You tell me. I just wanted to point out the difference in the two definitions.

Pride in the context of the seven deadly sins is closely related to arrogance and feelings of supremacy, whereas pride nowadays seems to be a synonym for confidence or self-assuredness.

At the point of conception it becomes the parents' responsibility. If they were not ready for that responsibility then they should have used contraception. Now a future person must die because of their complacency.

I'm not anti-abortion, mainly because a lack of such an option potentially creates worse alternatives, but if a child is terminated for reasons other than medical, I think that is an extremely questionable act.

Oh certainly. Buddhist and Taoist philosophy are seen by many as complementary teachings. Zen or Zen Buddhism is a well-known example of a branch of Buddhism that is heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy.

Yes, if you are interested in esoteric philosophy.

The way I look at it, the struggle you speak of is not inherent to life but a result of upbringing. I view Buddhism as a way that could repair that damage.

I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure if that tension inherently exists. I think a lot of it is taught to us at an early age.

I like the Buddhist point of view, which (simplified) says that 'harm' or 'suffering' is a product of unfulfilled desire. In such a philosophy, suffering is not inescapable, and 'good' and 'bad' are simply labels we slap onto things corresponding to our desires.

Oh wow! I am going to check it out right away. Thank you!

What would be the moral way to handle unresolved negative emotions? — schopenhauer1

As for the benign negative emotions: things like physical exercise, talking to a person about the problem, simply counting to ten and taking a big breath.

As for the more deeply rooted negative emotions, it's more complicated. Many people aren't even aware they have them and that they affect their own well-being and that of others. Becoming aware would be the first step, and self-reflection is undoubtedly one of the most important tools for this. For some, self-reflecting may be enough to be at peace with what negative experiences they have had. Others may need psychiatric help.

Also, is it ever appropriate to be mean? — schopenhauer1

I think not. Negative emotions are potentially poisonous to one's own psyche and to those of others. Spreading them creates a cycle; think of the bully that, by bullying others, potentially creates more bullies. I'm sure you are familiar with concepts like the cycle of abuse and the cycle of violence. It benefits no one.

Even as a response to the meanness of another I think it is inappropriate, following the axiom of 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' Repaying immoral behavior with immoral behavior of one's own can never be considered moral or right.

Do you think all mean acts/people come from a place of unresolved conflict in some past event or trauma? — schopenhauer1

Intuitively I would say yes.

Can it be just a general attitude of the person without being from some past event? What happens if one chooses to freely be a mean person vs. some indistinct prior emotional event? — schopenhauer1

The question would be why one desires to intentionally hurt others, and in otherwise healthy human beings I would relate such a desire to unresolved negative emotion.

I would list intentionality as another aspect of 'meanness', come to think of it.

I'm just providing a functional explanation in relation to the topic. The matters you address are complicated and beyond what I wish to discuss.

What do you mean by unresolved negative emotion? — schopenhauer1

Emotions like the ones I mentioned (fear, anger, insecurity) that a person has not found a means to discharge and thus are "trapped" in his mind.

This can be somewhat benign. Lets say I spilled a cup of coffee over my desk and it frustrated me. This emotion then needs to be discharged. I may go for a walk or perform some physical exercise. I may express my frustration verbally towards a colleague. Or I may bottle it up and be moody for the rest of the day. Since the source of frustration is gone, this sort of emotion tends to resolve itself in time.

It can also be more severe in nature. Imagine the same sort of process, but with a heavier emotional load. Perhaps someone has had a difficult relationship with their parents. Perhaps someone was deeply hurt in a relationship. It is possible for such events to become internalized, whereby the actual source of the emotion is gone, but the mind itself becomes the new source. This starts getting in the realm of mental trauma.

This is doing the opposite of the other poster who put the burden of the meanness on the observer (calling it an impression). This is putting the sole focus on the mean person (unresolved negative emotion). — schopenhauer1

That's right.

Should there be any focus on the mean person's action towards the person it is directed at, or are you purposely trying to maintain that the attention should solely be on the mean person, as if an oddity that should just be watched from a distance and have him/her work their negative issues out. — schopenhauer1

I think an action can be mean even if the 'victim' of meanness does not interpret it that way, so mostly the latter. Though, there are certain aspects that we haven't covered yet.

For example, there has to be an aspect of non-consensuality. However, consensuality does not solve everything. Even in a consensual exchange a person can still be mean, like in an abusive relationship. Though, one must ask if such a relationship is truly consensual.

In matters like these it is difficult to speak of "knowing", but my reasoning is simple. Even without or with closed eyes we can still see images. When we dream, for example. The eyes provide input for the mind, but are themselves incapable of producing images.

As far as I know, physiology supports this.

Being mean holds close relation (and is perhaps synonymous) to discharging negative emotions, like frustration, fear or insecurity, onto other people.

While I think meanness is by definition undesirable, I do not think it is indicative of a fundamental character flaw, but instead of unresolved negative emotion. This can be somewhat benign, or it can be rooted in much deeper psychological issues.

Is it good to use as defense against an inconsiderate or insulting verbal attack of some kind? — schopenhauer1

I don't think so. An eye for an eye doesn't just make the whole world blind, but it also erodes one's moral integrity by engaging in the sort of behavior one finds immoral. Such is the debasement of oneself, no matter what kind of a situation it is applied to.

Reduce the brightness of your screen? — Bitter Crank

Done that.

Go to bed instead of staying up all night to haunt the empty crypts of the damned? — Bitter Crank

Never.

I just use the Windows "Magnifier" that came with the PC unit. It is not perfect but does okay for me. I haven't tried the others I see being marketed. — Valentinus

The problem is primarily with brightness, though. Not magnification.

I would strongly recommend against directly looking at a computer screen while wearing one of those. :wink:

I've tried some, but I did not find them very satisfying. YouTube has one built in which is very pleasant, though. Do you have any that you'd recommend?

I'm not sure if it is the sort of view you're looking for, but Plato considered 'God' to be closely linked to the Good and the beautiful. In that sense, the Platonic "god" is omnibenevolent (though the Platonic concept of God or 'the One' is a bit complicated). He also considered the Good to be closely related to reality itself, thus glimpsing the Good was synonymous to glimpsing reality.

Evil did not exist in Plato's philosophy. Plato (or perhaps Socrates in Plato's accounts of him, I don't remember) claimed that all men desire the Good, however most live in ignorance of what is Good. Pursing things that weren't related to the Good was mostly done at one's own peril, because it equals living in ignorance of reality and therefore one would miss out on the experience that is true beauty. This is perhaps what many would call 'evil', though it provides a different angle on the matter.

I think in many views of evil, one is evil because of the harm one does to another. Plato turns it around and says the real harm is being done to oneself. What we perceive as evil is merely an absence of the Good.

I don't see how the spikes, that is the fluctuation which is normal in complex systems, "question the anomalous nature". You can clearly see the trend. That is your answer - the trend is anomalous (and dangerous). — Echarmion

The trend, including the spikes, has started to occur before global carbon emissions were anywhere near the levels they are today. That undermines the assertion that mankind's carbon emissions are the primary cause.

Haven't had time to watch that yet, but the obvious first question is why we, as laymen, feel qualified to question the overwhelming scientific consensus based on watching a YouTube video? If we're basing our views about empirical questions on evidence, an overwhelming scientific consensus ought to be extremely good evidence, no? — Echarmion

The video features scientists that explain why they question the common narrative, using facts, graphs, etc. And there are tons like it. There is no shortage of scientists disputing the common climate change narrative.

What further fuels my skepticism is cases where climate skeptics are silenced and/or lose their jobs because of their concerns. Or how the fact that Michael Mann and his "icehockey graph" was exposed as being a fraud (in court), is kept almost completely silent.

What do the "hysterics" stand to gain? — Echarmion

Heck if I know. What I do know is that it isn't the large powers who are paying the bill for their own pollution. It's mostly small countries and toothless nations like the EU who do.

I'll admit I haven't read through the whole thing, but I've given the summary and some of its chapters an honest look.

One of the graphs that is used (in Ch. 1) to depict the increase in temperature is the following one:



The summary also claims the following:

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

Yet we see a steady upward trend from where the graphs start (~1880), including several spikes, which would question the anomalous nature of what we observe today. I'm curious how one would account for that.

Also, how would one account for some major criticisms of the climate change narrative, some of which are addressed here:

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

I don't necessarily believe everything that is said by 'climate skeptics'. Similarly I don't necessarily believe everything I'm told by 'climate hysterics'. I observe a narrative and a counter-narrative, both of which are quite likely fueled by political agenda.

I don't buy into that either.

I believe that your point was that climate catastrophism was unwarranted [...] — StreetlightX

Yes, that was my second point. I don't believe climate change will lead to the end of the world.

Whatever we do, the climate will change, sometimes dramatically, as it has in the past. Even if we cancel out all of man's influence, this is still a reality. That's my point. Note that it doesn't say man-made climate change doesn't exist, nor does it say there's nothing we can do.

I don't owe you shit. — StreetlightX

You're right. I confused you with Echarmion.

You tried to use a graph of limited usefulness in order to make a bigger point to which it was not suited. — StreetlightX

There was no bigger point, other than

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. — Tzeentch

And I think the source supports that.

I think you have made assumptions about conclusions I 'would like to draw' using that graph. Meanwhile, you owe me a source stating CO2 is the primary factor of temperature and/or climate change.

I didn't include that part, because it has nothing to do with what was presented in the article. You called the data faulty. It is not. I used the graph to show how man has experienced changes in climate in the past (and is virtually guaranteed to do so in the future), as per my last point.

Shitty data?

"Conclusion

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum."

We have physical models telling us roughly how much of an effect how much CO2 in the atmosphere has. According to these models, CO2 is the primary cause. — Echarmion

The climate and temperature are complicated systems; much more complicated than most people realize. The idea that CO2 is the primary factor in either of them is questionable. I would be surprised to find a scientist make such a claim, and there are certainly scientists who would dispute such claims (and I'd be happy to link them).

I agree it will not cause the end of the world. It might cause a whole lot of death though. How many lifes are you willing to risk, and to what end? — Echarmion

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, there will be ice ages, warm-ups, droughts etc. in the future. If that reality hasn't sunk in, we best get used to it sooner rather than later.

If you believe it's questionable, you ought to be able to point out what step in the physical process you think gives rise to the question. — Echarmion

Two things;
- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature.

- The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world.

I'm assuming you're referring to a notable drop in biodiversity?

Ehh... Maybe? What does it have to do with climate change?

So, bringing me back to my three questions:

a) CO2 does not have the physical characteristics that cause it to trap solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere.
b) An increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not strengthen the effect.
or c) CO2 concentrations are not increasing?

What do you think isn't happening? — Echarmion

I've already answered those questions. Our views differ on whether it causes the end of the world or not.

There are plenty of different views about your use of the word "radically".

Do you agree that anthropogenic climate change has a significant impact on the climate, i.e. that it could lead, within a century, to a rise of average temperatures by several degrees? — Echarmion

It's highly questionable whether such a rise in temperature would be caused by man, considering the world has been steadily warming up long before man started burning fossil fuels and we are currently living in a cold period in the Earth's history, making a rises in temperature not just likely, but also inevitable.

Hmm. SO this is based on - hope? — Banno

Healthy skepticism more like. People have been making wild predictions about the climate for a while now. What I find worrying is the rate at which people forget the last charlatan and jump on the new bandwagon.

You are of course sufficiently erudite to be aware that we are already in throws of a mass extinction? — Banno

And the cause of this; climate change?

Puh-lease.

The climate changes both because of natural phenomena and mankind's influence. — Tzeentch

The climate changes both because of natural phenomena and mankind's influence.

It may result in difficulties, the scale of which is probably nowhere near what people are currently claiming. (mass extinction, the end of the world, etc.)

I'm saying there will be no doomsday.

Deny what? Climate change? Only a fool would deny the climate is changing. It has been changing ever since there was a climate on Earth to speak of.

But all this doomsday rhetoric? Pure nonsense. Wasn't the end of the world through rapid climate change already scheduled to happen once in 2008 and then in 2012 as well?

Climate activism is a good little racket. We throw them money, power and fame because we fear the apocalypse, but when the apocalypse doesn’t arrive they can say they prevented it. — NOS4A2

Exactly this.

For they are the brood of Satan! Scheming to bring about mankind's demise!

As the temperature rises, the patricians will seek refuge as polar migrants, or set sail on heavily armed ocean liners.

And they like living in polar climates, I suppose.

The end is nigh! Repent, ye blasphemers, and vote left-wing, lest thou terrible fate may be averted!

Interesting viewpoint.