Philosophy Now Forum

marjoram_blues wrote: I spend time thinking about how governments and financial powers can either alleviate or destroy lives by their actions, based on short-term ideology or profits. The lack of cohesion which would enable individuals, societies or countries to go forward with a sense of security and hope. An overall united aim seems to be key here. Health, education, infrastructure investment. Clear policies which could be on 'automatic' pilot which would be applied to any crisis. Criminals who deliberately bring about financial and world crises should be called such and punished.

Have you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_oeJgnkvmI?
And have you been following the US primaries?

Related question:
Have you ever been in a situation of your own making that put you in imminent jeopardy (e.g. climbing on the roof, in a thunderstorm, with a crowbar in your hand) and managed to escape with a whole skin? I call that Maximum Survivable Stupidity.
Trick Question:
Do you think the US has reached its Maximum Survivable Assholity and is now ready for the 180 degree turn to sanity? Or will it march on to Terminal Assholity?

These are matters I ponder when I've eaten spicy snacks before bedtime.

Skip wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: I spend time thinking about how governments and financial powers can either alleviate or destroy lives by their actions, based on short-term ideology or profits. The lack of cohesion which would enable individuals, societies or countries to go forward with a sense of security and hope. An overall united aim seems to be key here. Health, education, infrastructure investment. Clear policies which could be on 'automatic' pilot which would be applied to any crisis. Criminals who deliberately bring about financial and world crises should be called such and punished.

Have you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_oeJgnkvmI?
And have you been following the US primaries?

Related question:
Have you ever been in a situation of your own making that put you in imminent jeopardy (e.g. climbing on the roof, in a thunderstorm, with a crowbar in your hand) and managed to escape with a whole skin? I call that Maximum Survivable Stupidity.
Trick Question:
Do you think the US has reached its Maximum Survivable Assholity and is now ready for the 180 degree turn to sanity? Or will it march on to Terminal Assholity?

These are matters I ponder when I've eaten spicy snacks before bedtime.

Will check out the video later. What did you glean from it?
Have watched a little of the primaries and a fascinating piece by Matt Frei on Trump. You know things gotta change in po!iitics when there is even a faint possibility that such as he could be president.
I have only ever been once on a very high roof to follow someone I thought was in danger of falling. I was drunk and even to this day come out in a cold sweat whenever I think of it. I wasn't brave - the guy climbed back in through another window. Yes, extreme stupidity.

I hope that US politics can change the election process. It gives me chills; they're multiplying.

Re spicy snacks. Not hot chillies ? I have a new hot tip for you to tongue. Try salt and vinegar snack-a-jacks spread with banana or Costello's creamy blue cheese.

Could I just have the blue cheese? My sinful snack is Indian chick-pea sticks. Good with beer.

Re, the video: I watched in two instalments on TVO. There wasn't very much in there that I hadn't known or suspected (they added solid numbers and real names), but it was all brought together in a compact, straightforward presentation. No side-stepping, excuses or fudging. This one is centered on Great Britain, but the same process took place in Canada (and I believe Australia) to a lesser, and in the US, to a greater extent.

Green wrote:

• Alcohol
• Mushroom
• Sex
• Fine smoke
• The disgust/praise from complete strangers
• Making your parents proud
• Great philosophical films (Revolver for example)
• Sex
• Good food
• Someone you can be so honest with, that even insult won't add to injury

These are a few of my favorite things.

Especially after the dog bites, and the bee stings, and your feeling sad.... Thanks for putting Julie Andrews in my head for the day.... At least it's taking my mind off of this unrealistic positivity fest. Appreciated.

Skip wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: I spend time thinking about how governments and financial powers can either alleviate or destroy lives by their actions, based on short-term ideology or profits. The lack of cohesion which would enable individuals, societies or countries to go forward with a sense of security and hope. An overall united aim seems to be key here. Health, education, infrastructure investment. Clear policies which could be on 'automatic' pilot which would be applied to any crisis. Criminals who deliberately bring about financial and world crises should be called such and punished.

Have you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_oeJgnkvmI?
And have you been following the US primaries?

Related question:
Have you ever been in a situation of your own making that put you in imminent jeopardy (e.g. climbing on the roof, in a thunderstorm, with a crowbar in your hand) and managed to escape with a whole skin? I call that Maximum Survivable Stupidity.
Trick Question:
Do you think the US has reached its Maximum Survivable Assholity and is now ready for the 180 degree turn to sanity? Or will it march on to Terminal Assholity?

These are matters I ponder when I've eaten spicy snacks before bedtime.

Just watched the intro and I was sold, skip. It was definitely preaching to this choir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYymFWsBxk0
Julie Andrews antidote.

http://intellectual-thoughts.com/Skyscraper%20Fire.htm
Positivity antidote.

Obvious Leo wrote:Dubious. Without question you're living in a different world from me.

Not just in a different world but a different universe. I'm still content to exist in the old spacetime cocoon patiently waiting for an upgrade based on proof and probabilities rather than assertions.

Obvious Leo wrote:The humans in my world have never had it so good and although we're in for some difficult times ahead they'll be no more difficult than any we've had to deal with in the past and now we're far better equipped to deal with them.

The humans in your world, no doubt 'tis true but in other parts 'tis false. If you or your family were affected your pronouncements wouldn't be so easy going. As confirmed by science, what is happening is a unique event never before encountered by humans making your assertion, difficult times ahead they'll be no more difficult than any we've had to deal with in the past, thoroughly unmatchable with the reality. It will for certain be dealt with but far less by us who caused the damage than by the forces that be and always were. To believe that we're going to take over the process is what euphemistically I'd describe as "pollyannish" and giving ourselves too much credit for what hasn't been accomplished.

Obvious Leo wrote:The current mass extinction is under way and can't be stopped but in the wider biological scheme of things this is in itself a trivial matter.

It may indeed be a “trivial matter” in the biological and evolutionary scheme of things but I do believe it's getting a trifle serious at this juncture being vulnerable to events whose consequences we are just beginning to encounter and whose unfolding we can't be certain of except that they are not in our favor. Not least, nature going bad-ass invokes the same response in humans against each other to generate a whole new set of additional consequences.

What happens eons hence beyond the near, intermediate and even the far future humans imagine, is of no consequence having long ceased to exist on what would, in any event, amount to a different planet making your statement pointless. Solving problems requires thinking to be contemporary with the problem(s), not jettisoned into periods which no-longer identify with it.

Obvious Leo wrote:What makes this extinction event different from those which came before is not just the fact that our species has caused it. Our species is also now in a position to be able to manage it in such a way that it leads to greater biodiversity and a healthier planet.

Can you supply some data as to when this “NOW” commenced which leads to greater biodiversity and a healthier planet when all the data confirms the escalating subtraction of biodiversity with no end in sight? How can such a statement even be made? If we are now in a position to manage what's stopping us?

If as you mention, mass extinction is under way and can't be stopped, why conversely would you presume it can be managed and not only that, but lead to greater biodiversity?

Obvious Leo wrote:Your problem is that you're not thinking on the right time scale in your doomsaying analysis of our biosphere's future. A million years is a blink of an eye to a biosphere and a hundred million years is no big deal either.

You seem to be implying that we're going to be around to reap the rewards of all the biodiversity that we have managed back into existence due to our brilliance!

I have no idea what the future of the biosphere will be or how much diversity it would contain. Neither have you...but that's only my opinion! I was thinking of humanity's future and the future of species within the biosphere for as long as its existence is permitted...not anything pertaining to million or a hundred million years – an open variable whose resolution we will not be witness to.

Dubious wrote:You seem to be implying that we're going to be around to reap the rewards of all the biodiversity that we have managed back into existence due to our brilliance!

Let's try to actually try to understand what the other person is trying to get across for a change.

Bottom line: Interest in, and a positive view of, the big picture does not in any way reduce concern for the here and now, nor does it affect capacity for action. In fact, my optimism makes me more interested in contributing. If I thought that life on Earth was all a lost cause, or that humans were a "cancer" then I wouldn't bother with animal and humanitarian causes. In fact, if humans are akin to cancers then that means Stalin and Hitler did good rather than harm.

If we are to be reductionist about what really matters, most of us care far more about the fate of our family than about a million dead strangers across the globe. By the same token, we care about our immediate time span. However, to paint the broader dynamics of the Earth as sickness - as have so many generations before us, convinced that the end is nigh - smacks of fear of the unknown. Times continually change and since we are most adapted to a particular time, we become anxious and feel a sense of loss as the revered structures of our time are replaced.

While our overarching concerns ATM must be pragmatic - aimed at survival and sustainability - I think our overall view of the Earth, life and humanity does have some, if less immediate, importance. If we think of ourselves as cancers then why bother, as per the above? If the cancer accusation is just an epithet used to shame humanity into action it won't work because big players are pulling the strings, and their reign seems entrenched in the medium term.

Here's the middle ground: the Earth is changing in ways that we don't understand but we do know that the biosphere has clearly become ever more intelligent over the last four billion years. This undeniable progression is suggestive of life's possible future forms should the challenges of this century be overcome with at least some functioning ecosystems and civilisations.

Rapid change in all its forms is difficult and painful, and humans are clearly not in control. Laws are passed and bypassed. Powerful entities are increasingly controlling the agenda. It's nature rearing its head again - survival of the fittest. So humanity will simply have to adapt as best it can on the macro scale while we each largely remain focused on the health and peace of self, family and friends.

I completely agree with this thought.

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:You seem to be implying that we're going to be around to reap the rewards of all the biodiversity that we have managed back into existence due to our brilliance!

Let's try to actually try to understand what the other person is trying to get across for a change.

Bottom line: Interest in, and a positive view of, the big picture does not in any way reduce concern for the here and now, nor does it affect capacity for action. In fact, my optimism makes me more interested in contributing.
But it can also potentially reduce trying to a snails pace, so as to being redundant, relative to the speed of decay, and triumph! Optimism is sometimes the result of denial. Or should I say they can work hand in hand.

If I thought that life on Earth was all a lost cause, or that humans were a "cancer" then I wouldn't bother with animal and humanitarian causes.
So you give up easily, typically why we find ourselves in this situation in the first place!

In fact, if humans are akin to cancers then that means Stalin and Hitler did good rather than harm.
Well actually, not at all! If it were the jews killing off all the hitlers, and those in charge, then you might have some ground to stand on.

If we are to be reductionist about what really matters, most of us care far more about the fate of our family than about a million dead strangers across the globe. By the same token, we care about our immediate time span.
Indeed you speak of the commoner, those more centered on their emotional self than their intellectual self, if they actually have an intellectual self, that is.

However, to paint the broader dynamics of the Earth as sickness - as have so many generations before us, convinced that the end is nigh - smacks of fear of the unknown.
Or the realization of facts projected into the future. And so then denial so as to then only see optimistically, smacks of the fear in acknowledging where we have gone wrong, potentially the truth. I've noticed over the years that people tend to sell themselves large, rather than short. Most brag about their wins, not their losses! It's an ego thing!

Times continually change and since we are most adapted to a particular time, we become anxious and feel a sense of loss as the revered structures of our time are replaced.
Very true! Yet that does not necessarily preclude one from projecting the facts of the current status quo into the future and seeing the only sound deduction: That of our self annihilation.

While our overarching concerns ATM must be pragmatic - aimed at survival and sustainability - I think our overall view of the Earth, life and humanity does have some, if less immediate, importance. If we think of ourselves as cancers then why bother, as per the above?
Throwing in the towel when seeing defeat on the horizon, is that of losers and those largely responsible for the impending defeat. "If I can't have it my selfish lazy way then screw it!" "If I'm wrong and I'm bad, then to hell with it!" "I want to be right in what ever I do, or I quit!"

If the cancer accusation is just an epithet used to shame humanity into action it won't work because big players are pulling the strings, and their reign seems entrenched in the medium term.
Passing the buck when cornered, a common human frailty!

Here's the middle ground: the Earth is changing in ways that we don't understand but we do know that the biosphere has clearly become ever more intelligent over the last four billion years. This undeniable progression is suggestive of life's possible future forms should the challenges of this century be overcome with at least some functioning ecosystems and civilisations.

Rapid change in all its forms is difficult and painful, and humans are clearly not in control. Laws are passed and bypassed. Powerful entities are increasingly controlling the agenda. It's nature rearing its head again - survival of the fittest. So humanity will simply have to adapt as best it can on the macro scale while we each largely remain focused on the health and peace of self, family and friends.

Excuses, excuses, excuses, the way of a doomed species, a cancer!

Skip wrote:What's important?
Most people will immediately think in personal terms and say - my family, my marriage, my security, my art, my state of mind - my something. And that's true; those personal issues do require the majority of our effort and concern.

But, look outside - farther. What really matters in the world?
What's important enough to spend a lot of time thinking about?
What's worth composing a lot of sentences, absorbing insults, repeating, explaining, to try to communicate?
What's worth a lot of effort trying to bring about, or to stop or to change?

I've written extensively about what Importance is, but not so much about what is important.

But if you take my understanding of importance, you'll see that talking about importance is a way for us to say what kind of sensation or thoughts will empower us with the ability to solve a problem. What we choose to make important, is thereby a question of what we believe to be the most valuable for a problem we've already decided what is.

When we talk generally about what's important, on the other hand, it is often assumed we talk about the most macroscopic objects that we hold valuable. Why we assume this, I don't know, but if people tell you, like your list of examples, what's important, they're gonna name things that are assumed to be valuable to your life.

I'm tempted to say there is no objective truth about what's important, but that's not entirely true, because through the conclusions from the study of "importance", we can, through a series of reasonings (which I've detailed elsewhere but which I'm gonna spare you from here), arrive at what being important as being the thing, that when sensed or reflected upon, will give you the solution to creating or perpetuating the manifestation of any idea or notion you have of how the world should be at any given time.

That's what's important. It's a general definition, but it's really just a way of comparing all the individual situations from all individuals, it doesn't point in at any exact same object.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Excuses, excuses, excuses, the way of a doomed species, a cancer!

There's no content in your red highlighted posting above - no actual argument, just assumptions and emotionality. It seems that you want me to be as upset as you about the world as you are.

Aside from the logical impossibility of humans being a cancer, the idea that humanity is doomed in the immediate future is not only an assumption, but out of step with informed opinion. Sure, the poor and the lower middle class are doomed. Many species are doomed. In fact, everyone is doomed if humans can't find another home before the Sun makes life on Earth impossible in a billion years' time.

So, given that you carry the flame of righteous fury about the world with you - something you seem to believe would make me a more valuable player in life - I would be interested to know what donations you make of your time or money to the environment with that righteous fury*, and what measures you take to reduce your resource use and carbon emissions in everyday life.

what measures you take to reduce your resource use and carbon emissions in everyday life.

Could this make a good topic?
Or has it already been done to death?

Greta wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Excuses, excuses, excuses, the way of a doomed species, a cancer!

There's no content in your red highlighted posting above
You mean any content you'd choose to "attempt" to dispute.

- no actual argument,
plenty of argument that you choose to ignore for fear of facing truth.

just assumptions and emotionality.
Facts, base upon intellect!

It seems that you want me to be as upset as you about the world as you are.
Not at all, just showing you the flip side of your statements! You see humans are often quick to use socially accepted reasons, in an attempt at masking their more selfish, non socially accepted reasons, their actual motivations. Not that in all cases it's necessarily true, for all humans "consciously," but that it is in fact often true. And then there is unconsciously doing so.

Aside from the logical impossibility of humans being a cancer,
You do what a metaphor is, right?

the idea that humanity is doomed in the immediate future is not only an assumption,
No, a projection of facts! Not that the facts won't change, they might. Especially if the facts are shown in the truest of light. My purpose; exposure!

but out of step with informed opinion.
You can use the word informed if you choose, but in fact history has shown us otherwise. The animal is constantly in denial of anything that is good for it in the long run, when instant self gratification is as stake.

Sure, the poor and the lower middle class are doomed.
First there is no such thing, except in the minds of elitists. And I seriously wouldn't underestimate the larger percentage of humankind.

Many species are doomed.
True, they are, and have been! Most, if not all, have been at the hands of greedy humans.

In fact, everyone is doomed if humans can't find another home before the Sun makes life on Earth impossible in a billion years' time.
So now your fantasy is apparent. Of course the sun shall eventually die, but I speak of the interim.

So, given that you carry the flame of righteous fury about the world with you - something you seem to believe would make me a more valuable player in life - I would be interested to know what donations you make of your time or money to the environment with that righteous fury*, and what measures you take to reduce your resource use and carbon emissions in everyday life.
Donations, you've got to be kidding me, that's part of the problem as well. So that people can believe they've actually made a difference, without actually doing anything worth while.

A bunch! For 3 years I only filled up my cars 10 gallon gas tank every three months. It gets 35 miles to the gallon, it's a 2001. My motorcycle which I've recently been using, gets 40 MPG. Now we're using mass transit to get to work. I recycle everything I can. And above and beyond our city recycling program, all the way back to the 70's, I've reused parts from anything that would no longer operate, instead of trashing the whole of it. I compost all organic vegetable matter, and feed any meat scraps and bones to animals. When I can afford to do so, I plan on purchasing photo-voltaic panels, and an electric car! Every year now since 2010, I've kept our thermostat set to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the lowest it will go. It can get below zero here. I won't even go into how long between showers I wait, to save energy and water, sacrificing my health for my wife's sake. But even more importantly, I badger all those that are more wasteful, they've just got to face themselves in the mirror, sooner or later. If I had more money, sooner, no one could even come close to my low carbon footprint.

All humans are dumb creatures, at least where it counts. They almost always simply ask themselves if they "can" do something, often because it pays them immediate power and riches. They never ask if they "should" do something, because most often to deny doing many things, would cost them immediate power and riches! The human animal is much a fool, that can't see life for the self! As such, it's doomed itself! Why do you think economies are crumbling? I know the answer! The truth is starting to ring out loud.

The current status quo is definitely not sustainable! And most are far too selfish to tighten up their belts a notch or two.

Skip wrote:

what measures you take to reduce your resource use and carbon emissions in everyday life.

Could this make a good topic?
Or has it already been done to death?

Sorry skip, if you sense a hijack. If not, please ignore this.

At least I see that this subject matter does indeed address, at least some of, 'what really matters.' Of course we all are guilty of judging things from the perspective of what we want. One judges what does/is, while the other judges what doesn't/isn't. If only we could agree.