Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Only if all explanations, definitions, and theories are isms.
— baker

I'm missing the logic here. Are you saying that all explanations, definitions and theories are
essentially nothing-but-isms, with the corollary that all isms are nothing-but-isms only if all explanations etc, are isms? — Janus

No. I'm allowing for the possibility that something, even though it is called an ism, is actually true (and all the explanations, definitions, and theories that go with it), in which case it's not yet another ism.

Thank heavens I don't eat or drink while at the computer. Otherwise I'd have a lot to clean up after just now.

Not everyone is like the 'Muricans.

Cunning implies deceitful, doesn't it? Could they not just be smart and complex? — Tom Storm

It's a tricky word, and I used it for that purpose.

I mean, you can read his biography. He was an amazing guy besides being a genius. — frank

Yeah, especially when he cut up live animals.
/s

This is the thread about moral facts, FYI.

Is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity?

For whom, in what circumstances?

Bleak, huh? — Tom Storm

Just realistic.

I’m not sure if your expression of the argument indicates that you actually endorse this argument on any level but I’m a bit confused about the argument. Would you be able to provide an example of a person who failed to learn of one’s place in the social hierarchy and experienced a negative outcome in life because of that? — TheHedoMinimalist

Pretty much anyone who in any way doesn't obey authorities:
Students who don't obey teachers tend not to do so well in school; citizens who don't obey police officers tend not to do so well in life; employees who don't obey their bosses tend not to do so well at work. Etc.

You provide no evidence just an assertion based on your own biases about status and power and their negative effects on behaviour. — Tom Storm

It's a matter of logical consequences, not empirical evidence. Can't you see that?

Your time to protest will come later. — counterpunch

Except that that time never comes.

She made it hard, she refused to wear a mask, she resisted arrest - and she got tased. You said, she got tased for not wearing a mask. That's not true, is it? She got tased for resisting arrest.

I said that? Where? In your mind?

How does our bullied kid decide what to do in regard to the bully?? Hopefully with care, with a great deal of support, and with time. — Banno

IOW, with "introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions".

How we would find evidence to establish a definitive case worldwide? — Tom Storm

No need to, as the situation talked about was clearly enough specified: In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law.

Democracy and the rule of law are not universal, last I checked.

You seem preoccupied by status and the abuse of power. Is this personality, experience or what you are reading? — Tom Storm

You're not my therapist, nor anyone else's here.

How does our bullied kid decide what to do in regard to the bully??

Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells. — Fooloso4

Leaving aside for the moment that the use of hormonal contraceptives (which are generally preferred) makes STI's have a field day 24/7, 365 days/year --

The use of contraceptives also made human life into something optional and expendable, most literally so. Without the use of contraceptives, human birth has an element that is beyond human control, and this gives it an inherent value, makes it as objectively existing as mountains and oceans. Without this element, humans become a commodity. Just another thing to be produced at will, or not.

She created the situation, and deserved everything she got. — counterpunch

Well, then, if you're such a proponent of the just world hypothesis, then you must never criticize anyone or anything or object to anything. Everything is happening exactly as it sould be happening and everyone gets what they deserve, right?

No need for magma.

I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

Meh, it's convenient to think of others as "uncritically accepting everything without question", innit? Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

What one ought do is decided by interacting with other people — Banno

How???

Sketch out how what one ought do is decided by interacting with other people!

Sample situation: You're a kid in school and another boy is bullying you and demands your lunch money.
How do you decide, based on interacting with other people, what the right course of action is??

The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes. — Hanover

People won't even do it literally, in traffic or in waiting lines. What hope is there for them staying in their lanes in any other way?

What issue are you responding too here. — Tom Storm

Self-awareness, self-regulation, achieving goals, seeing these things as a matter of skill.
From:

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals — Tom Storm

Against what you say and all forms of clandestine wisdom, producing a potential legal, political, and press-related spectacle for your nefarious adversaries is how to adequately deal with them. — thewonder

Provided one has the money and the political power to do so.

I also agree with Shawn in that this just doesn't have anything to do with Emotional intelligence. — thewonder

In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law, emotional intelligence is becoming redundant or counterproductive. I already sketched out why.

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). — Tom Storm

The matter is already thoroughly addressed in the concept of executive functions.

It's in reply to:

Are people generally less able to pick up on other's needs today than they were, say, 30 years ago? — Tom Storm

Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it. — Tom Storm

It's not clear that this is the case; or that "making shit up is easier than study"; "or that "people want to be told what to think," and such are the case.

People are cunning, and this needs to be accounted for somehow.

Are people generally less able to pick up on other's needs today than they were, say, 30 years ago? In my experience (which is limited and anecdotal), I have no reason to think it is any worse. — Tom Storm

I do. The spread of democracy and the rule of law (which amounts to "power to the most powerful/rich") result in a decline of informal, silent understandings of what is "proper behavior". Where in the past, people would show consideration for others and expect it in return, they can now say "If you don't like something about me, sue me, see if you can do it / if it's worth it to you".

When lawsuits and calling the police were generally not realistic options, people would make an effort to get along with others. Now, with democracy and the rule of law, they don't have to.

It might sound presumptuous to say this; but, are people becoming less emotionally intelligent? — Shawn

See here for some criticism of the EI concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence#Criticisms

Reading Goleman's original book, my own impression is that EI is primarily about having a secular, (upper) middle class mentality and behavior. Esp. in popular use of the term, EQ measures a person's conformity to that particular standard.

It's too early to comment. — TheMadFool

Then it's too early for praise.

Is, for instance, philosophy driven by psychological forces such as insecurity, or any one or more of the large list of complexes psychologists have identified? — TheMadFool

I'm sure there are psychologists/psychiatrists who believe just that.

I also once read something peculiar in an essay about the meaning of life by a philosophy professor at the local university (not in English). Namely, he addressed some aspect of the meaning of life problem, and said that such and such was just "a sign of low self-esteem".

My own impressions on the link between philosophy and so-called mental illness (depression, suicide, or worse) is that it (the connection between the two) is, inter alia, about how emotionally invested we are in a particular philosophy.

Or conversely, how much of a philosophical dilettante one is. By this I mean that only a philosophical
dilettante would allow themselves to be affected by philosophizing.

Back in college, I had classmates who majored in philosophy. It always struck me as odd that they seemed so completely unaffected by their study of philosophy, so completely unchanged by it. In hindsight, it seems that was actually the whole point: to not let it (ie. philosophy) get to one.

However, more importantly, many people, including philosophers themselves, don't seem to realize the full import of philosophical positions, even those they themselves either directly or indirectly, established. To do that one needs to feel the idea whatever that idea is and this seems to rarely occur; probably because to comprehened a philosophical standpoint one needs to become an ideal observer and that, according to some, is only possible if one is dispassionate.

Someone once said that the difference between a religious man and a philosopher is that the religious man puts his life on the line for his beliefs, while the philosopher deals in expendable theories.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but is it actually possible to be a nihilist other than in a posturing sense? Can any person be totally without values — Tom Storm

Sure, just not for long.

I'm too nice, and I don't understand why you see things the way you do. I guess I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. A female default, and a fault.

what kind of logic do you think emotions entail for a person? — Shawn

I think emotions are heuristics, condensed attitudes, condensed views.

Because for every emotion that one feels, one can offer up an explanation of what it is about and why (although many people don't even try).

Take, for instance, a racist: A racist feels hatred toward a particular race, but he can also explain why he feels that way, he can list his reasons.

Your suggestion is that differing areas of discussion - you have listed chemistry, mathematics and religion - are incommensurable? — Banno

Of course. Religion and science are NOMAs.

And yet chemistry makes use of mathematics.

Sure, there are some generalities that many of the scientific disciplines have in common (there used to be just one science which was later broken down into disciplines). Still, the point is that each scientific discipline has areas or modes of interest that do not overlap with those of other scientific disciplines. That's why there are different scientific disciplines, ie. biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

It's really only religion you would segregate from critique. You are apparently indulging in special pleading. I don't buy it.

I wouldn't "segregate it from critique" -- implying that it's "too good to be criticized" or some such.
It's just not clear how one could meaningfully go about criticizing it, or for what purpose.

It's beyond me how religious concepts can be the subject of philosophical inquiry. Indeed, it's a philosophical tradition to do so, I just don't understand how or why. When religious people claim that their doctrines are special, that they require special initiation to be understood, and such, I see no reason not to take their words at face value. However, this doesn't mean I believe those doctrines. That would be strange.

Our disagreement is pretty simple. I find the narrative shared here concerning reincarnation is unconvincing. You think otherwise. — Banno

Then that's the crux. What makes you think I "think otherwise"?? Because I'm not feistily enough against it, don't show enough contempt for it??
I don't find it convincing. Jesus, this is tiresome.

I don't see a roll for testicles in the discussion.

For keeping up with you guys.

You respond only to the sentiments of my comment shared with Michael regarding the uncertain modality we express regarding a moral proposition and its negation, whiles at the same time you completely ignore the arguments presented in (the substance) my comment. If you wish to to refute my defense of a default agnostic position — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I have no such wish. You misread my tone: I'm actually agreeing with and .

How does one maintain intellectual honesty while holding the untenable position of defending a moral claim to knowledge with no grounds to warrant such an assertion?

People typically do it with a reference to "gut feeling" and by stigmatizing/ostracizing anyone who lacks such a gut feeling or questions it.

Taboos are an obfuscation of which I make systematic efforts to reduce and that many who express emotional responses to such meticulous considerations of these hypotheticals, as if an anathema to them, seem to be the ones most affected.

At most forums, if someone said what Michael did, they'd get accused of psychopathy/sociopathy (which is what happened here), but they'd probably get banned as well. So strong is the taboo against probing into the origins of moral intuitions. Taboos aren't to be underestimated.

the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God.

It seems that monotheistic religions were developed for the purpose of justifying the exploitation of humans, animals, and the planet at large. Not to explain physical phenomena or the "mystery of life". You can see this by the function of religion: it's there to justify demanding from others, to justify taking from others.

But then what happens when one chosen person is instructed by God to say, kill another chosen person and yet this latter one is instructed by God to save a child? — Manuel

Monotheists resolve their differences by declaring the supremacy of one monotheism over others; or that only one monotheism is the right one. So that in the above scenario, they would say that only one person was instructed by God, while the other is merely imagining it, or lying about it.

Unless God's notion of morality differs radically from ours, such a situation is hard to reconcile with our innate ethical faculties.

No actual monotheism proposes such a situation. It is characteristic for monotheists to claim that only their religion is the right one, that only they have the right idea of God.

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. — James Riley

But for many people, this is exactly what happens: For a person born and raised into a religion, religion comes first.
Unless you can somehow show that morality is genetic?

We had the moral intuitions first, and only became curious about the mystery of them later. — James Riley

But does this hold for a person who was born and raised into a religion?

Unless God's command conflicts with the rights of other people. Then it's not so clear this argument from authority is valid. — Manuel

Not unless God is playing favorites. Pretty much every major monotheistic religion has a tenet to that effect: namely, that while God created everyone, he clearly prefers some people over others; he has his "chosen ones".

On the contrary, I'm a fallibilist and expect any purportedly true statement to be, in fact, untrue – provided there's evidence to show that is the case. — 180 Proof

As long as you consider yourself the arbiter of this evidence, your game is certainty.

I once came across an essay by a highly regarded philosopher about, if I remember correctly, why it is wrong a bake a child in the oven. The point was that we all recognize this as wrong but moral arguments as to why it is wrong fail. — Fooloso4

Absolutely.
(Why didn't anyone else pick this up?)

Though a few of your interlocutors seem to be either incapable of, or disinterested in, finding a charitable interpretation of your statement — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This just goes to show that taboos are still essential to thinking about morality.

I find your humility and intellectual honesty quite refreshing.

Yes, and yesterday, I actually collected those posts and commented on them with "Way to gloss over the issue!"
But taboos exist for a reason.