I believe 5000 years of recorded history suggest that you're on your own.

Sometimes the solution is a vaccine, sometimes a cast, sometimes a mask, and sometimes quarantine. What is your principled distinction between these where some are pathetic reactions and some are not? — Hanover

All the time people should be figuring things out for themselves by using clarity in their powers of observation and critical thinking instead of allowing these morons in the media and government to decide for them.

"SAVE ME!! SAVE ME!! SAVE ME!!," cry out the people, for I do not wish to grow-up and take responsibility for my own life.

This last year has been a pathetic example of the incredibly weakness of people in the West, adult children infected by a culture of intellectual bewilderment and victimhood.

It's time to put on your big-boy pants, folks!

Enjoyed the conversation as well as your point of view. And I wouldn't worry too much about the energy situation. Energy is everywhere after all. As long as some incentive remains, there will be many seeking cleaner and more efficient methods to power our way into the future...

Yes, I do believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now the second law of thermodynamics, evolution, the bacterial theory of disease, h2O, will be h20 - because that is the nature of the truths uncovered by science, and that's why they matter. They were true 50, 100, 1000 years ago whether we knew it or not because that is the nature of the reality we inhabit. It is real, causal - and we need to observe, and act responsibly with regard to, true knowledge of reality/Creation. Personally, I'm agnostic. — counterpunch

Please don't make the mistake of believing the era we live in is somehow special. All we know about things will be deposited into the waste-bin of history similar to those who trod this planet before us.

I agree with you that the truth is what it is (and there certainly is truth) but whether man will ever be able to access such is doubtful due to all kinds of difficulties and limitations (including the notion that we do not exist [intellectually] in the present). Our languages are woefully inadequate as are pretty much everything else we are involved with at this point.

The good news is that we can transcend the mundane and simply be. It's a wonderful alternative for those who are willing to cease banging their heads against the wall. Life is pretty darn good if you accept it on its own terms.

Total freedom is absolute chaos. — god must be atheist

That's only thinking.

The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air.
— synthesis

Okay, deconstruct my knowledge claim that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen! Deconstruct the bacterial theory of disease - such that it is relative to the claim that evil spirits cause disease! Deconstruct the second law of thermodynamics; the simplest implication of which is that heat energy is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. Should be easy right? — counterpunch

Piece of cake...

Do you really believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now that our conception of any of the sciences will still be the same? If you have studied science in the least, you would have to know that scientific knowledge is exploding, a process that will leave all current concepts completely vacuous much sooner than we believe possible.

Nobody can imagine what science will look like 50 years from now, yet 500. Humanity is in its infancy in terms of knowledge.

You know what I think? You don't even know what you think!
— synthesis

Perhaps I am not as articulate as I think I am, because I don't know how you constantly miss my meaning. I try to speak plainly. I deliberately try not to use philosophical jargon - in part because such terms come loaded with baggage, but also because I try to express ideas in the simplest possible terms. — counterpunch

Articulation is not your issue, arrogance is.

It is not what you (believe) you know which is important, but instead, what you know that you cannot know that means everything (and I get the paradox).[/quote]

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.
— synthesis

In terms of wrong - that's brilliant. — counterpunch

You can cling on to your objective-ness all you want, but until you replace the interface with something other than your humanity, you will exist in the relative world of illusion, delusion, and disillusion.

All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well? This is the arrogance of man.
— synthesis

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. For example, I claim it is true that life evolved; but I recognize that doesn't explain how life came to exist in the first place. It's an intriguing question, but not one I claim to answer, because I don't claim to have access to absolute truth. Does that mean life did not evolve? The evidence that life evolved is overwhelming. I can reasonably claim to know that it is true; not least because any alternate explanation, like the skeptical doubt that we may all be brains in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality - poses far bigger questions than accepting evolution as an apparent fact. — counterpunch

Well, just for fun, let's say man knows .00000001% of what there is to know (and that's being quite generous). Does this body of knowledge give you (or any of us) the ability to determine anything at all?

The best we can do is simply observe (with clarity) and remain in the flow. Once our conceptualization kicks-in, intellectual insanity ensues as we transform what is actually taking place into our version of reality, one that literally creates and sustains our personal hell on Earth.

That could be a rhetorical question; but it isn't. So yes, I do believe that what I put forth is grounded in the real. The absolute truth? No! I specifically reject approaches that imply absolutes. — counterpunch

The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air.

If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative.

That must be it.
— synthesis

Well, it isn't - and therein lies the problem. I know what you think...

"But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?"

CS Lewis "Poison of Subjectivism" — counterpunch

You know what I think? You don't even know what you think!

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.

All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well?

This is the arrogance of man.

This is just a friendly conversation.
— synthesis

We'll see! — counterpunch

THAT attitude.

Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic. And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void.
— synthesis

Freedom is not all kinds of things in political theory; and it's in those terms I'm seeking to educate you. You need it. — counterpunch

You have no idea how comforting it is to know that somebody cares... :)

Your subjectivist, relativist, politically correct approach to things - I can only assume is what seeps in to fill the void of ignorance, because it doesn't make sense in political theory terms. How do you not understand freedom as a political ideal? What did they teach you at school? We're you brought up in a cult or something? — counterpunch

What did they teach me at school? Are you really asking me what they taught me at school? You've got to be kidding.

cp, you seem like a pretty bright guy (as do most here), but you have no clue what's beyond your attempts to intellectualize whatever truths you seems to hold. Do you really believe that what you put forth is in any sense real?

Lesson one for you should be the realization that it's all BS. And even if your the best BS-er on the planet, it's still only grade A-1 BS. Or do you believe you have some kind of portal to The Truth? Or perhaps you believe that all things intellectual undergo constant change except for cp, as he has figured out how to pontificate The Absolute Truth.

That must be it.

I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it.
— synthesis

Hmm - I'm not so sure. Obvious examples like restrictions on movement or religious freedom, sure. Hong Kong today versus 1999, certainly. However some of this is subtle stuff. People don't always make connections and some freedoms are lost via stealth and there's the fact that some people might not see a given issue presented as a question of freedom - COVID mask wearing, for instance. — Tom Storm

Freedom seems to be more of a sense you get (despite the laws). Sometimes the laws say one thing and the street another (an example being the American Constitution during slavery). Other times, the laws are quite rigid (drug laws in the some part of the U.S. were basically ignored during the 60's/70's)

I think anyway you slice it, governments all over the world have used the pandemic to orchestrate a massive power-grab. Hopefully, people will push back in order to re-gain some of their lost freedoms in the coming months/years. .

Freedom is a political ideal; a principle - and starting point for thought about how to build a successful and humane civilization. That supposed freedom is traded for social goods, like like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defense - provided for by taxation. Hence, it's an ideal in that freedom is never fully realized, yet is still valued. — counterpunch

cp, what's with the attitude? This is just a friendly conversation.

Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic.

And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void. But, if I recall, you're not into that sort of thing.

If it were your thing (and if you understand how thinking works), you could trash every thought ever made on this site. It's not very difficult. Cognition and language is a system that obeys rules like any other system, so once you figure it out...

Few people I have spoken to can tell me what freedom actually is in any coherent form and I certainly don't have a robust conception of it. I know Americans seem to be very fond of the term, but I am sure it is understood differently (and not just across Liberal/Conservative lines). — Tom Storm

I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it.

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. — counterpunch

What does that have to do with the question - does anyone in the West still want to be free? — counterpunch

cp, what's the point of responding if you don't think it's a valid question?

My response to you was basically suggesting that when it comes down to it, is anything valid? It is easy to disprove anything when dealing with an intellectual framework where all things are relative and constantly changing.

In that we choose to give meaning to that which we cannot understand.

I believe that our intellect has no real access to the truth of anything, so what we do is create our own existence within the context of overall accepted existence. Freedom means something different to everybody but you are correct that it does not exist in any real way.

If it's the case for freedom, then it is the case for all things. No matter how simple something appears, it is infinitely complex so that our minds have no chance of comprehension (so we do what our species does best...bullshit)..

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. Freedom is an ideal; a starting point for thought that is then traded for social goods like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defense.

If you were to ask whether I think social impositions on individual freedom have gone too far, I'd say so - but it's not as if individual freedom were much more than hypothetical in the first place. — counterpunch

Not only is freedom an ideal, but so is everything else. Even so, and within those limitations, we must still confront the forces of evil that would enslave us all without a second thought, so casting one's line out into the sea of freedom, one hopes to find others also fishing for the chance to distract TPTB for just a little bit longer.

Just to get to the point where people acknowledge the limitations of the intellect is significant! Most people simply cannot deal with the notion that reality is beyond their conceptualization.

As a Zen student (and Jack and I have chatted about this), my path to the non-intellectual is meditation. I always thought if it was good enough for the historical Buddha, it's good enough for me, :) but I believe there must be all kinds of ways to gain access.

Regardless of the method of entry, when you frequent the non-intellectual, you begin to understand the contradictions and paradoxes giving rise to the conceptual mind, and to the degree that thinking occupies a category somewhere between incredibly lacking and downright absurd.

Not content with observing the flow, the conceptual mind implores us to pick at those things that excite us (one way or another) so we must depart from actual life and take on our role as commentator (as if we have a clue).

As one becomes more comfortable in the flow of things, the urge to jump onto the banks of the stream lessen as you realize that reality (without adding your 2 cents) is not only considerably more accurate, but it affords you a much lighter sense of being as you have been relieved from your responsibility of having to figure-out every damn thing.

The limitations of language adds another section to the intellectual maze that leads most people to a life of incredible stress and suffering. Attempting to think one's way through the convolutions is impossible as we cannot even understand the simplest of things.

For those who are willing to give everything up (conceptualization), there exists a much simpler way, that of acceptance, a humbling which makes all things possible.

Uh actually.... I think you don't know Finnish history. The story during WW2 and later being non-aligned, not in NATO, never getting the Marshal aid. And no Liberation-Day / VE-Day for us in WW2, thankfully! — ssu

You are correct. My knowledge of Finnish history is nearly zero. I am glad to hear that you guys were able to remain somewhat independent. How you deal with the cold, though, is beyond me. I can barely deal the winters we have in Southern California!

As Jack alluded, are you saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations? — 3017amen

Might such a paradox provoke one to step-back for a moment and consider alternatives to conceptualization? Might there just be another (better) way to seek the truth of the matter?

And if this truth is confronted (then realized), will you then be prepared to demote your language from master to slave and see that reality cannot even be imagined, yet qualified/quantified.

You should read Chomsky if your into language. Although he unfortunately went off the deep end politically, he is truly a linguistics genius.

Small? Lol. Nah, that's "the everybody" .. we just get to live on the illusion we're good people propped up by those who engaged in illegal acts of murder and robbery with no concern of repercussion (some with full knowledge of such) toward those who would come after. — Outlander

That's a pretty negative outlook.

Hope you have a better day today!

Perhaps the consistent theme is, we are trapped in this mystery of self-awareness, which resides in our consciousness. — 3017amen

Perhaps, but much more fundamental would be the acknowledgement that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality in any way, shape, or form, so instead, we make-up all kinds of ways to approximate (for practical reasons). Whatever combination of letters/numbers you may wish to suggest have a relationship based on some natural law is stretching it a bit.

This is not to disparage mathematics or language, in general, as they satisfy basic needs, but (and as is always the case), it is in the understanding inherent limitations that give forth true value.

Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened. — Outlander

I think it comes down to the idea that there are a small percentage of people that will do everything (lie, cheat, steal, etc) to get ahead. On the other side of the ledger, there are the majority who just want to do the minimum, just get by while making absolutely certain that their lifetime subscription to the "something for nothing" club is paid-in-full.

On the other hand, staunch individualism can result in the resentment of groups altogether and people believing that any form of collectivism or collective idea is bad. Yet it isn't so. Social cohesion is extremely important in a society and the feeling that one ought to do one's share. — ssu

Fortunately for many of the smaller countries around the world, me and my closest 340M neighbors have been paying to keep you guys free so you can fully enjoy your associations, etc.. I would suppose that Finland would be part of Russia at this point had the U.S. not been prodding that bear with nuclear pokers.

If Finland had to defend itself (which it could never do), then you would see more clearly the negative aspect of these groups. I will always maintain that groups are designed by the few in their own interests. Otherwise, why would they exist?

On what I see. — god must be atheist

Judgments are influenced by prevailing moral standards, no?.

Welcome.

Perhaps a welfare state mentality.

'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i] — 3017amen

Within everything exist everything, so the paradox of the above statement is present in all statements if we allow ourselves to realize it.

For example, consider the statement, "The boy has the blue balloon." If there is no visible light present, does the boy still have the balloon? Is it still blue?

Language (in its clumsy manner) is chasing an event (or thought) that never really existed (it was never available to our limited intellect). It's an approximation of an approximation which is why keeping one's mouth shut is almost always the best course of action in this life.

Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning. — Harry Hindu

Living a free life requires a great deal effort (physical and mental). If you make it possible for most people to get by without exerting themselves to any degree, they will not have developed the skills necessary (nor the desire) to do what needs to be done to pursue a life based on making free choices.

Where do you live?
— synthesis
Finland.

Corruption is THE problem everywhere ALL the time. Look at the history of our species!
— synthesis
Even if corruption does happen, it is in some countries a bigger problem than in others. It actually defines a lot how people behave. — ssu

Not to reinforce the notion that Americans know little about what happens outside of the U.S., but Finland is one country of which I am not so familiar. It would seem that smaller countries would have many advantages.

I am a staunch individualist because I believe it is the nature of groups is to self-corrupt, the larger the group, the more potential for corruption (much larger payoffs).

In fact, the more you go back in time, the deeper and bitter the divide was. In the US it's a bit different, because you have only a right-wing and a centrist right party. When you would have real leftist parties in your Congress, you would notice the difference. — ssu

Where do you live?

The swamp (although incredible deep by historical standards) has always been in place.
— synthesis

Some countries do have a problem with corruption, yes. — ssu

Corruption is THE problem everywhere ALL the time. Look at the history of our species!

I am the type of philosopher who prefers to make his points the way the proverbial umpire did: "I calls them as I sees them". In other words, I give the status quo, I may even explain things, but I make no moral judgments. — god must be atheist

Why would that bee? (just kidding :)

You call them as you see them based on what?

I was just saying that nobody can argue with God or would, and that one of the most powerful things about religion. And that's why moral authority from a religious perspective has been around for thousands of years. Divorce religious moral authority from your politics and watch your society go down the drain.

I've been watching this slow moving train wreck for fifty years now and thought it was mostly an economic phenomena, but the changes I have seen over the last year have truly amazed me. People are really losing it. Just the reaction to the whole COVID thing, in and of itself, is one for the history books.

There's just too much going on to really get a handle on all the stuff taking place but it will certainly make more sense as events unfold throughout the 20's. Try not to worry too much about it. It is what it is. Take care of yourself and be prepared for the opportunities that arise on the other side.

I somewhat disagree. I think those who change wildly the parties they vote are actually a minority (even if they are a very important minority).

Politicians lie so much that you simply cannot bargain on what they promise to do in favor of you. — ssu

Not too long ago, nobody gave a rat's ass what party you belonged to, so if you wanted to play the game, you did what you had to and one of those things was kissing the ass in power (although you would pay homage to the out-of-power ass, as well).

The swamp (although incredible deep by historical standards) has always been in place.

If you are forking over a great deal of money to a politician, they know EXACTLY what is expected, and if they do not follow-through, then they are through.

I believe in many ways it's already here. I am not sure the full-on Nazi-style totalitarianism would ever be in vogue because you need for the majority of people to desire to be controlled. Cell phones (and data collection) are a perfect example. I think most younger people would give you their left leg rather than giving up their cell phones.

And they see that authority protecting their niche in the system.
— synthesis

Actually, I think they simply want radical change.

When they are young, they want rapid change. When they are older, they have seen how difficult it is for change to happen and thus they are extremely happy and supportive when the next generation wants radical, rapid changes too. Consensus is a cancer for them. Down with the old!!! — ssu

I once asked my father why he was a Democrat and he told me that you are whatever the party in power happens to be. I believe this is how the majority of (successful) people see it. They are going to protect what they worked a lifetime to build. Ideology runs very thin when you get out into the real world (except if you're an academic where it apparently doesn't seem to matter very much).

BTW, blink your eyes twice or three times and you'll be old, as well!

Different people are currently experiencing different degrees of freedom and I think you do need to consider what dictatorship would mean for us and for future generations. — Jack Cummins

Jack, you are not you thinking I support dictatorship?

I am saying I can't respond to things that I am not totally sure what they mean. — god must be atheist

Then , I believe that you should not respond.

Make this a sentence that is syntactically sensible. This is nonsense. I am not saying you are speaking nonsense, I am saying the quote is grammatically so out-of-shape that it makes no sense. Please rewrite it in English if you wish me to answer it. — god must be atheist

You would have made a great 8th grade English teacher back in the day, but if you put a comma before the last word, that help you out.

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism.
— synthesis

Such as? I mean, you're playing coy here - there's an obvious answer, but, knowing this forum as you do, you don't want to give it. — Wayfarer

From God, or The Absolute (whichever you prefer).

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism.
— synthesis

What are you thinking of here? — Tom Storm

I was referencing one of the most important reasons that man invented God (if He does not exist). Again, moral authority must come from a source (The Absolute) which cannot be challenged. IOW, God said you should be (fill in the blank).

Are you going to argue with God (in public)?