But I thought you said that attractiveness is a necessity for love??!!

I think work "banter" that is based on commenting on people's sexual attractiveness is unacceptable. That's just for the record.

What I'd like to ask is what do posters feel about "battle of the sexes" banter - joking about stereotypes like men are no good at such 'n such; women are no good at this 'n that. Is that acceptable? For the record I think it probably is, though not always scintillating. But I am open to dissuasion...

Attraction: this one's pretty obvious, but one simply cannot maintain a healthy relationship with someone that they don't personally find attractive, it's the "imagine kissing him" test. What I'm arguing here is that lust in fact does play a real role in love — Cosette Brazeau

Given that the attractiveness of a person is substantially objective (at least within cultures) does that mean that an "unattractive couple" are less likely to be in true love compared with an "attractive couple"?

f most people make a lot of money, you see them the whole day at the pub — Agustino

OK, so personal growth ain't everything.

I dunno - the rich and leisured life gets boring very quickly without personal growth. There would be a market for educators of all sorts, that's for sure (and charlatans sadly :( )

In practical terms, I think it is possible to promote , contrive even, a sense of happiness or contentment, without any strong reasons, but a raft of "weak" ones are needed. For example, "it's Tuesday morning and I have the whole day to do as I please. I'm feeling well and there's plenty of things I could do..."

Entertainment will be a very big business. — Agustino

And education for personal growth, hopefully!

In the real world, a drug-test kit is not practical, not for the millions of young people who access drugs from sources like friends or acquaintances. — TimeLine

Which is why the argument for being able to obtain some drugs from legalised sources would be a very useful way of minimising harm is a powerful one.

And do you realise just how absurd you sound by actually comparing mortality rates to the use of the drug? It is what the person, their family, friends, the community and the economy experience while they are alive that is the issue we are attempting to ascertain in order to prevent the prospect of death. — TimeLine

Not fully relevant to your quote I realise, but here is a question - would you ban dangerous sports and outdoor pursuits? Plenty of people get killed and injured in this way.

To throw all drugs into one category demonstrates simplistic thinking. — Janus

Better thinking is slowly catching on around the world it seems, but there is still much progress to make.

Cannabinoids, MDMA and hallucinogens are the substances with the better use to danger ratios, though cannabinoids need to be considered separately in themselves, I would say.

But really, for the better of future teens, yeah alcohol is bad. — Frank Barroso

And of course, there's Prof Nutt and his team in the UK developing their very safe alternative to alcohol - what's taking him so damn long??!!

I saw Solaris as a teenager and loved it. I still do. It's such a haunting and thoughtful film, and beautifully shot and composed. (Reminds me of Second Life in parts too!)The Bach organ piece that is played throughout still has a certain wistful effect on me. MInd you Kris does/did have a very cool girlfriend!

Your professor is still lazy!

I don't have a hidden agenda about supporting the use of recreational drugs because I have clearly stated that I do support such use. I am quite happy to discuss matters such as what context of use I support, and what context I don't.I am trying to present a reasoned approach that balances harms and benefits. Heck it all ... I am even happy to answer hypothetical questions!

It is a hypothetical question with the intention of leading to an absurd result. — TimeLine

Well let's see if the result could be absurd.

Suppose you answer "yes, I would accept the use of a drug if I was convinced it was safe". Then I would be sure that you had no hidden agenda or belief regarding drug use besides safety, such as personal distate or religious indoctrination.

If you answer "no ..." then the converse would be true - I would be sure that you did have a hidden agenda or belief - the existence of which, if not the exact nature, has now come in to the open because of your answer.

The role of "hidden beliefs" in discussion is crucial. For example, suppose a person declared that rugby was too dangerous for women to play, and that this person cited a lot of evidence to back their statement up. If it transpired that this person also believed that women should not play sport at all, then one would have to lower the priority one gave to that person's opinions on the matter of women playing rugby. So it is important to seek out hidden agendas.

And it's not reasonable to pose a hypothetical question?

"What ifs" are a fundamental tool of philosophy.

the reality is that any lengthy or continuous use eventually impairs how our brain functions — TimeLine

How long is lengthy?

What if a drug was produced, and the evidence convinced you that it was not harmful - would you accept its use?

Benefits, such as cerebral, perceptual, developmental, social, hedonistic, intellectual, creative etc etc accrue to people without any particular mental health issues, as well as to some of those who do have such issues. Calling it "faux" begs the question as to what in life is not "faux". You appear to have a gap in your knowledge about how many people are able to use drugs beneficially and without addiction or self destruction.

Thanks for your reply - I can see that safety issues are paramount in your thinking. However, in order to gain a complete picture, I think you need to realise that there are great benefits to be had from careful choice and use of mind altering substances, and that many people feel their lives are greatly enhanced by them.

How exactly you are unable to link the 'use of drugs in principle' without ascertaining some understanding of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' is somewhat a mystery to me — TimeLine

It is quite easy because the "whys and wherefores" I mentioned were "whys and wherefores" of specific drugs. Some people are against the notion - in principle - of using chemicals recreationally to enhance brain activity - and I was wondering if you were one such person, because I feel that a discussion of why one might be for or against recreational drug use in principle would be an interesting aspect of this discussion. Perhaps you think I should open a new thread devoted to the question before answering my enquiry?

By the way, I have never taken any form of drugs including cannabis and I do not drink alcohol, but I am "content". — TimeLine

As this is a philosophy forum, can I suggest that the most fundamental discussion about recreational drugs is not the whys and wherefores of drugs that are currently out there, but the use of drugs in principle.. Could I ask whether you are against recreational drug use in principle?

I think your anecdote illustrates how "education" can be transformative when it has an agenda fully aimed at taking individuals as they are, and "improving" them in some aspects. Normally, the education system takes in cohorts, frowns at how unsuitable they are for learning the curriculum, but teaches it to them anyway, before spitting half of them out as failures

Do people prefer cannabis because they are already laid back, contented, un-acquisitive ... or were they very anxious people, up-tight, and acquisitive before they used cannabis and then found salvation in weed? — Bitter Crank

It is not uncommon for people to feel that they are "better", and more caring while stoned,and that this feeds back into sober life.

I really like the idea of Summer Hill — Bitter Crank

Summerhill gets wheeled out a lot in these sort of discussions, I find. That's probably because it's such a rare institution. But if you delve into it, you will find it is all about delivering a standard curriculum of standard gradeable subjects and exams - it's just the means are more laid back. I am pretty certain that if it abandoned such a commitment then the government, which is always snapping at its heels, would shut it down. The British law is designed to prevent educational routes being offered (except as a live parent) that are different from what the government deems as acceptable. Interestingly, in Bertie Russell's essay "Freedom Versus Authority in Education" he describes how his education was sabotaged by the authorities of the time - his deceased father had stipulated in his will that his son was to receive an education that was free of religious and patriotic indoctrination, but the courts overturned it.

Experimentation carried too far, of course, would result in too much jumping from thing to thing without enough persistence to actually acquire knowledge--like solid working knowledge of geology, for example. — Bitter Crank

For sure. But let no one study geology seriously who is not seriously and happily interested in it.

Even if we lived in a perfected society where individuals were free to leisurely pursue all their interests, there would still be tedious activities. Example: memorizing Latin declensions. Even if you greatly desire to learn Latin, and find learning Latin a pleasure, committing all that to memory (especially as an adult) is just plain hard work and, at times, quite tedious — Bitter Crank

The overarching point is that one should only study something if one is ready, and motivated positively. Seeing as you mention Latin, I feel i can wheel out something else from Russell's essay in the form of a quote

The traditional pedagogue, possessing knowledge not worth imparting [...] imagined that young people have a native horror of instruction, but in this he was misled by a failure to realise his own shortcomings. There is a charming tale of Chekov's about a man who tried to teach a kitten to catch mice. When it wouldn't run after them, he beat it, with the result that even as an adult cat, it cowered with terror in the presence of a mouse. 'This is the man,' Chekov adds, 'who taught me Latin'.

I can see that the structure is 50% bullsh*t. But I can also see that it's still arguably the best actual worldly option. — t0m

Best worldy option? To what ends?

I sing its praises, but it is also the case that college entails a fair amount of tedium, sort of like life itself. — Bitter Crank

Well maybe life wouldn't be so tedious if the education system didn't condition people to accept tedium so readily. I suggest that any inclusion, acceptance and validation of tedium on a liberal arts degree flies in the face of what the course is purportedly trying to achieve. No such course or institution running it would dare say that tedium is on the curriculum, even indirectly.

But I guess you are right to say that the tediousness of education works. Employers gain a subservience filter, albeit of a higher functioning sort at higher education level They also have a similar lower status one for all younger school attenders of course. And universities gain easy business, while students gain a spell of social adventure and an opportunity to be a higher paid drone. Social adventure at the higher drone level apart, it ain't pretty that's for sure.

Well OK, but are you saying that a traditional "liberal arts" degree is tedious? I thought you were singing its praises....

the way that time is structured in formal education disturbs me. — t0m

Yes,it's crazy pedagogically. The only explanation is that the institutions of education, their traditions, their vested interest groups, are all that matters to the education system. The emperor not only has no clothes, he has stinking BO. And many have become "nose blind"!

I agree. — t0m

It is the "irrational" foundation of the rational. — t0m

Goals, at the very highest level, are irrational - I think we are agreeing on that. Rationality has to serve irrationality, Irrationality stops the recursive buck from being passed further - that's how I see it.

I took a programming course while in University, which was helpful to what I do working today, but what was most helpful was the Professor. He didn't teach us anything. He just said, it is now time for you to teach yourself programming. — Agustino

You were fortunate in that you had the aptitude to program. Spare a thought for the teeming thousands of entrants to computer science degrees who only found out that they didn't have this aptitude until they had already enrolled. It is one of the scandals of higher education of recent years. Your professor was laughing all the way to the bank.

That's why the specific college degree isn't very important. A college grad with a liberal arts degree (most university departments are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, except Tech and Medicine, Agriculture, et al) has proved that he or she has the intelligence to take varied and sundry courses in everything from math to modern art and succeed at least reasonably well. — Bitter Crank

Then surely intelligence and aptitude tests would serve the same function? Chuck in an extended essay task to be sure, if you like. Job done - in a day.

If you want to test the ability to soak up info, then that could take a bit longer, I admit. Call it a week,and rank everyone at the end. I doubt you would get much different rankings than what a university takes years to do.

My definition of rationalism as "weighing up the evidence" (actually Bertie Russell's) needs expansion, of course. For a start, in order to be rational one must be prepared to change one's mind; to be flexible; to be not wholly committed to any particular opinion unless it is truly watertight. A rational person should enjoy being shown to be wrong!

Assuming the tumor is the complete determining factor in his pedophilia, which I believe is, and because he had no previous issues with self-control or whatnot, then he cannot be at blame for something he had no control over. — kepler

Sure, but few cases are so clear cut medically. I guess they are useful in illustrating that guilt maybe not as black and white as some think.

What evidence did you weigh to determine that rationality is the "weighing up of evidence"? — t0m

Since when did definitions require evidence??!!

hat is rationality? — t0m

The weighing up of evidence.

I think philosophical pragmatism is an option only when there is no scope for rationalism however. So its use is very limited indeed.

Dennett wishes to show that humans are not really agents in any meaningful sense, and that the mind itself is an illusion, generated by and explicable in terms of the activities of organic molecules. — Wayfarer

Emotionally I don't care whether that is true or not. It makes no difference to *my* life whether it is true or not. Simples!

Intellectually, I am uncertain about it.

It's not the "true zero-ness" IMO that is being worked with there. — t0m

Perhaps "true zeroness" is unobtainable in the sense that any exact point on the number line is unobtainable materially. I feel that such a transposition of the existential problem of physical "true zeroness" into a consideration of the infinitely continuous number line still leaves something to be in awe of, while at least some satisfaction is also derivable because the conceptual problem has been reduced to a more straightforward, more tangible statement about the number line. Psychological satisfaction is surely the goal of "deep philosophy", even if we should always retain a modicum of skeptism? After all, it psychological feelings that generate the deep questions, IMO.

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you? — Wayfarer

Dawkins can certainly be too evangelical in his rationalism, and also blundered by dismissing "milder" sexual harassment (I think he admitted that in the end) but I find that article to be rather empty of anything besides anti-rational and pro-theology rhetoric and false descriptions of Dawkins' opinions.

It's not the "true zero-ness" IMO that is being worked with there. — t0m

Yes I know what you mean, even though I have never tried to express that thought in words as you have done above. Isn't it strange that such thoughts exist in me (others too?) quite well formed, but somewhat independent of language? Mathematics can be like that too, I find. Maybe mathematics holds the key to everything!

The "how" is admittedly a more practical and objective concern, and that's probably why he shifts toward the how. — t0m

I actually read an interesting stab at a scientific-ish explanation of the "why" in the letters page of New Scientist recently. The writer proposed that as zero-ness is only one of an infinite number of possibilities (certainly with regard to different numbers as an analogy to different universes), we should expect non zero-ness.

By the way, Dawkins is by no stretch a philosopher, — Wayfarer

He is a wonderful science writer for sure. But I think he might possibly have a somewhat negative attitude towards philosophy that has unfortunately spilled over from his (justifiable IMO) disdain for organized religion. In one of his books - probably "The Magic of Reality" , he states that to ask the existential question "why is there something?" is a fatuous exercise, mainly because there is so much stuff actually existing to wonder at here and now. Maybe that question simply doesn't generate the frissance in his mind that it does with many.

I think I will fairly soon. Would love to get feedback and advice from the members here. — Erik

Well I have quite a few ideas for a political program that would cut across left and right divides, so I eagerly await :)