Introductions and General Comments

[Rhonda]

A Tidal Wave wrote: "Also, just wondering what makes you think that this group has developed a high degree of cynicism and why?"

I don't wish to speak about the cynicism of others, but there has been a quantity of both pontification and cynicism in equal measures over the years. I made my first comment here in 2011. I have considered, (on a larger scale than this posting,) that perhaps Hawking was right. Even Feynman had little use for philosophy and tended to dismiss it. In the same vein, maybe philosophy is something science doesn't understand, believing that science has transcended its limitations of quantification. Then again, maybe the last century of general obfuscation of philosophical problems with nitpicking and backbiting at every turn has contributed to a general inability of philosophy to be valuable or generally comprehensible. It has, for the most part, won itself no laurels for its own puerility and complexity to the point that psychology almost looks like an exact science by comparison. When philosophy moves in infinite loops, only stopping to admire its own pseudo-brilliance, perhaps that creates cynicism for many of us. I could, of course, be wrong.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for the recent comments. Jimmy has mentioned the idea of co-moderators, and if the quantity and nature of the posts warrants it, that sounds like a good idea.

Rhonda has been posting a lot of well thought-out comments for a long time and I agree with what she's saying. The tendency to think philosophical questions have been settled by science stems from obvious cases in the past concerning natural philosophy, but those seem to have led to the specious idea that science has answered or can answer all questions bearing on the human condition, that "philosophy is dead."

The challenge with this forum is that two different kinds of people visit it: those who know absolutely nothing and those who are very well versed in the subject. One of the best posters quit because there were not enough people posting at her level, while others confuse a philosophical discussion with a purely political or purely religious engagement.

This is due to the general absence in public education of social science studies. But to respond to Tidal Wave, I don't know if the teaching of philosophy, in this case as moral education, in schools, could be divorced from a political perspective, which in the case of the BJP government and Modi would doom such a project.

What I have done for now with this forum is to get rid of hostile and unserious posters and commentary, but I have to go lightly in order to distinguish a troll from the many, many people who simply don't know what philosophy entails. What I want for the forum is an environment in which people who know nothing about the subject can post and ask questions. The number of people who are exposed to philosophy must be greatly increased if it is to be relevant to human affairs, and that means dealing with basic questions again and again.

I have left members free to start their own threads and to continue old ones, and the membership has been good about that. In my opinion, more people will visit the forum if the subjects raised relate more to everyday experience. For example, what philosophical issues does the current pandemic raise? Discussions like this are invariably hijacked by political forums, but this is the place to deal with those subjects at the deepest level of reasoning and members should not cede that ground to the mass media.

Philosophy, not being science, also has a speculative component that should not be left unexplored. Among them are moral questions, such as humanism or perfectionism as human goals, and yes, scientific developments, such as transhumanism or surveillance technology.

Again, thank you for all your comments. I keep an eye on the threads and postings but don't personally comment as much as I used to. The discussions have been well mannered and can handle political, social and scientific topics, as well as more abstract ones.

[Rhonda]

Tyler wrote: "Thank you for the recent comments. Jimmy has mentioned the idea of co-moderators, and if the quantity and nature of the posts warrants it, that sounds like a good idea."

Co-moderators is a good idea. Intolerance isn't always a bad thing. It just has to maintain constant vigilance over what is suitable.

[Jimmy]

I appreciate your response, Tyler. I hope you keep the co-moderator idea in mind. As you said, members like Rhonda would do a good job.

[Gareth]

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to the group, so apologies in advance if I contravene group etiquette. I'm a philosophy author, with particular interests in philosophy of mind - I've noted the discussion on Descartes, which I'll chip into soon.

I note the warning that authors "should not use the site only to promote their books", and (in true philosophical spirit) I've homed in on that word "only" - so I assume I'm allowed to BRIEFLY mention that I have a new book out (on Descartes) and to direct people to my Goodreads profile if they're interested? If not, let me know and I'll edit this post.

A little word about how I got involved in philosophy. When I first went away to uni I was going to study English Lit, but the particular course structure required students to select additional subjects in the first year (I guess what our American friends would call "elective minors"? But this was in the UK). Anyway, philosophy was one of these, and I got hooked. Since then, while I've pursued other interests and activities, it's never really gone away. Sometimes I suspect that my interest isn't entirely healthy - as Nietzsche said, there's only so much reality we can take, and ignorance and self-delusion are more likely to make us happier! And philosophy never seems to provide clear answers, only more uncertainty.

Anyway, hello again to everyone! And now off to chip in on Descartes...

Cheers!

Gareth Southwell.

[Walter]

Hi, my name is Walter Horn. I'm an old philosopher (Ph.D. Brown, 1978) who spent most of his adult life as a bureaucrat, with only a bit of teaching. I have published a bunch of papers and a couple books, though. I won't promote them here. I'm about 4/5 retired at this point.

I started out in epistemology, metaphysics and history of modern philosophy (my thesis was on Spinoza's metaphysics), but in geezerhood I've moved almost completely into political philosophy. My go-to philosophers in the area of democracy are: Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, John Austin, John Stuart Mill, Anthony Trollope, Hans Kelsen, A.D. Lindsay, W.D. Lamont, Everett Hall, Robert Dahl, Margaret Canovan, Amartya Sen, Ian Shapiro, Barbara Fried, and Nadia Urbinati. I'm also fond of novels that get into government issues--like some of Trollope, Hugo, and Conrad.

I'm almost completely ignorant of both ancient philosophy and medieval philosophy.

I think I'm going to start here by looking at the discussion of objective morality (even though there haven't been any posts there for about five years). Hope to get to know a few of you over time.

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "Hi, my name is Walter Horn. I'm an old philosopher (Ph.D. Brown, 1978) who spent most of his adult life as a bureaucrat,....I think I'm going to start here by looking at the discussion of objective morality"

It is good to have education in subjects when one seeks discourse, although, and this is unfortunate, it seems that there is greater interest in the fervor of offering tidbits of wisdom as if they had arrived in one's mailbox, nevertheless taking credit. Welcome to the Philosophy group, such as it is.

It is interesting that you have chosen objective morality for a topic and, I assume, that by this term you are referring to a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgments. That is to say, in objective morality, we track down morals rather than invent them. I find this an appealing line of thinking, although, after saying this, I am cautious of nomological attacks and epithets that will arrive like a summer storm, desiring to curb such thinking, much like is done in the political spectrum of today.
One of the reasons I suspect that there is no greater fruit in our discussions is that they easily disintegrate into chaotic pronouncements, no doubt causing some to react with horror or distaste. There seem to be far more philosophical Nietzsches in our crowd than Kants and I should like to encourage arguments that are measured and careful, lacking the hubris which often accompanies some issues.
Therefore, unless you are averse to doing so, please suggest a person's point of view on an issue, a narrow one, if you will, and let 's open a discussion for educated consideration. I cringe at the thought of a modern writer, but it would be probably better for most people, especially those in college or graduates in the last twenty years.

[Walter]

Hi, Rhonda. Are you suggesting that I do this right here or on some other thread?

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "Hi, Rhonda. Are you suggesting that I do this right here or on some other thread?"
I suggest that you try it here, if you are willing.

[Walter]

Sure!

I suppose it can be agreed (except maybe by strict Hinayana Buddhists?) that, all else equal, getting what one freely wants is a good thing. I mean, it might not be good for one in the long run to get this or that desired result (maybe it’s for crack cocaine!) but as far as it goes, each little success is a prudential good. Traditionally, support for democracy involves the claim that it’s a good thing if groups get what they want too. Again, they might want silly things that will be harmful over the long term. But the whole notion of self-government being valuable is based on the idea that political goals should be the goals of the people. It’s not emperors who should be telling us what’s best for us.

The value of autonomy and choice can be exalted here, placed above all other values. One writer who took this position with respect to democracy was Herbert McClosky. He wrote that we must "…distinguish political freedoms, such as the freedom to participate in the choice of rulers, from non-political freedoms, like those often claimed for property or religion. The principle of majority rule recognizes no limitations on the power of the majority or its government except those that are essential to the attainment of freely-arrived-at majorities and to the maintenance of political consent and accountability. Freedoms associated with property…are of an entirely different order from…the freedoms to speak and publish. The latter are political freedoms, without which a majority rule system is impossible; they cannot, therefore, be legitimately abridged. Freedom of contract, on the other hand, may, so far as the majority principle is concerned, be regulated and controlled in whatever fashion the majority or its government deems best. Whether industry shall be nationalized or privately owned; whether wages shall be set by government or by private contract; whether polygamy shall be permitted…are matters that a democratic government…can, if it likes, control. It cannot, however, properly determine whether political criticism will be tolerated or whether elections should be abolished, for the right to oppose and the right to elect are among those political freedoms from which its power derives."

This is a populist position, and those who are fearful of populism because of the way majorities sometimes treat minorities are likely to insist that it is consistent with terrible evils. One thing the populist democrat may say in response is that the type of outrages found in Nazism aren’t really consistent with democracy. That is, populists can maintain that it is essential to any real democracy that each person and each vote be treated equally. If a White, Christian majority can unfairly discriminate against, say, Jews or Blacks or atheists in ways that thwart their free choices, it is not really a democracy: the people (i.e., ALL the people) would not really be getting what they want. As there needs to be equal treatment and equal protection for unfettered choices, there can be no unfair discrimination in a democracy.

Some types of discrimination may be claimed not to be “unfair,” however: those said to be based on actual relevant differences. In A Handmaid’s Tale, fertile women are treated differently—indeed, horribly—but the different treatment could be claimed to be based on a bona fide, scientific distinction. And who can doubt that the ability to procreate is crucial one to any society that is to survive? (Consider the Shakers!) So, one may ask whether populism allows the sort of treatment received by the Handmaids whenever it is a case of the majority is getting what it wants in a real democracy.

This is now a question about whether there are objective moral truths that prevail over democratically produced prudential values. And that is a longstanding and difficult issue because to the extent that we proclaim, “This simply may not be done: it is wrong whatever the people may want!” we are deferring to values thought to transcend human choices. And even if there were agreement on that extra-human realm, there has never been much comity regarding the particular objective truths to be found there. Who shall we let decide the genuine list of eternal verities? Guardians? Philosopher kings?

I look forward to comments! (And please let me know if this would be better placed in the discussion of objective values.)

[Mark]

I suppose I was never clear about the term “objective moral truth”, hence I never participated in the discussion... . Your excellent post is drawing me out, though :-).

Suppose there are societies, A and B. Everyone in society A thinks that stoning people is an appropriate way to deliver punishment and the method is therefore part of A’s penal code. Everyone in society B thinks stoning is barbaric and B’s penal code therefore does not include it.

So how do I apply the concept of ‘objective’, if this adjective means ‘shared by a majority’? Clearly, stoning is seen as ethical in society A, but not in B. My question is therefore: Are there fundamental ethical precepts that all moral agents can share? I wonder what they might look like, and question whether they would have any practical value - in the case of the societies in my thought experiment, perhaps a common tenet might be “societies need to protect themselves from disruption”, but clearly such an ethical tenet, if indeed it is one, has not generated much ethical substance in society A. I would claim, at least.

I am unsure whether my contribution is constructive in the context of your post - forgive me if it is not. Feel free to ignore. :-)

[Walter]

Hi, Mark. Thanks for your comment. I think it shows that an "objective moral truth" cannot mean "that which is believed to be a moral truth by the majority of some group."

As I understand it, the idea of objective moral values is contrasted with moral relativism. According to the latter view there are no objective ethical verities at all. There is nothing beyond what one or another societal group takes as acceptable or forbidden.

"Societies need to protect themselves from disruption" seems to me to be more of a prudential than a moral claim. After all, what is good for me or for group X might also be claimed (without contradiction) to be morally evil.

Again, thanks for your comments.

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "I suppose it can be agreed (except maybe by strict Hinayana Buddhists?) that, all else equal, getting what one freely wants is a good thing. I mean, it might not be good for one in the long run to get this or that desired result (maybe it’s for crack cocaine!) but as far as it goes, each little success is a prudential good."

While you have given us much to think about, I wish to ask about the words that you are using, especially the word "good." While I would be otherwise pleased to take it to some ancient place and time to argue what the absolute meaning of good is, I don't think such derivation will be necessary here, although it might be valuable at some time or other. As you said you are not well versed in ancient philosophy, we can forgo Plato and the like.

I feel somewhat ashamed that I am not a Buddhist and yet I am complaining that I do not understand or believe that "getting what one freely wants is a good thing." As you admit, there are lots of things which we often want, even outside of our daily ration of cocaine, that may not, in fact be good for us. Indeed, some things that we may not quite want, may be good for us in a short term, but not the longer term. For example a doctor may prescribe a drug such as prednisone and the patient soon dies of his immune system being compromised, even though it was helping with neuropathy. How are we to determine whether this was a good thing at all? Perhaps if we knew more, we might not, effectively, be playing medical craps with someone who is so afflicted and so treated. Then again. we may be the ant farm that must derive our answers from the one who put us there, but I digress.

One can easily expand the above examples given a certain society, with a set of rules. Again, one hopes that the rules for behavior are somehow those things which each one of us might think to be good for us. That is to say, each and every day, it is not just a case of what it is we want, but also those restrictions which may act upon us which might restrict our wants. It goes without saying that if our laws of conduct which govern us are good and continue to be good, then when we want something for ourselves, and it falls afoul these rules of conduct, that desire cannot be good and the object of our desires cannot be good.

For example, stoning someone may well be a method of preserving unity and standards, but it isn't very high on the scale of the ones being stoned. It is thus good for the nation, perhaps, and good for most people, but not those for whom the violation of certain laws condemns to death. To extrapolate this further into the real realm, let us imagine that those being stoned are arguing that they were created in this way and therefore this law, while good for those not so disposed in this direction, is not good for the ones who find it fulfilling.

Thus I believe that when we are actively chasing something which is good, it must be something that is not only fulfilling for us as a person, but also as a greater issue of being a human being in society. Otherwise we are just actively chasing what Franklin called, "the pursuit of happiness," something so incredibly vague that history believes that it was only there so that everyone should cease arguing.

When we pursue what we want, I tend to think that this is just another way of saying that we (think we) like it. I recall a coconut rabbit when I was five that I wanted, but I can certainly say that it was not good. On a more mature scale, many argue that they just wanted forty acres to farm and raise a family. What may seem like a good idea may become someone's nightmare. I have seen marriage counseling where someone who pledged to walk across deserts is now complaining that she pops her gum. It gives one pause.

Clearly, when we chase after some achievement, we are either looking to this aa a building block to the future or we are thinking that what we achieve may be good in and of itself. As to the latter, I have yet to discover how this discovery or achievement does not create further obligations on oneself, but perhaps that would be a good thing also, thus preventing people from having the time to argue about such things.

In conclusion, and I realize that being conversational makes this longer than it should, for which I apologize, seeking goodness requires not only significant rigorous training, but also a certain amount of self-examination, the latter, to be sure, so that it falls within one's own ideas of success or fulfillment, but also that of the state. if it falls outside the issues of the state, perhaps it is the seed by which either goodness is expanded or overthrown.

There are some who seem to never seek more than a six pack of beer and whomping on the old lady when they get home from work as goodness, and yet I have to think that perhaps the efforts of goodness might be considerably more exalted in other people. But whatever we think of achieving in this world, it has a quality for many which is not easily grasped.

[Walter]

Hi, Rhonda. Thanks for your acute remarks.

I absolutely agree that a person getting what she wants may not be in her interest. All we can say of these events is that they're ex ante successes. Abstracted from all the consequences--which may, as you say be absolutely awful--they are intrinsically good. One way of seeing this maybe is to imagine an instantaneous world one that is all successes and compare it to one that is all failures. Looked at in isolation from everything else, it seems to me hard to deny that getting is better than failing to get (except maybe for certain Buddhists).

I infer from your post (maybe incorrectly) that you are inclined toward a view that embraces objective values. Obviously, that's a reputable position, one held by some of the greatest thinkers who ever lived. I'm skeptical myself, BWTHDIK? In my book, I say, basically, "If you believe that objective moral values trump the choices of the populace, fine. Just consider my take on democracy and prudential values to start working at the next highest level."

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "One way of seeing this maybe is to imagine an instantaneous world one that is all successes and compare it to one that is all failures. Looked at in isolation from everything else, it seems to me hard to deny that getting is better than failing to get."

Well, let's examine that for a minute, especially the grounds for saying what you say. If you are saying that a set, made up of elements, is better off getting more elements as long as it exists, do we dare ask what kinds of elements the set has? I am aware that this may or may not apply to your people in the instantaneous world, but it seems roughly the same. I once had a friend who had a sticker in his window which said, "The one who dies with the most toys wins." If true, perhaps we each have a chance at salvation.
But let us suppose that, and this is taking perhaps an unfair atomistic approach, if we collect or gain certain things in our life and half of them are inconsistent with the other half, do we end up with neutrality or do they engender greater achievements by producing a synthesis (apologies to Hegel)? Successes, after all, can lead us into a myriad of directions, but it seems to me that a human being is only valuable (or good) insofar as he has not only accumulated successes, but used them to create further success.

In a consumer society, does it matter what sorts of things we accumulate? One can envision a kind of Hearst Castle of accumulation, albeit where thousands of artifacts were unable to be put to use and remain stored. Indeed, people are like that, such as the time I tried a profession for which I was ultimately unsuited. In one sense, it was not a success in the sense that I achieved a new career, but on the other, to paraphrase Edison, I had discovered another way in which I was probably not going to make my own mark. Indeed, all failures are successes, if only from the respect that we are able to harness the failure into something that works for us.
I suppose that for me to understand the foundations for your statement, I would have to be able to label issues as successes or failures, and that seems rather straightforward: all successes are those which we have not only accumulated, but used in some form to create further successes. If I play the piano, for example, and I use this to overcome a certain misery with which I otherwise live, such as an overbearing and harsh mother, then this is a success. If on the other hand, I succeed at something and allow it to simply lie there, whether physically or in my mind, (like winning a new car as opposed to an award,) then it cannot be said to be a true success.

Thus I ask whether it is fair to consider any accumulation as a simple accumulation of successes because those which are not utilized are stillborn. The Lexus which is left in the garage until it rusts is a useless accumulation, but the Chevy which gets me to graduate school in some nasty Cambridge winters seems to be a great success. In much the same way, anything which we accumulate in life ought to be connected to something else in order to become a greater success than it was to begin with, even the Chevy which is finally crushed by a snow plot in a snow storm. It seems to me that people thrive on certain things they accumulate and leave other things to the scrapheap, even if they were positive achievements in the first place.
If I am misunderstanding you, I beg your pardon.

[Walter]

Two items strike me as a bit off the mark here. First, the "things" one gets, the successes, need not be physical items, like Chevys; they could be remembering that guy's name, or taking a painless step. While they certainly might be cars or girlfriends, they can also be accomplishments. Whatever one chooses.

Second, in your last paragraph you drift back into considering consequences. Ex ante successes have to be looked without any such considerations. So whether the car is good in the snow or a rustbucket is a separate matter. Those calculations are important to overall well-being too, of course. But they don't function in the question of whether a choice is an ex ante success. They're ex post considerations.

W

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "Two items strike me as a bit off the mark here. First, the "things" one gets, the successes, need not be physical items, like Chevys; they could be remembering that guy's name, or taking a painless ..."

While I completely agree with you that these are ex post considerations in my examples, I would also like to point out that even in an instantaneous world, our values are skewed by the belief that whatever it is that we believe we are gaining may not actually be gained by our efforts, Hence, while I understand that this world is one of perceived (or misperceived value,) I find it difficult to limit our appreciation of that which is good for us by our inexperienced desires. Hence, while my Corvette may, in fact, bring to me the stature of which I have always dreamed, it may actually become a burden of insurance due to speeding tickets and exorbitant insurance, additionally causing the unforeseen effect of my friends performing eye rolls, smirks and sub rosa comments concerning a second childhood.
Thus while I understand your construct of an instantaneous world, I deny its effectiveness in showing us a greater understanding of reality, but instead one which is severely restricted by its artificial construct. Indeed, I suggest if this is how we were to evaluate the goodness in things, it would be akin to evaluating our dreams and wishes rather than what truly occurs in our lives.

[Walter]

Hi, Rhonda.

As I've said, it's definitely the case that what "we believe we are gaining may not actually be gained by our efforts." And, as indicated, I don't think that's relevant to whether obtaining it is an ex ante success.

As we've been around this issue several times already, I'm wondering if you'd care to comment on the concern I mentioned involving The Handmaid's Tale in my original post. I find the issue of discrimination that might not be "unfair" but nevertheless causes a lot of pain troubling. Any thoughts on that? Thanks.

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "I'm wondering if you'd care to comment on the concern I mentioned involving The Handmaid's Tale....Some types of discrimination may be claimed not to be “unfair,” however: those said to be based on actual relevant differences. In A Handmaid’s Tale, fertile women are treated differently—indeed, horribly—but the different treatment could be claimed to be based on a bona fide, scientific distinction. And who can doubt that the ability to procreate is crucial one to any society that is to survive? (Consider the Shakers!) So, one may ask whether populism allows the sort of treatment received by the Handmaids whenever it is a case of the majority is getting what it wants in a real democracy..."

It seems fair to say that as any given state is a benefit to its citizens, so should each citizen be of some value to the state. Much of this is usually self-determined by those who choose this or that profession and, because of a diverse population, we have groups of people who have chosen, perhaps with a little encouragement, usually a monetary reward society pays for the skill, a diverse work force which supplies all the labor which the given state requires. If this is not provided by its present populace, there are ways of seeking help from outside the state.

But it is easy to imagine that there is a possibility in which a populace wished to train only write poetry and pursue art history and talk about things like the philosophy of mind instead of learning the art of war and making better weapons of war. The state, deciding that its foremost duty was to defend itself against foreign invaders, has several options. In the free market, it is easier to provide a very high reward for things of this nature and this should adjust itself to the market.
However, let us further imagine that there are issues, perhaps engendered issues, which affect the populace through both an infected water supply or modified wheat and corn or even the air that is breathed, so that the only thing that the majority of the populace could manage at their very best efforts, were things such as philosophizing and poetry and political science, ostensibly because their minds were rendered too addled to discuss serious issues. It seems to me that it would fall on those who were governing to take drastic measures to use the necessary means to be able to fill the needs of the state. This would be so because it has affected the very existence of the state.
The question would first require a plan of action, examining the options, but let us say that it was discovered that certain individuals were recognized to be unaffected by these things that affected most of the others. Would it then be a moral issue to require them to be trained by the state in order to fulfill the requirement to protect the state? Would it be an issue of how those were treated or would it behoove the state to decide the most effective means of remedying the need?
Drastic and mean-spirited action by the state typically leads to active rebellion by those being forced. I recall, historically, that states have required those who are able through a means of psychological persuasion, for example appealing to their nationalism, painting certain races of people as enemies. History seems replete with such examples, Alexander and Napoleon being two excellent examples, but I leave this for possible discussion.

I recall a personal story from a family member who was on patrols in a foreign country. One person in the platoon was often chosen to crawl into the tunnels made by the enemy, yielding a place where the enemy might store arms and supplies which helped them return and fight against this platoon. It was dangerous work. The man wasn't all that concerned with his being chosen and, as the tunnels were small, it was much easier for this person to crawl into the tunnels. In fact, a majority of members were rather large, above 6 feet tall and over 200 lbs. One day someone suggested that it wasn't fair that Rodriguez always had the dangerous duty of crawling into the holes. After a string of profanity, the lieutenant advised the platoon corporal that this was not a democracy and that he was choosing the best people for the many rotten jobs they had to do. This shut the corporal up, but for the rest of his tour, the corporal who spoke up was selected to carry something called the BAR, which was heavy.
Clearly this above example is unlike The Handmaid's Tale in several ways. First and foremost, no one signed up in the military to follow orders given by someone else wherein they did not have the right to choose. However, in serious time of need, is it wrong to enlist those who have the capacity to provide a service for the state in which they are living, even when others are unable to do so?
It is all too easy to allow others to perform the tasks for which one is not well suited. Some of us write papers instead of picking strawberries and artichokes and oranges and lettuce. As long as these tasks are filled, do I care how these people doing their tasks are treated or is it worth my conscience not to be able to respond? One answer is that I have grown rather fond of air conditioning and cleanliness. Another is that distance makes the decision rather painless, much in the same as we are distanced from the killing of animals for food by the cellophane packages in the stores.
The deeper question becomes whether morality exists for people when they either willingly or by design are shielded from issues which may or may not be seen as necessitous. Is it unfair if you are oblivious to the issue?

[Walter]

A lot to chew on there. Thanks, Rhonda!

W

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "A lot to chew on there. Thanks, Rhonda! "

To continue on this subject, one of the things at which I was appalled in my early life was when I read about Hitler encouraging young women to produce racially pure children. This theme has been repeated in a relatively recent series from "Man in the High Castle," which I enjoyed, but which I acknowledge took liberties with history. Between the 1920's and 1932, the birth rate in Germany had fallen by almost 50%, thus giving rise to the Lebensborn project. These children would be given to the elite families to raise. I remember seeing pictures of young girls standing in line, proud to have been selected for their ability to produce children for the Fatherland. I kept wondering how one could ever encourage such reckless behavior in girls. It turns out that it was fairly easy.
Of course, when Germany lost the war, these lebensborn became social outcasts. It was probably a good thing that their identity was most often hidden. One wonders how these children would have fared under the original regime if it continued. One tends to think that it would have required a sense of superiority over others. One is reminded of the Japanese and their relationship to gaijin, where the term remains an ethnic slur, although a quiet one.
Nevertheless, it would seem highly inefficient to produce offspring from those who were not convinced of their righteousness. I remember not long ago speaking to a young 14 year old girl who was having a baby and was convinced that she and her boyfriend, the baby's father, were going to prosper in their new family way. I suppose that anyone today might look at this with a jaundiced eye, expecting that the world would soon beat this poor girl into an impoverished reality. But what if she could succeed in her life and be elevated rather than crushed by society? If this were done on a large scale, could such things be successful when couples might be given advantages rather than disadvantages?

[Walter]

Yes, I think these are extremely difficult questions. And, as I concede in my book, we are unlikely to reach anything like concord on them, whatever particular theory (or theories) of moral and prudential values we happen find congenial--including my own.

[Martina]

Hello, I'm Maria and I'm 15. I don't know much about Philosophy but I want to learn more. It is so intriguing.
I found out about Philosophy in our Social Studies class when our teacher taught us about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. I became interested. I hope we can all be friends. :)

note: I am sorry for my broken English. It is not my first language.

[Rhonda]

Maria wrote: "I found out about Philosophy in our Social Studies class when our teacher taught us a..."
Well God bless your Social Studies teacher and I hope you enjoy yourself here, Maria. I started reading philosophy when I was about your age and it is a good thing to learn. Plato and Aristotle are excellent sources, and some people study them their entire lives.
The principle by which we learn the most, in my opinion, is the dialogue. This is much preferred to the monologue, by which we learn to like the sound of our words. We have not had much luck in a continuing conversation about issues, but perhaps you will be the first to start one.

[Walter]

I don't think the introduction thread is the best place for a continuing conversation about issues: I'd think one of the topic-centered areas would be better. But I'm a newbie, so maybe I'm wrong.

[Rhonda]

Walter wrote: "I don't think the introduction thread is the best place for a continuing conversation about issues: I'd think one of the topic-centered areas would be better. But I'm a newbie, so maybe I'm wrong."
You may well be right that particular threads belong in places for that subject, but an introduction area ought to do more for the subject of philosophy than tell one another how excited we are and what our favorite color is. It seems to me that little harm is done with having discussions on philosophy where one finds others who value the discussion.

[Lacey]

Hello everyone!
My name is Lacey.
I've never posted on here, or any other community for that matter, before. I have a bachelor's degree in Political Science and a bachelor's degree in Korean from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa as well as a master's degree in Social and Political Thought from the University of Leeds. It's funny because during my undergraduate, my philosophy classes were the classes I detested the most. It was confusing and I felt like I never had anything intelligible to say in the room. However, later during my master's degree, I became enthralled in more philosophical modes of thought.
Now that I am graduated, I read a lot of philosophy just for fun, though it's hard because there's nobody to discuss such ideas in person with anyone around me. I love how in philosophy, as with other social sciences, there is no right answer. It's purely speculative and makes one think beyond what they may have previously considered.
I really enjoy reading Plato, though I disagree with a lot of points he makes. Nietzche is always a go-to as well and Camus- to a certain degree. I've also enjoyed reading the comments/posts on this page too.
Nice to meet everyone!

[Skallagrimsen]

You share my preference for literary philosophers. I mostly read the ones, the few, who were also great writers, and mostly read about the rest.

[Frank]

Lacey - I identify with your comments about reading philosophy, but not having anyone to discuss it with. Here's how I deal with this problem: I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist church and it occurred to me that it's probable that there are other members who may be in a similar situation. So I got permission from the our minister and set up a church sponsored philosophy discussion group. Our first meeting had about 5 people in attendance and it just grew from there. Our last meeting had 13 people, but our usual attendance is around 8 to 10, which is a good number for discussion. If you (or others on this thread) are interested in details about how we do it, let me know. By the way, we call the group Plato's Cave.

[Lacey]

Skallagrimsen wrote: "You share my preference for literary philosophers. I mostly read the ones, the few, who were also great writers, and mostly read about the rest."

Thank you for your reply! And ha- this made me laugh! That's a good way to go about things- sometimes there's just too much material to sufficiently read in a lifetime. Gotta pick the best ones!

[Lacey]

Frank wrote: "Lacey - I identify with your comments about reading philosophy, but not having anyone to discuss it with. Here's how I deal with this problem: I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist church and it..."

Thank you for your comment! And that's a clever idea! I don't have any places I belong to currently, so it would be a tough thing to set up- but it makes me think about how there must be interested parties just waiting for an opportunity...like us! Somebody has to make the first leap! Maybe it will be me :)

[Mark]

“In the whole world there is no deeper, no mightier literary work. This is, so far, the last and greatest expression of human thought... And if the world were to come to an end, and people were asked there, somewhere: “Did you understand your life on earth, and what conclusions have you drawn from it?”—man could silently hand over Don Quijote.

(The Diary of a Writer, cited in Gilman, 76)”
― DostoyevskyI

[Rhonda]

Mark wrote: "...and people were asked there, somewhere: “Did you understand your life on earth, and what conclusions have you drawn from it?”—man could silently hand over Don Quijote...."

Having just a few years ago trudged through several translations of Don Q, I find this a fascinating statement, mostly, I confess, because the person who made it is clearly not looking around for admiring glances.
This is, to me, a statement of pure admiration of one great writer for another, about struggles and pain only in order to discover love, the greatest of the four, as Lewis explains. Don Q is an exquisite story of a man's search not for personal aggrandizement, but in order to become who he is supposed to be.
I was explaining the issue of the famous Latin Vulgate phrase, Vanitas vanitatis from Ecclesiastes to a disinterested group the other day and I translated the Hebrew as breath, emptiness and transitoriness, what we say and do, but floats away.
I have a Gustave Doré print of the old gentleman on the wall in my office and it always makes me smile. I wonder if I should ever understand the spirit of existence as much as the daily drudge of life. Thank you for this.

[Carol]

Hi,

Thank you for letting me in.

[Jack]

Hello all. I'm new to this app and to the philosophy conversation. l'm 17 and still figuring out how to navigate around the app but looking forward to any debates/conversations on anything philosophy. I've been reading some Plato, Sun Tzu, Auralius and such. Open to any suggestions.

[Miles]

Very good list to start with. I might recommend Wittgenstein. Also, since you are reading Sun Tzu, you should read Clauswitz's On War. Don't skip Zeno.

[Frank]

Hey Jack - For someone just starting in philosophy, at 17 no less, I would recommend Plato's early dialogues (save The Republic for later) and please stay away from Wittgenstein (sorry Miles, but Ludwig is for those who are serious about how to do philosophy after you've exhausted everyone else - and even then there are no guarantees you won't be wasting your time). You might try I.F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates. If you're looking for philosophies that that lean toward being "useful" for us humans, look into pragmatism, existentialism and the ancient philosophies of Epicureanism and Stoicism.

[Miles]

No offense taken, but I have to say that I get a tremendous amount from Wittgenstein and have in no way "exhausted everyone else." I was unable to read Kant's Prolegomena until my forties, but that didn't mean I avoided The Republic. A person (17 or not) reading Plato, Sun Tzu, and Auralius is perfectly capable of gleaning wisdom from The Republic.

[J.]

Jack wrote: "Hello all. I'm new to this app and to the philosophy conversation. l'm 17 and still figuring out how to navigate around the app but looking forward to any debates/conversations on anything philosop..."

Reading Meditations and The Art of War are solid starts. As you are reading Marcus Aurelius, I recommend the lecture linked below on the infuriating virtue of that alpha stoic by Michael Sugrue. It will add context.
https://youtu.be/Auuk1y4DRgk?si=yoXPf...

If you're reading Sun Tzu for strategy, you should read A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy for tactics. Throw in Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess to help you dominate the chess board while you chat about the other books.

While you're still on the ground floor, pick up some introductory books on logic. Something that covers the basic logical fallacies, like The Duck That Won the Lottery: and 99 Other Bad Arguments is a good start for recognizing and weeding out invalid lines of thought. Add some collections of speeches, poetry, and prose for the rhetorical nuke that is a damnably apt quote.

For a modern look at morality, read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. I don't know if Haidt is correct. But he had me examining my own mores and taboos.

[Miles]

"Throw in Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess..." I preferred Garry Kasparov's Deep Thinking, primarily due to its leadership lessons.

[J.]

Miles wrote: ""Throw in Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess..." I preferred Garry Kasparov's Deep Thinking, primarily due to its leadership lessons."

It's a pity they never faced each other.

I haven't read Kasparov's book. The beauty of Fisher's book is the focus on teaching the student to see the end game from an ever increasing number of turns from mate. It turns the game into an exercise in looking at the same pieces as your opponents, and seeing further than them.