I put a tree trunk on my shoulder and run up and down the Alps each morning. I missed a day a few years ago when I pulled a hammy, but other than that, 24/7/365.

Interesting the sort of music you guys listen to, especially the electronic shit that is sometimes accompanied with mumbling in the background, which is always a nice touch.

I guess maybe it's relaxing. Along these lines, this is what I've been enjoying recently. Hour 7 to 7 1/2 is especially soothing.

"Complicated", it seems to me, understates the difficulty. We look to biology to provide an objective basis for cultural stereotypes. But our cultural stereotypes condition what we think of as biology. In other words, the two interact and are consequently inextricably intertwined. Both are deeply involved in the power relationships in play in our social interactions.
In the end, it seems to me, we would do better to manage without pursuing this fruitless attempt and deal with the problems we are facing, whatever their origin. — Ludwig V

The issue arose with lawyers, which was once a male dominated profession. If you look today, you have as many or more females in law school, who perform at the top of the class, and who get the presitgious jobs. But, as time goes on, you see fewer and fewer as partners and at the highest levels of firms. The reason, which is interesting, based upon the women are saying, is because women don't want those jobs. They are grueling, stressful, and, other than money, are not terribly rewarding. The same holds true to the trades. Women don't want to work on cars, pipes, and air conditioning units. Those jobs are physically demanding and not terribly rewarding.

When coming up with policy decisions, what do you do? We've made entry open to whoever wants it, but do we then change the industry to make it so different people want it? Wouldn't the acceptance that women don't want X but men do, be a nod towards biology? Or do you say that men have figured out the biology of women (yeah, right) and have created systems that make them not want to compete? That would be the patriarchal argument, but it would also accept that biology controls to some point.

When I mentioned to a female friend that there are so many males and not many females writing on the philosophy site she replied, 'They have better things to do than write on philosophy forums'. — Jack Cummins

This isn't why. It's because analytical philosophy falls into the same category as STEM subject matter, which is also male dominated. Progress by females in those areas is owed to social efforts to increase it, which means it would be more disproportionate if not being actively pushed in the other direction, but it still stands 2:1
malehttps://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20women%20and,(figure%202%2D3).


That is to say, unless we buy into the idea wholesale that men and women are in different fields based upon patriarchal social controls, we must admit men and women are simply different creatures.

If you wish to see greater male/female disparity, look to the trades, where plumbers, mechanics, are overwhelmingly male. Plumbers are over 98% male.
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/plumbers-pipefitters-and-steamfitters#:~:text=Employed%20people-,The%20workforce%20of%20Plumbers%2C%20pipefitters%2C%20and%20steamfitters%20in%202021%20was,29%20years%20(65%2C963%20people).

On the other hand, 83% of romance authors are women, so they too are alone in their rooms typing away in solitude, just typing about different things. https://wordsrated.com/author-demographics-statistics/#:~:text=Female%2Ddominated%20genres&text=Female%20authors%20have%20increased%2045,books%20were%20written%20by%20women.

Are you married? Have you made a life-long commitment to another adult? — Banno

I've had two in fact, so I win.

The correlation between the philosopher and the lack of romance is as much a product of opportunity as choice. That is to say, I suspect many in their closed off rooms with their books and thoughts long for a deeper connection, but for the introversion often inherent in the philosophical condition, they don't know where to turn.

That's the gem; My moment of greatest certainty was when I held my daughter, smelling of vernix. Descartes' Second Meditation is too contrived to be taken seriously. — Banno

Then let's put an end to this silly analytic thing we call philosophy and instead enjoy the sunrise, feel the brook stream through our toes, and smell the honeysuckle in the breeze. That is the life passing before us, not the underlying structure, not the pieces and parts of meaning and language. It is the day we must celebrate.

You decide if I'm mocking or serious.

The last stanza brings it home.

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Outdid the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed-and gazed-but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

She misses the point of Descartes, for which I'd give her C on that paper, but since her missing the point was intentional, I give her a D.

Because there are many ways of understanding culpability. In its most general form, blame is pointing to the inner or outer demons capricously and arbitrarily pushing and pulling us in various, potentially nefarious directions. We blame these demons and seek to influence them in the aim of rehabilitating the person who has them, or to separate them from society. This form of culpability is perfectly compatible with hard determinism. — Joshs

Your offering reasons for your behaviors as motivators for your behaviors assumes your evaluations of your behaviors are based upon judgment by you and could be different if you wanted them to be. But that's not part of HD.

HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will.

There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable. — Truth Seeker

The point I was making is that if HD is true, we assign culpability because we do and there is no reason or purpose for that. It's like asking why an acorn makes a sound when it strikes the ground. It just does. Why do I think you're guilty. I just do. Why do I put you in prison. I just do. Why do I think I put you in prison because you were guilty. I just do. That's just what happens when one pool ball strikes another.

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable. — Truth Seeker

Why do we do that?

Asking if we should makes no sense. — Michael

Yes it does. He had to.

Compatibilism is soft determinism, not hard determinism. If hard determinism is true then compatibilism is false. — Michael

If hard determinism is true, then you think hard determinism and compatibilism are not compatible because you have to.

Not many people know this, but when you die in someone's arms tonight, you go to a warehouse and a lady plays a cello, but it gets taken from her, and so she just keeps playing it like it's still there.

If you see the air cello being played, you've died. Remember that, maybe even tattoo it to your arm so you can read it in your death and you'll know where you are.

This video explains it:

Can a stutterer lead a nation? Take on speaking roles at work? It's a grey zone imo. — BitconnectCarlos

Not a stutter, but he doesn't seem someone created to lead with his voice.

do you follow Reform Judaism? — Leontiskos

That's where you'd find me on Friday night.

wasn't aware the Ten Commandments had changed. What do they say now? Or have they added more, to make up for the five which were lost when Moses dropped the third tablet, according to Mel Brooks? — Ciceronianus

There are all sorts of ways to count the decalogue. It's not even clear there are 10 and only 10.

But, in any event, my reference to the commandments isn't limited to the decalogue. There are 613 Commandments. https://www.jmu.edu/dukehallgallery/exhibitions-past-2018-2019/the-613-mitzvot.shtml

If there were only those 10 rules, we'd all wear garments combining linen and wool like barbarians, violating the rule of shatnez.

It would be as if the Ten Commandments stated that they may be altered provided appropriate steps were followed. — Ciceronianus

I would suspect that all traditions have ways in which rules are to be interpreted, amended, and modified. The actual text is not necessarily changed, although dramatic changes to the interpretation can be made so as to consider the prior rule entirely amended.

The Catholics have a hierarchy in place that allows such things, even if rarely used, which I referenced as papal infallibility. The Mormons consider their President (yes, that's what he's called) to be a prophet who can entirely change church doctrine. The Amish have elders that determine their rules (like the phone booth has to be at the edge of the land and not in the home). The Jews consider it a commandment to follow the verdict of the rabbis, which can offer opinions that vary over time (Deut: 17:10).

I do think you might endear yourself to an Orthodox Jew though with your insistence that the laws are immutable and unchanged since the day Moses walked off the mountain, as historically inaccurate as that might be. It's a good myth to add to the legitimacy of the religion though.

It's one of the "rules" of the Abrahamic religions, I think, that the rules they impose may merely be given lip service when they become inconvenient, but they don't change. — Ciceronianus

Where we agree is that neither of us believe the Bible was written by God and we both likely agree it was written over a long period of time by a good number of authors and there was even a final author who edited the whole thing. I think we can also agree that the Bible has been used, for better or worse, as a foundational document, used to support entire civilizations.

It is no coincidence that our own modern system has similarities to that. We have a document (i.e. the Constitution) that we hold out as holy, we appoint special priests to interpret it, and we alter and form its meaning around daily disputes. You don't need to change the text of the Constitution to change the meaning and religions do the same with their documents. I suppose in most secular systems you have a mechanism to change the text of the law and perhaps you have the same in certain religious systems (for example the Mormon President's ability to decree law) or you have workarounds (like Papal infallibility allowing the text to mean whatever he says by definition).

And when you read the religious disputes regarding what some passage means, it doesn't sound a whole lot different than any other sort of rational dispute. They look to past arguments, other text, history, and all sorts of things and they come to some sort of understanding of the meaning and how it is to be applied.

What is dangerous is dictatorial power, where the needs of the people are subjugated by the will of another more powerful authority. That result in not necessitated by all forms of religion. The opposite is not necessitated by all forms of democracy either.

The objection here by me is more to the argument that you have an evil document and from it necessarily springs evil because it applies rigid draconian rules that no one can contest. That could occur, but the fact is there are many instances where it doesn't.

But even the Pharisees and their intellectual descendants, the Rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods would have more-or-less accepted the plain meaning of this text, even if they "flavored" it with various other interpretations, as is the custom with Judaic hermeneutics of the Second Temple period into the Middle Ages and beyond. — schopenhauer1

I take the rabbinic period to have begun after the fall of the second temple, which I also take to be the beginning of the Talmudic period, which is what I also take to be the beginning of Judasim as we currently know it. Prior to that, I would consider it a religion centered around the Temple and sacrifice, and, if we go back far enough, we have questions about origins generally in terms of when monotheism emerged.

My point being that we're now to decipher what the beliefs of a people were dating back from the Bronze Age and then we get into questions of when the various parts of the Torah were written, compiled, and edited into a single version as we know it today. Laying claims to how these stories were interpreted and what significance they had is entirely speculative. For example, we have today a creation story that could just be a fable to try to explain our origins that the ancients might have taken literally, but very well might not have. In fact, Genesis has two entirely different origin stories. That story has morphed into an account of original sin and the need for God to give his only child to save us from that sin. It is also argued that Jesus is the slaughtered lamb in the Isaac story.

The Talmud was written in the late 1st century AD, which is the best we can say regarding how the Torah has been interpreted since then. Per Jewish tradition, however, it is believed that the Talmud encompasses the oral tradition passed down by the Pharisees, and it is this oral tradition that holds as much weight as the written tradition of the Torah. That is, it is tenant of Orthodox Judaism that the oral tradition was received alongside the written word at Mt. Sinai. The point being that tradition argues that the written law was never interpreted without the oral tradition alongside it.

So where this leaves us is in a highly contextualized spot, where we can't just say the Binding means we should blindly follow God's will without question. It certainly does present an argument that we should listen to and trust God, but it would also suggest that God wouldn't steer us wrong, and it is presented as a story that attempts to end the idea of human sacrifice, which I suspect was an issue among other religions at the time.

But, what does the story mean to those who read it? https://www.sefaria.org/topics/binding-of-isaac?sort=Relevance&tab=sources All sorts of things.

But you can't make an argument that the Torah stands for the proposition generally you shouldn't argue with God and question him. There are plenty of examples of that from Moses, Abraham, and Job (and more) directly questioning God. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/5298/Arguing-with-God.pdf

It's a hard argument to make that the Torah stands for the notion one should not wrestle with God, considering the strange story of Jacob wrestling with God and having his name changed to "Israel." (“Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Genesis 32:28)

And we've not mentioned Kierkegaard's take on all this, which is to assert that the Binding was a test of faith and that there was no faith as great as Abraham's because he never questioned God (although he did try to persuade God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah later). My problem with K's analysis is that Abraham didn't show any great act of faith in God because the God Abraham was dealing with was the early God who directly interacted with humans and performed miracles. Faith didn't mean then what it means now. If we're accepting the Bible literally, when Abraham was told by God to sacrifice Abraham, he literally said it to him (although, again, not all traditions accept that God literally talked ever). That is, if there is some guy walking around being all powerful and I hear it and see it daily, it's hardly an act of faith to agree to do what he tells me. It's a fair stretch to then say the Bible must be followed blindly because it's God "telling" me what to do in the same sense Abraham was "told" what to do. Reading a several thousand year document contextualized with all other documents is a very different sort of "telling" than what Abraham meant by "telling." Abraham meant he was told it, not that he read a old document about it.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough, but interested in your thoughts on all this.

I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue.

It makes you uncomfortable. It ought. — Banno

It doesn't. But it's not because I so firmly hold to my beliefs I can't be shaken or some such other nonsense. It's because you make no meaningful points, largely because you refuse to actually reference any academic study on the issue or delve into how the Bible has actually been used by those who use it. In short, your criticisms aren't valid.

The Torah isn't just a scroll of stories, but it's a document that was actually used for an entire society to function, but it was not the single source of authority. That is to say, from these many religiuosly based sources, answers to the most minute details were answered.

That this other system differs from the Anglo legal tradition you're accustomed is obvious, but to the extent you can imagine other methods for the formation of rules, you then can engage in a comparative analysis. And that's all this is to me, as I certainly don't turn to the Talmud for my direction. I just recognize the system of mindless obedience didn't exist as suggest. I'm just saying you truly have not presented any interesting criticism.

The Torah can be thought of as a constitutional document, with debates centering upon how it is to be construed, which offers a fairly good explanation for the origins of some foundational elements of the Anglo tradition your accustomed to. That is, the holiness of the Constitution is a thing, defining "holy" as that which is set apart as specially significant.

Instead, you'll just keep telling me how religion is mindless drivel, as if that's provocative.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament — alan1000

Quite a stretch don't you think?

We can't understand the thought processes of the Jews by looking only to the OT, and that's their sacred literature, as opposed to the Muslims who obviously rely upon other texts.

Every religion, culture, nation, civilization, and even person has a long complex history. You've got to look at the whole picture, from their wars, their successes, their struggles, important leaders, events, and on and on and on.

There is a tendency to think of Islam as a religion which promotes violence and intolerance, as opposed to Christianity, which is thought to be more meek, mild, and benign. — alan1000

You've summarized the views of the least sophisticated Christians and provided the exact opposite view of the least sophisticated Muslims. You're just telling me what your crazy Uncle sounds like when he comes over for dinner.

Quite right. The religious need scholarship in order to make their scriptures palatable, even unto themselves. — Banno

But this is so painfully irrelevant to the question of what the passages mean to those reading it. It is a side conversation ignoring the fact that meaning is use.

That is, even assuming you are correct in what I posted of you above, you now must embark upon how they've interpreted the text to know what they mean when they use the words they do.

That is, let us assume the Abrahamic religionists have foolishly accepted a literally evil text to support their morality but they themselves are folks like all others in search for the truth and the good. And so they did as you say and have turned the text upside down to have it mean something you don't see anywhere in the text, that etymology impacts the meaning in no way.

This history lesson of how their world was formed even if true doesn't matter to what the binding of Isaac means. That you can read "break a leg" to mean break a leg doesn't mean you want an actor to fracture a leg.

I just saw a play today. Unfortunately no actor broke a leg.

I mean literally I wanted to see a complex displaced femur fracture. Unfortunately no orthopedic injuries befell the cast.

The literal text of the Bible, taken in isolation without other traditions, texts, and cultural norms has not been the way any major religion has treated the Bible, with the best exception to what I just said being very modern Christian fundamentalism, but even there, that can't fully be said.

You're just going on and on with a strawman that no one who takes biblical critical theory seriously would take seriously.

In Judaism, for example, the oral tradition, is just as prioritized as the Torah, offering explanations well beyond the limited text you cite.

This would be like you citing a Georgia statute and refusing to consider any other statute, federal authority, prior judicial interpretation, or any constitution, and your insisting your interpretation was correct because the literal text says what it says.

Again, of all people you accept that meaning is use. The community that uses those words doesn't slaughter their children and never would, so obviously it means something quite different to them than to how you read it.

But if you're sure the Bible dictates dashing children's heads against stones, then you're right to avoid it and those who embrace it that way.

didn't say it was. I said it suits our more liberal times. In other times it was no doubt understood as showing how a vassal must obey their lord. — Banno

Cite?

Why would I apply a more open interpretation when most likely, at the time, it was precisely the literal one in the text which was trying to be conveyed? — schopenhauer1

This is just incorrect. Fundamental literalism is a reactionary response to perceived threats of the scientific revolution. It's a modern phenomenon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#:~:text=Biblical%20literalism%20first%20became%20an,mention%20it%20in%20his%20Encyclop%C3%A9die.

For God to be an ogre demanding obedience, you have to take a very literalist definition and you must assume he decrees without being subject to interpretation.

If, though, you apply a more open interpretation throughout all contexts, your demand for obedience isn't to some angry demanding man in the sky, but it's to a conceptual goodness.

God is fully incorporeal, so what exactly do you propose you're being obedience to?

Rather, the main point is being obedient to god, and being rewarded for doing so. — schopenhauer1

If God is interpreted as Good, then where is the secular/religious distinction you make here?

Biblical interpretation has to be contextualized. If the document is held out as a guide for life, offering a literalist interpretation to derive it's meaning isn't helpful.

By analogy, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" had been taken to mean the state could not regulate abortion in the first trimester.

Where do you see that?

It's how you wish use such documents that comes into debate, and that informs how you'll interpret it, meaning how you use it determines its meaning.

It's a story about obeying one's master, like it or not. Abraham does what he is told, to the point of obscenity, and is rewarded. — Banno

Thank you Rabbi Banno for that comprehensive and contextualized analysis. Thousands of pages and hundreds of years of interpretation crystallized.

That's the pat reply, softening the story for more liberal times It's about fear, submission and obedience. — Banno

In folk pologising for their book? Not so much — Banno

The interpretation I offered that interpreted the story as offering opposition to child sacrifice isn't a new fangled liberal interpretation, which you might have to learned had you been interested in understanding what the story means to those who use it. It's a 5th century Talmudic interpretation.

Meaning is use.

So, if you wish to know what people mean when they speak, you'll have to endure their translations. They speak a different language than you.

No language is better than another.

Yep. It sits in the foundational story of Abraham, who would sacrifice his son because god wills it, glorifying doing what one is told to do over taking personal responsibility. — Banno

If that's what you learn from the parable, then it is.

Others suggest it stands for the proposition that human sacrifice is prohibited. Others as a foretelling of the coming of Jesus.

Google "the binding of Isaac" if you're interested.

What I consider correct is somewhat less imposing and absolute. And even subject to change. — Ciceronianus

Religious debate doesn't lead to absolute rules. Much is debated and remains debated. Rules are also subject to change.

But you know this, so I don't know why you say otherwise.

Which seems to make the what right wants good and what the left wants bad doesn't it? What could be bad about godful rule, and good about godless rule? — Ciceronianus

The prior posts indicated that reliance upon godful rule was bad. One such argument was that godful rule was intolerant, as opposed to godless rule, which apparently is embracing.

The most glaring difference is atheists do not believe they know God's truth. An atheist attempts to know truth through a process of reasoning and that process means we debate with each other until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and even then that is not the final word. New information can change the reasoning. This is what is vitally important to a democracy versus a theocracy. — Athena

You've not described the decision process of either atheists or theists. There is not a univeral forum of atheists where they gather to debate and then to arrive at a published consensus opinion that holds until such time as better evidence is found. What happens is that people form beliefs through all different sorts of processes and countless conclusions are reached, oftentimes greatly constrasting from one another. You present this idea that atheists have arrived at a consensus that keeps getting derailed by the religious, where all harmony of thought is shaken into disarray by religious people.

What actually dictates conclusions about all issues, moral and otherwise, are a countless array of things, ranging from religiosity to personal disposition to intelligence to regional differences. You could probably explain much of my views from the spot on the globe I was born as much as you could from my religion.

You also present a picture of relgious thought as if there is simply a list of things that are good and bad and I can know if X is bad by looking at the list. From your description, it's as if the religious turn off their brains and have someone else tell them what's what.

Here's an article comparing the American common law to Jewish law related to what to do should you find lost property. It explains the reasoning from both systems, and the argument presented by adherents of both positions. That is, whatever you envision takes place in religious debate is far more complex than you state it is.

https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/avedah1.html

I suppose those sects, if the recognize Abraham as a prophet and believe in the Covenant, would be Abrahamic, but don't know enough about them to say whether they are or not. I suppose it's possible that they don't teach they are "the way, the truth and the life", but understand that traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam do. — Ciceronianus

We all have our views on what is right and what is wrong regardless of whether we anchor them in religious reasons. Secular views can be as firmly held as religious ones, as I'm sure there's no persuading you to change your view on certain moral issues.

That is, of course most religions consider themselves correct, but so do you.

What you brought up wasn't about confidence in one's own beliefs but of tolerance of other's beliefs. I tolerate the secular, the Christian, the Muslim, and the shaman's beliefs. You're right I disagree with some of them, but so do you.

Christians do not agree with each other about God's truth but that doesn't stop them from believing they know it. — Athena

Do Atheists all not agree as to what is moral and yet still proclaim to know it too?

doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself). — Ciceronianus

This is quite the broad statement, describing the essence of all Abrahamic religions, from Shia Muslims, to Mormons, to Church of Christ, to Reconstructionist Jews and so on.

White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat. — BC

But isn't this a question of who's ox is being gored? You dismiss the right's claims of threats coming from the left as irrational, but you declare the threats perceived by the left coming from the right as a clear and present danger.

The right fears godless rule while the left fears godful rule.

I would only eat the pill if I could still get scurvy. It's the only pleasure I have.