It sounds like the point both BC and yourself are making is that when innocence tends to be insular and not ask questions of itself, it becomes plainly satisfied. That we need to be 'impelled' by something, no?

Isn't that simply a certain content and form of philosophy? What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos

"Innocence" is another word I don't like very much. It is a feature that belongs to children, presumably, but how long are they supposed to be "innocent"? Freud didn't think they were so innocent. Innocence fits puppies and kittens for only a while.

Experience impels us forward into the world. We find rich and interesting details in experience and we want more rich and interesting experiences. Curiosity, you know.

There's nothing wrong at all with living a simple life, if that's possible. But what does "simplicity" mean? In some ways, the simpler the life, the more anxiety and worry. Picture a family living simply on the land. No worries, except for providing shelter, fuel, food, water, clothing, etc from the land, with their labor. The fatal "simplicity" of that life is deceptive.

Picture a more complex life, one with a house, electricity, canned food, clothing, transportation, medical care, a telephone, etc. This more complex life tends to have more protections, more back-up systems, more help when we need it than a very simple life. Yes, complex lifestyles have significant vulnerabilities. What if electricity fails in a storm? What if the wind blows the roof off one's house? The likelihood of surviving these disasters are really pretty good. Having people to help you means complexity.

↪BC BC should I jump off the bridge now or later? — kudos

At your convenience, of course. But what are you trying to say by mentioning a jump off the bridge?

How did you learn what experience, knowledge and good judgement were, and where did you get the idea that they were better than the absence thereof? All solely from yourself? — kudos

"Experience" arises from existence. Once I existed (not my fault -- somebody else did it) experience began and started shaping my existence. The existence of any animal with some sort of central nervous system will be shaped by its experience--learning. If one's species has a big enough CNS it will develop a culture, and action of that culture will be one more type of experience shaping one's existence. There is a human "I" in the process. The "I" becomes conscious of its existence and becomes aware of self, existence, and experience, and begins to direct the process.

I never did get the idea that no experience, no knowledge, and no good judgement were even a thing. People "judge" their experience on the basis of how it affects their existence. "Good judgement" -- however one defines it -- leads to better existence and better experiences than bad judgement. Falling down drunk in the snow and losing one's fingers to frostbite is an example of exercising bad judgement -- drinking too much to manage one's existence.

there's no way for philosophy to exist without experience and knowledge — kudos

There's no way for us to exist without experience and knowledge, never mind philosophy.

There are a lot of dull-normals in the world, and most of them get along quite well without worrying about philosophy and wisdom. They sleep well, get up and go to work, produce the world's needs and wants. They go shopping, play with their children, make love, watch Fox News, drink beer, pay their rent or mortgage, dine at Olive Garden to celebrate important events. They get old and die. Life goes on.

The arch of life for very bright philosophers is not all that different than the lives of dull normals. They might not watch Fox News (preferring the BBC), but they drink beer. They may shop more carefully, or not, and may dine at an out-of-the-way ethnic restaurant preferred by food snobs. They may read more, and think interesting thoughts (or not). Otherwise, their lives are about the same as dull normals. They might very well have less money than dull normals. They might not even have a pot to piss in. They get old and die. Life goes on.

Would you equate these urges and wishes with wisdom? — kudos

No. "Wisdom" isn't a word I use very often. I don't like it. It's a Hallmark greeting card kind of word.

As we age, infancy to senescence, we discover the various costs that our urges and wishes impose on us. I don't regret having inconvenient urges and wishes -- I regret acting on some of them. Wisdom means "the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment". Those are better words to use.

What gave you the idea that it was something worth finding to begin with? — kudos

Well, "having experience, knowledge, and good judgment" allows one to avoid some of the errors we are prone to.

The more reason to think of it as a construction of Western reason. The way you word it sounds like you think it worth less because it's not a notion that has existed forever. — kudos

Well, western reasoning is all I have got. No, I don't think it worth less because it hasn't existed forever. A lot of very good ideas are very recent.

Good question!

I don't know whether "some desires" are "meant" to remain unfulfilled, but we are all better off if "some desires" remain unsatisfied. We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. In my old age, I don't know whether I have developed all that much wisdom or not. Some people seem to find it earlier. Lucky them.

Children have the temporary advantage of not knowing much about the world; their quest to know and understand the world may or may not be successful, but fairly soon human minds become a warehouse of second and third hand goods--some of value, some ready for final recycling. It's dirty work sorting out all this crap.

What we call "innocence" is short lived. Kittens and puppies, figuratively. Literally, kittens and puppies grow up to be killer cats and wolves. Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. Urges and wishes, kindly and not, start arising fairly soon.

Social historians tell us that "childhood and adolescence" is a very recent view of childhood. As far as we can tell, ancient people on up to the recent times thought of children as miniature adults--not especially innocent and capable of economic contribution.

Some businesses are unethical by their very nature: loan sharking; phone / internet fraud; manufacturing products with known serious deficiencies (toys with lead paint); toxic food products. Some businesses tolerate unethical behavior by staff. The unethical behavior can harm co-workers, customers, etc. Some businesses cheat their employees by withholding part or all of their wages. Some businesses discriminate against customers and employees (various types of discriminatory behavior).

The most pervasive fraud perpetrated is the basic labor contract whereby the worker receives a small fraction of the value of the goods he or she produces. Apple Corporation had profits of 97 billion dollars last year. The workers who produced the various products and services that Apple sells receive none of the profits. They receive a wage which amounts to substantially less than all the goods and services they produce. The people who shared 97 billion dollars of net profit did not produce anything at all.

Your typical capitalist does not see anything unethical about this system. Because the fraud is the foundation of wealth, so they have deep interests in NOT seeing capitalism as theft (Proudhon: "property is theft". Balzac: "Under every great fortune lies a swindle")

Whether the work environment is ethical or not is a worthwhile question, but it would be helpful if you set up the discussion with a little more content.

On the one hand, we are not "forced" to take any given job at any wage in any environment; on the other hand, if we do not work for a wage, we will not eat. Capitalism is a system of wage slavery -- per Karl Marx -- and we are a) in the large exploited group; b) in the small exploiter group; or c) scrounging for survival.

On the other hand, we join together in large enterprises to produce the means for a complex society -- everything from picking beans to drawing cartoons for the New Yorker.

The work environment ranges between sometimes really great to much more often really awful, but only through worker solidarity and agitation can work be "fair".

One difference between animal intelligence and computers is that young animals -- puppies and people -- initiate inquiry into the world around them. Animal intelligence reaches out on its own. another difference: A computer (AI) has to be given instructions to acquire information--which they do not convert into experience. They can discover that it is 110ºF in the shade but they can not "feel" the heat. Animals experience the world through their bodies. They can tell that it is hot, and unpleasant. Computers can not do that.

Animal intelligence isn't separate from the bodies which contains it. Computers may have a chassis, may have millions of components, but there is no experience, no body to have experience,

This animal intelligence that is writing now can not tell whether some of the people who bring. up computers and AI are in favor of, or against, granting computers "thought". Some of them seem to long for a thinking machine. It strikes me as a little like wanting one's puppets to come alive.

There is something 'Hopperish' in his selection of topics. A difference though is that the colors in Hoppers paintings tend to use fairly saturated colors. The second one you posted, for instance.

The photograph I posted was by Dean West at Saatchi Art. Here's another Dean West photo; this one reminds me of David Hockney (painter) based on the subject matter and colors.

Palm Springs # 2, 2015 [LAST ONE] Artist Proof 2 of 296 W x 60 H x 0.1 D inDean West

Saatchi is asking $90,750 for the pool photo.

OK, should there be a shadow to the right of the station? But the suitcase and cowboy shadow seem consistent with the bench shadow, the lamp shadow hanging on the left side of the station. and so on. The man in the window seems more like an added image--he's too close to the window glass and too short. Also, I see that the station belongs to the Grand Trunk line. Don't know much about the GT.

The photo certainly seems composed (not a snap shot) and perhaps manipulated. I still like it, particularly the grey/beige/slightly green palate.

Marlboro cowboy gone to seed... He doesn't appear to be old enough to be a seedy Marlboro cowboy, though I see what you are talking about. The cigarette mascots tended to be mature men with deeply weathered faces, from years of riding, roping, and smoking. He is lanky, though, like a cowboy ought to be. Do cowboys travel with luggage? No saddle bags?

Apparently Grand Trunk is not a double rail system out west. Side tracks are used to allow for passing trains.

When I saw this image on Tumblr, my first thought was 'very realistic painting". The fineness of the detail quickly persuaded me otherwise. Still, it seems a very 'painterly' photograph. It also is a bit difficult to place in time -- the station looks like something from the early 20th century, give or take a couple of decades, but the man, the suitcases, and the transmission poles in the background look much more recent. There is a Petersburg station in western Canada on the CP or CN railroad.

It's a very nice composition.

Preaching is hard work. You have to keep coming up with startling new interpretations of texts that has been chewed over for 2000 to 3000 years. The people expect their pastor/rabbi/priest to have original ideas. When I wrote a paper for a Shakespeare class the professor said we were not expected to come up with new ideas about Richard III -- there weren't any. Just prove whatever case we were trying to make. Shakespeare has been chewed on for only 400 years.

It's good to have posts in church; they enable the bored to doze during the sermon, unobserved.

Communion occurs twice: once in the service, a second time during coffee. If Jesus had been Lutheran, coffee would be the transubstantiating liquid, pie the flesh. Serving hot coffee and pie during communion would be more complicated than bread and wine.

Because God is merciful, we use a pipe organ and sing proper hymns. Why does 'hymn' have a silent 'n'? Many churches, even Lutherans, employ the abomination of "praise bands" which distinguish themselves mostly by being way too loud.

Our prayer list needs to be purged, but you know, bad optics.

it would be surprising, if anyone would admit that he's talking rubbish himself — Pez

We should probably have a Truth and Reconciliation category for people to confess that they have been talking rubbish! Welcome to The Philosophy Forum, by the way.

I've not had much success studying philosophy. Back in the '60s, philosophy wasn't on the curriculum of the state college I attended. 15 years after graduating, I tried some basic courses through extension at the University and found them awful. I share the blame with Philosophy. Academic philosophy just is not my cup of tea.

I'm an old man now, and have spent the last 15 years in the big open pit mine, scraping out good ore to fill in the holes that my undergraduate education left. The history and sociology of cities has been a productive vein. So has the history of technology; trying to understand our several ecological crises has been useful. The Roman Empire and the Medieval period in Europe is always fruitful. There is so much good scholarship out there!

Revisiting books I should have read as an English major is useful too, but I've gotten better results from nonfiction. I am currently reading Zola's Au Bonheur des Dames, The Ladies Paradise, set in a mid-19th century Parisian department store. It's fiction in translation and it opens a window on the development of retail consumer culture. Its history is longer than I thought it was.

I have nothing to offer on Kant or Hegel, Plato or Aquinas.

Something to do with a den of thieves.

There is much to recommend parish churches. I belong to a Lutheran church. I wasn't raised Lutheran, but its liturgy is meaningful and they are located across the street. The congregation used to be very large with many youth activities and programs for adult members. The sanctuary can hold about 250 - 300 people; Sunday services usually are about 125. When I joined 13 years ago, it was mostly old people (including me). Now we have a much younger congregation, have enough children to have Sunday school and (small) confirmation classes.



The church was built in 1949 for a large German Lutheran congregation belonging to the Missouri Synod. In those years they needed that much space. In the mid 1980s the Missouri Synod was split by a fundamentalist take over. Many of the Missouri Synod congregations voted to leave, as did this congregation. The vote was a 49% 51% vote in favor of leaving. Upon losing the vote, half of the congregation left.

Churches are, generally, on the decline but losing 1/2 of the congregation was bad news. It took about 20 years to recover. There are still a handful of members who have been belonged for roughly 75 years

The church was designed by Ellen Saarinen, a Finnish architect. It's a National Historic Landmark--partly because of who designed it, and partly because it broke the 'American Gothic' mold for new church buildings. It's mid-century modern--not a common style for church buildings then or later.

Eero Saarinen Elliel's son, designed the educational wing added in 1962. It includes classrooms, a huge church kitchen, dining rooms, and a full sized gymnasium. He also designed the TWA Terminal in NYC (now a hotel), Dulles Airport, and the St. Louis Arch.

here's a picture of the Luther Lounge in the Eero Saarinen wing:



Less famous, more modest churches can become the congregation's master; this one cracks the whip. The one very good thing about being a national landmark is that it enables us to apply for grants to help pay for repointing and replacing brickwork, reroofing, replacing worn out boilers, fixing damage from heavy rain, and so on. If it wasn't for the grants, the congregation would have been bankrupted.

Or it might have been run through a parish church compressor - a handy machine for reducing small, disorderly charming churches to standard sized gravel. Shards of stained glass can be set in mortar on the tops of stone walls to deter migratory populations.

Just joking. The parish church compressor was mentioned in an odd funny book published back in the '70s, The Universal Daisy Spacer. It included a plastic device to aid individuals in planting daisies precisely 2.73 inches apart. The objective of the author was to achieve an orderly world--or else.

once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... — Vera Mont

True enough, but Holy Mother Church didn't become a holy big business until the medieval period -- say, around 800 to 1000 a.d. In the last centuries of the western Roman Empire (ending in 476), and for a few centuries after that, the church was a relatively small organization. As Roman/Medieval Historian Peter Heather points out, if you walked around Europe in 700, you would see some Romanesque cathedrals here and there (not big gothic ones) and little else in the way of church buildings. The church didn't deeply penetrate European societies until around 800 - 1000. Around that time, the church created parishes and lots of parish churches were built--some of them are still around.

This isn't to say that missionary work wasn't going on -- it was. And the church established footholds all over the place -- but wasn't able to expand those footholds until later.

The Roman church started out with the structure of the empire -- very top down and bureaucratic. That was the gift of Constantine and his successors.

(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power — Vera Mont

It's a major contradiction: Jesus the poor itinerate preacher who said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" was answered by the worldly church: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!" It was OK for kitchen monks and nuns to be meek, but that lifestyle generally didn't appeal to popes and archbishops who thought of themselves as Roman nobles.

This contradiction is reconstructed in just about every church in the US, where the church building eventually becomes the tail that wags the dog. Most churches are real estate operations, whether they want to be or not. The building becomes the biggest line item in the budget. Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. .

There is a church in Minneapolis that was torn down to make way for a freeway. The Minneapolis Lutheran Synod created in its place the 'church without walls' which now serves a large public housing and Somali community. It's about the only such operation that I have heard of. It rents an office, but the pastor's work is mostly in the public housing buildings. It's a model I would like to see more of.

I’m an atheist because I don’t see any evidence for any of the religions. — an-salad

Fine by me if you don't see any evidence.

I'm religious; I'm not spiritual. I respect religion more than I believe it. Religions are among humanity's great creations.

I might believe in God, but not the God whose program involves micromanaging the universe. The God I might believe in is omnipresent, but not omni-engaged. His eye may be on the sparrow (as the song goes) but if a hawk eats the sparrow God may notice but does not punish the hawk.

Perhaps God is the Primum Mobile and part of the Universe. Perhaps not. I wasn't there at the beginning, so I'm guessing.

Did Jesus once walk the streets of Jerusalem? @javi2541997 believes Jesus literally existed. I'm inclined to agree, though like the London Underground riders, we must "MIND THE GAP" when reading the Gospels. Jesus wasn't around to help edit his biography which was written by authors who did not know him personally and did not have access to his phone, his tax forms, his diaries, his trial records, his birth certificate, or back issues of the Jerusalem Post.

Whether the personal testimony that they did have in their hands was reliable, God only knows.

There is nothing bad about religion that isn't bad about believers. Whatever is good in religion is good in believers. As Kant put it, nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind.

be decent to one another. — Vera Mont

Sure.

It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith. — Vera Mont

By the time the Empire, in the person of Constantine in 312, sort of got interested in Jesus the church had been in business for a while. The general policy of the Empire was to tolerate pagan sects as long as people continued to worship the official gods. Jews and Christians were not very good at this dual role. They received some static, but nothing like a vicious pogrom.

The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church.

I personally don't put a whole lot of stock into the concept of 'the past', and most (but not all) of my discussion kind of assumes the concept is meaningless. — noAxioms

“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there,” wrote L.P. Hartley in his 1953 novel “The Go-Between.” How we understand the past and how we come to terms with our own memories, is an unpaid debt that all humans share.

“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner

I do not know with any certainty how long "the present" is. A second? A nanosecond? A minute? A vanishing moment between the untouchable past and the expected--but not guaranteed--future? The past seems more certain -- at least 13+ billion years worth. It sometimes seems like the present is an ever-vanishing moment; at other times the present seems stabile.

I do not understand how the past can be meaningless. You have a past; if you did not, you would not be speculating about time travel, or anything else. You have been a member of TPF for 8 years worth of the past. Your past isn't meaningless. You -- we -- are connected to the past by links on a chain stretching back to the beginning of the universe. Our basic body plan (vertebrate) appeared about 518 million years ago. The book Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin explains our physical connection to the past.

But carry on.

I was joking. I do not believe time travel is possible -- though it is a fertile topic of science fiction.

On a more theoretical level, the past can not be altered. Remembered? Yes. Misremembered? Yes -- that's the usual experience. Reinterpreted? Yes. Denied? Some try. Longed for? Yes, usually that's a mistake--the good old days were terrible. Visited? No.

I look at the past as a crystal -- the atoms in the crystal stay organized the way they are and the universe remains intact. Time's arrow does not turn around and go wherever we might want it to go. We may not like the present, but we've already screwed things up in the past, and we would screw it up again--because we are not merely fallible, we are dead ringers for making big mistakes.

God, who some conceive as omnipresent -- present in the past, present, and future and everywhere all at once -- has not, according to our founding fictions. seen fit to do over any part of the past.

The important question here is cost and the likelihood of prompt and complete refunds if time travel doesn't deliver on the promised delights of the Roman Baths, the thrill of watching T Rexes mate, or the satisfaction of shooting J. W. Booth on his way to the Ford Theater on the evening of April 14, 1865. Or is time travel strictly caveat emptor?

Exactly! "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash nexus." Karl Marx

It's still true; maybe even more so now.

The article you refer to includes book stalls as "culture" but maybe it's just another shop? — Benkei

Yes. Book sellers are, after all, engaged in business. They are not unique 'culture agents'. None the less, one may be very fond of the shops. Business, after all, is as much a part of Parisian culture as the Louvre.

A book store sells "cultural goods" in the same way a record store, an art store, or a haute couture store does. Presumably Parisians who peruse the various specialist book stalls and buy a book every now and then are consuming culture. Presumably people who peruse the pages of Amazon.com and buy a book (new or used) every now and then are also consuming culture.

I have never been to Paris and so have no experience of book stall culture. Their temporary closure was "for security" at the up-coming Olympic events. The Olympics are both culture and business -- probably more business than culture.

There is the idea that 'family' is a naturally happy arrangement. I suppose in many cases it is, though 'happiness' in human affairs tends to be fleeting. A happy family today might be an unhappy family tomorrow.

I agree with your take on practice making perfection.

Hey, here's another one: True or False? This was quoted in an article about keeping the Parisian booksellers in place during the Olympics. Why book stalls on the street would pose a threat to security is beyond me.

"Anything that degrades culture shortens the paths that lead to servitude." Albert Camus

Bowling Alone was developed from his 1995 essay entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital". Putnam surveys the decline of social capital in the United States since 1950.

Apparently Robert Putnam found enough decline in social capital over 1950 and 1995 to justify the seminal essay. Those are years some are likely to now reference as "the good old days" before the personal computer, the internet, smart phones, social media, apps for everything, etc. became ubiquitous. New technology and new media have, no doubt, exacerbated isolation and solitary activity, but the process began before either their existence or ubiquity.

If we can't blame social media, cell phones, dating apps, etc. for declining sociability, then what contributed to the decline of "social capital"?

Some candidates:

Television. It has most often been viewed at home; it's less social than watching a film in a theater or any kind of live performance. Per Marshal McLuhan, it's the media not the content.

Suburbia. A very large share of suburbs were created de novo after WWII. "Actual, interpersonal community" might or might not develop from the process of peopling the settlement through real estate sales. Many women who were not working found suburbia a lonely place, a population of lonely people. IF men did not establish community at work, they commuted home to a lonely town/

Work. There are a variety of workplace 'styles': some of them highly competitive and hierarchical; some of them highly exploitative; some of them extremely boring; some of them egalitarian; some more interesting than others. Over time (from the early 70s forward) wages and benefits began to stagnate then decline, eventually requiring workers to put in more hours at work. Maintaining a family's lifestyle might require a second member of the family to begin working as well. More work = less time and energy for social activity.

Automobiles. Cars enabled some degree of personal liberation. A car provided private transportation free of supervision or observation. This function may have become invisible by its ubiquity. Having a car provides numerous individual benefits. A car can enable one to reach destinations for social activity, but the trip itself is often alone. The more time one spends traveling in a car (commuting, for instance) the more one is forced to spend time alone.

Geographical and social mobility. Americans tend to move fairly often -- maybe a few blocks away or a few miles from one's last home. Or maybe 2,000 miles away, from Des Moines to Los Angeles or St. Louis to New York. Mobility often breaks up social networks, while at the same time creating new social networks -- or not.

When the personal computer, Internet, cell and then smart phone, and social media arrived, they offered a simulacrum of social life. it is often much more "social-like" than "actually social". And, of course, it's all pretty much dependent on advertising dollars which yields high incomes for owners and investors.

What to do? Join a bowling league. The local Eagles Club has a couple hours of dancing every nigh, tango to polka. Go to church (for the society). Talk to your neighbors whenever there is an opportunity; create opportunities. Talk to at least one person while grocery shopping -- some brief friendly chat. Participate in groups engaged in activities you find interesting. Find someone to have lunch or dinner with once a week. Engage.

Or, do unto others before they do it to you.

Yes.

As does deliberately misinforming the public, or at the very least presenting a situation to the public in a biased way. — Vera Mont

Two instances come to mind. The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964 may have been faked, but it justified the expansion of military action in Vietnam. Another, certainly faked, justification for war was Iraq's alleged purchase of "yellow cake" uranium from Niger for nuclear bomb work by Iraq. This provided one more excuse to invade Iraq.

During the war in Vietnam there was opposition early on -- initially quite small. By 1969 the opposition was very large. 500,000 people turned out for the Washington, D. C. anti-war demonstration in November of 1969. I was one of them. Across the country there were marches and mobilizations against the war involving millions of people registering their dissent from national policy.

The net result on the Nixon administration was minimal. The war went on and was even expanded. Those opposed to the war remained opposed but demonstrations proved insufficient to change administration policy.

The anti-war movement wasn't without effect, however. It did change the way a large number of people thought about war, the government, and national priorities. The majority were not persuaded.

The long series of civil rights demonstrations running from the 1950s into the 1970s achieved more concrete results and legislative change. Congress and legislatures enacted piecemeal changes which over time significantly reduced the immorality of racial discrimination. "Significantly reduced" but did not eliminate.

So, people sometimes find ways to publicly rebuke their governments and distance themselves from complicity. But complicity, responsibility, and guilt are difficult to avoid in complex society. For example, one might be in favor of equal rights and opportunity for blacks, but live in a long-segregated white suburb.

I don't have time to answer all messages — LFranc

IF you don't have time to reply to your responders then don't bother to start a thread. You don't have to respond immediately -- hours later is fine,

There are circles of widening responsibility for an elected leaders actions, but the leaders and initiators of crimes are most responsible and responsible first. John F. Kennedy (President 1960-1963) is responsible for the planned (and ill-conceived) invasion of Cuba. He didn't hatch this plan by himself -- there were a few dozen people near the top of the government who were involved.

I bear no responsibility for what Kennedy did. I was 16 at the time; but I would not have been responsible had I been older. Richard Nixon (President 1969-1974) didn't start the war in Viet Nam, but he did continue and expand it. Nixon had many supporters among the populace, as well as opponents. I was opposed. The invasion of Cuba was secretive. The war in Vietnam was public. Many people voted for Nixon (twice), supported his policies, and so on. Supporters bore some small responsibility for Nixon's actions.

One thing to remember here is that the public is not CONSULTED in any meaningful way about planned military or other actions that may or may not be criminal. The lack of consultation or ability to intervene in top administration activities severely limits responsibility.

Donald Trump, may he rot in hell, might not pay his bills but that doesn't make the bills disappear.

I have heard that there are good, honest politicians.

and all debts — Vera Mont

Just the crimes. All debts remain collectable.

He talks too straight for that job. — Sir2u

Absolutely. Politicians have a forest full of weasel words -- words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated. Then there are loads of lies, because politicians the world over are a mendacious lot -- it goes with the territory. "Is your country going to invade Ivanistan?" "Of course not! We are a peace-loving nation!" Meanwhile, the tanks are rolling across the border.

Lying, thieving, sneaking, conniving, knavery... It's what politicians do.

That makes cents.

Time travel is impossible — Sir2u

If time travel were impossible, they wouldn't be selling tickets, would they. If time travel were impossible, I wouldn't have bought a ticket, would I.

So you don't want to go with me. Anything you want me to bring back for you? (There would be fees...)

Nobody seems interested in my 200 years-in-the-future trip to Boston to see how the predicted catastrophic changes are panning out. Is time travel into the future anymore complicated than time travel into the past?

Thank you for these useful, perceptive and thoughtful responses. The tickets are non-refundable, so I'm still going. Maybe I'll be back (per @Vera Mont) or I'll be stuck in the cellars of the Coliseum cleaning up gore from upstairs (per @180 Proof).

I guess I'll have to do a crash course in Latin before I go.

Maybe there are other theories about time travel that will allow more travel flexibility and convenience.

If I should decide to to alter the course of the future (from 24 a.d. forward) do you have any particular requests?

Oh I see, you're going to be as much trouble in the past as you are in the present. What to do, what to do?

As a time-traveler, you should not be visible even in 1 second past time. The present moment is very short, and if you are not in it, you do not exist in the present.

Apparently you can not be in two places at once.

My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. — Chet Hawkins

Well, Mr. Gadfly, what is the wisdom to which we should switch over? The dictionary says...

"Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment."

but this doesn't get us any closer to what exactly we should do. I agree that we ought to change. I have a list of changes we could / should make. Lots of people have these lists, and many of the items are excellent recommendations. "The List" isn't the problem. The problem is motivation -- the compulsion individuals must feel that leads them to act, to change (for the better or for the worse, depending).

My guess is that individuals attempt change their behavior when their material circumstances present enough motivation to change. A farmer gives up his land when persistent drought and heat ruins the farm. Parents migrate long distances when there are no longer opportunities for themselves or their children to survive. People make serious efforts to lose weight when the doctor tells them "diet or die".

I live a much less stressful, happier, simpler life now than I did 20 years ago. Wisdom didn't motivate the change: circumstances that were beyond my control forced new circumstances into my life.

If wisdom has an effect, it comes in when we have to decide what to do next, usually under difficult circumstances. ("Life is what we do while we make other plans.") I don't happen to know what to tell someone who has a family, a mortgage, student loans, and car payments what they should do if their means of earning a living is pulled out from under them. Simplify? Get rid of the cars? Sell the house? Put everyone in the house to work? Go live in a tent? Get a new career? Shoot yourself? What?

My options as a single man were/are not the same as a man who has a family. What is wisdom for me might be folly for them.

I'm 77. I don't know how a 27 year old should respond to the challenges he or she is facing in the years ahead.

The Buddha misquote site is quite a rich vein. For instance, “Chaos is inherent in all compounded things. Strive on with diligence.”

I thought it was DECAY is inherent in all compounded beings.

I know that it comes from French. The statement that an English word comes from Latin is in most cases comedic, as English has nothing to do with Latin. How could it? — Lionino

There is nothing Latin about English, French was the language of culture in England for 300 years, not Latin.

English did not exist during Roman times. — Lionino

There is nothing persuasive about your argument.

I agree that English has nothing to do with Latin. It's a Germanic, not a Roman[tic] language. The French contributions to English vocabulary didn't change English grammar.