Are you suggesting that we created the mujahideen or just that I should have gone into further detail concerning the insurgency at its inception? My assumption has always been that we just ostensibly backed them. — thewonder

They didn't just come out of nowhere. The (then) mujahedeen (now Taliban) were radicalized by the then CIA, under the watchful eye of Brzezinski and others. We supplied them advanced heat-seeking weaponry (Stinger's) to shoot down planes and other avionics during the Soviet war with Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

If memory serves me correctly, it was Bin Laden that took what he perceived as injustice against Muslims being used like toys on the battlefield of proxy wars among the USSR and USA in the middle east.

Nowadays, the war on terror has been downsized; despite the radical elements of Al Qaida spreading into Africa, Yemen, Syria, and other Middle Eastern states.

My eyes widen when I see such short-circuit thinking, as to pulling out entirely from Afghanistan.

I used to practice boxing. It's a great stress reliever.

But, philosophy requires more subtlety and finesse.

Just to supply you with some fodder, with regards to the paper, it would be good to highlight the creation of the mujahedeen from Brzezinski under Carter's presidency, and how it eventually bit the US in the ass.

Nicely done paper. What are your thoughts on the next question being, how should the US handle the current situation in Afghanistan?

I think you have a pretty solid identity. It's just making it shine that's our issue.

I'm 67 and it is unlikely any breakthrough will be developed in the time I have left. — T Clark

You can't be too certain about that. I mean, AI is just around the corner, and given that it doesn't need food or sleep or can think at incomprehensible speeds, then I suppose it might figure out a way to preserve whatever consciousness is.

I think it is much likelier that one of our current technologies will end our time on earth in the next few decades rather than significantly extending our lives. — T Clark

Like AI?

EDIT: I used to be a huge Kurtzweil fan, but think some of his projections are a little on the optimistic side...

Life forever in this world would essentially be a living hell. Death is an act of mercy. Imagine, if only you could afford the treatment to live forever, you would see your closest friends die, countless bloodshed from war and disasters, never-ending corruption. If you had any disorders or disabilities such as depression or anxiety it would be an endless battle against it. Would life even be worth living then? — Waya

I don't know. Falling in love with someone and living together for a million years blissfully doesn't sounds that bad. I also feel as though with an unlimited lifespan our desires would also be quite easily met. Obviously, if we were to be able to live a near infinitude, then all these disorders and such would become redundant or solved.

A steam of consciousness ensues:

I feel as though most of our questions and desires and yada-yada will be answered or passed over in silence once death becomes an option. And, yes, I understand that death is an inevitability if some magnetar or black hole comes nearby our solar system. I mean, if I could live 200 (let alone a thousand) years instead of 75, then I would be quite content even then.

Maybe a Nietzsche aphorism would be appropriate. — frank

:death:

Echoing the title of the OP, even the parents of the kids are screaming about not wanting to go to school.

Ask them if the wavefunction is metaphysical and see what they say.

Yeah, now another mass shooting, with 9 dead in Dayton Ohio.

It's hard to comprehend just how many people have to die for some kind of pragmatic change to happen.

Make America Great Again!!!

:vomit:

From what you say, I don't think you understand what it means in this context. — T Clark

What do you mean?

And no, I'm not a Buddhist, but I know what suffering is as discussed here. I have felt that suffering. — T Clark

You have felt the suffering in terms of what, desire or what?

First, thank's Wayfarer for taking the time to reply to my "misgivings".

Practically speaking, Buddhist 'metaphysics' is based around the 'twelve-fold chain of dependent origination' which couldn't really be summarised in a forum post (although there's a good article on it on Wikipedia). — Wayfarer

What about karma? I don't even know how to describe the concept of karmic rebirth or how it is 'accumulated' during one's life, and then in a figurative sense evaluated to influence samsara.

According to Buddhism, it is not as if we can simply step out of existence, or get off the hamster wheel, even at the time of death, because the latent tendencies that drove this life will always re-form another existence - which is also bound to the same wheel, by the same forces. — Wayfarer

Yeah, can you elaborate on these "forces" that dictate rebirth?

The Buddha teaches that there is something that is beyond change and decay, that is not subject to the constant cycle of birth and death. That is what the Buddha found and points to. Living in the light of that, realizing what that is and making oneself open to it, is the aim of the Buddhist teaching, as I interpret it. — Wayfarer

I'm not familiar with this notion of Buddhism as being above and beyond the world when enlightenment occurs.

Wonder what s/he was selling, got the same thing...

Doing some self-reflection, and recalling a distant dream in my past, I do recall having a dream of being a dolphin in my youth. That was the only instance in my life when I dreamed of being an animal. It was a blissful dream in many regards, as I felt no thought, just swimming and jumping up on the crests of waves. I suspect that my empathy circuits were in overdrive during this dream, as I was wholly able to emulate the POV of a dolphin within a dream. Somewhat reminiscent about Zhuangzi's Butterfly Dream.

And here I would like to bring up my fourth 'misgiving' with Buddhism. Namely, the concept of suffering or dukkha. Now, I have no reason to suffer if I was a dolphin. I would simply adhere to what Nature dictates that I do. But... people, on the other hand, complain and moan and beat their chests with how much suffering they have gone through or expect to encounter. Why is that? It's somewhat perplexing that anyone should complain about their suffering.

What I mean here, is the natural aspect of the human condition being in a world with limited resources and scarcity, forcing us humans to migrate in our earlier years to other lands, undergo adaptive changes that allowed us to survive in distant hot or cold lands, etc. But, at the heart of all this is an aspect of being human that one is either forced to accept by adhering to Nature, which is that suffering is natural and unavoidable.

What I do not see as just is saying that we suffer because we are human; but, rather we suffer because it is natural. And, if one wants to live in a world with less suffering, then they must accept this fundamental aspect of being.

There was a well-known academic by the name of Paul Williams who after having written some textbooks on Buddhism, announced that he was converting to Catholicism due to his dread of the idea of being reborn as a cockroach. — Wayfarer

As far as I am aware, samsara will continue until nirvana or enlightenment is attained by each and every individual. Is that correct?

There's a lot of metaphysics to Buddhist philosophy that I am only vaguely aware of.

You can bracket out such beliefs. Not that I think there's nothing in them, but they're culturally alien in some ways. — Wayfarer

Yes, but usually when I buy into a philosophy I take it as a whole and not selectively pick out parts that I like or don't like. The current Dalai Lama is thought to be the 14'th reincarnation, so I think it's pretty important, yes?

Maybe I'm confusing the whole philosophy of Buddhism here and treating it like a religion, is that accurate?

As far as I can see your argument, you seem to be in favour of Buddhism, but not with asceticism it entails. — Andreas Greifenberger

I just don't see any point to it, honestly. Is it some prerequisite towards enlightenment?

Perhaps you could say more precisely what you like about Buddhism, or with which Buddhist teachings you agree, and then also why you dislike asceticism. — Andreas Greifenberger

I am out of my element here, so I'll just play it by ear. Isn't it doubly difficult for a person from the West, who was raised to become a good working citizen, is made aware of human capital attained through the laborious efforts of 'stepping on the shoulders of giants' of the past, is also aware of the comfort and luxury that technology and progress entail through competition and the invisible hand of the markets... Well, you get my point here, I suppose? If I were to put this mildly, a profound disillusionment with our current socio-economic system would have to occur in the mind of a would-be Western Buddhist. It also strikes me as profoundly selfish to want to abandon the good that can be promoted through being such a "cog".

I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to be an ascetic in the sense that you refuse food and any personal pleasure in order to be religious. — Andreas Greifenberger

But, then is it still Buddhism we are talking about or a convenient aberration of Buddha's philosophy or way of living?

If you keep on asking *why* 'nough it eventually turns into philosophy...

*But why*

Yes, this is an issue that I have also confronted.

My response was to wallow.

:party:

Welcome. Hope you enjoy the place.

:blush:

Yes, well I'm also not entirely sure if your ad hoc analysis is compatible with the notion that libertarianism would solve these pre-existing issues that already plague regulated markets. I think that's what I'm trying to point out.

These are important problems (though, it is rather question-begging to prejudge them as 'incurable'), but, since they take us far afield from the topic of market failure, on which I have already written so much, I would sooner address them in a future thread, if it's all the same to you. — Virgo Avalytikh

Not really question-begging. If you have any formal training in game theory, these are simply outcomes derived from inherent forces within human nature, as far as I am aware.

I will wait for another thread then. Market failure is used so stipulativly here that I have no idea how to address it.

But, libertarianism suffers from an incurable problem, which can only be exacerbated if one were to implement it...The issue that I want to present can be called the 'level playing field problem'. Keep in mind that tabula rasa just doesn't apply here unless (in a perfect world) society was formed on a marooned island from scratch.

The problem presents itself in the form of those already with a strategic advantage (patent trolls, monopolies, oligopolies, and everything that economics hates but has to deal with). One may begin to see the whole appeal of libertarianism by those nefarious elements that promote it.

How would you resolve this issue?

Cool debate, never watched it despite it becoming as of late as something of a revelation.

I do like how Peterson outlined the happiness of mankind according to conservative thought to be found in duty and doing what is right at the right time and place, where happiness simply becomes a byproduct of moral and ethically guided behavior. What I do disagree on with this analysis is guiding one's behavior within this framework should or ought to be done from a perspective of what God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit may "want", which raises the typical questions you encounter within theology, about stuff like the problem of evil, etc. (responsibility) etc. (God) etc. (Faith?)

Whereas Zizek is more (Cynical?) in his professing that moral behavior (what can be described as the futile effort of the 'attainment' of happiness) is ideologically driven. But, so what?

Poor Oksa...

Proletars of the World-- unite! — Luke, 3:24

:party:

Right.

So, there's an ideological basis for the confusion surrounding happiness that serves a certain system and certain interests and if Confucianism or whatever religious or philosophical basis can be used to self-immunize in that respect, I'd say go for it. — Baden

What's your personal pick here? And what did you mean by the "usual suspects"? Happy pills? Drugs? In a more abstract sense, "goods" (cars, a bigger house, even food?)

I would actually as YOU to elaborate why you're setting the standard for having a child at "Is the life bearable?" I think you need to explain THAT one first. Because it sound to me like you're saying something along the lines of "How much can we torture this kid before it becomes a bad thing" — khaled

Well, because you seem to imply that life is not worth living because it contains harm in it. Does life then only make sense in some highly idealized utopia where no suffering is to be experienced? Hence, the all or nothing logic inherent here that I mentioned earlier

To quote from David Benetar (roughly)
"There is a huge difference between a life worth living and a life worth starting. No lives are worth starting but most are worth living" — khaled

How is that? Can you elaborate?

None of this makes any sense. Surely suffering is unavoidable in the every day world we live in. So, the question again is when is living OK?

Yeah, there is actually a correlation between a SD increase of 1 and productivity gains. Some think this is dubious given that intellectual ability goes hand in hand with the directionality of 'thinking'...

Did not mean to turn this into a personal monologue, my second point is, to what extent do these mental oddities relate to philosophy? — Grre

Philosophy in the ordinary sense has the highly personal gist of "love" for something. Nowadays, and in large part thanks to Nietzsche this sort of love has turned into a love-hate relationship in regards to truth. Then, there's the highly existential aspect of philosophy, that prods and sustains one's curiosity or interest in it. So, yeah...

Lastly, to what extent do such mental abnormalities BENEFIT rather than harm the individual, and in what ways are these potential benefits being (either purposively or unknowingly) overlooked? — Grre

There's a theory that depressive realism is a more accurate view of the world. Besides, I really have no idea in what terms or criteria you mean to evaluate the qualifier "benefit" here.

Anyways, not sure how much sense that made but as you can see I'm just interested even in opening up a general discussion as this is an otherwise non-existent in the field of philosophy, even in such focuses as philosophy of mind or philosophy of emotion ect. — Grre

Personalities? I think, philosophy attracts a lot of introverts with a highly analytical mindset. Some time ago I posted about what you might consider a "benefit" in philosophy is "intelligence". Most of the great philosophers of the past must have had extraordinarily high IQ's. So, you can focus yourself on analyzing this in that regard, which is easier to evaluate and asses.

OK, I just reviewed some of this thread and a couple of points:

As I have used a different language game of sorts as presenting this as either an all or nothing zero-sum game of either living in a perfect world where nobody causes any harm or the alternative of living in a world where some harm occurs (How much? Can any antinatalist really resolve this issue with some objective measure?).

Actually, I'll just leave it at that. Let's see how the antinatalist resolves how much suffering is tolerable, or does the whole thing come off as some fundamentalism if no suffering or harm is demanded.

Could still be side effect of medication, or the onset of a more serious depression, but there is a chance this will pass. — god must be atheist

Wow, I didn't expect this thread to turn into a go look into a *let's tell Wallows he is imagining things and burst his small floating bubble*. But, I do like the feeling or lack-of (it) and hope it doesn't pass.

What's an "egocentric" model versus an alternate model? — Terrapin Station

So, why do people (I can't really speak for others here apart from myself) go to psychologists and psychiatrists? To feel happy, I surmise, or at the very least, to feel less unhappy (although, usually that realization is achieved after some substantial therapy). But, "being happy" strikes me as an ego-centric desire or need professed by an unhappy individual. Whereas, on the other end, actually "being happy" is held onto like a precious good like some fools gold or some such. That's the gist of my theorizing about the "egocentric model of happiness" hereabouts.

I hope this might help answer your perplexion with the other part of your post. If not, let me know if I can be more clear.

There are side effects to each. These unwanted effects are registered with each. Apathy and lethargy is typical to some of them, but not to all. — god must be atheist

I don't know, the feeling is deliberate, not foreign in the sense of being induced by something external. Like a logical conclusion, where one finds oneself satisfied with the analysis done and gone over.

I'm not going to call it spiritual because I do admit, that it feels somewhat self-centered; but, not having the possessive quality of "being happy".