If you were judge what would you do in a case where you had to choose between a just verdict and the happiness/satisfaction of the community?

A systemic injustice makes it nearly impossible for tens of millions of people to secure the right to continue living where they’ve always lived without constantly paying someone else for that privilege

It. Is. Not. Your. Land.

There is no right to someone else's land. There is no right to a $500k house in California. The quicker you're able to move past this, the quicker you'll be able to actually find a solution to your problem. There are cheaper ways of living and there are ways to cut costs, but ultimately you can't just walk on to someone's land or property and demand that you be able to live there for free just as no one can knock on your door and demand the sofa. This is just basic property rights.

And by the way I have lived in places for free. If you join the military you'll get access to the barracks free of charge. Nice, right? I would wake up to dozens of rats scurrying above the ceiling when I lived there. Walls were also paper thin. But I didn't have to pay. I'm not a landowner by the way.

I have a year’s expenses in cash set aside besides my down payment fund IRA, so no.

Nice. You have a little more breathing room then.

It’s like those blowhards who say if millennials ate less avocado toast they could afford a house.

An extra $1k/month is an extra $12k/year that could go directly to your down payment on top of your savings from your salary. Additionally, by cutting costs at home whether or food or insurance or elsewhere even if it's only $500/month that ends up at $6k/year. If you want to ignore this and dismiss it as irrelevant than that's on you.

I think the topic of justice is about the means, while the topic of morality is narrowly about the ends. I think they are analogous to the topics of reality and knowledge, respectively.

So justice would be 'knowledge' and morality is 'reality?'

This is interesting and it's a definite difference between us. I see justice as an end in itself, and morality as also an end in itself. the two tend to operate in different spheres, but I guess by your definition they could come into conflict. If I were a judge on a case and the options were justice on one hand and human happiness on the other my first inclination would be towards justice. my attitude towards humanity as a whole is fairly neutral.

It’s not a matter of pride, it’s a matter of not just giving in and letting us be forced out of our home so that some rich asshole can move in here instead (or, more accurately, so some super-rich asshole can buy all the housing stock and rent it out for profit).

So....pride. You can't let those rich assholes win. You are willing to continue struggling because your struggle is a moral one and you are on the good side.

In telling me that I should move, you’re saying that almost everybody in the entire state of California, the most populous state in the country and one of the largest, also shouldn’t live in the state that they do

Everybody is in a different situation, but I think for a lot of people if they could find a similarly-paying job elsewhere then they should probably move out. I'm not giving blanket advice here to everybody because everyone's situation is unique.

Even if you had the money required for a down payment you'd basically be draining your entire savings for that down payment, right? I would just really, really advise against that because it leaves you no cushion and you'd be living on knife's edge. On top of your mortgage you'd still have utilities, maintenance & repairs, homeowner's insurance, property taxes and HOA fees.

I'm just looking out for you here and giving you my honest take on how to best proceed. I am not a financial adviser, but I would recommend that you go to one. In the end its your life and you're going to make your own decisions. I didn't mean to start a debate, this is just what I would do.

EDIT: If you want to tough it out I would definitely try to get a side hustle going. This could mean filling out surveys for money, dog walking, opening credit cards and getting the bonuses, and others.

Aren't there still countries trying to eradicate down's syndrome?

What happens here is that through pre-natal screening fetuses with down syndrome end up getting aborted. The rate is shockingly (95%+) in some countries.

Are you over 50?

I'll be 30 this year.

I think you would be surprised in schools today. It is the opposite attitude. EVERYONE can do ANYTHING.

I feel it's kind of like a pendulum sometimes; sometimes the attitude is super positive and other times it's pretty cynical/realistic. Maybe we'll see it swing back in the other direction more to the realistic side soon.

Thanks for the explanations and applicable anecdotes :smile: .

No problem.

The thing with pity is that men don't make friends with other men out of pity, nor do women fuck men out of pity either. It's basically just a "oh your position is pitiful and since I'm such a good person I realize that so props to you!" You need to be seriously careful with this emotion. It's fine if someone is suffering from a serious illness or if you're just saying you pity a temporary condition that someone has for maybe a week, but stuttering is just how I talk and I would be a little annoyed if a stranger came up to me and stated how they pitied me. I don't need you reminding me of my condition, nor do you score brownie points for coming up to me and expressing me how you're such a virtuous person who is good enough to feel pity.

but when it's not my personal fault that I can't afford to stay here, and the vast majority of my compatriots, the hundreds of thousands of people who can afford to live here even less than me, aren't getting out first, I'm not just going to accept defeat.

If I were you I would swallow my pride and do what is best for you and your partner. If you want to suffer on this cross and complain about it you can, just don't act like you're "forced" to. In some areas of the country, not only would you be a homeowner but you'd be able to go out to eat whenever you wanted and genuinely enjoy a nice financial cushion. But I guess that would mean admitting defeat. It's really just a pride thing for you.

Saving 1/3 of your income is really good. Bravo. I don't know how much houses cost in your area, but if it's prohibitively expensive you might want to either look into a condo or just trying to find a different job in a different part of the country. I live on the east coast and the difference in the cost of housing between say, Boston and Baltimore (where I live now) is just absurd. If you were to move down south it gets even cheaper around $150k is possible and with the FHA loan you'd only be paying 10% down so $15k. You could be doing everything right but if you live in San Francisco forget about it.

I was talking about income there, as apparently the mean personal income (which I approximately make) falls at around the 75th percentile of personal incomes, i.e. 75% of people make less than that.

So.... around 50k? Have you paid off the mobile home? So monthly take home after tax is maybe...$4k? $3500? I'd be interested to see a budget breakdown.

That perspective just seems dumb and detached from reality to me, and it certainly would not have any sort of supporting argument. Sorry you ever had to deal with it...

This is actually a surprisingly common attitude, at least where I come from. People frequently talk about aborting disabled fetuses, and in the 1920s-1930s in the US they would sterilize the disabled because they viewed them as a burden or a stain on the gene pool. Obviously there's Nazi Germany. I could go on about this but I will say that it's not all with evil intentions or to this extreme.

Less severe but still shitty example of things that I have dealt with as a person who stutters:
-People advising me not to go into a profession which involves speaking to the public, or even doing much speaking in general (this advice may be well-intentioned.) According to them I should basically just spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week behind a desk talking to no one.
-Time constraints on presentations - say 5 minutes - where I am expected to convey as much information as a fluent speaker would in that time.
-Simply not being assigned responsibilities or roles despite everyone else getting them. For instance there was once a time where my entire class was assigned a part in the school play but I was not. This could be well-intentioned.... who knows.

The main thing here is that the implication is that, as a person who stutters, I should just try to get through life without speaking or really actually socializing. Although not as bad as sterilization or death, I'd say that this does constitute ableism even if well-intentioned.

But if I said "sorry you had to deal with that disability", would that be the problem I described above?

This isn't nearly as bad as what I described above, assuming it is bad at all. I'd be okay if a friend said it, but if a stranger said it then it's a faux pas... but not really ableism. It's just an awkward thing to say, because you really don't want to reduce people to just sympathy. The subtle implication in sympathy - especially in this case - is that you consider yourself above that person. Focus on something else.

I think its not meaning that returns to you in that instant.

The problem with this discussion is that "meaning" is kind of a vague term and what could count as "meaning" for me might not count for you. Just look at how the term is used in the English language. It's very often used when we're teaching the language: "casa means house" or "gracias means thank you" - in other words, there's this sort of correspondence: A means B, C means D, etc.

Or we might also use it like: "that facial expression means...." in other words, we're still trying to draw that direct correspondence. We'd be making an inference as opposed to conveying a information in the form of a direct relationship as we were above with the language example.

The problem with asking "what is the meaning of life?" is that there just isn't this kind of correspondence. There's nothing to point to. It's an ambiguity in the language.

You could take it to mean: "What is man's highest purpose" or "What explicit purpose has God (if he exists) has assigned man?" or "What is humanity's ultimate end?"

I feel a certain feeling when I view a beautiful landscape and I'll describe the experience as "meaningful." I've heard many people describe LSD or magic mushroom trips as incredibly meaningful experiences. Who are we to tell them that they can't use that descriptor or that this descriptor isn't really what meaning is all about? What are you pointing to?

I don't think I have said anything that would disagree with this, but please point it out if I did :grimace:

Well, good - I think that's the starting point. I think someone who is honestly ableist wouldn't really consider the viewpoints of the disabled too much; they would just view them as broken and in need of fixing. As a person who is disabled, you are essentially a problem to be solved according to ableism. This is kind of how I was treated throughout much of my childhood, at least by certain people. It was rarely made explicit, but there were times where the attitude would surface.

By positing this possibility of an absolute conceptual perspective to relate to, we can make more objective sense of our subjective relation to each distinction.

This isn't really how I approach philosophy at this time. And by what you're saying here I'm interpreting it as some sort of "absolute system" that one can always relate back to on these big questions (e.g. whether objective morality exists). I'm happy to discuss with you, but if this discussion is going to be "oh lets try to find this absolute framework" then I'm not interested. I also wasn't trying to attack Pfforest's objective morality either, I was just trying to refine his views to make them a little stronger.

Contrast two descriptions of using a wheelchair. An amputee finds that with a chair they are able to go to cafes, to shop, to attend concerts, to participate in society. But then someone describes them as being "confined" to their chair. That view is a media cliche, one that preferences the perspective of the able bodied to that of the disabled.

What's interesting here - and I think is true across the disability rights movement - is that it's those in the disability community basically get the priority in terms of setting the discourse in terms of the true nature of their disability and how it ought to be treated. Just for reference, I am a disabled person and part of a disability community although my disability isn't a physical one. I love discussions on ableism so I had to jump in here. I feel like gender and race get discussed often but disability isn't quite on that level yet.

You offered some good insight onto the physical disability side of things, are you by any chance physically disabled or was that just an example? A lot of able-bodied people would generally think of a wheelchair user as confined, and to be honest the topic hadn't really crossed my mind but now that you brought it up what said makes sense. I've never had to deal with challenge. If I was to find myself in that position I would go the community.

Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...?

The majority doesn't have the disability. They have no idea what's going on. If I want to understand blindness would I just go to some random person who can see and tell them to explain it to me or should I actually go within the blind community?

Of course, this line of thought creates serious problems because you are left with the idea of thanking God for the holocaust, hurricanes that kill tens of thousands, the 9/11 attacks and so on.

Yep, and honestly you don't even need to go this far to pull these kind of examples. Just look at the first 6 plagues on the Egyptians: He gave boils to the entire Egyptian population and killed off their livestock. The Egyptian people didn't really do anything. It was their leader. Obviously we could go on here. I guess goodness just doesn't really relate to reducing suffering?

The Jewish God is definitely, definitely not omni-benevolent. He might still be all good. I think it's important to draw a distinction here because we typically think of good broadly speaking as benevolence; in other words, a kind of positive, loving attitude towards humanity that just kind of radiates out. Don't get me wrong, it would be lovely if God were like this but I just don't see it as a reality. I think if he is "all good" that goodness is not quite what we intuitively think of. I hate to say it, but for all we know the holocaust victims are up in heaven having a party where nobody ever gets bored or tired.

One thing that's very interesting is that Christians divide up the good and the evil and they attribute to Satan. I feel like this belief in a Satan who must be fought leads to a more Manichaean, black-and-white version of the world than a lot of Jews tend to traditionally have. If little demon-like figures were to pop up on Earth tomorrow and start killing people it would be a holy war against Satan for the Christians and "God's work" for the Jews.

I'd like to shed some insight on EI and Yahweh but I just don't know.

So it would seem you agree with me, is that right? So then the action isn't determined to be good or bad simply because it makes an individual feel good or bad, but it's rather about the bigger picture then, right?

I think "the Good" is a tricky concept.

I think knowledge or direction is often good, even if it was acquired through painful means. I'd imagine someone could do something pretty malicious towards you, but weirdly in the end it could actually make you a stronger, better person. That wouldn't make their action good though.

I also consider justice part of "the good." Justice, in its truest sense, isn't about making people happy or ensuring that they thrive. Justice can actually hurt society sometimes.

but that when we are judging something as good or bad, we do so on the basis of making people feel good or bad. You may not be obligated to give someone a back rub, but it's still a nice thing to do, right? We'd judge that action positively, even though we don't think it would be morally wrong in a blameworthy way to not do it. Why would we judge it positively? Well, because it made someone feel good. And punching random people on the streets is definitely morally forbidden, but by what criteria are we judging it to be so wrong? Well, that it hurt someone, inflicted suffering, made them feel bad.

I feel like your position would be stronger if you said something like "the action is good because it is ultimately in pursuit of hedonic pleasure" as opposed to just focusing on the immediate effect of
whether it made someone feel good.

For instance, getting a flu shot or some other type of vaccine is obviously good but the immediate feeling is discomfort. Getting a shot is an unpleasant experience but ultimately it's for the better of humanity.

Here's a pretty neutral source on what Jews believe about God.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-nature-of-g-d

You'll notice that "omni-benevolent" is missing. Benevolence is defined by Merriam-Webster as a "disposition to do good." Someone could still be a good being - at least I think - without an innately benevolent nature. Think about a fair judge, maybe.

"God did not create evil, rather God created good, and evil exists where good is absent (Guide for the Perplexed , 3:10).

I understand what Maimonedes is saying here and I hold him in high regard but I just don't know how to square what he's saying here with:

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, that does all these things" (Isaiah 45,6-7)

If I gotta choose one I'm going with the bible.

To your greater thesis that Christianity worships a fundamentally different diety than the Jews. I'm hesitant to accept.

Just to give some context I'm bouncing this idea off you. I literally had this same discussion with a yeshivist maybe 6 months ago where I argued your position. I have zero personal emotional stake in this argument and I'm hoping we can work together to reach a more reasonable conclusion and resolve some tension.

The basic tension I have is this: God is not evil, but seemingly according to the bible he does cause evil - or at the very least - misfortune (translational issues concerning "evil" are relevant here). In my discussion with yeshivists they were pretty adamant that God was ultimately behind everything in the universe, but that he is also perfect. Everybody agrees that he is perfect.

Regardless, how can there be bad when God is all good? That's a tough one.

I think that according to Judaism God is essentially good, but make no mistake about it he is the source of bad things according to Judaism.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the LORD, that does all these things" (Isaiah 45,6-7)

It is worth noting that this is translated and "evil" in the original hebrew is maybe something more along the lines of "misfortune" or "badness" as opposed to our modern understanding of evil which is Christianized. Just something to think about.

In any case - coming at it as someone who was raised Jewish - I've never found appeals to the existence of evil in the world as contradicting God's existence particularly convincing. God is no pure, Christian saint.

That question is relevant to religion but not to religious law.

I understand that and I agree with you, and if you've sided more to the theistic side I'm fine hearing your explanation for why that is. Personally, I was raised Jewish. I am now agnostic. If we're going to engage theistic thinking I'm partial to Jewish lines of thought when it comes to questions of God's nature.

Since there is no rule in religious law that mentions what tools you should use to eat with, this question does not even come within the purview of religious law.

It is nonetheless an issue and a social norm in the US. It just is a reality whether we like it or not. I understand it is social custom; it is always the way I was taught. There are a billion of these social rules that we abide by in everyday life.

In that case, it will no longer be a formal system of morality. A legitimate formal system of morality can only mirror the relevant moral rules.

Fair enough, but they are still truths. They are an interesting category of truths because despite most people having an implicit understanding of them they are rarely made explicit. I mentioned this point earlier when it came to autistics. I think a similar thing could be said those without an innate moral sense or sense of rhythm.

Yeah, that is obvious. The problem is full of contradictions, and you clearly have no solution for that.

***Disclaimer: Drunk post here, but still probably sensical as I'm not too drunk***

I am not an atheist. This is not a "hey, I see you're religious, let me argue with that" conversation. That would be a waste of time. For the record, I am agnostic: God may or may not exist. I am amenable to considering either line of thinking or implications for either line of thought.

In a formal system of morality, it will not be possible to justify its first principles from within the system itself. The reason for that is very simple: It is never possible to justify the first principles of any formal system from within the system itself.

Okay, but we're not talking about morality here. Every "ought" statement is not necessarily a "moral" statement.

Example: "You ought to place the fork on the left of the plate."

2: "You ought to travel down highway A as opposed to highway B if you're going to this walmart."

I didn't engage you here to destroy your belief system. I'm engaging you here because I genuinely want to learn what you have to say so that it can help me. That is the purpose of this discussion so stop viewing it as a battle. If you have ideas you'd like to bounce off me I'm happy to do that as well. That is, after all, philosophy. It is a selfish endeavour.

For example, how are the first principles in number theory justified by number theory?
They obviously aren't, simply, because that is not possible.

If you want to teach me about number theory I'm all ears. I dropped Calc 1 because it was too difficult.

I also don't believe in "blank slate" either. All I was asking you is how do you incorporate non-moral oughts into your system. I have my own thoughts on this, but I would rather hear yours because I already know my own.

Honestly I'm fine continuing here as kind of a joke. Obviously it's just not possible to account for every single rule for every single circumstance. I wasn't quite following your previous discussion with alcontali but we were discussing a similar topic.

One should avoid at all costs that the animals kept in one's house as domestic pets be allowed to defecate on the lawn of the neighbor.

I vote yay on this proposal.

I'd like to propose the urinal rule: If in a public restroom with many urinals available, do not utilize the one directly next to a stranger. Additionally do not strike up a chat with said stranger.

There is simply no evidence that atheist morality exists. If it exists, it can be documented. So, where can we read a copy of the documentation?

I'm not really aiming to get into another conversation about atheist morality right now.

I'd like to stick with the social rules/norms issue: Do you not believe in social norms/social rules or etiquette because there is no one God-given source which includes all of them? I'm just curious as to your thoughts on how these rules are justified, if they are at all in your opinion.

Documenting information allows it to be objectively transmitted. It also allows the information be stored without alterations. Civilization has been keeping written records for thousands of years now.

I understand that and I completely agree but I think rational people can agree that just because something is written down or it's in a beautiful book somewhere doesn't immediately give it authority or make it a source of authority.

No, I know for a fact that this is not true.

You can't write down every single social rule for every single social situation. You could, however, say, write down an article describing bathroom etiquette. They do exist out there.

In any case I don't see how something being written down now "validates it."

If I just listed a bunch of rules now those rules would be written down but I don't know how that would suddenly validate them.

If the rule really exists, then it should be possible to write it down, no?
So, why don't they do it?

Yes, you could write them down. However, there's a ton of these social norms and rules and they change according to the specific situation, but nonetheless you could write at least some of them down. I'm sure there's etiquette books available on the subject. As to which one of these etiquette books is the "validator" I have no idea.

If I'm not mistaken, this is how autistic people receive help. A lot of rules and social norms that neurotypical people are able to intuitively grasp autistic people struggle with and they need explicit reinforcement.

Social rules are different from morality though. When it comes to social rules everyday we just unthinkingly abide by many rules which are not explicitly written out which can be tricky for some people.

In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?

Yeah, this wouldn't make sense in an illiterate society. However, in an illiterate society there are still social norms (which was what first came to mind for me when I read your point about "good and bad behaviors for society" needing a document which puzzled me a little.)

There are no such agreements, let alone, documented ones, simply because there will be no way to validate them.

We might think a little differently on this. For me, it's not so much a matter of "validation" as it is just that the rule itself exists.

For instance, I don't know if it's written down anywhere but it's a commonly accepted etiquette rule that if two men are in a public restroom you don't take the urinal right next to the other one. There's a ton of public restroom etiquette. I have no idea what "validates" it but I still consider it a social norm.

There is, however, no document that describes "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society". In that sense, the whole idea of ethics is just fantasy, i.e. some kind of "imaginary friend" !

Why is a document needed? If there were a document written up, what would validate it?

I think if you're a utilitarian this kind of judgment makes sense. Personally, I'm not a utilitarian so I wouldn't judge how morally good a person is by their balance of good consequences versus bad consequences. The first reason I'd use for this is that I feel like as people we just know that there are things we should never, ever do - for instance, crimes against children. I don't care if you're a doctor who has saved hundreds of lives; that doesn't allow you to go abuse children. That's just how I think about morality - it's first and foremost "don't do this" and then we can go on to other topics.

Keep in mind someone could also do a moral action but it has a bad consequence. How do you judge that? For instance, lets say you rescue a man but he turns out to later kill some people. Would that count against you or in your favor in your moral credits vs debts? There's always that question of how far we extend those consequences. Maybe that man who you saved has a son who is the next Hitler.

Why can't the guy who saved 100 million lives just go out one day and kill someone? He's still far in the net positives for moral credits.

We might even say the person has paid their moral debt and has a surplus, moral credit, if they ended up with a huge imbalance of moral acts over immoral ones.

This seemed kind of funny to me because it implies that if someone were to spend a year doing charity or building houses for the homeless or something they'd now be entitled to go punch a few pregnant women because, hey, they got all these moral credits and why let them go to waste?

Fair enough its been a while since I saw the movie. I tended to remember the poor family as the stronger of the two groups as well as the more ruthless group just in terms of how they were going about the whole scenario. I guess even if we pin the two groups as equally self-interested I think it's still their lack of (class) unity which is their downfall.

I was not making a value statement of it, but rather make an observation (survival, comfort, entertainment are our three main drives in my idea about our everyday affairs). But, with this comes a lot of low-level tedium/discomfort/anxiety.

I thought you were making a value judgment because you referred to picking out shoes (or fretting over shoe size) as "silly tedious maintenance" and then you just regarded it as a quirk of western civilization that we have different shoe sizes....In any case, if you just want to say comfort, survival and entertainment are main drives I'll agree with that.

I do believe though that shoe shopping can be meaningful, and I think you would definitely agree if you've had to run in uncomfortable shoes.

When they discovered the other family in the basement I remember thinking "alright, if you two groups can compromise and work this out this doesn't need to end in chaos"... but of course we all know what happened. If I remember correctly I interpreted this struggle more caused by the poor family's ruthlessness than anything else. I think it might be a bit of a stretch to just chalk up this sometimes sociopathic ruthlessness to their class position but I could have missed something.

It's funny because even as a capitalist I was rooting for them up until a point. I understand their desire to get out of poverty and secure their position in the rich household. I just don't think that this drive to succeed is at all limited to the poor though... just think of financial crimes and movies that portray rich people who have that same mindset. Is that born out of their social class? Does the criminal investment banker get the same treatment?

All of this takes place in a physical world in a social context. I think of something like fretting over which shoe size really fits best. It is not hunting to survive, it is not boredom really.. Just silly tedious maintenance of something that is contingently due to Western civilization's quirk that we have various size shoes which, if one is enculturated to wearing shoes, one gets used to wanting them to fit right..

I was thinking about this and I do notice this general attitude among a lot of philosophically-minded people. The attitude I'm referring to is one that tends to de-value or maybe denigrate that which is considered tedious (like buying shoes) and on the other hand places the emphasis/the value on "the big picture."

I'm not looking to start an argument here, but I think the biggest change I've had since I finished my philosophy degree is that the focus has shifted away from "the big picture" and into a more detail-oriented perspective. I remember back to when I was picking out running shoes or choosing boots during basic training and those decisions - if not chosen wisely - could have disastrous consequences. A runner who picks the wrong size shoe could find himself in serious foot pain half way through a race. Even if you're out with friends and your shoes are the wrong size that could suck. Don't even get me started about military footwear. I understand that if it's just casual use the stakes aren't that high though.

I just liked your example with the shoes here because shoes are actually extremely important in certain domains, but in the world of philosophy there seem to be bigger matters to be dealt with.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if someone were to put a gun to your head or threaten you or your family with something serious that meaning you've been looking for would be back in an instant. Similarly, if you were to catch a friend or a sibling about to jump off a bridge would you be thinking "oh well in the long run 1,000 years from now...."

I feel like this "meaning" question often pops back into life when we're either depressed or bored. A new parent doesn't find themselves asking this. Meaning is found in the here and now. If you want to lie back and take this 100,000 foot view of the super big picture of life and existence feel free to do so but I don't know why anyone needs to accept that view as the most true one as opposed to the here-and-now picture.

What do you think of my idea that the inability in establish class unity was the downfall of the poor family?

I can get on board with this. I do believe love is humanity's highest aim and I do hold learning and teaching in high regard and I can see them as reasonable universals. If you really love a trade or a craft or a subject it makes sense to teach & learn the transfer it and keep it alive.

I do wonder though if a certain craft or activity could be a waste of time though even if it is truly loved. I wonder if humanity's actualization could be better described as a attaining a goal or more like a habit/a way of living.



I'll need to look up these words and I don't mean to be insulting but I don't why you needed to write in latin or greek. I could write in Russian but I wouldn't.

ok so i grew up jewish so... presumably still the abrahamic god, but the jewish god isn't this wonderful, all good, all loving father figure that christians portray him. i mean don't get me wrong, he's "essentially" good in the sense that it all works out for some purpose, but he does directly cause misfortune. i'm not a religious jew, but as far as i can tell from my knowledge of the bible is that the jewish god can occasionally be negotiated with and that he can do good things sometimes but good god do not get him angry.

Isn't the director really suggesting we are ALL parasites? I get that "parasite" is very extreme, but they may just be pointing out that we all rely on each other.

I don't feel comfortable extending his conclusion that far. I just don't think he's saying that all workers are parasites. I can't imagine he'd portray a man who makes an honest day's living as, say, a manual laborer as a parasite. Then there's people who just work for themselves who'd fall outside the scope of what he's saying here about parasitism. The poor family here was quite pernicious.

If we go back to the director's quote: "But if you look at it the other way, you can say that rich family, they're also parasites in terms of labor. They can't even wash dishes, they can't drive themselves, so they leech off the poor family's labor. So both are parasites." - He seems to be saying that wealthy families who employs maid and drivers are parasites..... it doesn't make a lot of sense.