Copy-paste examples.The irony of you projecting your own behavior on scientists... — wonderer1
For practical purposes, an initially democratic society will eventually develop into a more homogeneous one.You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society. — Wolfgang
Of course.Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
/.../
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.
Rather, the solution seems to be for the world to become significantly less globalized, less connected.True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages.
To begin with, everyday things.what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with? — Kizzy
Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,
So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
— baker
, what does this even mean?
It seems a Stoic is unable to experience trauma in the first place, since a Stoic's outlook on life is such that it can accomodate whatever trauma-inducing hardship might come his way.I also think the "objective" attitude of stoics like Marcus Aurelius may be a form of dissociation, particularly concerning one's emotions.. seems unhealthy to me. I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle
Slaves live. But what does it mean to live?I.e. memento mori, memento vivere. — 180 Proof
You vs. Oprah.We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. — Chet Hawkins
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? — BC
No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence. — BC
What is "wrong" with such a life is that one cannot choose it; it's not the result of deliberate action, at least not always.What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos
Wishful thinking, possibly born out of incompetence.Anyway, where is this opposition between innocence and experience coming from? — kudos
It looks as if for many people, loss of innocence has to do with opposing one's elders or with the onset of sexuality of any kind.So, I'm interested, what type of experience qualifies as anti-innocent and what does not?
So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence?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. — BC
Interesting. So the idea is that the essential nature of being is beneficial towards all things? — Tom Storm
It doesn't; it's a doctrinal claim in those schools of Buddhism that contain the concept of "Buddha nature" (or the modernized equivalent of it).But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence. — Joshs
It seems it has a lot ot do with calculated risks. It's seems likely that editors calculate that publishing something potentially problematic will still pay off for them even if it costs them a lawsuit.No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.
They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into. — AmadeusD
Actually, democracy itself rests on taking for granted that all involved will play by certain rules that protect democracy itself, which includes censoring one's own speech and behavior and those of others.To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. — Hanover
I don't recall a time when a particular media outlet wasn't associated with a particular political option. Sometimes, this association is more obvious, clearly spelled out, other times, less so, but it's always there.The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.
This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.
The press likes to present itself as being "objective" and "truthful". It becomes rather ironic when you see two competing newspapers have those concepts in their slogans, and then each newspaper writes views that are directly opposed to eachother.Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?
In 2020, several high politicians in EU countries congratulated Trump for winning the election and haven't recanted it since. Beyond that, there is a variety of views on the Trump issue.Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover
There is no homogenized "French news" or homogenized "Swedish news" or some such. In every EU country that I can think of, there are newspapers that are pro-Trump, those that are against him, and those that are somewhat aloof.That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies? — Hanover
We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.The problem is that once upon a time there were very few national news outlets, so entry into the market was difficult. You had to get your credentials and prove your worth if you wanted a microphone in front of you. Reputation was critical, so no outlet wanted to get their facts wrong or appear biased. — Hanover
Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.
Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world.
But people, the potential readers, are not tabulae rasae, they are also not passive recipients of what they hear. They are not "the masses". They do not come to the news stand as naive little children.What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.
Equal??Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens. — ssu
Populism is, essentially, plebeian mentality, and plebeian mentality is antidemocratic, simplistic, black-and-white, thus authoritarian.So why is populism something that doesn't support democracy and promotes typically strong leaders and authoritarianism? — ssu
There is: the traditional class/caste system.It just seems that there's no antidote to populism
But things have changed. We are now living in the modern age of hyperindividualism and practical solipsism.Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able. — unenlightened
But I still hold that the intentions and assumptions of the speaker the do not leave the speakers body and travel in the signs to be conveyed to some listener. The listener is faced with the sign only, and it is up to him to provide it some with meaning. The act of understanding a sign, considering it, giving it meaning, and so on, are very important acts in this exchange and I think they have been largely ignored (as far as I know), at least as it pertains to Speech Act Theory. — NOS4A2
Indeed, from other posts by the OP, I kept in mind that he thinks that society does not exist, in the Thatcherian sense.Framing it that way reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's saying, "society does not exist, only people and their families do." How does one separate such a bold claim of bourgeois supremacy over the functions of the state from the pre-linguistic space where the Sovereign Individual runs its cattle unfettered by the demands others? After all, they use many of the same words.
The word "right" is interesting because it expresses a direct or straight quality as an adjective: "Right on time", for instance. When the term is used as "rights of individuals", the use is all about the boundary between the prerogatives of a common interest and what an individual can preserve against such interests.
The thesis of the OP borrows from that latter use to deny the existence of what gave context for it. — Paine
Similarly, many scientists and supporters of science take a dim view of the philosophy of science.Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their application — Ciceronianus
On the contrary, it often does precisely that, and in a manner so concise that philosophy can't.So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so.
This is embedded into the educational system itself.If you read the complaints of professors, two common concerns are that today's students are variously unwilling to challenge their own dogmas and that students embrace a sort of all encompassing relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What else can a student conclude, when he bears in mind that the point of taking courses is to pass the exams, and this means answering exam questions in such a way that will most likely bring good grades, criticial thinking be damned.For Schindler, it's misology, the idea that reason and argument cannot be trusted.
There are two extremes: One is the Skinnerian the-human-as-a-blackbox, stimulus-reaction kind of thinking ("He made me do it, I'm innocent"). The other is "stimulus is irrelevant; it's all up to what a person chooses to do with it" ("Nobody can make you do anything").It’s becoming more and more clear that people are searching for acts in the text and not in the actor. — NOS4A2
So how is believing that there is no society working out for you?Philosophy of language in a nutshell: the philosopher drifts from a clear and plain view of the human being into the muddled pursuit of sifting through his expressions.
For a hyperindividualist like Nosferatu, this is unintelligible.I would not have written this unless you had posted; that's all that we need in order to say you elicited this reply. — Banno
not my fault. You elicited the response. The force and content animated me. — NOS4A2
Days and nights fly past, fly past. What am I doing right now, as days and nights fly past, fly past?If you could go, would you go? — BC
You and your imagination.How fortunate we all are to be led down the shining path of empathy and compassion (and effectiveness) from an internet rando…who is exceedingly ineffective at teaching people about empathy and compassion, having never demonstrated it themselves. Do as I say, not as I do — always works great in teaching, especially on the internet. — Mikie
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. — Hanover
"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed?The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened
Which is often the case anyway. People have all kinds of desires, goals, impulses, and then they choose which one to act on.What if the trigger puller's mind consists of a heterogeneous mosaic of multiple, different will-vectors? — Quk
My reply was in response to the dichotomy between the leaders and the followers/citizens.Which of the many will-vectors belong to that "single person"? And when the killer is caught, what part of this person has to get into jail?
What if we were to transcend the notion of country or nationality, and treat people as individuals? Because at the end of the day, it's that individual who pulls the trigger. Yes, the individual is subject to all kinds of pressures and forces and influences and is embedded in a socioeconomic context -- yet it is also the individual who decides whether to pull that trigger or not.While we're at it: Could this principle be applied to an entire country as well? Every person in this country represents one individual will-vector. The person itself is sort of a country too, containing many different will-vectors.
Because you're sticking to your old guns.Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.
— baker
How do you know I'm not doing that? — Christoffer
??And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?
For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't.This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly.
But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet?So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass.
Given the strategies used so far ....As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work.
I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.
How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy?If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed.
I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results.It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated.
There you go, outsourcing responsibility again.So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes.
I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive.Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.
— baker
To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.
Example(s):
Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality. — Chet Hawkins
That’s what I am genuinely unclear about. Are they talking about acts I am doing, or about acts somehow derived from the words I am writing? Am I or is the utterance performing the act? — NOS4A2
Oh, I thought people came here to unlearn being nice.Compliments are more challenging, not because we can't think of things, but because it takes us out of our comfort zones to be nice. — Hanover
Lol, of all the idioms, you choose a martial one, and then invite compliments. It's as if you're categorically unable to say something without it being a double entendre. Don't repudiate it, it's a fine art.Anyway, I throw down the gauntlet. Only compliments.
The promotion of which human life?I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, — Hanover