I can't see communism on a large scale at all, unless it evolves naturally through the stages of democratic socialism. And that cannot happen in a monetized economy, because powerful vested interests will do anything to thwart it. — Vera Mont

Yes, I think you're right.

In a system where "the people" (aka the state) owns everything, tyranny is inevitable. — hypericin

Yes, I think so.

I’m immune to poetry — Tom Storm

I admit that Emerson likes fancy-schmancy store-bought words, but I wouldn't consider that poetry. Chuang Tzu, on the other hand, does tend to be poetic, although I think the sentiments he expresses in the quote I provided are pretty prosaic. I think they both ultimately say the same thing - we should act sincerely and authentically from our true human and personal natures. Action comes from inside, not outside. Not to get too personal, but from what I can see from posts here on the forum, you seem to be motivated in that direction more than most of us here. I think living one's life in accordance with what Emerson and Chuang Tzu wrote is a reasonable definition of freedom.

I suspect the greatest bonds and restrictions are those we are not even aware of - our habits and patterns of thought, the way our culture and environment works through us, etc. — Tom Storm

Yes, and I think those are exactly what Emerson and Chuang Tzu are talking about.

deaths caused by self-styled Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. — Vera Mont

It seems plausible to me that any large Communist regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claim.

9 million people die from starvation every year. Should we lay these deaths at the feet of capitalist corporatism? Because I surely do. — Pantagruel

Good point. According to Wikipedia, the lower end of the range of deaths, around 60 million, did not include non-intentional famines.

Communist China tops the list of the worst things the human species has ever done to itself. — frank

Yes, although Wikipedia indicates the Mongol invasion killed between 40 and 65 million, so they're up there too.

Thanks. I downloaded it. Bunge has a bunch of interesting books on subjects I've wondered and spouted off about. If I like this, I'll take a look at some of them too.

Hundreds of thousands killed one another. 'They' just conducted one side and took over when the carnage was done. — Vera Mont

I wasn't talking about the Russian revolution, I was talking about Communism in all it's governmental manifestations - the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia... Wikipedia says that a very uncertain estimate of deaths caused by Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million.

I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? — Outlander

First of all, keep in mind that my opinion is based on "seems to me" rather than specific evidence. Given that, I don't think so. Revenge, security, behavioral control are all pretty human impulses.

relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues — Outlander

I agree that human's have a natural impulse to look out after each other and maybe in a small community where people live with their families and people they know, hat would hold sway. But when the group gets larger those sort of human connections are lost and generalized love of humanity won't get people to work when there is no specific benefit for themselves.

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, — Shawn

Grand? They killed tens, hundreds, of millions of people. There has never been a country ruled by communism that didn't end up being a tyranny. Why? Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above.

This is freedom to me. From Emerson's "Self-Reliance."

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

Or this from Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 17 of the Chuang Tzu, one of the founding documents of Taoism.

So the conduct of a Great Man harms no one, but he places no special value on humankindness and beneficence. His actions are not motivated by profit, but he does not despise those who slavishly subordinate themselves to it. He does not fight over wealth, but he places no special value on yielding and refusing it. He doesn’t depend on others, but he places no special value on self-sufficiency, nor does he despise the greedy and corrupt. If his own conduct is unconventional, he places no special value on eccentricity and uniqueness, and if his own action follows the crowds, he does not despise it as obsequious flattery. All the honors and stipends in the world are not enough to goad him to action, and all its punishments and condemnations are not enough to cause him shame, for he knows that right and wrong cannot be definitively divided, and that no border can be fixed between great and small. — Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi)

Looks really interesting. I looked on line and it's not available for free. Alas. I did download "Causality and Modern Science" from Hoopla of all places. Any good? It's a subject I've pontificated about a lot here on the forum, so maybe it'll help if I actually know something.

Welcome to the forum.

I see a reference to research and observations by an "adequate observer," but no actual research results or observations, just vague general statements without support. That makes the whole essay just a "seems to me" exercise, the content of which happens to match the prejudices of many of us here on the forum.

I was referring to the idea that the self is something more than the experiencing/thinking/aspiring/acting bodymind. — Janus

As long as that includes experiencing/thinking about the bodymind itself.

Agreed, that is to say the self is not anything beyond the experiencing/thinking/acting body. We can be an object to ourselves, and we can also feel ourselves in ways others cannot. The rest is smoke and mirrors. — Janus

I was with you until "The rest is smoke and mirrors." I'm not sure what you're referring to.

And it's always struck me that 'all the other things in this world' are objects of consciousness, whereas I am a subject of experience. — Wayfarer

I may be a subject, but me is an object just like all the others.

When speaking of or naming the self, we are both the speaking self and the one spoken about. — Fire Ologist

It has always struck me that the ability to treat I as me, as just another one of the things in the world, is the essence of consciousness.

I'm with @Philosophim, I don't think what you are talking about is properly called solipsism. I think it's more a kind of idealism.

The existence of an Objective Universe is a mistaken assumption that leads to the above solipsistic interpretations. — Treatid

I don't think it's correct to describe the idea of an objective universe as mistaken. What it really is is metaphysical, what R.G. Collingwood calls an "absolute presupposition" or assumption. Collingwood goes on to say that metaphysical positions aren't true or false, right or wrong. In my words, they are points of view, ways of thinking about things, that are more or less useful at particular times in particular situations. That being said, I think the idea that there is no objective reality can be a very useful way of thinking about the world and our experience of it. I say that as someone who came from science, engineering, and materialism.

How does Buddhism account for this? — Heracloitus

Disclaimer: I know a little bit about everything but not much about anything.

I've read and thought a lot about Taoism - The Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu - but little about Buddhism. I hope it's ok if I take a broader philosophical approach. As I see it, the question of self vs. no-self is metaphysics. To me that means neither is true or untrue, but each may be more or less useful at specific times and in specific situations. They're points of view, ways of thinking about things, not facts. We get to choose which to apply when the question arises.

For me, it helps to think about the self just as if were any old thing in the world, what Taoists call "the 10,000 things." It's no different from a baseball, a proton, or love. It's a concept, something with a name. Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

Your OP brought to mind a couple of things. First, these lyrics from an early Elvis Costello song.

You say you'll never know him
He's an unnatural man
He doesn't want your pleasure
He wants as no one can
He wants to know the names of
All those he's better than — Elvis Costello - Two Little Hitlers

And then this from "Princess Bride."

You didn't respond to my argument. The argument you make here is your usual one and has nothing to do with a veil of ignorance. No reason to take this any further.

it is just factually the case you can never know the kind of life your child will have accurately. — schopenhauer1

That's very different from a "Veil of Ignorance." If it only means that the we can't predict the future perfectly accurately, then it's kind of a useless concept.

Also, personal decision-making process of a single couple is presented here as a rebuttal to a broader philosophical position. — schopenhauer1

No, it's not just a single couple. It's reasonable to say that any prospective parent can know their future child's ethnicity, social status, and their idea of how to lead a good life with reasonable accuracy.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against anti-natalism here, although you know I find the idea repugnant. I'm only arguing that your logic is flawed.

I have recently began my search for my soulmate; and started exploring dating apps. — Bob Ross

My son met his girlfriend on Tinder. They've been together for 3 years and seem like a very good match in personal values and life plans. She's a wonderful person and we've forgiven her for the fact her father voted for Trump. I just provide this to let you know it can be done.

do you know of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance regarding justice and rights? — schopenhauer1

I've heard of it only in the quote and link you provided. As described there, as I noted, it does not apply to antinatalism, since when I choose to have a child I do know the kind of life it is likely to live. My wife and I wouldn't have had children if we didn't think we could give them a good life.

If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance. — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make sense. How could I have a child without knowing the social conditions into which it would be born? If I were the King of Philosophy, I would outlaw thought experiments.

We're changing your name from BC to SP for smarty pants.

Some people are just interested in morality just because they are interested in morality, regardless of practical application. — Apustimelogist

Ok, but I don't understand. Moral philosophy describes how we should treat other people. How can you talk about that without talking about how it works in the real world?

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

I don't agree. Most philosophical thought experiments are silly. To have any value, a thought experiment should take into account the issues we see in the real world. It can still be simple, but it has to be real.

Whether Heidegger was a Nazi or not (for me) may well taint our experience of his work, but it says little or nothing about whether the work is any good. — Tom Storm

Yes.

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

Sorry, I feel like I've waylaid your discussion. I know this wasn't the direction you wanted to take it.

Do you agree that the philosopher must uphold, almost, a fiduciary duty towards the public, in terms of living a certain life? — Shawn

Anyone who accepts anything any philosopher ever says without reflection is a fool. We're not supposed to use philosophy to tell us how to think. We're supposed to use it as a guide to insight. We have to discover the world ourselves. Philosophy is just a road map. We are responsible for what we believe and how it leads us to act, not any philosopher.

So - the philosophy stands on its own feet, although a philosopher's life might lead me to choose whether or not to read their works.

In the light of the video above, where folks were placed in a situation that they really believed that was almost exactly the trolley problem, it is clearly a possible scenario, — unenlightened

How often would that type of scenario actually happen in the real world. Answer - almost never. Given that, why has this become such a centerpiece of moral philosophy?

one has to suspect that you have other reasons to hate it. — unenlightened

Naughty, naughty. You know that questioning motive is not a valid philosophical argument. Perhaps you have another reason to make that kind of argument.

I think this problem is morally irrelevant. — Benkei

Yes, I hate the trolley problem. It's one of those things that gives philosophy a bad name. It's nothing like any person will ever have to face in the real world. I wasn't going to say anything and sidetrack the discussion, but you gave me an opening.

Yes, and not only Europe and China. — Jamal

You just sent me on a 30 minute Wikipedia walk through Mongol and Turkic history in central and western Asia.

[reply

I've been interested in the Mongol's since I was a boy. — Maw

The thing that fascinates me is how big an impact they had on the history of Europe and China and how little we hear about them.

I'll check to see if it is available. Thanks.

I'm not going to participate in your thread because I don't agree with some of your previous points, but I really like the way you set it up. You've made it easier to get at the points you want to examine by making the boundaries of the discussion clear. I wish more people would do that in their OPs.

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art. — ENOAH

That wasn't exactly my point. @flannel jesus wrote

AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication". — flannel jesus

My response was to point out that even if [whatever we call it] created by artificial intelligence isn't art, it still may be worth enjoying, purchasing, appreciating, creating.

This has been an interesting conversation, but I think we have taken it as far as I want to for now.

Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

This is a lie.