New York City

[Gary Childress]

Read books or take a university course. Failing that, try not to be set on your own uninformed opinions.

Try it yourself. It might make you more intelligent.

I did so. It was hard work but it was worth the effort and expense. I'm not a doctor of philosophy , but even if I had failed to gain any tertiary qualification whatsoever the effort to learn would have been well worthwhile.

Then that makes two of us.

[Belinda]

Try it yourself. It might make you more intelligent.

I did so. It was hard work but it was worth the effort and expense. I'm not a doctor of philosophy , but even if I had failed to gain any tertiary qualification whatsoever the effort to learn would have been well worthwhile.

Then that makes two of us.

We are two of a kind,true. Neither of us is a genius. Philosophy is not an easy option.
So what do you intend to do about how you organise your future learning?

[Gary Childress]

I did so. It was hard work but it was worth the effort and expense. I'm not a doctor of philosophy , but even if I had failed to gain any tertiary qualification whatsoever the effort to learn would have been well worthwhile.

Then that makes two of us.

We are two of a kind,true. Neither of us is a genius. Philosophy is not an easy option.
So what do you intend to do about how you organise your future learning?

I don't organize my future learning. I learn as I go from what comes my direction. I am retired. I haven't been actively pursuing any specific educational goals in years. As far as I'm concerned the world is little more than opinions, and I have mine, though I remain open to refining my opinions as I interact with others

[Belinda]

Then that makes two of us.

We are two of a kind,true. Neither of us is a genius. Philosophy is not an easy option.
So what do you intend to do about how you organise your future learning?

I don't organize my future learning. I learn as I go from what comes my direction. I am retired. I haven't been actively pursuing any specific educational goals in years. As far as I'm concerned the world is little more than opinions, and I have mine, though I remain open to refining my opinions as I interact with others

It is beneficial to discuss ideas with others. If I want to learn to be a better cook I'd choose to discuss with good cooks, not folk who live on takeaways.

[Gary Childress]

We are two of a kind,true. Neither of us is a genius. Philosophy is not an easy option.
So what do you intend to do about how you organise your future learning?

I don't organize my future learning. I learn as I go from what comes my direction. I am retired. I haven't been actively pursuing any specific educational goals in years. As far as I'm concerned the world is little more than opinions, and I have mine, though I remain open to refining my opinions as I interact with others

It is beneficial to discuss ideas with others. If I want to learn to be a better cook I'd choose to discuss with good cooks, not folk who live on takeaways.

How do you determine a "good cook" from one that isn't?

[popeye1945]

a) Ah, but back when Islam DID control areas of Europe, not like that, was it. Muslim rule os Spain was tolerant (and a time period when Christian Europe not). Likewise Greece and the Balkans. That's why I say HISTORY

b) Minimum marriage age NOT different in Christian cultures (contemporary to the Quran. Honor killings cultural, not Islamic. Culture and custom AND history important to understand Sharia law. Looks harsh BUT there were historic periods when its qualification for witnesses so strictly interpreted that almost impossible to convict.

c) Yes, but only in translation. I've also read the Bible, the various Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, etc. Likewise in translation.

Well it's not 'tolerant' now and that's all that really counts

But, "jewish" or "zionism" is tolerant', correct "accelafine"?

Also, why do you hate "antisemitism" but promote "antimuslism"?

And, why, to you, it is bad to be "antisemitic", but good to be "antiislamic"?

Why do you put 'one religion' over and above 'another religion'?

At this point, all the above are psychopathic societies, and proud of it!!

[Age]

A couple of thoughts …

1) In general, and certainly in the US, the pressure builds. It is pressure from many angles and, like in a pressure cooker, it seems it will build until it — something— erupts. When I do visit the States I notice disarray in many places, but also dislocation, and separation — alienation. OTOH I also notice expressions of camaraderie and brotherhood in some places which seems unusual given a notable decline.

It is not surprising that the pressures exerted by circumstances show up in mental health issues. That is what they say is happening. And they say it is worse for women than for men. Especially younger women and girls.

And if one does not have a spiritual life, some link with a higher self or “higher power” (the sense of a guide within the confusion of life) and that corner of the self that one can take refuge in, it is easy to see how people can go off the edge.

2) I see disunity and disharmony, which is obviously destructive of a sense of social unity (in the US, I could not speak for Europe), and it seems that people cannot Rx it. Everyone takes a stab at some pet theory though. It’s like the blind describing an elephant.

My view? The actual facts of the matter are very difficult to talk about freely because of the dangers involved in speaking honestly and forthrightly. Especially here on this forum, as in general, the core differences are always between people who are tendentious opposites. If some shadow of an impression is picked up by an oversensitive interlocutor, and precisely as that worthwhile Jung excerpt I posted above asserts, the “projection mechanism” click into motion, and then the machinery of ‘righteous attack’ is lowered against ‘the enemy’ whose head popped up over the horizon …

It is so predictable!

Clearly though (returning to thoughts on the US), the nation has entered what seems like a critical phase. Sociologically. Demographically. I have been told that the conflicts of the Sixties were more dramatic though, however I was not a witness to it.

3) In order to understand “the present” I cannot see how one could avoid examining the discourse of radicalized extremists, on the Left as well as the Right. So, in that sense Gary, you do yourself a disservice by avoiding that examination. It is my opinion, as one who reads widely, that many ideas of The Dissident Right have entered the so-called mainstream. I noticed the beginnings of it 15 years ago. It is certainly “reactive” (as in reaction, reactionary) but similarly and even more intensely the activism of the Left is far more pervasive and its effects far more visible. It is predictable that Right-tending activism would show up. It was predicted.

4) It is very hard to make much ‘sense’ of politics, and you might be better off suspending the attempt, simply because it all involves so much conflicted psychological material that erupts emotionally. Hysterically in fact. Again that Jung clip speaks to the ‘impossibility’ of making sense of it. Thus the only productive field anyone (of us) can actually work on is our own inner self, and in the context also of immediate relations (spouse, family, kids, neighbors, friend).

"And if one does not have a spiritual life, some link with a higher self or “higher power” (the sense of a guide within the confusion of life) and that corner of the self that one can take refuge in, it is easy to see how people can go off the edge." wrote Alexis.

That needs to be explicit, Alexis,else you will not be understood.

I shall explain. People need moral principles. In past times religion was the medium for moral principles. Now religions have diversified .The worst of them are cults like that of Trump. The best of them , with the probable exception of the Quakers, are mystified by arcane language and ritual. In the US there never was an established religion.
Can anyone here argue cogently for a viable and popular religious form which is credible enough to support a moral code ?

Yes, and absolutely.

[Belinda]

I don't organize my future learning. I learn as I go from what comes my direction. I am retired. I haven't been actively pursuing any specific educational goals in years. As far as I'm concerned the world is little more than opinions, and I have mine, though I remain open to refining my opinions as I interact with others

It is beneficial to discuss ideas with others. If I want to learn to be a better cook I'd choose to discuss with good cooks, not folk who live on takeaways.

How do you determine a "good cook" from one that isn't?

Experienced, curious, energetic, adaptable, knowledgeable about nutrition.

[MikeNovack]

I shall explain. People need moral principles. In past times religion was the medium for moral principles. Now religions have diversified .The worst of them are cults like that of Trump. The best of them , with the probable exception of the Quakers, are mystified by arcane language and ritual. In the US there never was an established religion.
Can anyone here argue cogently for a viable and popular religious form which is credible enough to support a moral code ?

In the US there never was an established religion.

The last state to disestablish was Massachusetts in 1833. But originally several states had established churches. Congregational Church in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the Anglican Church in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas. Pennsylvania and Georgia more complicated, since no single church established.

Technically the US Constitution only forbids a NATIONAL established church and would now be interpreted to require all states to allow freedom of religion. But there has never been a case clearly forbidding establishment at the state level and that might depend on the details. For example, suppose a state DID have an established church but included a provision that while all had to pay the amount of the church tax could designate that their tax used for general state purposes (and not the church). Sort of like on the Federal tax form optional to designate a portion of tax for "campaign financing". With it optional, unclear how the Supreme Court would rule.

Of course, at the time states did away with established churches, they probably altered their state constitutions.

[Gary Childress]

It is beneficial to discuss ideas with others. If I want to learn to be a better cook I'd choose to discuss with good cooks, not folk who live on takeaways.

How do you determine a "good cook" from one that isn't?

Experienced, curious, energetic, adaptable, knowledgeable about nutrition.

How do we know if our determination isn't mistaken, biased, or based on some arbitrary predilection?