the queen is dead

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bullshit. The list you showed of people as allegedly being 'more famous' was a joke.

Garbage. All you are capable is bile and repeating opinions.

Idiot.

[Iwannaplato]

Bullshit. The list you showed of people as allegedly being 'more famous' was a joke.

Garbage. All you are capable is bile and repeating opinions.

Idiot.

Poo poo head. And now you're down to half your capabilities.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But you 'are' an idiot. No point in beating around the bush.

'Dwayne Johnson'??
Football players come and go. And it has nothing to do with what I'm 'personally' interested in. I'm hardly a 'royalist', and I couldn't name one single current All Black. I suppose there are idiots here too who think that All Blacks are the most famous people on the planet, or idiots on social media who think the Kardashians are the 'most famous people on the planet'

[Iwannaplato]

But you 'are' an idiot. No point in beating around the bush.

'Dwayne Johnson'??
Football players come and go. And it has nothing to do with what I'm 'personally' interested in. I'm hardly a 'royalist', and I couldn't name one single current All Black. I suppose there are idiots here too who think that All Blacks are the most famous people on the planet, or idiots on social media who think the Kardashians are the 'most famous people on the planet'

Kudos for almost making an argument. I was shaken by the lols.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But you 'are' an idiot. No point in beating around the bush.

'Dwayne Johnson'??
Football players come and go. And it has nothing to do with what I'm 'personally' interested in. I'm hardly a 'royalist', and I couldn't name one single current All Black. I suppose there are idiots here too who think that All Blacks are the most famous people on the planet, or idiots on social media who think the Kardashians are the 'most famous people on the planet'

Kudos for almost making an argument. I was shaken by the lols.

Even with only the 'lols' it would have been a much better argument than you came up with. You really aren't the brightest bulb on the shelf are you?

[Iwannaplato]

Even with only the 'lols' it would have been a much better argument than you came up with. You really aren't the brightest bulb on the shelf are you?

And now an opinion about how you expressed your opinions. Plus a dash of bile. You're not the brightest bulb on the shelf, are you, VT?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: "There is one smallish problem and I think it might contaminate how you are answered. There is no such thing as the 'rational man or woman'. While I agree that we can, say, try our best to think and act rationally the greater truth seems to be that we actually choose things irrationally. What stimulates the love of the English monarchy seems to be anything but classically rational. It is deeply sentimental (and I do not mean this in a negative way)."

Of course, to the objectivists among us, an objection:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective truth
3] I have access to the objective truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Maybe some day I will *evolve* into an objectivist. As it stands such an assertion runs contrary to what I face, day in and day out, in the world around me.

Thus it seems, shall I say, safer to assert that men are rational at times and in some circumstances, but irrational in many other times and circumstances.

I appreciate the links however I do not have the time to read through them (I did glance however).

AJ wrote: The question of *obligation* interests me. Given that I have considerable background researching those movements, generally on the political right and also toward the extremes of the right and conservatism, I am aware that there are people who value monarchies because they, let's say ideally, are genuinely rooted in the old structures of their given society. As all are aware they were once understood to be somewhat *divine* and thus all the church rituals when they are installed. At least theoretically they are supposed to act in the best interests of the people they rule.

IAM wrote: Yes, however it may apall many, there are in fact arguments that some do make and passionately believe to be rational regarding monarchy, theocracy, fascism, communism, anarchy, dictatorship.

It is somewhat curious that you did not also include democracy, liberalism, hyper-liberalism and also the strange hybrids of these (which best describe our present systems).

I can quite easily imagine (or speculate) on a political system that combines elements of democracy, but also has a strong, decent and even 'noble' monarchy; has some quote/unquote fascistic elements (extreme nationalism perhaps and even intolerant chauvinism or even religious intolerance); some elements of classical Liberalism; somewhat socialistic institutions or policies; but also allowing for some anarchic elements; with a ever-so-slight touch of dictatorship . . .

Though I must admit I come out of Hyper-Liberalism and might balk if my liberties were curtailed. I frankly think we are in a time where, soon, we will come face to face with people's sense that intolerance is actually needed. That is, to become intolerant of those they have determined (rationally if you wish!) to be enemies.

The discussion of all of this is not vain really. It is topical.

And then of course those amoral nihilists who own and operated the global economy. Their own "political philosophy" being "show me the money".

I believe I understand what you are saying and why you say it. I could take on that view (and have at times) but I am not convinced that it is rational. It is an emoted opinion that may not be as accurate as it seems to assume! This I think it reveals a rather common mode of perception: an interpretive paranoia. But don't get me wrong as I am deeply interested in the interpretive lenses that we all employ. We deal with Reality, it seems to me, from our perspective of our 'imagined world' (the world we hold in our imagination, our perceptual lens).

Basically then, "democratic republics" are often defended not because they are in sync with the civics textbooks, but because they come to be seen as "the best of all possible worlds". More or less Machiavellian as it were.

And with them I agree -- largely. But as I say I think a political system (and our own) is really best seen as an odd hybrid. However, I think that democracies will always tend to decadence. Classic, principled Liberalism shows I think that it tends to degenerate. And when it degenerates there is needed a reform. And reforms involve different levels of applied unfreedom and shall I say punishment.

[attofishpi]

Fucking ridiculous list.

I think Dwayne calls himself "The Rock", because he is really big?...USAdians see that as impressive. (he's in TV films that one should not watch)
There's another superhero they have in the list, Iron Man. lmfao.

The list would be barely known to at least 70% of the world population - India, China etc...USAdians forget about the fact that they exist, as well as the rest of Asia that don't give a flying fuck about stupid fantasies of superheros that make Americans come in their pants.

The Queen of England however I'd hedge for > 95%.of people on the planet knowing within a week that she is dead.

Show me. I looked at list after list from all sorts of media. Football players makes total sense. The world including Africa and South America, and now even Asia and certainly the old Soviet countries are all football obsessed. And just because media now make a lot of noise about QE doesn't mean people knew about her before that noise. Some old lady in Europe will flit past the ADHD consciousness of most people under 30 all over the globe without leaving a mark. Hollywood and sports creep onto tshirts and add and well direct watching everywhere.

As far as India and China, you think most people in those countries give a shit about a non-leader of state in one European country. Yes, India was a colony but the vast part of the population is not thinking about that ever there. Certainly not the teeming young. Football, movies, t-shirts, meme on the internet. You think while surfing Indians stay more than a millisecond on QE? And those too poor to surf? She not on t-shirts

I honestly thought you might be one of the intelligent ones from the daft side of the pond. (until now)

YOU:- "Football players make total sense"

The day that > billions of people around the world tune in to him (Lionel Messi) getting married, or his children for that matter (or anyone on that ridiculous list...then you may have made a reasonable statement. As it stands, Veg is right (as usual, apart from when she calls me nasty things), you are an idiot.

I know you have limited coverage beyond you own border when it comes to news reporting - but I watched loads of people on the streets of India, Indonesia, the Carribean places, indeed all around the world, common people of ALL ages\genders (both) being randomly asked about how they felt about THE QUEEN passing, yep they didn't even have to mention ENGLAND - and they ALL respected her (which as a tautology, means they knew she existed - fuck I'm starting to get into that word)..

So.

You think people around the world ON AVERAGE know the existence of Lionel Messi\Ronaldo... Dwayne Johnson (lmao just gold!) - do you think when those people die the news networks of the entire planet are going to be tuned in for days\weeks?

I loved Maradonna - woopy doo when he died in comparison.

Put your brain back in dude.

(and as much as I love the Queen - I'm not going to get a T-shirt of her either, since you mention that as part of your ridiculous argument - I am more likely to get one with James Ward-Prowse - a FOOTBALL SUPERSTAR)



Southampton FC midfielder James Ward-Prowse:
"On 15 January 2022, Ward-Prowse scored a free-kick goal in Southampton's 3–1 loss to Wolves at Molineux Stadium. The goal placed him joint second in the list of most free-kick goals in Premier League history (12), only behind David Beckham (18). He was then described by Pep Guardiola as the greatest free-kick taker in the world."

[Dubious]

the St. Paul's Cathedral Choir just made some of the most magnificent sounds i have ever heard. Damn i wish they woulda named the song. it was the very first one after homeboy with the glasses talked a little bit. i felt like i wuz being transformed into light, bro. my god how does the human voice produce such beauty, such grace?

...could you possibly be hearing this, probably the most famous a cappella music written?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj1iK2WKS8

[Age]

You know, since you approach everything from one narrow direction, I gave you a gift. You're just begging for someone to claim that there is only one reaction so that you can jump on him/her. You're welcome.

Back again to this:

Huh?!!

I opened this thread with this post:

...philosophically or otherwise, is there a way to pin down how all rational men and women are obligated to react to [the Queen's death]?

Or, instead, will our individual reactions to it be predicated more on the existential trajectory of our lives? Some being indoctrinated as children and then accumulating personal experiences and relationships as adults that predispose them to be gladdened by it, or saddened by it, or to be completely indifferent to it.

And I've always made it abundantly clear there can be as many paths to reacting to Queen Elizabeth's life and death as there are people.

In fact, only those who insist that how they react to it here themselves is the one and the only true path are instead prime examples of a narrow frame of mind.

Hell, I'm even assuming that free will is the reality here.

Again, I can't help but wonder what's happened to you. The phyllo I engaged all those years ago when ILP was an actual philosophy venue never seemed as, well, shallow as the phyllo of late.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Your narrow direction is fishing for objectivists. Which is what you're doing in this thread.

When one takes the bait and responds, then you go on the attack ... pushing your point of view ... dasein, fractured and fragmented, uncertainty, the gap, everybody is right based on their assumptions. (Well, everyone except objectivists.)

The issue with absolutely ANY one who 'tries to' make a 'blanket' or 'absolute' statement or claim, like; 'There are NO absolute NOR objective truths', is that these statements and CLAIMS are, actually, SELF-REFUTING CLAIMS.

So, the one who says or writes them, literally, is CONTRADICTING "their" OWN 'self'.

[Age]

When the most famous woman (person?) in the world dies then yes, it's going to make the news FFS. It's called history.

or football (sports) or entertainment or 'the rich and, well, famous'.......

First 8 of the top 10 most famous people in the world....
Elon Musk. ...
Jeff Bezos. ...
Dwayne Johnson. ...
Joe Biden. ...
Bill Gates. ...
Robert Downey Jr. ...
Cristiano Ronaldo. ...
Lionel Messi.

Is this meant to be in the WHOLE 'world'? Or, just in some very tiny little 'world'?

[Age]

A particularly irritating fact is that the French still hold the world record for longest reigning monarch, Louis XIV, who reigned 72 years. He did cheat though, by coming to the throne at the age of four.

Just out of curiosity, WHY would this, 'irritate' absolutely ANY one?

[Maia]

A particularly irritating fact is that the French still hold the world record for longest reigning monarch, Louis XIV, who reigned 72 years. He did cheat though, by coming to the throne at the age of four.

Just out of curiosity, WHY would this, 'irritate' absolutely ANY one?

I was being facetious.

[reasonvemotion]

"It is Mother Teresa all over again."

[Age]

Now, philosophically or otherwise, is there a way to pin down how all rational men and women are obligated to react to it?

There is one smallish problem and I think it might contaminate how you are answered. There is no such thing as the 'rational man or woman'.

"imabiguous" was not asking this, as though it was a REAL possibility.

"iambiguous" was just asking this to 'fish for', or to 'troll for' people with very particular views, so that "iambiguous" could then find someone to 'argue'/fight against, with its OWN very particular views, ASSUMPTIONS, or BELIEFS

While I agree that we can, say, try our best to think and act rationally the greater truth seems to be that we actually choose things irrationally.

Like, for example, replying to "iambiguous", as though "iambiguous" REALLY BELIEVES that ANY and ALL human beings are obligated to react to some thing in a particular way?

What stimulates the love of the English monarchy seems to be anything but classically rational. It is deeply sentimental (and I do not mean this in a negative way).

So, is there a positive way to be deeply sentimental, which stimulates one to love the Greedy, the Abusive, and the Selfish?

Frankly I do not really understand what assessment you'd hoped for.

"iambiguous" was only hoping and looking for those with DIRECT OPPOSITE views and/or BELIEFS, so that 'they' could have a 'sparring partner', of words, at what may be a particular boring time for 'them'.

I assume that your rational assessment is that a monarchy is completely absurd, is that right? That the love or respect for Old England (and all that the monarchy represents) is outdated and absurd? That fits with a modern perspective, doesn't it?

The question of *obligation* interests me. Given that I have considerable background researching those movements, generally on the political right and also toward the extremes of the right and conservatism, I am aware that there are people who value monarchies because they, let's say ideally, are genuinely rooted in the old structures of their given society.

Did one REALLY need to 'research' to arrive at 'this conclusion'? Let alone have a 'considerable background of researching'.

As all are aware they were once understood to be somewhat *divine* and thus all the church rituals when they are installed. At least theoretically they are supposed to act in the best interests of the people they rule.

ANY one who puts ANOTHER one 'up on a pedestal', so to speak, is, literally, placing that one ABOVE "others", or just making them MORE 'divine-like'.

But the question of defining *best interests* is tremendously fraught is it not? Our present age (the last decades really) is marked by astounding disagreements.

What makes them any more, or less, legitimate than elected politicians who are more often than not corrupt to the core and whose real interests are in their own political careers.

What is the 'legitimate' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?

From my perspective, the queen, dead or alive, is NO more 'legitimate' than a new born with downs syndrome NOR with, or NOT with, ANY thing else.

Technically, those who validate the monarchy say that because they are not political figures (standing technically outside of politics) they can exert a different sort of influence. A politician is elected for a short term and acts in Machiavellian self-interest. But a royal family, again technically, has influence for an entire lifetime and indeed for generations.

Does not EVERY one have 'influence'.

AND, if ANY one has MORE 'influence' than "another", then this is ONLY because someone ELSE has GIVEN them that.

I admit to being very amazed when the younger prince what's-his-name defected in such a blatant manner from the position he would have been asked to uphold.

I do NOT know what what is-his-name is.

Have you remembered 'it' yet?

Also, WHY were you 'amazed' that 'that' human being, (whatever his name is) just did what a LOT of other human beings do?

I must admit that his marriage to an African-American woman, and by that I do mean marrying outside of the group that he'd have been expected to marry, is simply an overt symptom of the absurdity of the time we are in.

What is 'the group' that 'what-is-his-name' was, supposedly, 'expected' to marry?

And do you find it ABSURD when EVERY one marries outside of some alleged 'group', or only when 'what-is-his-name' did it?

But there we see the tendency, so marked, to undermine hierarchies and to act against them.

What 'hierarchy'?

And, who is it of 'you', human beings, who are creating this 'hierarchy'?

When 'you' inform us, then 'we' can ask 'you', WHY are 'you' creating 'this' for, EXACTLY?

The entire spectacle of singing Negro-American hymns in the Anglican Church when the marriage was conducted was painful and strange to watch (I watched just a few minutes of the rituals and paid attention to what was written in the NYTs). Hoe embarrassing and painfully ridiculous the entire rehearsal seemed.

'Embarrassing' to who, EXACTLY?

WHY was 'what happened' here, 'strange', to you, EXACTLY?

And, what parts did you feel the 'pain' in, EXACTLY?

But the idea that I am communicating, or the sense of the absurdity, is simply because I am aware that there arises in people, psychologically, a will to undermine and destroy hierarchies.

Can 'a will' arise ANY other way than 'psychologically'?

Also, the very reason WHY 'hierarchies' are created is WHY they should be DESTROYED.

But each to their own. Some people just LOVE to put "others" above 'them' and "others".

I think that that is far less rational than it is rational to be frank. That is to say it is irrational.

So, to you, DESTROYING what is essentially just ANOTHER FORM of SELFISHNESS, GREED, and ABUSE is 'irrational'.

But "others" would say that this is and would be Truly RATIONAL.

It would be interesting and amazing if now-King Charles could think & speak with the intellectual freedom of a Jonathan Bowden.

Would it be just as interesting and amazing for you to think and speak with the intellectual freedom of "ANOTHER"?

Or, only if the human being now, incorrectly, known as "king charles" did it?

Now that would be something! Imagine the upset, imagine the scandal. It would be delicious.