Life was really difficult for everybody, not just the working class. — synthesis

No, the wealthy lived large. Weird that you don't acknowledge that.

No such thing as equality. Not even close. — synthesis

There is such a thing. It's just that those with an advantage don't want it.

Look at the 19th century if you want to understand efficiency. Prices were cheaper in 1900 then they were in 1800! — synthesis

Conditions for the working class were notoriously bad during that period, with long hours, low wages, hazardous and unhealthy conditions. Child labor wasn't outlawed until 1920. You're a real humanitarian, Synthesis.

An inefficient economy will eventually produce no profit and things will spiral down and out of control as happens every time some dufus attempts to implement socialist "solutions." — synthesis

Funny you were just praising "a time when most Americans knew how to take care of themselves" (an extremely inefficient time compared to now) and now seem to be claiming that they could never achieve what's most important in life: profit.

Why exactly is efficiency so paramount?
— praxis

In economics, efficiency is EVERYTHING. It's what drives the entire system. The more efficient, the more productive. The more productive, the more profit (which can be used to pay higher wages, invest in technology, or saved for other purposes). — synthesis

Right, even so, couldn't an inefficient economy provide for basic needs, and perhaps some of the extras we're so accustom to and dependent on?

Also, if we're all about efficiency and profit, then it's good to outsource labor to where it's cheapest and automate whenever possible, right? Screw the American worker if they can't compete. And let's make higher education as expensive as possible to help keep them down.

To live for profit is a rather meaningless way of life, I'll add.

I know that Americans don't seem to like to do much of anything anymore (except eat and watch TV/stare at digital devices), but there was a time when most Americans knew how to take care of themselves. Now, people are massively dependent. — synthesis

I doubt even old Davy Crockett would’ve turned his nose up at indoor plumbing, a new washer/dryer, or KFC chicken fingers.

The more distortions you introduce into the economy, the less efficient it becomes. — synthesis

Why exactly is efficiency so paramount?

I recall you mentioning that you’re a physician. I was talking about things more physically demanding than giving a prostate exam or hitting the gym for an hour.

To be fair, it could well be that young Synth didn’t do anything terribly physically demanding, in which case old Synth could be a champ in comparison.

I can still do some physically demanding activities that I did as a teen, and in some ways better because I deliberately train for them, but things like stamina, susceptibility to injury, and recovery times are significantly different.

I certainly believe my own thoughts on religion and politics are based on my life experiences rather than any other factors. — Jack Cummins

To clarify, do you mean cultural life experiences or personal experiences not influenced (if that’s possible) by culture.

I think I’ve seen a pastry like that on the British Baking Show or something. Don’t think it’s called an Ivory Tower though, unfortunately for the witticism.

Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. — FrancisRay

The article or content wasn’t eight grade level, the writing was. Also, you said it could be “as good as any” and now you’re saying that it was selected for its simplicity. This makes you appear lacking in both discernment and honesty.

Yet it seem to have gone over your head. — FrancisRay

So you believe that it’s not a more nuanced version of the 1st NT? The article is titled “ What the Buddha Meant by...” What’s it about then?

Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. — FrancisRay

Thank you! Was that so hard?

That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. — FrancisRay

Of course the difference is that we’ve all experienced the sun, and even if we hadn’t there’s mountains of evidence and scientific explanations for its existence.

Is there any evidence for the cessation of dukkha? Any Buddha’s alive today? Looks like all we got is some crusty old sutras and crustier old men in robes and painted smiles. Nothing wrong with that, it fulfills its purpose.

Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. — FrancisRay

So is the odd anti-intellectualism that some Buddhists seem to fall into.

Relationships work both ways. A group, or rather the leaders of a group, can take advantage of or abuse individuals. Individuals can freeload or betray the group. People can cooperate for mutual benefit or compete for resources.

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors.

Exactly.

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness?
— praxis

I mean that the elite is totally OK with the "woke" agenda and discourse being on the center stage of the public discourse. That corporations and organizations are keen embrace it and not dismiss it and especially not to be against it is what I had in mind when talking about "giving room". The reason is that the woke agenda doesn't actually threaten the corporations or the power elite. — ssu

Not a good idea for corporations and organizations to be against equal justice and the like, unless they're branding to backwater rednecks, so secret meetings of the elite class in their hidden volcano lairs to reach agreement on methods to distract the poor folk is probably unnecessary.

I get your general meaning though.

I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. — FrancisRay

I read it and charitably described it as "A more nuanced version of the 1st NT". It's only about a page long, written at the eighth grade level (middle school), and by a lay zen student with a bachelors degree in journalism. Worse still, in your opinion this explanation could be "as good as any".

your objection is misconceived — FrancisRay

If you were interested in the truth, and capable, wouldn't you be willing and able to explain why my objection is misconceived?

Again, I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

Your article concludes with a quote from the Buddha promising "the cessation of dukkha". If this is not your experience then for you it is a belief. Only you could know if it's your experience, and there's no sense being shy about it. The Buddha wasn't shy about it.

Ugh, you’re trolling skillz are getting embarrassing.

Can you be banned for low quality trolls?

I think the real issue is that the US has really serious socio-economic problems as the middle class isn't growing, and people aren't happy about the corruption both on the left and right. And things obviously are going to get far worse with the selected monetary & fiscal policy. So it's good for the elite to give room for in the end rather silly wokeness and have it divide people in new ways. When the lower classes are deeply divided and hate each other, it's better for the ruling elite. Worst thing would be that someone came and united the medium to low income Americans! — ssu

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness?

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.
– praxis

Is a critic still a critic if he is unfamiliar with the literature? — NOS4A2

Yes, just not a good one.

I went straight to the punchline and didn't read your OP until now. Turns out you've thoroughly thwarted all criticisms yourself with:

"No individualist suggested 'taking man out of society'"

"Selfishness is present among collectivists, too"

And last but not least...

"Anarchy has never arrived"

These three aspects have been addressed in the topic and your reading comprehension seems good, so the issue must be the same as it frequently is with you, your honesty.

To clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz:

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. — NOS4A2

An odd statement considering deeply imbedded it is in Western, or at least American, culture.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will. — Tzeentch

I guess that's why democracy tends to work best for the average Joe.

"For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me. — Tzeentch

Doesn't make sense. Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. The Libertarian moral framework is designed to rationalize the competitive strategy.

What you most fear, the state taking over what used to be provided by the collective.

I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.

If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it. — FrancisRay

Let's not kid ourselves, failure to explain suggests that you may not understand what you're talking about well enough to explain.

In short, your answer seems to be "Yes, they are simply collateral damage". — Tzeentch

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. I'm evil, but I'm not that evil. It seems your arguments have degenerated somewhat and now include ad hominem attacks.

The system that facilites and promotes the birthing of individuals, then promptly attempts to claim them for its own purposes, like a failed parent, has no other answer than "If you don't like it here, you can leave".

Of course, this isn't even a realistic option for the vast majority of individuals. To emancipate oneself from the mental clutches of the state is a lengthy process, by the end of which one finds themselves rooted in the system. To emancipate oneself from the physical clutches of the state, a near-impossibility.

Luckily, the individual has other options. Namely, to dispose any of the state's mental and intellectual impositions in the trash bin where they belong, leaving the state with only its most primitive tool, the cement of "society"; coercion, which the average individual is insignificant enough to evade. — Tzeentch

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful?

So Buddhists are not only believers, they’re quitters as well. You’re gonna need more grit to end the dukkha, dude. :victory:

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe.
— praxis

And what about those for whom it has not been worth it? Are you happy to accept them as collateral damage? Do you believe they should too? — Tzeentch

If these are rhetorical questions l’m not getting the point. It looks like life in hunter-gatherer society or simple farming was better until only recently, but now it is generally better. Anyone can go off-grid and live off the land if they wish to now.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as an imposition, formed by conquest and confiscation, designed to enrich the conquerors by exploiting the vanquished. To me it is fundamentally criminal and anti-social institution no matter how far it has strayed from its original intentions. — NOS4A2

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. That's history though, today we could emigrate to any country that would have us and perhaps find ourselves in a better situation than where we came from. You're an expatriate yourself, aren't you?

What I always find funny about individualists and their freedoms is how they basically whine about rights that haven't really existed for the majority of western people since the 1900s. By every conceivable standard, there's more choice and more freedom today than in the past with some fluctuations here and there. There's also more choice and freedom in western social democracies than the Anglo Saxon affair often touted as an example of individualism.

Personal rights are protected by strong and effective governments. In other words, small governments and maximized freedom are mutually exclusive. — Benkei

Something as basic as food, I’m sure that prior to the FDA food producers didn’t want anyone meddling in their business. They did pretty much whatever the market would bear, until the buyers could no longer bear it. Some of the worst additives were things like radium and highly addictive drugs like cocaine.

A more nuanced version of the 1st NT, or ‘Western conditioning’, doesn’t alter the fact of the matter that if your experience is the cessation of dukkha you wouldn’t seek it. You can only believe in it, same as many Buddhist tenets like rebirth and karma. Religions don’t work without metaphysics because authorities need special access that is not available to mundane folk.

If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely. — FrancisRay

I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions. — Tzeentch

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to?

The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise? — FrancisRay

Yes.

Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction, or satisfaction/dissatisfaction as dissatisfaction, then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what? — bert1

A moral framework that puts personal liberty on a pedestal, rationalizing selfish and in many cases self-defeating choices.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view. — Tzeentch

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we have the freedom to choose the way we choose.

However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others. — Tzeentch

They'd use critical thinking, of course, to free themselves from libertarian beliefs and those that have manipulated them with it.

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. — Tzeentch

Does that make sense? There's literally mountains of evidence indicating that people don't freely accept responsibility. Take something as simple as driving. If someone applied their critical thinking they may come to realize that following traffic laws was in their best interest and in the best interest of other drivers, so rather than those law being imposed on them they would be freely accepted. An invisible chain being invisibly discarded, if you will. Both freer and no more free than before.

From an early age individuals are taught what to believe. By their parents, by the educational system, politicians and so forth. This happens before the individual is capable of critical thought.

If the individual develops critical thinking, they have a chance to reevaluate all they know, and rid themselves of the false beliefs of others.

The "invisible bonds" are the beliefs of others, and one is still inherently free, because one by virtue of their own mental faculty holds the key to the lock. — Tzeentch

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class?

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become.

Most are enslaved in their formative years and never escape their (mostly psychological) bonds, sadly. — Tzeentch

Most (who isn’t?) enslaved by invisible bonds but are inherently free. Any way you can help me understand that?

You may not believe this...

Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings. — FrancisRay

You’re not being clear. First you say it’s a matter of belief, and that is of course the actual case, but then end in a kind of weasely way suggest misapprehension. The first noble truth isn’t part of the actual teachings of Buddhism???

If a person is actually free then they can freely assume responsibility. So why is there such an apparent lack of it? It seems to be the case that only when accept the fact that we’re not free, accept our interdependence, that we may tend to become more responsible. And because we’re a social species this acceptance may provide meaning and an enhanced sense of well-being, feeling part of something greater than ourselves.

Man is born free and without responsibility. — Tzeentch

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. Man is also completely dependent on his enviornment and is not independent or free in that way.

Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

Right, that's the problem, not enough assuming.