will have less influence over other people in the community, thus weakening socio-economic cohesion, which in turn makes everyone more vulnerable.

Marriage for business and political purposes makes it harder for people to back down from their business and political commitments.

I also have heard that incest only creates a modest increase of risk having genetic disorders, high infant mortality, children with broken immune systems, and weak hearts. — TheHedoMinimalist

Again, we'd need to consider the miscarriage rate and the abortion rate, as compared to those rates in the normal population. I imagine they are both higher in the incestuous population.

The difference at hand is about knowing what the probable outcome of one's actions will be, vs. not knowing.

The incestuous person engaging in heterosexual sex (and who is aware of the dangers of incestuous procreation) is in this sense the same as the person who knows they have a hereditary disease that they are likely to pass on to their offspring.

/.../but I don't think this is what the article or the OP is talking about. — Luke

What do you think it is talking about?

I think its pretty straight forward, “unexamined” means thoughtless, unreflective…life isnt worth living unless it is given thought, contemplated, otherwise you might as well be an inanimate object. — DingoJones

Well, you could pick up a cheap women's magazine, and find there instructions on how to contemplate one's life, how to examine it, but you'd probably disagree with the criteria for examination listed or implied there. You could also look into the Catholic method of the Daily Examen, and find it lacking, or too tendentious.

The idea of the "examined life" is that is is examined by particular criteria, but which are not universal.

It's lonely at the top, innit ... :halo:

And 2) do you happen to know of any relatively simple or brief way to identify your own APs or anyone else's? — tim wood

That's easy. Try to talk to someone who thinks differently than oneself. This quickly brings to the surface one's hinge propositions. The moment in the interaction when you want to call the other person crazy, evil, deranged, and such, is the moment where the hinge proposition surfaces and can be recognized.

anyone else's? — tim wood

That depends on how much goodwil and time one is willing to invest in the interaction, and whether one is willing to make the first step.

You really proceed with maximal unjustifiable assumptions, don't you. — Kenosha Kid

Oh. So you're the one developing the negative side effects of hormonal contraceptives and having abortions? Good to hear.

Yet you bitch about them. Makes you a really bonafide person in matters of knowledge of God.

If you mean using contraception, then no. There's no contraception that leads to no procreation, only less procreation. — Kenosha Kid

*lol*
"Hormonal contraceptives are safe and effective." Don't you know you're suposed to chant that mantra?

I had a vasectomy*.

* Absolutely not true, DO NOT QUOTE THIS! :rofl:

By all means, it's the woman who should risk her health and life with hormonal contraceptives and abortions. Because you're so wonderful, so worth dying for.

Way to give "inbred" a whole new meaning!

A better question imo is: do we have the right to prohibit incest to avoid infant suffering and genome degradation? If so, do we have a right to take babies off smokers and ban gingers from reproducing?

Then we're at a much more fundamental question: Do we have the right to prohibit anything?

I think some people have seen movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too many times. — Tom Storm

Besides, that film is a cautionary tale about what one should expect if one tries to play the system.

It's all you. You probably say the same of all healthcare workers. You're perfect and everyone else is uncaring of perfect you. — magritte

*sigh*

Professionals are part of a system. If they don't do their jobs according to their system then it's up to the system to correct that. If you disagree then go complain, but don't just throw shee at everyone in site.

Mental health workers don't have the means or time to treat more than the symptoms with medications. Sad, but true.

If they persist in that system, they become complicit in whatever said system does.

What are you, as a psychologist, willing to sacrifice in order to reduce the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis?

Answer this, and you'll have a context for the above.
— baker

I'm really not sure what you think I could do. I was a researcher for most of my career. Now I mainly help organisations include human factors in their long-term risk analysis. What would you have me do differently to effect a change in the stigma associated with psychiatric diagnosis? I really would be glad to help, but I haven't a clue how. — Isaac

There you go.

Is it not the case that you hold a vested interest in the proliferation of the stigma associated with psychiatric diagnosis?

The stigma is, after all, what makes the psychiatric diagnosis so powerful and so relevant. Without the stigma, psychiatric diagnosis would be triflesome.

There is a stereotype about psychologists that says that psychologists have a poor grasp of human nature.
— baker
Is there? And..?

Yes. From what I've seen, psychologists tend to try really hard to live up to that stereotype. Maybe it's a professional deformation. Maybe it's something deeper than that.

The negative reactions you often see to psychologists is when people resent the legal power that psychologists have.
— baker

Really? Do we see the same with judges, barristers, solicitors, policemen, doctors, forensic lab technicians, and graphologists?

We can see it with anyone who is in some important way more powerful than we are.
But psychologists are in a rare position to have the insight into this, due to the nature of their field of study.

How? If they're having sex, they're not making a point of not procreating. — Kenosha Kid

How? If they are homosexual and having sex, they are making a point of not procreating. If they are heterosexual and having sex, and are taking steps to prevent a pregnancy and plan for an abortion should a pregnancy occur, then they are making a point of not procreating.

If they're not having sex, it isn't incest.

If they are homosexual close blood relatives having sex, is it incest?

The key to happiness is to lead an unexamined life. — emancipate

Mwhaha!

Why are babies not an issue? — Kenosha Kid

In reference to this:

But suppose a person may decide to marry or enter into sexual relations with a close relative that is unlikely to result in children being born, for example, if both partners are of the same sex, beyond a certain age, or otherwise unable or indeed unwilling to conceive or procreate. — Apollodorus

Suppose close blood relatives are concerned enough about producing defective offspring, so they make a point of not procreating. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

catharsis through dialogue. — schopenhauer1

Too bad the effects of this purge bring only short-lived satisfaction!

If something is proposed as a solution to a problem, but you have to apply or enact that solution over and over again (with no end in sight), then it's not a solution to the problem at all. It's merely a distraction from the problem and a postponing of a solution.