I think it’s more a question of valuing sense pleasure/immediate gratification vs something more eudaemonic, which may be why I find this discussion a little frustrating or too one dimensional. Thomas seems to be claiming that we all seek well-being and that with the help of science, of all things, we could readily achieve it. Science cannot change our values, at least not until neural implants with mind control is invented.

No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults.
— praxis

Oh, come on praxis! Both r/woosh and projecting at the same time? Must be some kind of record. — MadWorld1

The r/whoosh continues. :yawn:

You're literally changing the spinn on what you said before, literally proving my point in the process. What did you think I meant by "Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial)"? — MadWorld1

My stating that I was parroting a narrative is indeed an admission of narrative recitation and proves your point, such as it is. Your reading comprehension is excellent.

You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way.

decreasing immigration — MadWorld1

Just did a quick search and it looks like they’ve managed to reduce legal immigration by about 11%. Good enough? I assume you’re cool with bungling illegal immigration, appropriating billions of tax payers dollars (no pesos :sad: ) via executive order (because a minority support the effort), and the longest government shutdown in American history. I’d mention the issue of separating asylum seeking parents from their children if I thought it might register with your moral framework at all.

consolidating the nuclear family — MadWorld1

Nuclear families in Scandinavia are disintegrating? Do you guys send your old folks to care facilities also?

restricting late-stage abortion — MadWorld1

Why do you think Trump would be more successful at this than Biden? But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion?

you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial). There's nothing inherently wrong with narratives, but for a more nuanced discussion it's often not the way to go. — MadWorld1

If anything I’m parroting a Trumpian narrative. He prides himself on cutting taxes, deregulation, installing conservative Supreme Court judges, and the like. It is a fact that this works against the interests of the working class in many significant respects. It may have helped lead to the recent level of unemployment, but we’ve seen how tenuous an achievement that is, built on a model that’s bound to periodically fail with ever increasing regularity.

I did actually put forth a counterpoint. — MadWorld1

No, you put forth a related point.

Do you want to know why I would vote for Trump if I where an american? — MadWorld1

No, you admitted ignorance of American politics. I would like to know why you would support a “leader” like Trump in your country rather than a leader like Biden.

Sorry, my bad — MadWorld1

No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults.

I’m pretty sure that science informs us that processed food, refined sugars, fat, overeating, drinking, lack of exercise, smoking, drugs, etc etc, isn’t conducive to humans flourishing, and yet we indulge ourselves anyway.

We’re not an entirely rational species.

That was your assertions, not mine. — MadWorld1

They’re not controversial. You haven’t contested them yourself, in fact, which lead me to believe that you accept them.

Why so hostile? It's not good for your chakra, you know. — MadWorld1

Let’s keep my chakras out of this, shall we?

Do you know what a contradiction is? — MadWorld1

I do believe this is a hostile query, good Sir. Shame on you.

You’re contradicting yourself and in that way I can see a Trumpian affinity, but in reasoning, you say that you’re not a fan of that which you would choose to move towards.

Did I hit a nerve?

My nerves were shot years ago.

There's a saying in my country that whatever happens in america will happen here ten years later, so many of us look to america with great concern. — MadWorld1

So you hope for a Trump-like win in your country in ten years? Tax cuts for the rich, a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful, deregulation and the associated degradation of environment, a severely polarized political body, etc? Good luck with that.

Eastern European, right? like where NOS’s employer is from.

I can't see a difference between the injunction to do the right thing, the injunction to do your duty and the injunction to be virtuous. — Janus

The right thing, in certain circumstances, could be considered a dereliction of duty, where the difference is between a moral sense of loyalty or responsibility and some other moral sense like fairness or care.

I find myself moving away from duty and happiness, towards virtue. — Banno

The stoics believe that eudaemonia is achieved with the development of virtue because, if for no other reason, it’s the one thing that we have complete control of and will therefore be satisfying and something that can’t be taken from us. Responsibility and loyalty are virtues, btw.

I don't think following the commands in the Holy Books written by an imaginary God is more conducive to human flourishing than following the advice of science. But lots of people do. — Thomas Quine

It’s a very big mistake to assume that people are rational, or that we’re not all prone to social influence.

I was a little surprised recently to read about some politically fat-right and religious folks condemning the the Pope for supporting efforts to reduce climate change. Apparently, political identity can trump religious identity, in this day and age.

Moral systems tend to, or perhaps inevitably, become a group identity, and when that happens the group becomes primary and actual moral behavior secondary. The development of virtue is discouraged because that leads to independence from the group.

I thought ‘well-being‘ was a more common translation for eudaemonia. I’ve read several books on stoicism recently, btw, and don’t recall ‘flourishing’ being used.

That’s what I suspected.

No doubt many of the Trump culties believe that they’re somehow already paying half for their Benzos and such, so, mission accomplished as far as that goes.

The idea of 'flourishing' comes from eco-philosophy and Arne Naess in particular. — unenlightened

Isn’t that the deep ecology guy? If memory serves, he calls for a greatly reduced human population.

Just teasing, I imagine he meant religiosity.

:razz: And by executive order, no less.

the rejection of both faith and nihilism being the core if my entire philosophy. — Pfhorrest

So you have no faith in your philosophy?

Dawkins' "selfish gene" hard-wires the species that carries it to go out and find a way to flourish. — Thomas Quine

The point is that, as the term implies, it does so ‘selfishly’. This selfishness is expressed in your own theory that morality is based on human flourishing. Why human flourishing? If a morality that’s based on a narrower or more selfish scope is flawed in some way then a morality that’s based on human flourishing contains the same flaw because it‘s also limited. Why isn’t morality based on the flourishing of all life? Given that human life is inextricably dependent on other life, that would seem to be a wiser perspective.

Human beings have developed highly complex societies and highly complex methods of raising our children to adulthood, and mere survival is the least of it. As a result we are the dominant species on the planet.

And we’re currently engaged in the mass extinctions of other species, which in all likelihood will eventually effect human flourishing negatively.

Yes, genes propagate when the species that carry them flourish. — Thomas Quine

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. Our species is a significant line differentiation, but it’s only one layer out of many possible distinctions. We’re naturally more concerned with human flourishing than that of chimps, and then closer to home, we’re more concerned with national flourishing, then perhaps regional, religious, or political party flourishing, and then family. Does anyone regard all of humanity as they do their own family? Maybe some do ideologically but when push comes to shove genes always win favor.

It’s touching but for me not as haunting as similar films I’ve seen. It actually felt a bit formulaic.

Of course some primitive tribes might have a narrower view of human flourishing...
...
I also read a lot about chimp wars and chimp justification for war, and what you might call universal values of chimp society are simply this: might makes right. We are justified in wiping out our rival troupe because we are stronger than they are and we need what they have. It is just and right that we should flourish and they should not. So even among chimps, what is just and right is grounded on what serves chimp flourishing... — Thomas Quine

We’re all prone to tribalism and the primary function of moral frameworks is to bond the tribe, in whatever form the tribe may exist. It’s a very successful survival strategy and based in gene propagation. It has little to do with human flourishing.

I suggest that you read Dawkins or the like.

I am saying only that those communities who considered these sorts of behaviors to be moral, ethical, right, and proper, held that belief because they were convinced (rightly or wrongly) that they ultimately were in the best long-term interests of human flourishing.

Am I wrong? — Thomas Quine

You couldn’t be more wrong. At best, they may have been convinced that they served the immediate goals of their tribes. How else to explain the current human condition?

Morals are grounded in intuition, and then whatever moral framework we’ve been inculcated with.

If I follow your meaning, no and no.

What you're talking about are sense patterns or mental representations. We couldn't recognize sandpaper or a particular sound without mental representations of them. If there were no mental representations to simulate then there would be nothing to mentally simulate.

i find that the mask finger-wagging is largely done at the expense of other preventative measures, which rarely enters the discourse around the topic. — NOS4A2

Well, it’s kinda hard to tell how often others wash their hands, touch their faces, social distance, etc. from just looking at them. A mask, on the other hand, is quite obvious.

People can wag their fingers and do... other preventive measures? at the same time, btw.

I think that’s why he used bold type, trying to make it appear meaningful.

This darl'n should be fired for not keeping up with the party-line. Trump loves masks now.

He probably doesn’t have a choice. Gotta stand by your partners in crime or they’ll take you down with them.

Ultimate truth is the worst thing one could reify, in my opinion.

Btw, I didn’t recognize you with the Frida avatar until just now when your thoughts/manner felt familiar.

If one looks at that funky jazz objectively, the reason why those sages taught silence and stillness, was because it was a meditative technique with the aim of developing a state of mind, body and the various spiritual states of consciousness. It wasn't because the answers of the universe were nothing, or unspeakable, unknowable etc. — Punshhh

You’re right, it’s rather uncool of the wayfarer to hypocritically reify the ultimate truth.

to the initiated there was generally an understanding that there were ultimate truths, or narratives, but that they were unintelligible until certain exalted states had been achieved, if at all. — Punshhh

This is an essential aspect of religion. After all, what good is a religion that doesn’t promise ultimate truth? And just as significantly, what good is a religion that delivers it? Zero, on both counts, because the point is social cohesion via social hierarchy. Worse is that religion doesn’t actually promote the development of virtue because that leads to independence from the group and hierarchy.

As far as I'm aware, "realization" in Buddhism (the perspective that I assume you believe in) refers to the realization of emptiness, so what other ultimate truth do you think is realizable? Oh, I see, anything that you might say would be a reification so, once again, you've been rendered silent. "He who knows does not speak" and all that funky jazz. Cool, super cool. :cool:

I believe that scientific naturalism is incapable of reaching an ultimate truth, on the grounds of its constitution. To reach that, requires what the sages describe as 'realisation'. — Wayfarer

Emptiness is the ultimate truth? Not much practical value, you must admit, other than stress relief and perhaps something to build a religion around.

I read a story yesterday about a poor slob who lost his job because of a tantrum at Costco. I mean, who hasn’t occasionally lost their shit at Costco. :fire:

Does anyone else use koans out there? — Gregory

Mu

A few things that can immediately promote a more relaxed mind:

• Breathing - Through the nose, slower, and with the diaphragm.
• Diet - Enough fiber and no sugary or processed foods.
• Exercise - Even just walking.
• Hypnosis - For relaxation (download an app or whatever)
• Meditation - May take some skill-building before you see a benefit.

There used to be something called the ‘man in the house rule’. Not sure if that impacted family norms beyond its termination.

The nuclear family was a reaction to a requirement for mobility following the industrial revolution.
Prior to that families were what we would call extended, including grandparents and near relatives in a more or less settled household. The move to a smaller family unit left the elderly to care for themselves, resulting in the aged care industry we see today. — Banno

I've recently learned what a horrifying chapter in history this is for the elderly. Fortunately, there are efforts to return the elderly to a 'settled household' lifestyle, though they may not gain widespread adoption any time soon.

The president calling BLM a symbol of hate doesn't help matters.

A group not affiliated with BLM was chanting the pigs in a blanket thing, if facts matter.

I was irked by it the first time I read or heard the phrase (probably after (or maybe just before) the Eric Garner lynching by unindicted NYPD); the activists missed - dropped? - the obvious and necessary qualifier "also" from their anti-racist cri du coeur which should have been, more aptly, BLACK LIVES ALSO MATTER. 'BLM' is ripe for co-option and parody because it's a categorical, or unconditional, assertion. Cat's out of the bag, so to speak, we're now stuck with more of a slogan than a thesis. — 180 Proof

Hard to believe that anyone inclined to willfully misinterpret BLM is interested in a thesis, regardless of how well reasoned it may be. Also, BLM is a strong statement, whereas BLAM sounds weak.

Is that so simple? — Number2018

It's always been that simple, read your Freakonomics.

How on earth do you think it came about that the manufacturing capacity of the American heartland got sold out to China while the residents ended up on fentanyl? — fishfry

In two words: cheaper resources. The cost of economic success is always paid by the working class. The millions lifted out of extreme poverty in China may pay the same price eventually, or a higher price.