What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos

Anyway, where is this opposition between innocence and experience coming from? — kudos

So, I'm interested, what type of experience qualifies as anti-innocent and what does not?

Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence. — BC

Interesting. So the idea is that the essential nature of being is beneficial towards all things? — Tom Storm

But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence. — Joshs

No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.

They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into. — AmadeusD

To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. — Hanover

The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.

This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.

Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?

Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover

That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies? — Hanover

The problem is that once upon a time there were very few national news outlets, so entry into the market was difficult. You had to get your credentials and prove your worth if you wanted a microphone in front of you. Reputation was critical, so no outlet wanted to get their facts wrong or appear biased. — Hanover

Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.

Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world.

What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.

Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens. — ssu

So why is populism something that doesn't support democracy and promotes typically strong leaders and authoritarianism? — ssu

It just seems that there's no antidote to populism

Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able. — unenlightened

But I still hold that the intentions and assumptions of the speaker the do not leave the speakers body and travel in the signs to be conveyed to some listener. The listener is faced with the sign only, and it is up to him to provide it some with meaning. The act of understanding a sign, considering it, giving it meaning, and so on, are very important acts in this exchange and I think they have been largely ignored (as far as I know), at least as it pertains to Speech Act Theory. — NOS4A2

Framing it that way reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's saying, "society does not exist, only people and their families do." How does one separate such a bold claim of bourgeois supremacy over the functions of the state from the pre-linguistic space where the Sovereign Individual runs its cattle unfettered by the demands others? After all, they use many of the same words.

The word "right" is interesting because it expresses a direct or straight quality as an adjective: "Right on time", for instance. When the term is used as "rights of individuals", the use is all about the boundary between the prerogatives of a common interest and what an individual can preserve against such interests.

The thesis of the OP borrows from that latter use to deny the existence of what gave context for it. — Paine

Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their application — Ciceronianus

So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so.

If you read the complaints of professors, two common concerns are that today's students are variously unwilling to challenge their own dogmas and that students embrace a sort of all encompassing relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

For Schindler, it's misology, the idea that reason and argument cannot be trusted.

It’s becoming more and more clear that people are searching for acts in the text and not in the actor. — NOS4A2

Philosophy of language in a nutshell: the philosopher drifts from a clear and plain view of the human being into the muddled pursuit of sifting through his expressions.

I would not have written this unless you had posted; that's all that we need in order to say you elicited this reply. — Banno

not my fault. You elicited the response. The force and content animated me. — NOS4A2

If you could go, would you go? — BC

How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet. — Mikie

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. — Hanover

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

What if the trigger puller's mind consists of a heterogeneous mosaic of multiple, different will-vectors? — Quk

Which of the many will-vectors belong to that "single person"? And when the killer is caught, what part of this person has to get into jail?

While we're at it: Could this principle be applied to an entire country as well? Every person in this country represents one individual will-vector. The person itself is sort of a country too, containing many different will-vectors.

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
— baker

How do you know I'm not doing that? — Christoffer

And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?

This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.

So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.

As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.

It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.

If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.

It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.

So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.
— baker
To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.

Example(s):
Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality. — Chet Hawkins

That’s what I am genuinely unclear about. Are they talking about acts I am doing, or about acts somehow derived from the words I am writing? Am I or is the utterance performing the act? — NOS4A2

Compliments are more challenging, not because we can't think of things, but because it takes us out of our comfort zones to be nice. — Hanover

Anyway, I throw down the gauntlet. Only compliments.

I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, — Hanover

Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever. — Mikie

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

A true friendship was built... :flower: — javi2541997

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals. — Christoffer

I've met plenty. — AmadeusD

On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.

That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates — Christoffer

Basically any Mark Twain quote. — Lionino

We may wonder whether there is such a thing as a "happy family", no one questions the abundance of unhappy families. What with oedipal conflicts, penis envies, death wishes, and run of the mill neuroses, one might say that "happy families" are merely simmering pots that haven't boiled over yet. — BC

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives? — Christoffer

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.
— baker

It's not wrong either.

It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel. — jgill