Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

I don't understand. My posts have been all about science including the response to the pandemic in particular. I don't see how that is off topic at all. I went back and checked all my posts in this thread for the last 3 days and couldn't find anything about race or god. Did I miss one?

What have been the most worthwhile threads on the forums? — Banno

Obviously, the threads/posts I identify are the ones that have meant the most to me personally.

First - Beautiful Things. Sorry, it's one I started. I was surprised, more than surprised, at how much this one meant to me. A lot of other people I liked and respected contributed. I still go back from time to time to look at all the things people chose.

On the transition from non-life to life started by @javra three years ago. In that thread, @apokrisis recommended "Life's Ratchet," a book that changed the way I see life, science, and reality.

I don't remember the thread. In it @StreetlightX wrote some posts about how genes interact to express as traits. Again, it changed the way I think about how the world works - how complex processes interact to lead to unified systems.

I find most of western philosophy hard to take seriously sometimes. Needlessly complex, but unclear. In several threads, I was moved by how these guys - Kant, Schopenhaur, you know, those guys, had made big impacts on people's lives in very personal ways. I remember a couple of discussions with TimeLine in particular.

I've always liked @fdrake's posts about science and statistics. He can really cut through the crap.

I like @Wayfarer's posts. He and I seem to be trying to walk the same tightrope between science and inner experience. He definitely leaves me behind sometimes. A bit too...spiritual. That's not right. I'm not sure of the right word.

I do love my My favorite verses from the Tao Te Ching. It's slowed way down now, but I still plan to keep it chugging along.

An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics. Another of mine. In it, @tim wood steered me toward Collinwood's "An Essay on Metaphysics," which really has helped me with my understanding.

Geez, no fair responding to my posts from deep in the past. I've probably changed my mind since then.

He finally admitted it after a year denying it, and there has been no new evidence. The evidence was there all along, as were the many reputable scientists pointing that out all year. All that's changed is that the MSM can no longer keep a lid on the truth. — fishfry

I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond in any detail. Here is a summary from Newsweek that summarizes Fauci's comments on the origin. His comments seem straightforward and reasonable to me. Of course Newsweek is part of the "MSM."

In terms of the response, not much difference at all. — fishfry

That's what matters to me. That's where the science has made a difference.

In terms of preventing the next similar incident, it makes all the difference in the world. — fishfry

Agreed. I am skeptical of your contention that there is any intended coverup.

The Federalist has a conservative take on the news, but I would not call them a knee-jerk right-wing rag, — fishfry

I repeat - they endorsed and promoted the stolen election story. They denied the seriousness of the Covid pandemic. Nuff said.

unless you also admitted that by the same criterion, the NYT is a knee-jerk left-wing rag. — fishfry

I do not consider the NYT an unbiased source of information on the political ramifications of this issue and others.

Panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses. — fishfry

What you call "panic and hysteria" I call a reasonable and fairly effective response to the situation. To the extent it wasn't, that was caused by political interference by the Republican Party in general and Donald Trump in particular.

John Kass wrote a piece about this. The Wuhan Story That Finally Has Legs, Now That Trump Is Gone — fishfry

I read the article and found it unconvincing. The fact that you seem to find the origin story more important than the response story does not make sense to me.

This is very important in a thread about the goodness of science. — fishfry

Now that's science. It can feed you or gas you to death. It can cure your disease, or give you a disease that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Science is a double-edged sword. — fishfry

I was commenting on several specific comments you made about the Covid response, not on the value of science. In my previous posts I have expressed concerns about the possible consequences of scientific "progress."

Banned Zenny for refusing moderation by repeatedly posting off-topic posts in the religion thread — Baden

Gonna ban me too?

empirically right. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure what that means.

I’m always suspicious of people who “wear their religion on their sleeves” — praxis

I'm not.

No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread. — Baden

So then, the answer is "yes." If I don't say the things you want, you will stop me from writing in this thread.

The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid. — Baden

It's not clear to me. Are you threatening to stop my posts on this subject?

For the record - @baker wrote that few Christians actually believe in God. I responded describing my experience in the southern US. @180 Proof responded describing the characteristics of white southerners in his usual extravagant way - with lots of bolded words and insults. Then I responded saying that you and your co-ideologs would not allow that to be said about any group other than whites, which is true. I never mentioned religious prejudice, as you incorrectly stated.

I'll ask again, are you threatening to shut down my voice because I don't toe your party line.

@Tom Storm and @baker said not many religious followers actually believe in God. I said that is not true. I don't see how anything you've written has any relevance to that.

@Baden and his social justice posse would shut down a post like yours for any ethnic or racial group other than white people. The kind of contempt you show goes a long way toward explaining the political problems we have in the US these days and the popularity of Donald Trump.

It describes the scenario here for many, but I never said 'all'. — Tom Storm

You and @Baker have agreed that not many religious followers actually believe in God. I think my criticism is reasonable.

Not everyone is like the 'Muricans. — baker

But I think we can all agree they should be.

I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer - it simply has a plausible theory, a way forward. Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. — Possibility

This is well put.

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God. — baker

I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it. — Tom Storm

This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. Down there, they wear their religion on their sleeves more than people in the north. I was always moved by how big a influence religion and God had in their lives. You can see they look to them for guidance on a daily basis. It is unpremeditated and sincere.

I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. — fishfry

What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Fauci finally admitted that covid might have a lab origin. — fishfry

First - No, he did not admit that Covid might have a lab origin. He became open to the possibility based on new evidence. Second - In terms of how the pandemic has been handled here, what difference does it make where it came from?

This morning The Federalist ran a long piece about how sensible independent thought regarding the origin of covid was systematically suppressed. — fishfry

Again, what difference does it make in terms of our pandemic response? Also, "The Federalist" is a knee-jerk right-wing rag. They've spread misinformation about Covid from the start and promoted the stolen election lie.

Most of what comes from our authorities these days is absolute bullshit. I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

As I wrote previously, I've been impressed by how well the US responded to the pandemic, even given the jerky start and all the zig-zags. A lot of those missteps came from right-wing political sources like "The Federalist." I think you are a reverse conspiracy theorist. It's not that people are conspiring to do bad things, it's that people are conspiring not to do good things.

A method to share a ideology, not to force it upon others.
A way that is accepting to expand awareness or knowledge in this modern day. — Tiberiusmoon

I think it is not possible without coercion.

I think a problem ...is to decide what is a thing. — Cuthbert

I think you've just summarized every possible philosophy.

The reason can be read in the Frank Miller comic entitled Tales to Offend # 1 — gikehef947

An Earth-bound Shoemaker-Levy (1) ... — 180 Proof

I can't speak for @Tiberiusmoon, but I think he was hoping for serious answers.

If you had all the answers to the worlds problems, what can an individual do to be impactful of such ideology? — Tiberiusmoon

Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Joseph Stalin all thought they knew the answer to world peace. Christians and Muslims think they have the answer. Even our corporate overlords may think their system will bring us peace through avarice. Any possible unified solution to the problems of the world will lead to tyranny, bureaucracy, standardization, or all three.

I intend that as a serious answer.

You have seen the Bruces, haven't you? — Banno

I have heard the song, if that's what you mean. I find the Bruces sketch itself deeply offensive as a reflection of rabid Australaphobia.

I linked to the philosopher's football match in a previous post, but the link has been shut down.

I hope you would allow that people of good will could see the politicized science of the past year very differently. — fishfry

I don't doubt your good will at all.

From what I've seen in your posts, you and I have a very different understanding of how science and science-based policy making are supposed to work.

Verse 22

I had trouble with this verse. The different translations each seem to take a different angle, some in conflict with each other. They also seem to be in conflict with some earlier verses. I take the general theme to be one we have seen a lot. Act from the heart, with sincerity, and not for gain or recognition. Wu wei, although it isn’t called out as that. Then the verse goes on with some related things that I find a bit muddled.

Derek Lin

Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight
Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused

Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him

What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself

Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;
Empty and be full;
Wear out and be new;
Have little and gain;
Have much and be confused.

Therefore the wise embrace the one
And set an example to all.
Not putting on a display,
They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves,
They are distinguished.
Not boasting,
They receive recognition.
Not bragging,
They never falter.
They do not quarrel,
So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.

Discussion of Derek Lin’s translation

Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight

At first look, these two lines seem straightforward - be flexible. Don’t force actions or forcibly resist events. Non-action. Some other translations have different emphasis. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English say:

Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;

Addis and Lombardo say:

Crippled become whole,
Crooked becomes straight,

These two translations seem to take a different view. Lin says “be flexible and remain strong.” The other translations seem to be saying “be flexible and achieve your goals.” The latter readings seem more consistent with the remaining lines in the stanza from Lin:

Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused

This has a prosperity gospel feel to it. Follow the Tao and you will be given what you want and need. This theme seems to be carried forward in the next stanza. Note that the last line of this stanza does not follow the parallel structure of the previous five. They say “do this and this good thing will happen.” The last line says “do this and this bad thing will happen.”

All in all, I like Stephen Mitchell’s take on this stanza best:

If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up.

I didn’t use his translation as the template here, because his version seems to have taken a lot of liberties with the text, as often happens with Mitchell.

Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him[

Again, the meaning here seems muddled. It again seems to say “do this, and accomplish your goals.” Flaunting, presuming, praising or boasting about oneself are all to be avoided. At the same time, being an example to the world, being seen clearly, being distinguished, having merit, and lasting are things we are not supposed to care about, but Lao Tzu is offering them to us as a reward for following the Tao. As if you can have anything you want, you just have to stop wanting it. Maybe he is playing with this irony intentionally.

The last line of this stanza seems to refer back to the first two lines – don’t resist, bend, be flexible. Relax, release, surrender. Not to achieve anything or gain any advantage. With no intention. No action. Wait for the mud to settle.

What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself

This stanza refers back to the previous lines and asks “Is all this true?” Then what I guess is supposed to be a summary line – “Sincerity becoming whole and returning to oneself.” The Feng and English version makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with the verse as a whole.

Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.

Be really whole – follow the Tao, be your true self. Again “all things will come to you” seems ambiguous and contradictory.

Excerpts from Ellen Marie Chen commentary

This chapter arrives at an ethic of self-preservation and self-fulfillment by the central teaching of non-contention (pu cheng). The way to fully develop one’s potential is by avoiding the harmful influences that can shorten life, not, therefore, through struggle or warfare, but through humility and yielding. The Ho-shang Kung commentary considers the entire chapter the ethics of survival.

The first line “Bent, thus preserved whole” describes how a plant weathers a storm. The unbending will be mowed down but the bent will survive the destructive forces (ch. 76). This must have been the common wisdom of the time. The I-ching, Hsi-tz’u, II, chapter 5, says: “The measuring worm draws itself together for the sake of .expanding forward [hsin, see ch. 21]. Dragons and snakes hibernate for the sake of preserving their lives” (R. Wilhelm, 1967: 338). Similarly “the hollow,” like the valley (ch. 39), will be filled, the worn-out turns and becomes new (ch. 15), those with little shall receive more, but those who have much shall have their possessions taken away from them (chs. 36, 44, 77).

This logic of reversion is even more eloquently expressed in the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now, for you shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now, for you shall laugh. . . (Luke 6: 20-26)

While both texts can be construed today as preaching passive acceptance of a miserable fate with the promise of a better future—hence Marx’s indictment against religion as the opium of the people—they differ as to the manner of fulfillment. The Gospel promises readjustment of justice in the next world, implying that affairs in this world are not amenable to change for the better. The Tao Te Ching, as the next stanza makes clear, is not meant to console but to teach the art of surviving intact and accomplishing what one sets out to do in this world without resorting to conflict or warfare. They are practical instructions on how to succeed in life.

Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine? — Banno

Thanks for that. I'd never seen it before. Linked below.



And people say this isn't a legitimate philosophy forum.

The growing sense of entitlement of the stupidly ignorant. Not to be confused with the intellectually challenged, who in many cases are neither ignorant nor stupid. But rather those an education system has failed. They do not know, but they have been taught that does not matter, that they're entitled. And caring only about their entitlement, that if they make enough unpleasant noise, they might just get their way. — tim wood

Geez - you and Synthesis - it's nothing but hell in a handbasket, when I was a boy, kids these days.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Everything is nothing but something. You can't really define or describe something without saying what it is and what it is not.

I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills — Tobias

This is what I like most about the forum.

Good post.

I think lots of knowledgable regular posters becoming less active has had a big impact, — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think you're right.

There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle. — god must be atheist

I have no idea what this means, but I like it.

What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness. — god must be atheist

I agree.

Not bias so much as good advice. — jamalrob

The forum definitely has a lefty point of view. I don't see that as bias. It's out in the open and impossible to miss. Agendas, but no hidden agendas. I'm lefty too, so it's not an issue for me.

This is not a good place for me to talk politics. I like to have those discussions on conservative sites. Those are the places I've really learned to deal with fractious issues while showing respect. It can really change the tone of a heated argument. It doesn't often change people's minds about political issues, but it can change minds about the people we disagree with. If conservative people came here with that kind of attitude, I think they could find it a valuable site.

A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked. — Benkei

How much to ban a moderator?

If I were to recommend moderators to improve on one thing, it would be to clean up the place. There are far better places for evangelical nuts, racist apologists, and people who don't even know what philosophy is. 4Chan-like forums and Reddit threads dedicated to that kind of stuff, instead of clogging up this place. — Christoffer

:100: YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned). — 180 Proof

There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.

I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts.

It seems the culture wars have bread a generation of internecine suspicions that lend themselves so easily to a grand conspiracy behind all historico-political events, including the origins of little philosophy websites. — Tom Storm

No offence to Jamalrob, but the forum would be the most low-rent, third-rate conspiracy I can imagine.

My fault? If it is, sorry. — Tom Storm

No, not your fault. The talk about conspiracy theories related to the forum just has me shaking my head.

You were serious? I thought you were having a quiet mock there yourself so I had a riff on it. — Tom Storm

This thread has taken an....odd turn.

So, I see my participation with the site as being a potential source of stress, but also the best means I have of communication with other people. I will juggle this in my choice about engaging on this site on a longer term. I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this. — Jack Cummins

Your discussions are some of the best on the forum. I like the way they are all connected and, taken as a whole, paint a pretty clear picture of the things that matter to you. A consistent intellectual vision which includes a strong dose of curiosity is an effective tool.

As for squabbles, you may find them frustrating, but I think your threads have fewer than most. You should take that as a sign you are doing something right.

To be quite honest, the impression I got soon after joining was that this forum does have a left-wing bias, just from the way I was attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory. I thought that was rather strange on a philosophy forum. And it does list marxists.org under "Other sites we like". — Apollodorus

The forum is left-leaning and all woke and stuff from the top down. It wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It doesn't try to hide it. That does lead to certain subjects being resisted, which sometimes bothers me. I don't spend much time on political subjects anyway. People love to talk politics here, but discussions of real political philosophy are rare.

There doesn't seem to be much political balance there. — Apollodorus

Discussion subjects are generally chosen by members, not administrators or moderators, so it's not policy, it's the voice of the people. I haven't been impressed with the quality of the more conservative political discussion here, but I can say the same of political discussions in general on the forum.

Very interesting. If true, then that would make it a left-wing enterprise, wouldn't it? And how come there is no info on it anywhere? — Apollodorus

On the forum here, what you see is what you get. There isn't much in the way of infrastructure. There are King Jamalrob and Queen Baden and then all the little princes and princesses we know as moderators. The whole thing is run on an old IBM 486 sitting in a puddle of water in Jamalrob's basement in....Moscow!! If you contribute $10, that will double the budget for this year.

And yes, it is a pretty left-wing, or as we like to say "good," operation.

I have noticed that for the past few years I've posted more to politics-related discussions than philosophy. — Michael

I, on the other hand, have posted much less often on political discussions. Part of my lower blood pressure, greater peace strategy.

I certainly feel like Trump's election fucked up the vibe a bit too - or maybe even more than a bit - a few years ago. — Erik

I strongly endorse blaming Donald Trump for everything bad that has happened in the past 5 years.

That this seems kind of trivial to us is a testament to the size of the technological explosion that took pace in the 20th C. — frank

I agree.

So it's no accident that something helpful like vaccines came out if it. — frank

I've often seen vaccines used as an example of the problems with capitalist science. In general, vaccine development is not as profitable for pharmaceutical companies as a new improved erectile dysfunction medication. [irony]Which, of course, is as it should be.[/irony] For that reason, it doesn't get much attention unless the government gets involved. The Covid 19 vaccine appears to be a special case.

I have already given my definition of consciousness — charles ferraro

You had not provided that definition when I wrote my initial post in this discussion.