I wish I’d be – or at least find reason to be – more optimistic about the times we’re living in. I’m not. And I haven’t even started on the increasing calamities which will accompany increased global warming. — javra
Justice here is no longer that which is seen as applying to all equally (justice for all) but, instead, is that which empowers one’s own agendas so as to conquer all those that oppose your own will, this irrespective of the double standards involved. — javra
As far as my personal observations and perspectives go:
Anti-democratic sentiments have been simmering for quite some time in certain aspects of the US, in all sorts of ways. From not wanting to partake in civic duties (e.g., in jury duty) to an outright denouncement of democracy as a system of governance.
Many, maybe too many, people value authoritarian power. Deeming the populace (of which one might say they too belong to) to be idiots and blindly led sheep. That thereby need to be domineered.
Bad parenting – e.g., parents who laugh at teachers who tell them to restrain their children from cursing in school (to say the least) – tends to result in more selfish adolescents who put their own narrow and selfish interests before those of all others without much if any empathy for others, and with bullying on the rise, sometimes taking extreme forms. Which in turn leads to even more bad parenting.
Justice here is no longer that which is seen as applying to all equally (justice for all) but, instead, is that which empowers one’s own agendas so as to conquer all those that oppose your own will, this irrespective of the double standards involved.
The next generation of adults then hold these attitudes that were accumulated during their formative years, and then they vote, often this to empower authoritarian causes.
Then, there’s the vested interest of the authoritarian powers that be – political, economic, makes no significant difference – that the plebs at large are as uneducated and as fragmented as possible (no sense of community or solidarity among the plebs). Not only does this deprive commoners of any nobility of being but, more to the point, it facilitates greater capacity for authoritarian power-over and the financial wealth thereby accumulated – this, again, by the authoritarian powers that be. And all this is pivoted on an economy that is a global Ponzi scheme of sorts: a global economy that assumes infinite growth via infinite resources (by which new entrepreneurs supposedly have a chance to themselves get as big as the the biggest). And, as with all pyramid schemes, it will eventually go bust – but, here, on a global scale of economic devastation.
I wish I’d be – or at least find reason to be – more optimistic about the times we’re living in. I’m not. And I haven’t even started on the increasing calamities which will accompany increased global warming.
Unless a global cataclysm – e.g., a nuclear catastrophe, but there are other means of accomplishing the same cataclysm – reverts all of humanity back to segregated hunter-gather tribes of a dozen people or so – this being something which seems extremely unlikely, to not mention utterly undesirable, such as due to all the advances that will then be lost – in time there will indeed be a global governance. I’m thinking in terms of a few generations from now, more or less – but not in terms of millennia. Like the notion of not, it’s inevitable – this given our ever increasing interconnectedness via technology, economy, and the like. That stated, the concern here is that this global governance will not be a democratic republic, one that thereby aims for optimal justice for all citizens of the planet and seeks to give all citizens an equal voice in how they get to be governed. But that, instead, this global governance will turn out to be fully Orwellian, with pervasive fascistic structures and with injustices galore. And if such authoritarian power is ever acquired over all others on a global scale, it will be unimaginably hard to do away with.
As backdrop to this forethought, as things currently stand, globally, governments are turning increasingly authoritarian – this, obviously, on the backs of many who then unjustly suffer or else unjustly die.
I don’t mean to bum you or anyone else out by all this – and I’m sure some will find the just stated an all too laughable fantasy or, else, see no problems with authoritarian governance to begin with. It’s just that, while I view some humanitarian causes lost in the relative short-term, in the long-term I yet find that there is yet much to struggle for. This, at least, for those who care about future generations of children and the like. — javra
Many, maybe too many, people value authoritarian power.
Bad parenting – e.g., parents who laugh at teachers who tell them to restrain their children from cursing in school (to say the least) – tends to result in more selfish adolescents who put their own narrow and selfish interests before those of all others without much if any empathy for others, and with bullying on the rise, sometimes taking extreme forms. Which in turn leads to even more bad parenting.
Are you sure? The subject of this thread is the writing of philosophical essay.
Maybe you can write one on what the problem with philosophy is. — Vera Mont
I hope that you do not get pneumonia. What governments don't seem to be paying attention to is the way that social conditions affect mental and physical health. In England, there is a drive to get people back to work but without attention to why they are getting sick. But, I won't say too much in this specific thread other than to say that the role of the philosopher may be to look in a more analytical way, drawing together ideas from various disciplines, with clear arguments.
It's probably not a topic that I would pursue for this particular activity in though, as I think that it watching too much news which contributed to me getting unwell recently. Not that I wish to side-step politics. I nearly started a thread on it while in hospital but decided it would probably make me deteriorate if I did it at this moment. All in good time and right place. If anything, I see the question of so much trouble as raising the issue of collapse or potential transformation. But I am sure that I have said this many times in various threads. Of course, it is an area which you, or someone else could tackle for this activity in a unique way. — Jack Cummins
Help me here, I am fixated on being a citizen as a human experience and as it was warned when entered WWI, speaking of the German model of bureaucracy it crushes individual liberty and power.Of course, it is an area which you, or someone else could tackle for this activity in a unique way. — Jack Cummins
Seems to me that those who don't feel safe will not speak up against authoritarianism and fascism because of this very concern or else fear. Whereas those who don't see any problems with authoritarianism and fascism - maybe due to believing these to work in their favor - will not have any reason to speak up against them. — javra
Hello, I am extremely worried about human civilisation collapsing, with the current world leaders we have. I have been depressed about it since November and December. At first, I was it was affecting my mental health and I dreamt of the end of civilisation a couple of months ago. Then, I got ill physically and have ended up in hospital with a chest infection, on oxygen. I also still feel worried about civilisation collapsing, while lying in hospital.
If I do write an essay for this, I think, it may be hard to formulate this topic into a clear philosophy argument, as I saw by the response by RussellA. Part of the difficulty is translating experience, the anecdotal and intuition into the formula of philosophy arguments. This may be the biggest challenge of the competition, as opposed to literary writing in creative writing activities. — Jack Cummins
The good thing about a philosophical essay is that the author needs to defend their thesis using a clear and well structured argument, critically analyse the evidence and show that their premises are true and that their argument is valid. — RussellA
Yes, a critique of academic elitism may be worth exploring. I am not sure whether I feel up to it, but you never know and, maybe, someone will. — Jack Cummins
What do you mean by "we are spiritual beings in a spiritual reality"? — Truth Seeker
I think that's a bit harsh. I would say that humans are a mixture of rationality and irrationality, just like other animals. But their capacity to harm the world around them is greater than animals, so their irrationality is more damaging than the irrationality of other animals. — Ludwig V
Your argument, 'honest awareness of war can end war' is important to consider. That is because it is the devastating consequences of war which lead to it being stopped. If those engaged in it do not reflect it can be continued mindlessly. Ideas of patriotism and fighting for entitlement may blind people to be the suffering involved physically and psychologically. — Jack Cummins
War is then natural, man being by nature a warmaker — Jack Cummins
That's a big, even central, issue about language. For example, there is some sense in saying that if my dog's name is Eddy, "Eddy" stands in as proxy for the dog. But I don't think it helps to insist that "1" stands in as proxy for the number 1 or "Pegasus" as proxy for Pegasus. The philosophical issue of nominlaism vs realism as an account of universals (abstractions) is precisely about this. — Ludwig V
nominlaism- the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam. Oxford Languages
Yes. That's part of it. There's also the transition between. There are also different kinds of languages consisting of different kinds of meaningful behaviours, marks, utterances, etc.
Indeed, what counts as language matters in more than one way. — creativesoul
The theory is that individuals are subconsciously attracted to the body odors of potential partners with dissimilar MHC genes. This preference is believed to be detected through scent, which serves as a cue for genetic compatibility.
https://myotape.com/blogs/articles/the-intriguing-science-behind-smell-and-partner-choice#:~:text=The%20theory%20is%20that%20individuals,related%20odors%20influence%20mate%20choice.
Knowing where to get food is not the same as knowing that one's own belief is false.
The claim was that walking away from an empty food bowl counts as recognition that the prior belief(that the bowl had food in it) was false.
What is involved in the process of recognizing that one's own belief about whether or not there is food in the bowl is false? It requires drawing a distinction between one's own belief and what the belief is about. This process, at a bare minimum, requires thinking about one's own belief as a subject matter in and of itself, which in turn requires a way to do so. We do that with words, which stand in as proxy, for the belief. How can an animal without naming and descriptive practices invent/create a meaningful utterance which stands in place of its own belief? That must be done prior to comparing that belief to the world. It is only via such a comparison that one can recognize that their own belief is either true or false. — creativesoul
I find it curious that you agree and then immediately misattribute meaning to the dog, based upon the dog's behaviour. Your dog's walking away from an empty food bowl may count as a recognition that it's
belief was false according to your criterion for what counts as such belief, but not mine. — creativesoul
No-one seems to recognize that punishment only works if the person being punished takes it the right way. — Ludwig V
Our instincts are mediated through the social and practical rules that we have learnt, — Ludwig V
e can explain the instincts as rational, not from the point of view of the animal, but from the point of view of the evolutionary pressure to survive and reproduce. — Ludwig V
That is probably the biggest difficulty. I have some ideas about how to respond to it, but will have to try to articulate them later. — Ludwig V
He also needs to understand that (2) if he does not kill chickens, Janus wll not be displeased with him. — Ludwig V
That's very helpful. It clarifies what you meant when you said that all belief and thought consists of correlations. — Ludwig V
Creatures are capable of those things. If logical/valid conclusions contradict that, then the presuppositions/unspoken assumptions underwriting that train of thought are somehow mistaken. — creativesoul
Herewith my last post on the opening question
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=are+crows+smarter+than+your+seven-year-old — Vera Mont
I don't think anyone seriously wants to reject the idea that the male bird of paradise builds his bower in order to attract a female. But creativesoul is also right to observe that that purpose is not necessarily the bird's motivation. We ought to know this, since the same issue can be observed in human beings. Display behaviour can be observed in both males and female human beings, but it does not follow that they are motivated by the desire to make babies (though they may be, sometimes). Human beings can tell us what their motivation is, but the birds cannot. It seems to me, in fact, most likely that the birds just feel like building a bower, finding it a satisfactory and worth-while thing to do - just as so much display behaviour in human beings is done only because they feel that it is a worth-while thing to do.
But there is no doubt that such behaviour serves an evolutionary purpose. What's more, it explains the behaviour as rational; "feeling like it" doesn't explain anything. — Ludwig V
The sexual response cycle refers to the sequence of physical and emotional changes that occur as a person becomes sexually aroused and participates in sexually stimulating activities, including intercourse and masturbation. Knowing how your body responds during each phase of the cycle can enhance your relationship and help you pinpoint the cause of any sexual problems.
https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/sexual-health-your-guide-to-sexual-response-cycle
Yeah, that sucks. That's never a good thing. Some people are incapable of calmly expressing themselves. The current state of American culture/politics is making things far worse. Complete and total disrespect for others is not only glorified, its financially rewarded.
You seem like a nice person. Hopefully your days improve. — creativesoul
https://chimpsnw.org/2023/02/conflict-and-reconciliation-2/
But perhaps most importantly, I want to show you how they make up afterwards. Chimp societies wouldn’t hold together very long if the individuals within them didn’t have the capacity to reconcile, and that is the saving grace for both the chimpanzees themselves and our own ability to care for them. Because no matter how bad things get, they usually find a way to move forward together.
Sorry about your Thanksgiving. Indeed, a lot of negative possibilities come along with our mental capacity. And the negative crap is, like Yoda said about the Dark Side, quicker, easier, more seductive. — Patterner
Were you still speaking to me when you said this? — Patterner
Let me rephrase. There is a significant difference between our species and every other species.
Bats are the only mammals that can fly. I'm not saying bats are not mammals. — Patterner
The scientific name for modern humans is Homo sapiens.
Explanation: "Homo" refers to the genus "human" and "sapiens" means "wise" in Latin, so "Homo sapiens" translates to "wise man"
Homo (from Latin homō 'human') is a genus of great ape (family Hominidae) that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses only a single extant species, Homo sapiens (modern humans), along with a number of extinct species (collectively called archaic humans) classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans; these include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago.[a] Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus.[4] The closest living relatives of Homo are of the genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7-11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.[5]
When other species have been in close contact with us for millennia, watching and hearing the things we do and how we do them, us attempting to teach them, what other explanation could there be? — Patterner
I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. — Patterner
philosophers think that linguistic behaviour is, in some way that escapes me, something different from behaviour. I can't think why.
— Ludwig V
Might have something to do with the fact that not all behaviour involves using language. All linguistic behaviour does. — creativesoul
However, my speech acts are meaningful to myself and others (including my dog), so there may well be something to the comparison. — Ludwig V
Wolves mean a lot to the Native American community and it is a dominant role in the Ojibwe tribe. In the Ojibwe tribe creation story, wolves are often described as family members to the tribe. Wolves were referred to as a brother or sister along with a perception that if whatever happens to the wolves, it will happen to one of the Ojibwe tribe, they also traveled the world together and spoke the same language.[4] They have a strong relationship tied with the wolves because wolves are a symbol of their culture and tradition. https://wildwisconsinwolves.omeka.net/natives#:~:text=In%20the%20Ojibwe%20tribe%20creation,and%20spoke%20the%20same%20language.
