Relatively conservative and liberal values slosh back and forth in the bucket of mainstream American Christian politics. Sometimes some Protestants have been liberal, same for Catholics. There have been progressive Protestants and progressive Catholics; there are more often conservative Protestants and Catholics.

A lot of people have left the church; I suspect many of them took their politics with them. If they were liberal Catholics, they are now liberal ex-Catholics, and visa versa.

But it isn't the mainstream where the danger of Christian Nationalism lies: It's in the extremely conservative branches of Christian political behavior.

The Church hatches a few liberation-oriented movements every now and then. One thinks of liberation theology in South America. Or the Catholic Worker Movement in the United States (it's tiny). Even mainstream Protestants can lay a progressive egg or two and hatch a little progressive flock.

Still, as a group (and it's a big group) American Christians do not buck the system.

The pope seems to be having difficulty running his own shop, never mind the U.S. But Christian Nationalism is a real and present danger. Its main feature is its irrationality. A complaint I heard yesterday: Palm Sunday was not listed on a bank calendar -- proof that the state is trying to suppress Christianity. Other themes: White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat.

Really, just about anything / everything. It's difficult to argue with people who are receiving these crazy bat signals. A lot of Nazi dogma was irrational too -- complete nonsense -- but it tied into inchoate prejudices of various kinds. White Christian nationalism likewise taps into discontents that arise from various sources (like the stresses of scientific rationalism on traditional beliefs; increased economic insecurity; social disruption; unwanted social change, etc. etc. etc.) Right-wing propagandists fan the flames of discontent.

Your 1913 book is a reminder that this kind of conspiratorial thinking is not a new phenomenon in American culture, and it isn't so small and weak that it amounts to only a curiosity. The KKK of the 19th century is gone, but new versions have sprung up: different leaders, different followers, different centers of activity, the same bat-shit kind of thinking.

"Mind the gap!"

Biblical studies are fascinating, partly because there is a critical gap between the content of the New Testament and the events which may have inspired the various authors that cannot now be illuminated, if it ever could have been. This isn't a significant barrier for most believers, while being catnip for scholars.

The real Jesus may not be represented in the Gospels (all sorts of biographical pieces are missing) and that's not a barrier to most believers either, because each believer conjures up the Jesus they need. Believers do the same thing for God.

In all, an excellent thread for Holy Week.

formal education versus autodidact learning: the absence of studied criticism in the latter — jgill

This is quite true. Self-directed learning can turn out very lopsided, just owing to the lack of direction and resistance from other students or teachers. I was not a very reflective student in college, and I wasn't a very reflective student out of college, either. I became a much better 'scholar' after I retired.

The big mistake in my state college experience was my plan to teach English. I just wasn't cut out to be a high school teacher, and was blind to this fact. I don't regret majoring in English; maybe a BA majoring in social science (or sociology/psychology) would have made more sense. I ended up in social service work, where Chaucer and Keats were not all that helpful.

State colleges and Universities are still a pretty good deal. In the 1960s state support of higher education was still strong, and tuition and housing were very affordable.

Let me know your thoughts and any additional knowledge and views on the education system and schools. — pursuitofknowlege

Question: Does education enable children to exceed their parents' economic performance?

Answer: Yes, IF the parents' economic performance has been very good.

Successful, affluent, socially connected parents give their children the means to success through education, social experiences, and connections. Working class parents usually do not themselves achieve economic affluence and extensive connections among the managerial and professional class. Consequently, many working class children match or fail to match their parents economic achievement.

This is especially true given the decline of real wages over the last 50+ years. The post-WWII economic boom which enabled a lot of upward mobility was dead in the water by 1970. After 1970, economic success has become increasingly more difficult.

Question: Is economic success equivalent to Aristotle's "flourishing", achieving the potential of what I could be whilst enjoying and finding value in all the suffering, hardship and pain It would take to get there?

Answer: No, it is not, but a certain level of economic security is necessary to have the leisure to flourish. Wealth isn't necessary, but a balance between income and expenses is. One can choose to live frugally so that one can spend the time needed to flourish intellectually and emotionally. Working 60 hours a week plus commuting time to cover the mortgage, car payment, credit card bills, student loan, plus all the expenses of a family will not leave much time for Aristotelian flourishing,

Wealthy people don't have to balance a small budget. Educated but poor people have to find a way. It is possible, but (especially material) sacrifices have to be made.

At 77, it's been a long time since I was in school, but I've been professionally interested in education. Schools have several functions: teaching basic skills, imparting a minimum body of knowledge, basic vocational preparation, citizen training, crowd control, consumer education, etc. The emphasis varies from school to school.

Children of the upper middle class who will fill managerial and professional roles receive excellent education. Their parents locate themselves in communities where good schools are well financed. Children of the poor get the least in quality and quantity of education. The middle may or may not receive fairly good education, depending on where they live, community standards, etc.

About a third of the population completes a bachelor's degree, which by itself is no longer a ticket to economic success.

I was an unlikely and unpromising college student back in the 1960s. I had not done well in high school and I had no great expectations of a career. Thanks to an intervention, I attended a state college. It was tremendously valuable in terms of acquiring some social skills and general knowledge (I majored in English). The degree itself was still very useful in 1968.

Maybe the most important thing I learned in college was what an education is supposed to be -- and I have continued to pursue it since graduation, sometimes by attending class, mostly through experience and reading.

People would rather convince themselves it's not raining despite being soaking wet if they felt strongly enough and had the ideological motivation to do so. — Outlander

Exactly!!!! One of my elderly sisters, a fundamentalist and Trumper, maintains all sorts of illogical, unreasonable ideas about religion and politics. When countered, she flies into a rage. On other matters, lie medical care or car maintenance, she is very rational.

Now imagine, unbeknownst to this person, that he's actually *bad* at applying reason and logic to things. — flannel jesus

Based on my personal experience of not applying reason and logic to things, I can attest to the unpleasant consequences that can result. However...

Man does not live by logic and reason alone. Our very robust emotional systems are often first on the scene of decision making, and they have little interest in logic.

The only way to get more radical or catastrophic than global economic collapse, is to nuke ourselves. — Vera Mont

Which our dear leaders might just do.

The thing is, "the system" we find ourselves in escapes our control from the beginning. We can't even be precise about what "system" is operating today until some indefinite time in the future.

Nobody announced that the Medieval Age was over and that the Renaissance had begun, The Enlightenment was not televised. There was no notice in the paper that an Industrial Revolution had happened. When did our "modern period" begin? 1600? 1760? 1823? 1880? 1910? 1922? 15 minutes ago?

The system, whether we like it or loathe it, will become something else right under our noses, and we won't register the change. It isn't that we are too stupid to notice: it is that large scale gradual changes are too large for us to notice.

I'm not suggesting the futility of understanding our circumstances. I'm just pointing out that we better understand what happened 100 years ago than we do what is happening right now.

nobody seems to have any idea how direct or control the change — Vera Mont

You put your finger on one of our (humanity's) great problems. We have never known how o direct and control change in a way that benefits the largest number of people, only how to benefit our little group of controllers, and not always then.

We could arrange society, and our daily lives, much differently than we now live them. (Not everyone, but) many people would enjoy a simplified life.

The problem in a mass simplification of life is much like the problem of radically reducing CO2, methane, and other emissions in a short period of time: If (somehow) we could cease all the industrial activity going into wasteful production, transportation, and consumption, we could reduce, slow, and eventually reverse global warming. However, too radical a change in economic structure would be catastrophic. Accidental catastrophe is bad enough, and no one wants to deliberately cause a catastrophe.

Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

One line of American leftist theory is "industrial democracy". The idea is that workers own, control, and operate the productive business of society. Industrial democracy was the core idea of Daniel DeLeon, a 19th /20th century Marxist. The Socialist Labor Party promoted DeLeon's work, but (unfortunately) ended up deep in the weeds of bureaucratic despotism. Their core message was taken up by the New Union Party, which gave up the ghost about 15 years ago.

Industrial Democracy does away with owner-management in favor of worker management.

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". — Vera Mont

Jobs, and work, are necessary because our individual and collective needs do not grow on trees, just waiting to be plucked. Life is quite literally difficult. It's hard to extract food, fiber, and metal from the earth. Our hunter-gatherer forebears were few in number, lived in a moderately abundant environment, and had few requirements beyond food, water, some sort of shelter, a few stone/wood tools, and survival knowledge. They didn't have to spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, hoeing corn, picking cotton, tending cattle, and feeding the chickens. They didn't have to mine iron, smelt aluminum, haul coal, and so on, life was comparatively simple for them.

We've been on a 12,000 year project of making life better or worse, depending on your POV. During the last 150 years, the complexity of life increased a lot.

"Jobs" consist of tasks that have to be repeated continuously over a long period of time. A big share of the tasks that need to be done are complicated enough that one has to learn how to do them, practice them, and be rewarded (intrinsically and extrinsically) enough to keep showing up and doing the same thing over and over.

Got milk? If you do, it's because somebody was milking cows twice a day, every day--doing their jobs. Mail arrived? If it did, it's because thousands of people were doing their job. Drive to the store? If you can it's because many, many people were doing their jobs to make cars, build roads, and haul groceries across country, and putting them on the shelf for you to buy.

"The function of Existentialists values is to liberate humankind from craven fear, petty anxiety and apathy or tedium. Existentialists values intensify consciousness, arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies." — Rob J Kennedy

How does existentialism liberate anyone from 'craven [contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly] fear? Petty anxiety? Apathy? Tedium?

There are various meditation practices that can 'intensify' consciousness.

Is arousing the passions and committing the individual to a cause that will engage their total energies a desirable end? What if the cause is evil?

The program on YouTube dates back to 1961. Nothing wrong with 1961. It's just that "educational television", the video style, soundtrack, and so forth are very dated. I'm an old guy and I remember the period. Ten hours of Hazel the talking head? It sort of looked like more tedium.

One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."

That sounds nice, but from whence came the content of my mind which was capable of grappling with my purpose and meaning? The church, school, parents, peers, etc. had a lot of opportunity to provide content before I got around to defining purpose and meaning. How we exist in the world isn't our choice either -- not for the formative years, anyway. After one has existed for a couple of decades, one can pompously declare one's authentic purpose and meaning, like it was a revelation.

Baloney. People do what they can to get through the day in one piece.

The twentieth century had so much activism for the quest for liberation for women, black people and LGBTIQ people. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Peak activism developed after 80 years of Jim Crow oppression of black people. There was an upwelling of activism which was well led by a core of very talented activists. The 1950s brought a release from the economic restrictions of the 15 years of the great depression and WWII. Women's liberation wasn't triggered solely by The Pill, but it helped a lot. Gay Liberation, like the other liberation movements, had been percolating slowly, and burst out in 1969. There was a synergistic relationship among the various liberations.

Mentioning Bertrand Russell brings up the strong anti-nuclear weapons demonstrations which were perhaps more active in the UK than the US. There was the anti-war movement in the US and the student-led protests in France (don't remember what that was about). It was a heady time!

Did all these movements change policy/behavior in a major way?

They did. But there are limits. Nuclear policy was too massive to be turned aside. 70+ years after Russell was active in anti-nuclear demonstrations, production of new plutonium pits for atomic weapons has started up at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Women's and GLBT liberation panned out pretty well. Black liberation moved mountains, but the fundamental disadvantages imposed on black people in the US are very difficult to remedy.

Success on the one hand; fatigue on the other. There are strong efforts by citizens to slow down climate change, but there are stronger efforts by Big Carbon to keep petroleum front and center; then there is coal and meat production (I'm not a vegetarian).

For myself, it just seems like we are screwed. Triumphant capitalism will solve the problem of global warming as soon as it figures out a way of making it very profitable. So far it hasn't.

I'm old; I will be surprised if I am still here 10 years from now. Maybe my "sell by" date is considerably closer. Keep up your courage.

if sex is “assigned,” then we’ve officially rendered these words meaningless. — Mikie

According to Google Ngram, "gender assigned at birth" didn't show up in print very often until the mid 1980s. "Sex assigned at birth" didn't appear in print until around 2000. Then the curve was almost straight up for both phrases.

When I first encountered trans people in the 1970s, they presented to other people very much the way gay people did: "I'm different than most people; I've been dealing with this difference for a long time and it's difficult; I want to express the 'real me'".

Gay people and transgendered people both had to 'make it up as we went along'.

30 years later, the situation was considerably different for transgendered people. There were now publications, medical support, groups, and politics. Trans people were more likely to take risks and push boundaries. And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!!

Must we resort to Professor Milgram's shocking experiment to illustrate obedience? It isn't that Milgram has been invalidated. His experiment has been replicated with pretty much the same results.

It's just that blind obedience in some common settings is a virtue. We expect people to obey traffic laws--preferably without question. Drive on the correct side of the road below the speed limit, while obeying all the other rules of the road. Failure to do so results in death often enough.

People in ordinary work experiences generally obey the authority figures who supervise them. If they do not, it isn't an actor on the other side of the glass who will be punished. It's the disobedient worker. Quite often it's important that the workers follow instructions exactly. The books won't balance if accounting workers make up their own rules. Steel won't be strong if foundry workers don't follow the formula.

I have not been in a Milgram experiment. I don't know, for sure, how I would respond. My guess is the participants saw no alternative. There was probably no "heads up" alert that they were going to be asked to do something highly questionable. There was probably no discussion in a group before individuals agreed. They walked in to the lab, alone, and were told by an academic agent that they should push the button, again/.

The Milgram experiment reveals the risks of operating in life without a constituency (i.e., a circle of friends or associates who provide feedback on right-behavior). Left to our own devices without a reference group, any one of us can go off the deep end of ethical choices. I was once brought up short by a co-worker who correctly saw my research plan as unethical. She was right -- it was, but before her confrontation I was ready to do it. (It was psychologically invasive, didn't provide for consent, etc.)

BTW, you started yet another good discussion here.

It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. — Jack Cummins

No, you didn't but the psychosocial aspects of rebellion or obedience are very important. Many who chafe under authority are unable to take off their sabots and throw them into the gears, so to speak. This isn't a fault; it's just reality. Over time, non-conformists develop capacity to resist, to man the ramparts, so to speak.

Resistance and rebellion require justification. One has to keep one's mind clear about why one is making the sacrifices required to challenge authority. resisting the system, rebelling... because the system will strike back. Challenging the boss will. as a rule, result in one's firing. Getting fired (especially too often) may result in dire poverty (like, unhoused homelessness). Usually not, but good competent people do end up on the street, even if they didn't rebel.

The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities.... This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression. — Jack Cummins

I'm in favor of 'chosen destinies' over being a slave to tradition and authority. Where, when, and whether one can manage that depends on just how many "chosen destinies" society is willing to tolerate. I grew up in a time when American society was reasonably tolerant -- the '60s and '70. Not so tolerant that rebels were given medals, certainly. Challenging the authority of various institutions was expensive.

But it was possible. Over time it has become more difficult to to challenge the system, and more difficult to bear the costs. In addition to society changing, I was getting too old to put up with the downsides of a precarious existence -- so I settled for as much security as I could eke out.

At some point, rebels retire. They don't become conservatives because they are now living in a high rise elderly apartment. That is the story of the best rebel I knew: he had become homeless and was living in some unidentified space, when somebody hooked him up with social services. Plus he was finally old enough to qualify for senior housing and was literally penniless -- general assistance covered minimal living expenses. He lived the last 7 years in decent housing, finally getting medical care and enough food. He remained a rebel till the end.

Congratulations! You are the first person to use 'antidestablishmentarianism' on TPF. Other than in the context of vocabulary practice, you are one of the few people I have read who used the word in an ordinary sentence.

embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion — Jack Cummins

Usage varies, but some people do not count non-conformity as a form of rebellion. Conformity / non-conformity are not very far apart. One might dress in a non-conforming way without being a dissident in any significant way. On the other hand one can dress with complete conformity and be a bomb-throwing anarchist revolutionary.

I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins

And the conformity enforcer at the office demands to know what right you have to avoid automated robot hood which everybody else accepts!

I am quite sympathetic to your plight. At various times I have found it difficult to blend in, successfully be part of 'the group'. In my case, political views were not the cause. The cause was a set of behaviors and personal flaws. I have been at times and in some important ways, socially incompetent. The personal became political. I gravitated toward out-groups because I fit in with them better.

So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction...

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

Undifferentiated rebelliousness against authority, for example, is probably mostly affliction. We run into somebody's authority no matter what we do.

I define 'rebellion' as material action aimed at degrading the status quo; subverting the dominant paradigm; destroying 'the system'; etc. Nonconformity doesn't cut it, not matter how outré. Anti-war demonstrations are not rebellions. A riot might be a rebellion, if it is aimed at something higher than looting the local Walmart. The Declaration of Independence wasn't rebellion; rebellion was shooting redcoats. Demanding an end to monarchy isn't rebelling. Chopping off Charles I's head was, or Charles III's would be.

Karl Marx had revolutionary ideas, but publishing them was not revolutionary. In his personal life, Uncle Karl was a slob (but Hail Karl Marx, none-the-less). Organizing the working class in London or Detroit was the significant political act.

For most of us, the opportunity to materially rebel will occur at work. In capitalist society, work is where the boss extracts value from workers. Whatever the operation, there is a lot of similarity from office to office, factory to factory, non-profit to non-profit. Engaging in union organizing is a form of rebellion; stealing time or materiel from the boss is another way. Refusal to perform demeaning tasks, especially in front of other workers, is a form of rebellion. Bosses generally do not like confrontations. They prefer workers to do what they are told to do, and shut up about it, thank you very much.

I resisted, rebelled overtly at work several times. Once or twice it had beneficial results. Mostly, though, they were glad to see me gone. covert rebellion (like stealing time for my own purposes) was more successful. I wish I had found ways to rebel more effectively. Better to be part of a pack of wolves rather than a lone-wolf who is easily picked off. Too late now.

Some movements are slippery and pinning them down is difficult. One author said that the behavior of fascists (how they operate) is more important than what they believe. If Huey Long, George Wallace, Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump can all be defined as "populists", then apparently what is unique about populists is how they engage in politics Bernie Sanders and George Wallace are far apart ideologically, but both of them had a mass appeal (just not 'mass' enough to win). They were both 'insurgents'. So was Donald Trump, who did get enough votes (once and never again we hope).

Long, Wallace, and Trump also smelled more than a little like fascists, something I wouldn't say about Perot or Sanders.

The language of "elites" is as screwed up as the language of "class". A sociologist looks at society and sees classes -- working class, middle class, upper class, ruling class, etc. Class is definable by various features (blah blah blah -- you know this, so I won't go on). "Elite" is a familiar adjective when applied to athletes--think gold medal olympians. "Elite" also applies to those who have, guide, and execute power--the Power Elite of money, military, and politics. The power elite is a fraction of the wealthy top class. There may be 5 million people in the wealthiest class, of whom maybe 50,000 compose the power elite. Some of them are technocrats; quite a few of them are extremely successful capitalists; a few of them are politicians (politicians usually come from below the elite classes, but serve the elite if they want to stay in office); some of them are military elite; there are artists who are elite in their field--most of them nowhere near as wealthy as Taylor Swift

The elite class supports both political parties, more or less consistently, but not strictly; they occasionally support counter-cultural movements like the civil rights movement which was bucking the Jim Crow system 70 years ago.

So much of what goes on in society is managed by the power elite directly or indirectly. How much will we give to Ukraine? How much to Israel? Taiwan? How many millions of asylum seekers/border crossers/migrants will we accept? How much will the rich be taxed? How oppressed will the poor be? How much are we going to do, or not do, about global warming? So on and so forth.

The elite are not sitting up there pulling strings; they aren't puppet masters because the masses are not puppets. It's much more a trickle down process, where the stated interests of the elites flow downward from on high through various academic and institutional channels until it reaches the pavement.

It is important to bear in mind that the Elites are not necessarily nice. It may suit them to have someone like Donald Trump stumbling around in the china store; maybe some of them feel that the liberal establishment needs to be braked. One thing IS quite certain -- the ruling class has class consciousness, and they know (in detail) what is good for them. They don't like chaos, loss of control, uncontrolled violence, and so on. They prefer to operate in an orderly society where people do what they are told to do, so up about it, thank you very much.

So, a lot of the discourse about privileged elites, progressives, populists, authoritarians, fascists, and so on is just peripheral chatter.

G. William Domhoff has done extensive research in the American Ruling Class, the power elite, and how it maintains and perpetuates itself. Here is aYouTubetalk by Domhoff. He did his main research and writing decades ago, but got it right. In his later hears he has turned his attention to neurocognition and dreaming.

Maybe it's odd that the United States hasn't had more populist movements?

On the one hand, 'the people' have been ruled by a small elite since the beginning. During many of the past 250 years, the elite has run rampant over 'the people'. On the other hand, the elite has successfully convinced 'the people' that there are no elites (against whom to fight). 'The People' rule! God bless the United States of America!"

Better than not having any elites at all, the American (and other) elites have done a good job depicting themselves as an attractive group of people. The Beautiful Rich are over there having a good time. Why should they not?

Why should they, one might better ask, given that their wealth has been stolen from the labor of the working class (either recently or in the past).

Is there a difference between a leftish populist (maybe Bernie Sanders) and a socialist committed to revolutionary goals? I think so. The socialist revolutionaries may not be in close touch with reality, but they do have a plan, a method, a goal which encompasses the whole population. Where socialists have dry, cold plans, it seems like populists have hot steamy resentments--directed at any number of deserving groups: muslims, immigrants, welfare mothers, women, gays, etc. etc. etc.

No.

No one is isolated from the or their outer world under generally normal circumstances. We aren't just conditioned rats. We are our impulses, desires, urges, fears, etc. etc. etc. It is our striving, conflicting, conflicted nature. That why life is difficult.

See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception. Neither are any other creatures on earth. We can't lose something we never had to begin with. And that's perfectly OK.

...is satisfying your desires such a worthy business? — kudos

It depends on the nature of the desire and the cost of achieving it. Most of us have desires which we do well to leave unsatisfied. .

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. — kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?

During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. — kudos

During earlier times women and children were thought to be innocent. What applied to men and adults didn't apply to them. They were exempt. Human beings--men, women, and children--whatever they might think about their personhood and being, from childhood to senescence, are not innocent. I do not mean they are evil, disfigured by some sort of Calvinistic stain, original sin, or any of that crap. I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence. This is not a bad thing -- it's all necessary for us to become effective agents in our own lives.

Innocence is the perfect dismissal: "Oh, you are too good, too pure, too 'innocent' for the real world." Bullshit!

Sorry, getting carried away here.

I would not.

Did Miss Brontë greatly desire bestial sexual escapades on the mountain top?

I don't have a personal definition. The dictionary says "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

The rituals of the church are no more magical than the various rituals we perform every day, like saying 'hello' to people on the street, or thanking the bus driver for letting us off the bus.

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence? — baker

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.

subconscious thermodynamics — wonderer1

:100:

One of the ways the magic of the eucharist affects reality is that it unites communicants in the magic. The bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ for those who embrace the magical spell, even if the bread and wine maintain their appearance. Taking communion is participating in magic.

Baptism affects reality more subtly. Most Christians are baptized as infants and the magic is performed only once per person and is not redouble or undoable (according to the theology of the churches). Most people will work out the meaning of their magical baptism quite a few years after the act, unless they are baptized as adults. Or, they won't -- in which case, the magic is greatly diminished. The magic of the eucharist comes to naught as well if the individual just 'goes through the motions'.

This is all true for the rituals and magic in daily life as we know it. Air heads miss out on it.

I tend to go for Guiness. — wonderer1

Stella Artois for me. And I like it cold, even though it is a superior European product.

not every ritual is a superstitious one — schopenhauer1

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you") has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual.

What do you think of "psycho-somatic" disorders? This starts getting tricky because the delusions can be subtle. — schopenhauer1

I don't know enough about It. From what I have read, people who have a 'psychosomatic condition' really do feel that something is wrong with them--feel, not just think. They can have real pain from a condition that doesn't actually exist. Some of these can be serious -- like unfortunate people who think one of their limbs actually belongs to somebody else. They don't 'recognize it' as their own.

I'm wondering though if there is a connection between the two. Perhaps the compulsion is a maladaptive form of the superstitious tendency in humans. — schopenhauer1

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away.

If one has OCD, I would suspect that new compulsions will be manufactured out of superstitious ideas -- like the lucky red shirt MUST be worn under various circumstances or something bad will happen.

The sometimes screwy things that go on in our brains (superstition, religious fervor, unreasonable fearfulness or confidence, hallucinations, etc.) could very well be connected -- I just don't know how. The brain is just so damned complicated.

Human cultures were (I am presuming) far more superstitious in previous millennia, and there is a residue that has been preserved into the present time. Some of the residue is preserved by official religious instruction and informal folkways. Some of it is new -- created by accident--Jack got a raise on the day he was wearing a bright red shirt. The shirt had nothing to do with the raise, but Jack associated the two events (quite strongly) and thenceforth thought of the shirt as 'strongly lucky'.

Superstitions are not the same as compulsions. The compulsion to count things isn't superstitious -- it's just slightly crazy. The lucky red shirt isn't crazy -- it's just slightly stupid.

Still, compulsions and superstitions can provide the sense of having control over the world, which tends to be important to us, given that we do not have control over a lot of things. A professor said, "Magic is religion you don't believe in; religion is magic you do believe in." A former priest said. "Nothing fails like prayer." Millions of people believe in the actual effectiveness of prayer (the gods will act) which is magic one believes in. Religious magic is basically superstitious.

So, my take is that many rational, intelligent, educated people feel better when they deploy whatever superstitious magic they believe in. And as luck would have it, things work out well enough often enough to provide support for magical thinking. And when it doesn't, there are other explanations available.

It's a very intriguing figure.

perhaps sex appeal is an art in itself — Lionino

Some people seem to be just naturally saturated with sex appeal, while others can take what they've got and make what they want, or what they think other people want. There is definitely an art to this. There are a few unfortunates who are (to most other people) sexually repellant. Usually this is not something they bear responsibility for. I'm thinking of 2 guys: one was short, had some skeletal / bone problems, very bad teeth, and had a speech impediment. He was a tax accountant. He was reasonably likable, but had zero sex appeal. The other guy was tall and very thin with wild grey hair and a long unkept beard. His nickname was Bicycle Mary -- he rode his bike to the main gay bar in all weather. In addition to looking like a crazy man, his behavior was a little crazy too. Zero sex appeal.

Those were two people out of a thousand.

Tattoos are a popular enhancements. They have come a long way since the days of the classic drunken sailor getting a tattoo he will regret in the morning. Many men are buying tattoos that are artful designs executed with skill (and quite costly). I would prefer people keep their face and neck free of tattooing, but... no accounting for taste.

Vestus virum reddit, the Romans said -- clothes make the man. The well-put-together outfit goes a long way to enhance one's appearance and presence. The guys who show up in black leather and chains are not doing anything different than the guys who show up in Brooks Brothers suits. A jacket and tie can be good bait, just as jeans with holes and a ripped sweatshirt can be.

It's all art, lower case 'a' and quite essential to human interaction.

Body building has a history, of course. 19th century circus acts (strong men lifting very heavy objects) popularized having musculature that was outside the norm. (There were, of course, very strong ag and industrial workers whose physiques were not celebrated.). In the US, Bernarr McFadden promoted "health and fitness". Himself a raw vegetarian, there are something of a "religion" about him.

How defined one's muscles will be depends on type and duration of exercise, amount of sub-cutaneous fat, muscle flexing during posing, and so on. Here's a picture of McFadden as a young mn, already practicing what he preached:

.
Bernarr McFadden

Raw vegetables and weight lifting worked for him. He was 87 when he died in 1955.

A lot of men who post pictures of themselves on Tumblr (and elsewhere) look pretty fit, but often their musculature does not appear with sharp definition. It isn't that they haven't done the work -- I suspect they are not starved enough to get very fine resolution of every vein, follicle, muscle, tendon, and bone

I'm not criticizing them -- I'd be grateful to look half as buffed. In the summer of 92 I did a lot of training for a series of 100 mile bike rides. I had the endurance and strength but not much definition. I was too well nourished, for sure.

Most men probably do muscle building for sex appeal. Most of them are not doing it as "art", even if they achieve beauty. Ballet and modern dance performers maintain their bodies for their art -- as do some other artists--musicians for instance.

Let's move on. I just don't like the word "wisdom". I have no problem with the content of "experience, knowledge, and good judgment". You like the word--wisdom--fine. Keep seeking it.

Our collective problem isn't the term, it's how to get the content.

So counting curiosity out... "The world" is not self-explanatory. Life is difficult. Bad things happen to good people. Inexplicable events happen, without warning, and with usually bad (but sometimes good) consequences. We feel a need to explain the inexplicable and to control nature.

Unlearnéd humans have sought explanations to avoid harms. Over the millennia we didn't make a lot of progress in understanding how nature worked. Then within the last several hundred years we discovered more about the world, and devised more theories about how the world actually worked that turned out to be correct.

Vaclav Smils points out that Newton, et al who extracted some solid principles of understanding the world would not understand much about the modern world, even though gravity, for instance, is still a challenge. The 19th century scientists who probed deeper and developed an understanding of electricity and magnetism, chemistry and atomic structure would be very surprised by the modern world, but they would understand a lot about what we are doing now.

We are safer now in a world we understand much better. Vaccines, storm prediction, quake-proof architecture, and so on make us safer. Of course understanding how to suck up an ocean of oil and burn it has huge down-sides--global warming. But at least we understand WHY there is global warming, and we know WHAT we should do, even if BP, Exxon, Ford, GM, Toyota, and Trump et al stand in the way.

Making life better (or more richly interesting) and survival is why we strive to understand the world.

"Philosophia" meant "love of wisdom" to the Greeks. for us it means

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"

I have never seen an episode of Family Matters.

A lot of words get abused and take on improper meanings. Take genocide. It is horrible. Take war. It is horrible. War and genocide are different things, even though they are both horrible. So I object to calling Israel's war on Gaza "genocide", especially when the word is tossed around in a facile chant, like "you can't run, you can't hide/we charge you with genocide" chanted at the city council of Helena, Montana. Total bullshit.

"Innocence" and "wisdom" have been abused and over used. It isn't the fault of the word, it's the fault of jabbering.

Yes, I find myself on this "love of wisdom" or "study of reality" site, and often think that many of the arcane posts I read have nothing to do with the price of potatoes--aka, reality. But, carry on, gentlemen.

If you're saying that innocence means, in part, being open to rich and interesting experiences, then we are in full agreement. — kudos

Sorry. I don't think I said, and I didn't mean to say that innocence means being open to rich and interesting experiences.

I don't like the terms innocence and wisdom; they're way too loaded to mean much. And I don't think the boss of innocence leads to the gain of wisdom. Innocence is lost early on. Wisdom comes along a lot later and is the result of being 'refined' in the mills of experience.

You know little children and the "Terrible Twos"? Two year olds can be such a pain. Why is that? Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence. All absolutely desirable things!

Innocence is the baby in the cradle. It's a lovely state in some ways, but we don't want to go back to being babies in cradles.

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?