I would simply caution throwing out that framework prematurely, dig? — Garrett Travers

Ever read Tom Wolfe's article Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny's? It's about a party Leonard Bernstein held for the Black Panthers in 1970. Bernstein would respond "I dig absolutely" to statements made by the Panthers. I'm showing my age by referring to it, and no doubt by thinking of it in response to your question.

Not that you're a Black Panther. In any case, I do dig. Absolutely.

I can give you the right to borrow my lawnmower whenever you require it. — NOS4A2

I don't think you give me a right, though. You allow me to use it; my use is contingent on your consent. I have no right I can exercise regardless of what you want.

Either rights are a commonly understood recognition of the sovereignty of individual boundaries, or, simply put, anything goes. In a world of no rights, one has no business ever arguing for or against any action undertake by a human, as they have no right to do so. — Garrett Travers

I think it quite possible to determine what we, and others, should or should not do without recourse to the concept of "rights." And I think one is able to do so without needing to assume the existence of some right-giving, non-human authority, which I consider a benefit. To assure that things are or are not done, however, is another thing. I can claim the right to do whatever I please, and likewise can claim that others may not do things in violation of my rights. That is what may create a situation where it's impossible to maintain that actions taken may not be taken.

Absent a common understanding, you would say. But what, and where, is that common understanding? Do you think what you conceive to be your rights are recognized by all, and would not be violated by them absent any penalty which you believe is appropriate (and which you may not be able to impose)?

The concept of rights is a useful one for purposes of limiting the power of governments and regulating conduct. But governmental power may be limited without the assertion of a right, by a prohibition for example.

I know I repeat myself, but what the hell, that's what we all do, especially here.

There are no rights but legal rights, e.g. rights having the sanction of law, recognized as such, and which may be enforced through the mechanism of the law. It's sad but true, sorry. What we call "rights" if they're not legal rights are what we think should be legal rights, but are not; which we think should be honored, regardless of whether they are. But what we want, what we think we're entitled to, is simply that and no more, absent incorporation into the law--wanabee legal rights. Why speak of them at all, except in the context of seeking their inclusion in the law? As well declare yourself master of the universe (or sovereign citizen, for that matter).

Philosophers (and others) have, however, dreamed throughout history of a possible "benevolent despot" who would control the "common herd," guide us and teach us and, having done what was required to organize society and enlighten us to the point we could govern ourselves wisely, would give up his powers. Even J.S. Mill, if I recall correctly, thought a benevolent despotism desirable in some cases. Some thought Napoleon would be such a despot. And, of course, we know that Everyone's Favorite Nazi thought Hitler would do the job as well. There seems to be something about some intellectuals which moves them to worship powerful men.

I confess to nostalgia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

My main issue in life is an inability to accept my mortality. — Yvonne

If it's death itself that disturbs you, I think you should consider what it is about death you find disturbing. You already know you will die, and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Are you unable to accept other things beyond your control, such as the fact that you will feel pain or will age? What is it about one thing that's beyond your control which you are unable to accept, while you can accept other things beyond your control?

For my part, I think Epictetus was right. It's essential to our happiness that we know the distinction between what is or is not in our control. Death isn't, but how we live, and how we think of death is. We shouldn't let things beyond our control disturb us, whether it's the fact we'll die or something else inevitable, but instead do the best we can with what's in our control and take the rest as it happens.

“

An individual pursuit in the sense of a way of living, as a life of virtue would be? That I can understand.

The Stoic ethical framework is almost exclusively predicated upon individual behavior. — Garrett Travers

Yes, behavior. Our behavior involves others, necessarily. Behavior in accordance with nature--the rational selection of things according to nature--according to the Stoics, includes the due consideration of the effect of conduct on other beings, which are a part of nature.

I suppose I shouldn't reject that work out of hand, never having read it, much though I find her objectionable. But if I do so some here may demand that I read Heidegger (whom I've repeatedly deplored here and elsewhere) more than I have--a frightening prospect.

I appreciate the references. I fear our ability to understand the ancient world in many respects, especially regarding religious and spiritual considerations (I refer to Greco-Roman world) may be lost forever thanks to the relentless expurgation of it by Christianity. What remains allows us to speculate and infer to a certain extent only regarding what it was and what was believed by its people.

I haven't read the work you referred to earlier. I read her fiction, and The Virtue of Selfishness, and some other odds and ends. My understanding and my recollection is she was very fond of Aristotle, and also, it seems, his great imitator, Aquinas. I prefer Aristotle to Plato, but think Aristotle's perspective on most things to be narrow.

I think Nietzsche could be brilliant and insightful, but whether due to a lack of patience or an excess of emotion he was disinclined to provide reasons for his insights. He was declarative, even imperious. He was a preacher, I think.

However, do your thing. — Garrett Travers

Oh, I will. It's true I'm not fond of Rand. I'm not particularly fond of Frantic Freddie (as I like to call him) either, by the way. I read a good deal of both Rand and Nietzsche years ago. I think the Sturm und Drang movement continues, and they're both representatives of it in their own way. It had an appeal to me for a time, but no more. But we venture too far beyond this thread.

Come now. What do you think "Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion" means? Plainly, it asserts a similarity between them and how they're interpreted, the one in relation to philosophy, the one in relation to religion. That's what I address. This similarity need not relate to the quality or coherence of their beliefs; it may refer to their status, their impact, their characters, the character of their followers, their biographical data, their reception by others.

You'll find Rand has been discussed in quite a few threads in this forum. There may be those who would be interested in her philosophy. I'm not one of them.

I wonder what Scientologists think about L. Ron Hubbard. I suspect they feel about him much like you feel about Rand.

He looked into the abyss, then turned and waved his bare arse at it. — Banno

Far better than thinking the abyss looks back at you, or weeping over life, expounding on meaninglessness or crying "woe is me!"

There is something virtuous, or at least admirable, about facing the inevitable without care or with a laugh. Certainly that was the case with the Romans. I wonder if that's the case because bravery is admired or useless misery and weakness despised.

The fact that a ten dollar note is money is not a property of the physical paper. In 5000 years whatever nation backs it will have long since collapsed, the piece of paper will only have the historical curiosity of once having been money. No matter how well preserved it is. — hypericin

It will be a historical curiosity, and interesting, not because it is a piece of paper but because it was money. What significance would it have then, or would it have had in the past, as a piece of paper? Imagine the museum exhibit: "Piece of paper."

Thank you.

I think love of another person can become cold when subordinated to an ideal.

This can be seen from the fact that a ten dollar note is a valueless piece of paper unless those involved in the transaction have trust in it's value. — Banno

If a ten dollar note (money) isn't a ten dollar note (money), what is it? Something else, which we merely treat as if it were a ten dollar note (money)? The "ten dollar note in itself"?

I'm well known in this forum as being inclined to mock and disparage Heidegger at every opportunity, and this inclination has, I fear, made some angry. The general approach of his admirers has been to distinguish the man from the philosopher, something I find difficult to do. I think him a loathsome person, and that may make me disposed to reject his work. So, I'm probably not his most impartial critic.

But what I've been able to read, and (I think) understand, of his work seems to me unremarkable, and Romantic, mystic and peculiarly nationalistic. Deutschland seem to him uber alles indeed--Germans if they aren't the Master Race are destined to save humanity. It has to do with their "Being" I think. This may account for his seemingly worshipful attitude towards Hitler.

I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven. — T Clark

If only he had done something for the law, I might forgive him too.

Dewey famously wrote that we only really begin to think when we encounter a problem, broadly defined as a question raised in the course of life or situation we find dissatisfying and wish to alter. He called the methods by which we successfully resolve problems "inquiry" which would include the scientific method and logic (Russell, who thought the only real logic was what he wrote of, found this objectionable). Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. The problem defines the ends in view--what is to be resolved, and why we wish to resolve it. It also defines the circumstances and suggests the method by which a resolution may be reached.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say).

I can't preclude the possibility Mary Kane is internally pressurized to relinquish custody of Charlie due to a greedy desire for great wealth. — ucarr

There's a real ambiguity in the scene, (which I think is a powerful one--Agnes Moorhead was superb in that brief role). The mother seems stern and cold, except in those moments when she's protecting Charlie, and holding him. Note that it's the father who becomes less insistent that Charlie stay when he learns that they (or rather the mother) would be receiving $50,000 a year, though the bulk of the funds were held in trust for Charlie. He also complains that if Charlie leaves people will think it's because he's a bad father.

So, I think there's a suggestion that the father has been a poor one, possibly due to drink, and inclined to abuse when angered. It's only my interpretation, but I think that the mother has steeled herself to give up her child to thinking to protect him and give him opportunities he wouldn't have at home, and this makes her appear emotionless. But in fact the unfortunate result is that he comes to hate his guardian/trustee/father-figure, and grows to maturity without parental love, seeking love through money and power. Just my guess at the thought underlying a great work of art.

In the ancient world there was considerably more social stratification, and the hoi polloi were held in low regard. (I wonder if you see echoes of that in Heidegger's conception of 'das man'? Is that the element in Heidegger that is said to be proto-fascist?) — Wayfarer

The hoi polloi dealt with and were bound by, and a part of, the immutable, changing, practical word. Therefore, the unchanging, perfect truth, good, etc., was inaccessible to them. Plato and Aristotle were convinced the world in which we live is imperfect, and there must be something underlying it or transcending it which was perfect. Only the perfect was truly significant; only its contemplation was worthy.

As for Heidegger, I thought his concept of das man derived from the fact he'd constantly yell "You da man!" whenever he saw Hitler or some higher-ranking Nazi. But I could be wrong.

Charlie pushes Thatcher into the snow, using Rosebud. Father takes a swing at Charlie, but misses. Then--
Father: "Sorry, Mr. Thatcher. What that kid needs is a good thrashing!"
Mother: "Is that what you think, Jim?"
Father: "Yes"
Mother: "That's why he's going to be brought up where you can't get at him."

Charlie pushes Thatcher into the snow, using Rosebud. Father takes a swing at Charlie, but misses. Then--
Father: "Sorry, Mr. Thatcher. What that kid needs is a good thrashing!"
Mother: "Is that what you think, Jim?"
Father: "Yes"
Mother: "That's why he's going to be brought up where you can't get at him."

In particular how does one meet local people to talk to about big topics about morality and existence? — TiredThinker

You go to the nearest church, I'm afraid. The priest, minister, pastor or whatever will talk about them, I'm sure.

Consider Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane, a happy boy playing outside in the snow with Rosebud, his sled, learns that his completely insane mother, trading him in for money, has packed him off to New York under proprietorship of Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker.

This is "parenting" without self-sacrifice. — ucarr

There's no indication the mother is insane in the film. Also, she already had money, and clearly wasn't trading him in to obtain more. Thatcher was a hired man. I thought the scene made it apparent that Charles was being sent away because the mother feared what the father (or step-father, perhaps) would do to him.

I think you must find a different example to support your theory. There must be one out there, somewhere. Maybe something from Dickens. He had the requisite sentimentality.

Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

Some of them do, for something in any case.

I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. — TiredThinker

I'm not sure what those topics may be. But if you confront people about large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions, it shouldn't be too surprising that you find that people are inclined to avoid you if possible, or to change the subject. I've been in places where, if you tried to engage others in conversations about the reality of the external world, you'd likely be punched or beaten with a pool cue, which I think would be a more effective refutation of Berkeley than that of Dr. Johnson. In fairness to Johnson, I think he would have used a pool cue on Berkeley if the bishop-philosopher was present and a pool cue was handy.

You had to mention Ayn Rand. When she's mentioned, I'm obliged to repeat that Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

Self-love is a fault. When it comes to self-love, Ayn Rand is a kind of archetype; nay, a totem, brandished by the selfish to ward off the monster of selflessness.

But I see no connection between atheism and solipsism. Atheists know quite well there are others in the universe; they simply think there's no God there as well.

It's interesting that ancient philosophers taught that death was nothing to be feared, and should be faced with acceptance and even cheerfully. I refer to Epicurus and the Stoics. Lucretius thought Epicurus a great benefactor of humanity for delivering us from the fear of death. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius both felt that death was something we should accept willingly though it was not something desirable to be pursued by someone eagerly ("like a Christian" as the Emperor wrote).

Epicureanism and Stoicism were the most popular philosophical schools during the Roman Empire, and the idea that it was noble or virtuous to have "contempt for death" may have accounted for some of their popularity.

Here's Cicero on gladiators in his Tusculan Disputations, Book I, On Contempt for Death:

What wounds will the gladiators bear, who are either barbarians, or the very dregs of mankind! How do they, who are trained to it, prefer being wounded to basely avoiding it! How often do they prove that they consider nothing but the giving satisfaction to their masters or to the people! for when covered with wounds, they send to their masters to learn their pleasure: if it is their will, they are ready to lie down and die. What gladiator, of even moderate reputation, ever gave a sigh? who ever turned pale? who ever disgraced himself either in the actual combat, or even when about to die? who that had been defeated ever drew in his neck to avoid the stroke of death? So great is the force of practice, deliberation, and custom! Shall this, then, be done by

A Samnite rascal, worthy of his trade;

and shall a man born to glory have so soft a part in his soul as not to be able to fortify it by reason and reflection? The sight of the gladiators’ combats is by some looked on as cruel and inhuman, and I do not know, as it is at present managed, but it may be so; but when the guilty fought, we might receive by our ears perhaps (but certainly by our eyes we could not) better training to harden us against pain and death.

It was therefore admirable, even desirable, to bravely face pain and death, and the gladiators provided examples of this courage although they were barbarians or the "very dregs of mankind." How could a Roman citizen do otherwise and not be ashamed? The games were considered by some to be a learning device by which spectators were made better in some sense, even though the games were cruel and inhuman.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? It's been portrayed as admirable, at least, even into modern times.

No women have founded a religion — Agent Smith

Why should they bother? They create those who create religions.

The belief that the Second Amendment right is absolute is of course silly.

I'm curious why you're seeking an ethical view. No ethical argument will decrease the totemic regard many Americans have for guns or their justified use, nor will it impact the law significantly. Sad to say, I doubt any ethical view arrived at or adopted by the White House will make a difference in the number of casualties

it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

I can't help but wonder just how it would be established that someone is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self-defense, ethically. There are circumstances where that might be established easily; other circumstances where it wouldn't be clear. And, just what is "non-lethal self-defense" supposed to mean? Is non-lethal self-defense any kind of self-defense that doesn't result in death? If so, that could include the use of guns for defense. Would non-lethal self-defense preclude the use of anything that could cause death (a knife, a club, etc.)?

There must have been smoke, for me, for any kind of drug but for alcohol, which I rather like smokey as well. Smoked tobacco far too much, but that was in the past. I miss pipe smoking; tobacco, I mean, though pipes were otherwise useful as well. I always wanted to meet the Peyote Man, but it seems projectile vomiting is required for a meeting with him, and I do like to appear insouciant when introduced to anyone. I can't think of a way to give that appearance while vomiting.

Check out Thelonious Monk, Yusef Lateef and Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Miles Davis of course.

Maybe this would help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40OEBuIZdM

Here's a thought about the Roman games, and pagan life generally.

In the Greco-Roman world, before Christianity crushed most of it into the dust, the afterlife was generally considered to be rather dreary and gray, even for the good among us (unless we became gods, as mortals would sometimes do). In other words, it had no appeal to the living. It wasn't something we desired.

So, we judged our worth by glory and virtue in life. Glory consisted of renown for acts done while living. Glory was achieved through courage, bravery, skill--it could not to be achieved when among the dull dead, but one's glory would be remembered by the living. One's death could be glorious. Even a gladiator's death.

For those who are into it, there’s quite a resurgence of enacting the Ancient Roman dictum of “bread (like fast food for those who can’t afford better) and circus (like the both literal and figurative bloodsports that surround)” … this in our oh so civilized society, so as to keep the vast majority of us appeased in times of ever-increasing want. — javra

For those who don't know, it's phrase taken from Juvenal, writing about 100 A.D. or C.E. or somewhat later (oddly, during the reigns of the Antonine Emperors, generally considered "good" Emperors, but the dole and public games had been a feature of Roman life for a couple of centuries by then):

They shed their sense of responsibility
Long ago, when they lost their votes, and the bribes; the mob
That used to grant power, high office, the legions, everything,
Curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only, Bread and circuses.
‘I hear that many will perish.’ ‘No doubt,
The furnace is huge.'”

I think there’s a difference between physically exerting your strength over another person and learning a skill like playing an instrument. It may not be PC to say, but I think a lot of men particularly have a need to exert their strength; whether it’s through violence, physical labor, or exercise. — Pinprick

An uncomfortable truth, I think. There's something peculiarly male about this, for good or ill. For example, although there were female gladiators, they were uncommon and a kind of novelty. It may be that the Roman games were exceedingly popular because Rome was a military society--service in the legions was expected even of senators; it was part of the cursus honorium, the course by which senators attained respect and prominence.

Admiration and respect for fighters, how they fought and how they died, can be seen in warrior societies as well.

This may be changing, as some women seem to be becoming interested in combat sports, and the idea isn't as taboo as it once was.