The Good, the Bad and the Ugly...

[marjoramblues]

Kayla quote : apparently imam is not allowed to talk to girls because they will cause him to spontaneously combust or something



Don't want to disturb the connections that people ( including teddy! ) have in the threads that Khalid has started; but wanted to say that I have been enjoying the religious debate so very much. Makes a difference when we can hear real life stories/impressions and respectful argument.
It is refreshing and informative - keep it up guys - all power to ya'

Khalid quote:...music can be used in spreading good messages , love and peace between people . Bob marley used music as a weapon against racism and hate . A song can move people to make change like in the revolution or in a war . And also music can be used in an evilish way like marilyn manson's songs and others .

Hi Khalid - I'd love to hear more about the kinds of music you listen to; and the art you enjoy. I did start up a line of discussion about Islamic calligraphy - but didn't manage to 'hook' you
Have you considered posting a little something in the Aesthetics forum ? *

I hope I don't embarrass anyone by quoting them - it's all meant in a Good Way, but I can see how it might be interpreted...
as having 'favourites'

* which is probably where this should be - how on earth did I end up in Metaphysics

[artisticsolution]

You stupid cock

Bullying, fighting for freedom or making a valid point? Good, bad or ugly? Or a combination of all three? What are your thoughts?

[duszek]

No, I do not love being insulted and disappointed. I entirely lack the masochistic gene which so many people seem to have.

I tolerated this murky Belgian boy far too long. He was like a small spider in my apartment. He was just ONE little spider, and after so many years I did not want to throw him out. But it was probably a mistake.

We have to tolerate the ugly in the real life because we depend on people for our existence. Political correctness and hypocricy help to preserve the self-esteem.
But in our private lives we should not make any compromises. Not three but one strike should be enough to put someone out of our private lives.

A good enemy is something different. A good enemy does not wish to damage you really, he wants to help you and to make you stronger. He offers honest feedback and expresses his real emotions, for which we should be grateful if we can.

People qualify for a relationship (friendship) if they know how much the other party can take. And are therefore able to measure well the amical punches.

[marjoramblues]

You stupid cock

Bullying, fighting for freedom or making a valid point? Good, bad or ugly? Or a combination of all three? What are your thoughts?

Taken in isolation 'You stupid cock' could even be a title of a painting; imagine that !

What are your criteria for judgment ?

Earlier I suggested various definitions of good,bad and ugly. Have you any thoughts on your chosen quote as it stands, or in relation to the poster, the recipient ? What was its effect?

I enjoyed duszek's 'we dress the words...according to our experience' - highlighting that our understanding/interpretation comes from context - both of the words on the line; between the posters - some we assume we 'know' from previous PN forum threads; and our own social/personal circumstances.

Do you feel you have to know, or like, a character/poster to think their posts good/admirable. Is it necessary for a poster to be truthful in a philo forum - is that somtimes too boring ? Dramatics - story-telling - can be much more powerful in grabbing attention and making us think...

However, there is a difference between taking up the role of opposition just for philo's sake and the repetitive drain syndrome of drama queens.

[marjoramblues]

We have to tolerate the ugly in the real life because we depend on people for our existence. Political correctness and hypocricy help to preserve the self-esteem.

What kind of 'ugly' are you talking about here ?

But in our private lives we should not make any compromises. Not three but one strike should be enough to put someone out of our private lives.

Why do you think we should not make any compromises ? What would warrant 'one strike' ?

A good enemy is something different. A good enemy does not wish to damage you really,

How would you know an 'enemy' was good for you ?

he wants to help you and to make you stronger. He offers honest feedback and expresses his real emotions, for which we should be grateful if we can.

If someone offers honest feedback and expresses real emotions, how does this help to make someone stronger - it could have the opposite effect.

People qualify for a relationship (friendship) if they know how much the other party can take. And are therefore able to measure well the amical punches.

I've never heard of this concept of 'qualifying' for a friendship ? Don't friendships grow as a result of getting to know each other - and even in long-term friendships, our measured punches might lead to an unholy row or break-up - depending...

You mentioned before that the bad and the ugly can be sanctioned by ignoring them. Is that what you do here ? Decide who or what is 'bad' or 'ugly' - and then place on 'ignore' ?

[marjoramblues]

If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. this is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed."


Allah, perchance, the secret word might spell;
If Allah be, He keeps His secret well;
 What He hath hidden, who shall hope to find?
Shall God His secret to a maggot tell?
…
The Koran! well, come put me to the test—
Lovely old book in hideous error drest—
 Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows his Koran best.

And do you think that unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
 God gave the secret, and denied it me?—
Well, well, what matters it! believe that too.

Omar Khayyám, Rubaiyat

The above was posted by Chaz, 'Scientific facts in the Quran' thread, July 6, 10.16 - page 17.

It seems that the blue quote was chosen by Chaz because it 'comes from a brave skeptic, and it is rare that words of religious dissent have managed to survive at all, let alone from such a long time ago.

Intrigued, I had to go search - and found this wise guy, scientist and philosopher,born in Persia, 865 - Muhammed ibn Zakariya al-Razi (Razi) see wiki for qwiki.

As a physician - he apparently discovered 'allergic asthma' - the occurrence of seasonal rhinitis after smelling a rose in Spring. Wrote a home medical manual for the public with diets and recipes - and rejected claims by Galen,the Greek physician. He linked medicine with philosophy - states that sound practice demands independent thinking.

I would love to get my hands on one of his many philo/medical books eg 'Spiritual Medicine' or 'The Philosophical approach'...

On Religion ( see blue quote): he was 'critical of the lack of interest among religious adherents in the rational analysis of their beliefs, and the violent reaction which takes its place'.

Razi, then, a scientist who wrote accurately on smallpox and measles as distinct diseases - symptoms clearly described, and directions for treatment.

So, objective clinical observation and methods - lack of dogmatism - based on Hippocratic oath; forbidden to do harm and intended for the benefit and welfare of the human race.

Our beliefs/knowledge and treatment of the human body can be seen to evolve. Ancient 'cures' for mental health problems we are now horrified by. We grow from what we know.

Religious beliefs/interpretations are based on 'words' spoken/written in the past - some are poetic, beautiful and meaningful; however, others can be viewed as being unjust, or just plain wrong ?

What is the problem with challenging such texts - is it possible to take the emotive/personal aspect out; if so, what have you left ?

[marjoramblues]

I believe most if not all judgments = aesthetics.

by artisticsolution, 'Socratic Method is defined as entrapment' thread, June 21, 11.58.

I wonder how many times in a thread ( pick your topic) where there have been claims such as this which lie unchallenged.
Perhaps because people don't have the time/energy/inclination to follow them up...or the window of opportunity closes...as the conversation flows on, or not. Have you ever written something hoping that someone would challenge but which appears to have gone unnoticed - been surprised at the lack of a philosophical response ?

I skimmed past this one of AS because it was a 'biggie' worthy of its own thread.

AS, I note, has an understandable 'thing' about 'A/aesthetics'. But has it ever been satisfactorily defined ?

After a quick 'search' I pulled a few of AS' thoughts:
1. ' the idea we have of 'truth' may be based in our inability to step outside aesthetics to imagine a different viewpoint that we are comfortable with' - from 'What's stopping us from seeing the truth', June 27, 5.23.

2. ' to me aesthetics is more about deceiving yourself with illusions that you hold as logical - when in fact they are not. Ego wants to show you the logic in its behaviour - even if such logic is illogical it will take pride in defending that logic. What I am talking about is an illusion so intense that it is impervious to logic. It is so strong that it knows no ego. It simply is.
This is what I mean by aesthetics/feelings/judgments' - from Socratic method is defined as entrapment', Jun 21, 11.58.
{my bolds}

So, in 1. it appears that aesthetics is used in a very broad sense to mean something like our own subjective sense ( isn't this 'ego' ?)
in 2. a deceptively-held intense illusion of illogical behaviour which just 'is' and 'knows no ego' ? ( but isn't this pure ego ?)
( if I've interpreted correctly - a bit difficult to follow )
And how can all that mean 'aesthetics/feelings/judgments' ?

I think that it is clear that some sentences or claims dropped into a discussion - give much pause for thought and questioning. What is it about this PN forum, or psychology of participants, which makes it difficult to start up a new thread based on a great/valuable post ?

[duszek]

I've never heard of this concept of 'qualifying' for a friendship ? Don't friendships grow as a result of getting to know each other - and even in long-term friendships, our measured punches might lead to an unholy row or break-up - depending...

You mentioned before that the bad and the ugly can be sanctioned by ignoring them. Is that what you do here ? Decide who or what is 'bad' or 'ugly' - and then place on 'ignore' ?

If someone upsets me regularly then I skip his posts in the future, yes. Otherwise I would start hating humanity as such, one day.
It seems to me a very reasonable thing to do.

If I start a friendship then I am very careful not to punch in the wrong way and when in doubt not to punch at all.
Ich lasse nichts anbrennen.
There is enough of punching and ellbowing in the world already. I prefer to spare my friends and to create an asylum of bliss with them.

[marjoramblues]

...You mentioned before that the bad and the ugly can be sanctioned by ignoring them. Is that what you do here ? Decide who or what is 'bad' or 'ugly' - and then place on 'ignore' ?

If someone upsets me regularly then I skip his posts in the future, yes. Otherwise I would start hating humanity as such, one day. It seems to me a very reasonable thing to do...

There is enough of punching and ellbowing in the world already. I prefer to spare my friends and to create an asylum of bliss with them.

Hmmm, duszek - I'm not sure how this squares with your earlier talk of a 'good enemy' who might make you stronger. In another thread - there was a discussion of how philo could disturb, shake people out of their cherished beliefs. Some might take such as an insult or an attitude of disrespect - and then 'ignore' the 'good enemy'. What kind of 'upset' are you talking about? And why on earth would reading such have the consequences of 'hating humanity' ?

In addition, you may have lost an opportunity to help someone to clarify his/her meaning; or change negative behaviour by pointing out his/her 'vice' or 'viciousness'. This links in well with the recent thread created by reasonvemotion - 'Can virtue be taught?'

Reasonvemotion: Plato's question could be asked differently, instead of asking whether virtue can be taught, maybe if asked whether virtue can be learned would the answer be different.

It is certainly not the first time this question has been so turned around ( see below). It will be interesting to see how the PN conversation progresses - virtuously or viciously Either way, I'm sure we will all learn from it, and flourish

Here is one reflection on the issue from 'education philosopher' - September 18,2009:
http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/cate ... of/page/2/

And, of course, the PN magazine is another valuable resource -

[duszek]

Mr Majoramblues

You must be a mediator or some other helpful professional and a very good one too.

Some punches are like friendly teasing and you do not mind because in your heart of hearts you feel liked by this person (but you can be wrong of course) and so you cannot really be upset.

But some punches make your instinct of self-preservation tell you: leave NOW.
I do not argue with this instinct, I just do what I am told.

It is not necessarily the content which decides but I guess that if someone for example tells me that I should die or that I should submit to men, then usually this instinct wakes up.
Mr Butlin was an exception which confirmed this rule, he also argued that women should submit but he made it in such a nice and gentlemanly manner that somehow his unacceptable views did not bother me.

[marjoramblues]

Mr Majoramblues
You must be a mediator or some other helpful professional and a very good one too.

Dear Dr Doozy
You have excellent powers of observation and an impeccable sense of style. Flattery will get you everywhere

But some punches make your instinct of self-preservation tell you: leave NOW.
I do not argue with this instinct, I just do what I am told.

Fair enough. It is a strong instinct - but is it always accurate ? Sometimes, the fear is only an imagined one; other times you can be lulled into a false sense of security...

It is not necessarily the content which decides but I guess that if someone for example tells me that I should die or that I should submit to men, then usually this instinct wakes up.

Isn't the self-preservation instinct always there - usually for a rapid response rather than having to be woken up? I'm not sure that this 'Go now' instinct is useful on a philo forum; after assessment, certain characters can easily be avoided if necessary/wished

Mr Butlin was an exception which confirmed this rule,

Do you mean that he was an exception to your rule of listening to your gut instincts ? He charmed you to stay and talk against your better judgment ?

he also argued that women should submit but he made it in such a nice and gentlemanly manner that somehow his unacceptable views did not bother me.

The scoundrel !

[artisticsolution]

I believe most if not all judgments = aesthetics.

by artisticsolution, 'Socratic Method is defined as entrapment' thread, June 21, 11.58.

I wonder how many times in a thread ( pick your topic) where there have been claims such as this which lie unchallenged.
Perhaps because people don't have the time/energy/inclination to follow them up...or the window of opportunity closes...as the conversation flows on, or not. Have you ever written something hoping that someone would challenge but which appears to have gone unnoticed - been surprised at the lack of a philosophical response ?

I skimmed past this one of AS because it was a 'biggie' worthy of its own thread.

AS, I note, has an understandable 'thing' about 'A/aesthetics'. But has it ever been satisfactorily defined ?

After a quick 'search' I pulled a few of AS' thoughts:
1. ' the idea we have of 'truth' may be based in our inability to step outside aesthetics to imagine a different viewpoint that we are comfortable with' - from 'What's stopping us from seeing the truth', June 27, 5.23.

2. ' to me aesthetics is more about deceiving yourself with illusions that you hold as logical - when in fact they are not. Ego wants to show you the logic in its behaviour - even if such logic is illogical it will take pride in defending that logic. What I am talking about is an illusion so intense that it is impervious to logic. It is so strong that it knows no ego. It simply is.
This is what I mean by aesthetics/feelings/judgments' - from Socratic method is defined as entrapment', Jun 21, 11.58.
{my bolds}

So, in 1. it appears that aesthetics is used in a very broad sense to mean something like our own subjective sense ( isn't this 'ego' ?)
in 2. a deceptively-held intense illusion of illogical behaviour which just 'is' and 'knows no ego' ? ( but isn't this pure ego ?)
( if I've interpreted correctly - a bit difficult to follow )
And how can all that mean 'aesthetics/feelings/judgments' ?

I think that it is clear that some sentences or claims dropped into a discussion - give much pause for thought and questioning. What is it about this PN forum, or psychology of participants, which makes it difficult to start up a new thread based on a great/valuable post ?

Hi marjoramblues,

I am sorry about seeming like I am evading your 'challenge.' I didn't think you were serious when you first made the 'challenge' a while back...and then I didn't see this post until tonight! I have been sick since Sunday and was unable to get out of bed for a couple of days so I completely missed this. I am all better now though.

You can view the rest of my response here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9266

I might have posted it in the wrong spot...sorry....tired...move it if you please amod...going to bed.

[duszek]

Fair enough. It is a strong instinct - but is it always accurate ? Sometimes, the fear is only an imagined one; other times you can be lulled into a false sense of security...

It is not necessarily the content which decides but I guess that if someone for example tells me that I should die or that I should submit to men, then usually this instinct wakes up.

Isn't the self-preservation instinct always there - usually for a rapid response rather than having to be woken up? I'm not sure that this 'Go now' instinct is useful on a philo forum; after assessment, certain characters can easily be avoided if necessary/wished

Mr Butlin was an exception which confirmed this rule,

Do you mean that he was an exception to your rule of listening to your gut instincts ? He charmed you to stay and talk against your better judgment ?

he also argued that women should submit but he made it in such a nice and gentlemanly manner that somehow his unacceptable views did not bother me.

The scoundrel !

[/quote]

This instinct can be wrong but it is the best we have.
What would you suggest instead ? I am all ears.

Quant à M. Butlin:
As a rule when someone tells me that women should submit to men I prefer to avoid such people, for reasons of mental hygiene.
But in this one case, because an extraordinary eccentric was making these suggestions, I made an exception.

Another one, on a different thread: when someone suggests that GMOs are to make humanity happy and healthy I prefer to leave.

[marjoramblues]

D: This instinct can be wrong but it is the best we have.
What would you suggest instead ? I am all ears.

MB: the 'instinct' thing is really taking us away from my intentions of this thread. Feel free to start up a new one - I will be all eyes

If you want to use others quotes as examples of good,bad and ugly, fair enough - but what is this about 'mental hygiene' and how does it relate to philosophical considerations ?

[duszek]

A good book a day keeps Prozac away.

I read at breakfast "Les passions partagées" by Félicien Marceau. It cheers me up, although it sounds a little bit immoral at times.
It is about a count in southern France who leads an easy-going life and tries to avoid sorrows, like a butterfly. His name is Cédric.