, I forgot to suggest you reading his philosophical essay "Ascetic" (if you haven't already).
You can read it here: — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for sharing the paper :up:

The existence of God cannot be proven no matter how strong the arguments may be. Likewise it cannot be disproven with 100% certainty — invicta

You are right, this is the endless dilemma about God's existence. Yet, furthermore, of being an issue in "proofs" I think it can be better understood in terms of representation. The main two groups of evidence for God's image are Aquinas (everything that is around us is a proof of God's existence) or Kierkegaard (external world doesn't provide sustainable proofs to believe in God).

So, in this case, I guess the extension of God's existence will depend on each person's faith.

I thought to answer that Clarky is my philosophy teacher in this site. But I didn't want to get scolded by Eugene again...

Guys, I'm not your philosophy teacher. — Eugen

Though it's not my focus here, I have a more mundane question: how have the "primitive conditions" he lists, namely "war, scarcity, disease, ignorance, and lethal menace," actually been alleviated or overcome by "Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"? Certainly, the treatment and eradication of disease has made progress that we should all celebrate. But what about the others? I'll leave you to ponder that. — Jamal

As you said, I don't have any doubts that we have overcome diseases thanks to Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.

Yet, the others like wars and scarcity are eternal. I think Steven Pinker only sees the evolution of societies in a western-core-middle class view. I also feel that I cannot disagree with him about the progress since enlightenment, but at the same time I can't agree either. If we check out the functionality of our democracies we would feel that everything that was built is now back-peddling.
I am not understand when he purposes: The present has superseded it and always must, despite the occasional unfortunate and anomalous "slide back" [...] and if we live with those evils today it is only because the present has not overcome the past fully.
To be honest, I don't think there is no present or past. History teaches us that there is a vicious circle in the interactions and everything tend to be repeated. Who would say that in 2022 a war between Russia and Ukraine would start? And so the folks of 2011 Syrian war; 1991 gulf war; 1960's Vietnam war; Second world war; First world war, etc... Endlessly. So, in my view, it is difficult to accept a forward in the progress related to "end" wars or scarcity. The latter, is even worse in perspective because it seems that the people suffer of poverty and starvation more than ever and due to climate change, this only going to be worse each decade.

What does "strong emergence" and "weak emergence" means? Sorry but if I don't understand the concepts, I can't follow your premises.

It is ok! we all are here to learn something new everyday. :sparkle:

X million Taiwanese ninjas — Wayfarer

Ninja is a ancient warrior who comes from Japanese culture... it never existed in Chinese/Taiwanese history and army.

When it comes to territorial acquisitions and mergers, humans just aren't very nice. — BC

The actions and violence have become more sutil. Instead of deploying soldiers or bombing with planes, the "international" enterprises and organizations land in your territory and force you to live accordingly to them. We do not die but it is another type of violenece.
A good example could be how the African continent is now disputed between superpowers. None lands with violence but it is clear that the territory is been exploited by China, Russia, EU, etc...

American society was built by religious fanatics who promoted armed struggle, conflict, war, violence, annihilation, and what we today would call genocide

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Namely: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether we like it or not, every society or country has been built with the use of violence and wars. The thought of the past was: "kill before you get killed" and it seems that in some states of America they maintain this thought so deeply.
You put USA as an example but all the American continent is violent itself. Just check our Honduras, El Salvador or Nicaragüa. They have never lived in a sense of "peace" or "calm" since they got the independence from the Spanish Kingdom.

I've never heard anyone say that a 26-year-old suffering from disabilities, addiction and depression (ie, distinctly unvibrant) is old enough to die, while a happy, clever 90-year-old was too young to die. — Vera Mont

:up: :clap:

No objections on your arguments about animals lifespan.

Yet, there are big differences when lifespan is applied to humans. Since the Roman Empire, this topic has been debated, and there have been problems with the specific age of who we should consider "young" or "old". For example: At the age of 14 a person in Roman times was able to get married and be emancipated from their parents. Why? Productivity and the sense that a teenager was ready to work and raise a family. Until late 19th century, children were part of factories and they were considered as a big part of capitalist economies. Nonetheless, the situation switched when the state realized that it was better to teach them rather than slavering them.

I see your point of considering people young when they are under 75 years old. But trust me when I say that this is another trick of the state to gain profits. If we increase the average lifespan, we will have more workers working for longer periods of time, which will result in collect more taxes. The group of active people comprises all of those who are between 18 and 67–70 years old (at least that's how it works here in Spain). There are a lot of productive people and a lot of tax incomes to be paid... See? The age and what we consider "young" or "old" depend on how much your body and brain are able to work. 
It is clear that a 26 years old is more vivid than a 65 years old, but the state makes sure both work.

Each person is free to choose the perfect time to die. Abstract concepts such as "young" or "old" were created for the state for two basic motives: employment and pensions. The state considers you "old" when you are no longer productive, but is this connected to death? no.

A death of a 40 years old person is acceptable as much as someone who is 80.  Maybe the 40-year-old person already lived what was "necessary" according to his circumstances.

I still have no way to survive but to keep writing one line, one more line, one more line… - Yukio Mishima.

Otherwise, any age is fair game since growing old – tomorrow – ain't promised to any living thing. — 180 Proof

:clap: :sparkle:

Only, the subject here was not persons or their character, but their emotions. As in: all our feelings are fake; they have no authenticity; therefore our life is not worth living. — Vera Mont

:up:

It's a subtle ethical point, but as long as you look at her as helpless, with you being the strong hero, you're helping yourself to honor you don't deserve and blocking her path to freedom. — frank

:up: :100:

You may think you're being a good socialist or whatever for being so pitying, but you're really perpetuating something dangerous. — frank

:lol: :snicker:

What do you purpose? Leave the victim alone in his/her suffering and trauma?

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it?
What are you criteria and standards? — Vera Mont

If the source didn't pass through the filter of journalists and journalism, I will believe it. I tend to consider as "reliable" those sources that can be seen or read by themselves, without the interaction of others. I know it is a paradox, but when someone asks to please share information with more transparency and then it ends up in a "third authority," it turns out that the information itself suffers from reductionism...

So, one thing I have learned is that to know something, it is better to discover it by myself.

Nobody explained what 'genuine' means, or how you can tell whether feelings are genuine or counterfeit — Vera Mont

I think "genuine" rather than a concept, it is a habit. It involves some positivism towards ethics. Doing or not doing some acts is what makes a person genuine. For example: honesty and authenticity.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. — BC

Interesting.

Yet, the prohibition led us to another problem: mafia and corruption. If we remove alcohol from bars and liquor stores, it would end up in gangsters' territories, where the cost of each bottle or cigarette would be more expensive and exclusive to get. The prices would rise and fall when they wanted to, and if someone couldn't afford them, he will have ended up being beaten up by thugs. 

On the other hand, we cannot really know if the consumption of alcohol between 1920 and 1933 decreased noticeably, because during those thirteen years, the supply of alcohol was offered by mafia and they tend to be opaque and act in secret.

Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models.

- Allan Sandage, "Science and religion -- separate closets in the same house,"

What it started as a pure enjoyment of bourgeois classes, it rapidly spread around all social classes. Not matter the income of the individual, he or she is able to purchase weed, tobacco, booze or even cocaine. As you explained, those substances cause pleasing and excitement. Probably, I would sound boring but I never used drugs to increase my imagination. I am saying this because some people or music groups have romanticised the use of drugs such as Pink Floyd.

There were always been a big debate on the supply and profits of these substances. It turned out that forbidden them it is not effective at all because when those are illegal the people tend to consume even more (what a paradox!)

As I already commented to @Alkis Piskas, @Vera Mont and @Benj96: I am completely against on how the state makes profits of these "products": I did a brief research and I found out the following information regard the profit on taxation of these substances.
Spain was the fourth state that collected the most for the tax on tobacco products, with a volume of 6,513 million euros. Our country was behind Germany (14,636 million euros), France (14,319 million) and Italy (10,605 million). As regards the special tax on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Spain drops some positions. Specifically, it was the eighth country that raised the most in 2020, with 968 million euros. This time, it was behind France (3,281 million euros), Germany (3,243), Poland (2,942), Sweden (1,613), Italy (1,248), Ireland (1,203) and the Netherlands (1,166).

In Greece, they have done that in the past for both the alcohol and the cigarettes. But, although I was a heavy smoker and I also used to drink back then, I didn't protest. On the contrary, I supported it and tried to smoke and drink less. — Alkis Piskas

We all have had that period of time where we used to consume a lot of tobacco or drinks. My personal case was a big addition to alcohol when I was only 19/20 years old. I no longer consume big quantities anymore. To be honest, I think that, beyond being my fault (because no one pushed me to drink), I see a bit of bad ethics from the public administration or "bureaus" or "lobbies" of alcohol/tobacco. They are aware that those products can provoke addiction in the youngest and even affect their income because they waste money by just smoking and drinking, but they are sold anyway... It is a profitable business, and that's a fact. 
Only the courts of one state, Uruguay, condemned Marlboro for being dangerous to the public's health. A good move, but the consumption of tobacco hasn't plummeted...

I am aware that get zero consumption in alcohol is impossible. What I am against is how the states makes profit from them but at the same time they show slogans to promote health, sport, taking care…
I dont know, for me, they are acting with hypocrisy. If we accept that there always be consumption we can led this supplies to be managed by private companies.

This issue is so complex indeed. I don't understand the behavior and attitude of people. The state warns against the consumption of these "drugs," and randomly, people want to consume even more. This is one of the main issues with drug addiction. The yonkers and stoners wanted to prove drugs once because it seemed interesting to him that those were forbidden by law.

What it pisses me off the most is how the state is making revenue with them thanks to the taxes. Our governors and public servants just accepted that consumers tend to buy a big amount of cigarettes and booze, so it is an "opportunity" to make them profitable. I personally see those acts dishonest as hell...

but I didn't ask until I seriously decided to quit. The people close to me were very co-operative. — Vera Mont

Glad to read personal testimonies as yours.

But for some culturally embedded reason, alcoholics have a much harder time. I guess it's because most of them behave badly under the influence, everyone is angry with them — Vera Mont

I know what you mean. Some of my “relatives”were alcoholic and they even dead because of this. I remember them as angry and liars, stealing money from our pockets to buy booze. Whenever I saw those actions I felt pretty sad and ashamed…

If he's trying to resist the temptation, he needs all the help he can get. — Vera Mont

As a recovering smoker, I know this for a fact. — Vera Mont

I understand and I have empathy for what you have expressed. That's why I said that we have to share a bit of responsibility and kindness with all of them who needs us.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. Did you felt disappointed or upset with society when we/they didn't help you out?

Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque. — Janus

And in-between (thinking of Guernica here, one of my favorite paintings) — Moliere

:up:

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city... — Moliere

Yes, the alcoholic will find a solution to buy the drinks sooner or later.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to minors here too.

On the other hand, related to alcoholics.It is complex to explain, but I will give it a try. Our law (both the civil and criminal codes) considers alcoholics as "handicapped" persons. Years ago, they had their own regulation among gamblers, but their actions and rights are regulated generally now. One of the key aspects is what happens to the people who makes agreements or treats with alcoholics.

The articles 1265 and 1302 of the Spanish Civil Code declare null all the acts committed by handicapped or "non-capable" persons without judge authorization or legal support, and then, they put responsibility on all of them who treated with the alcoholic when they actually knew about such a problem or addiction.

We can agree with the point that the alcoholic holds all the responsibility for his acts. Yet, the people who are around him must protect him (supposedly). So, I also understand to share some responsibility in those specific cases, such as the one mentioned in this OP. An owner of a liquor store who sells booze to an alcoholic when he is aware about that person's condition.

I hope this answers your question. Healthy government = the collective imagination of what is ideal while the individual is biased and doesn't reflect the collective conscience. Not ideal. We are all flawed in the end but we hope that by sharing opinions we can establish something beyond ourselves that mitigates out individual prejudice. — Benj96

It was a very good answer, indeed. Thank you and I appreciate the effort you took to elaborate on your arguments. I always tend to take part in your OPs because they tend to be so interesting.

What do you think is the correct course of action? — Benj96

Not letting him to buy alcohol, even though I would lose money or even receive insults from him. Yet, your ethical dilemma makes me wonder about one situation: What is the role of the state in this topic? I am referring to taxation on alcoholic drinks. What if the owner of the liquor store is just doing his job and the state should be responsible for all of this?

What do you do? — Benj96

Furthermore of being an ethical issue, I think it is forbidden by law to sell booze to alcoholic if you are aware that he or she is in rehab or needs help. This ethical problem reminds me about the alcohol selling (beers, in most of the cases) to teenagers. Is the owner of the liquor store responsible for selling alcohol to those persons? I think yes. Alcohol is a drug, and everyone who is in this business should be the most responsible in the use and sale of this product.

You are right in the fact that the issue is a bit complicated.

What I see is that everything that aesthetics involves depends on the progress of societies or civilizations, and aesthetics have always been a part of social representation. You mentioned Roman and Greek poets, but sculptors and painters are important too. If we see a Greek sculpture such as The Discobolus and a Italian Renaissance painting such as da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks, we would appreciate that the concept of aesthetic has fluctuated during the centuries.

What is the big deal about aesthetics in modern times? Well, I personally think that society has lost a basic concept about art, literature, theatre, opera, music, etc... Everything has turned commercial and industrial. Only a few seem to still care about "real" art, the one that is sublime and intriguing. I guess, as an example, we can mention Banksy.

will we live to see that day? I'd have high hopes if I would live for 105 000 years. (Or would it be 210 000?) — ssu

:up:

Another line: will it be worthy at all? What if the ones who contact us want to conquer and destroy us?
This debate opens up different dilemmas.

Interesting.

I have always wondered if there is someone out there capable of interacting with us. I believe that there are, but it hasn't come the proper time yet. We have to just wait and see who would be the first to interact. Will it be they or us?

This leads to the conclusion that, not only are there probably other intelligences, there are probably other intelligences far more advanced than our own. — Pantagruel

:up:

Do we really decide what happens next, or... does the environment the one which decides on us? Because it seems that it is the latter that establishes the natural principles of life and sustainability.

Perhaps, but good luck trying to identify just what they are. — Janus

I thought the same. But I think that the OP doesn't want to identify them at all, just remark on how some groups use them in bad faith. He used the example of politicians or government agencies that "overrated" some artworks instead of valuing aesthetics.