I used to be part of the old IIDB forums a very long time ago, 15 maybe 16 years ago, when I was a wee high schooler. Recently a conversation with a friend about the internet and the friends one makes on it got me feeling all nostalgic for that distant era. The exact forms, and the others I haunted back when, are now gone, but looking for them I found this forum, which seems to be an heir to that. It was a heady era, and while my views have changed ever so much in the time that has passed I recall gratefully the way that debates back then shaped me and how I think and argue.
Well, I have been looking at some threads here, and I don't think I recognize a direct continuation of what I once remembered, but I seen some interesting discussions, and figured I might be keen to chime in on a few of them. I hope everybody here is having a good one, and hope to get into some interesting conversations in the time to come.
These days I am a market gardener in a small Colorado town, with an education in Philosophy, and some years of experience switching back and forth between being a hillbilly, a hippie, and a sophisticate as the situation requires. I ain't as atheistic as I was when I was first coming of age, but I still don't hold most main line theologies in any particular esteem. Rejecting the omni-all theologies in all but their most abstract and therefore empty of forms. Sure, if you reduce the concept of God to an empty enough of an abstraction I might find some resonance with it, like for example some of the more secular branches of Taoist thinking, or maybe (if I am in an open-minded mood) Deism. I am more likely to take seriously the existence of nature spirits or the ilk, but even in that case I understand them more through the lens of evolution and ecology. Nietzsche, Bateson, and the ancient Stoics are all major inspirations for me.
Well that's enough grist for an introduction, I shouldn't throw too many cats among the pidgins while introducing myself perhaps. Hopefully we can have some interesting chats.
IIDB. Now that is a name I have not heard in a long time. A long time.
Quotesome years of experience switching back and forth between being a hillbilly, a hippie
So...Bud Light and smelly and conservative to kombucha and weed-smelly and liberal?
QuoteRejecting the omni-all theologies in all but their most abstract and therefore empty of forms. Sure, if you reduce the concept of God to an empty enough of an abstraction I might find some resonance with it, like for example some of the more secular branches of Taoist thinking, or maybe (if I am in an open-minded mood) Deism.
That just sounds like atheism with extra steps.
In what way is your thinking distinct from garden-variety atheism&secularism, if any?
Welcome to our little band of heathens.
Welcome also. You seem particularly well spoken for a "weed" farmer ;-) Perhaps channeling your college self? A lot of the regulars here are Boomer retirees, but some as young as their 20s (the wee skamps).
Welcome, and I look forward to some interesting chats as well.
@ Hydra
The difference from garden variety atheism, I think it would basically boil down to daily prayer actively worshiping several non-omni deities. There's some gray area because the bulk of atheist head space is a reversal of Christian theology, and none of the gods I pray to would be God by the definitions of that theology. But, I am quite convinced in the existence of non-materialist entities that are intelligent (capable of learning and intentional response) but not embodied in a particular life form like we are; also reckoning that many of these beings are possessed of intelligence, wisdom, and experience incomparably vast in relation to the peaks of human capacity. So kinda like your classic nature spirituality. Going further I suppose that these gods can interact with humans to that humans benefit or detriment, and that through prayer and devotion one can cultivate a more symbiotic relationship with these amazing and extremely different creatures.
If I want to feel like an atheist for a tick I can convince myself that the gods are personifications of self-correcting feed-back systems in the natural world, which are of course personified because my monkey brain has a big chunk of gray matter with is specialized to process information on the social dynamics of my fellows, and by way of personification I can use that processing power to help make sense of things that the more recently evolved rational hardware don't happen to be specialized to sort out. I do not tend to do this often, because the same logic (with mostly trivial tweaks) can be used to de-personify regular garden variety persons of the human persuasion, and it has been my experience that human type persons do not interact with me in the way I most cherish so much when I don't really go all out treating them as persons, who really exist with their own intentions and dreams and wisdoms I can only dimly guess at. Similarly treating my gods like they are actually gods, and praying and doing religious type things, seems to work better in practice than maintaining some kind of cognitive distance and veil of rationalism, particularly as I don't (at this point in life) have much emotional investment in rationalism of materialism.
The Deism, the Taoism, all that noise, it is how I relate to anything 'beyond' the little nature gods I pray to, sure there is much bigger things in reality, but beyond a certain scale there isn't anything I can relate to personally, which I would also call religiously.
Anyway, nah I never cared for booze or reefer too much. Just grew up in the sticks working cattle and fences. Family lost the big ranch when I was wasting my years in college studying dead nerds; so I moved back to my side of the mountains after traveling with some back to the land crunchy types for a few years, didn't have enough land to return to for ranching, so I switched to growing produce for the farmers market, which I can scrape by on a pretty little chunk of land. Still though I am very country counter culture and environmentalist of the "Al Gore can go chew on a shot gun, but Imma changing my life" sort of attitude. Kinda a prepper too, figuring that the gravy train I grew up in seems to be running out of track, and lots of good kids I know are living in their cars and stuff, what with society not leaving a place for them that is affordable.
Ironically I was really liberal growing up on the ranch, and really lost any patience for liberalism of todays era while becoming all hippie and counter culture. Like to me, the liberals I hang with today, and I love these friends, they can be kinda bootlicking yuppie pokenoses. But that's just the ones I know, I know full well there's all types in every camp.
@Obvious
Neat Heathens! I thought those were the viking kiddos with the little thor hammer necklaces, I got some blacksmith friends like that. I guess its just an old old word for rural folk if I recollect.
@BaruchYo, it seems like you do about 2/3 the post around here, at least the forums I've snooped into. Well spoken? I just like code switching, but the only education I ever finished was a GED. I learned to talk like Data from Star Trek as a baby, and ever since have been mixing in more dialects into my wordstuff. It's funny, but makes sense that boomers would still haunt this obsolete forum technology. Its a good way, better than the fancy new social media.
I don't know what state y'all are from, but can you hurry up and decriminalize weed? Get some of the hempsters to move out of my turf? They ain't that bad, but we've been dealing with a whole county worth of them in just a few states, too dense.
New guys buy a round at the bar.
Oh, hey! Some new blood. I was thinking we could use some of that around here. I like these guys, but we need some new people to liven things up. Welcome to the forums!
Hi.
Enjoy your stay.
Here is your complimentary video to a COLORADO "market gardener":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unXWExgalVE
@EmpJohnIV Yeah, I am a bit of a motor-mouth. Don't mind me. Just put me on "ignore" as most do. Poor things.
So you are self-taught? That is the best kind of learning. Formal education doesn't cut much mustard here.
So you went to Star Fleet Academy with Data? I went with Spock. Very interesting. But are you half human?
Now that you're here, the fun can begin!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on November 24, 2019, 04:38:51 PM
Here is your complimentary video to a COLORADO "market gardener":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unXWExgalVE
Yeah, keep teasing Colorado, we keep looking down on the 49 lower States.
@Baruch I did five years in academia, and even though I got to teach some intro classes, I never actually finished a particular degree. I am a great learner if I want to learn it, but if it don't strike my fancy I am as dumb as a post. Some of the required courses to graduate were not interesting, so I didn't go. Would have been better off taking care of the ranch and arguing online from a fiscal perspective.
I am all too human. So probably at least half. Still Data was my homeboy as a kiddo. To this day my ethics are influenced by the question 'What would Picard do?"... though I would probably break with him on many details in practice.
Welcome to our humble house of relative normal albeit onewordfromfullfuckcrazyatantyime peeps, whom mostly are semi lucid other than Baruch who has a delightful habit of infusing Kensington economics along with Sartre and quotes from Bugs Bunny into an conversation that’s has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned individuals all the while making little to no sense other than to himself.
I consider myself an atheist since my favorite school and church going crush upon finding out her new born nephew was “Mongolian†cried, “ but why us God, we do everything you asked, we didn’t do anything wrong†kinda opened my eyes to the relative indifference of the gods to their loving followers.
Since then I have read enough to convince me that for the most part the wonderful study of philosophy is not much more than a mastabatory clic convinced that the human animal is something special whereas the reality is it is apparent as we are simply successful animals that require exactly what the lower life forms need to survive.
Should there be any “afterlife†we will be joined as well by squirrels, cockroach’s, oak trees and every other living thing that doesn’t think arrogantly of themselves.......maybe they don’t?
So, we think we are grand, make great efforts to convince ourselves of that but turn an eye to the fact we eat, shit, and rot just like every other “lower†life form.
Whew!
Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2019, 06:13:00 PM
I consider myself an atheist since my favorite school and church going crush upon finding out her new born nephew was “Mongolian†cried, “ but why us God, we do everything you asked, we didn’t do anything wrong†kinda opened my eyes to the relative indifference of the gods to their loving followers.
Since then I have read enough to convince me that for the most part the wonderful study of philosophy is not much more than a mastabatory clic convinced that the human animal is something special whereas the reality is it is apparent as we are simply successful animals that require exactly what the lower life forms need to survive.
Should there be any “afterlife†we will be joined as well by squirrels, cockroach’s, oak trees and every other living thing that doesn’t think arrogantly of themselves.......maybe they don’t?
So, we think we are grand, make great efforts to convince ourselves of that but turn an eye to the fact we eat, shit, and rot just like every other “lower†life form.
Whew!
Sometimes I figure Conan the Barbarian as being an especially astute theologian.
“I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care.
Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content.
Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.â€
As for philosophy, I think of it as the art of beta testing new thoughts. Most the thoughts we each entertain through out our lives are long worn hand me downs, original thoughts are extremely rare and tend to be very glitchy. Philosophy is riddled with errors, and philosophers are the most error prone of thinkers, but it is the distillation of experimental thoughts, so this is to be expected. The merits of a philosophy takes maybe a dozen generations or more to be well sussed. There is little of enduring wisdom in it, like opals in a vast desert. But some have a fever to go prospecting, to search for what has been unearthed by each disturbance. The errors of a good philosopher should at least be as interesting as the triumphs.
While it’s nice to think that Conan would be able to say such, the reality, let’s just say he was real, would be he would have no clue about Valhalla and they would have no discussions of “illusions†of life. But the writer did, so there’s that.
There is much to glean from the realm of philosophy, but little practical value. When we are young we sit upon a hillside and ponder great thought of morality and mortality, while the “idiots†plant corn in order that we have food to survive....something we could not do ourselves, we are lucky the idiots have more practicality than we do...less we would all be dead.
Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2019, 08:49:03 PM
While it’s nice to think that Conan would be able to say such, the reality, let’s just say he was real, would be he would have no clue about Valhalla and they would have no discussions of “illusions†of life. But the writer did, so there’s that.
There is much to glean from the realm of philosophy, but little practical value. When we are young we sit upon a hillside and ponder great thought of morality and mortality, while the “idiots†plant corn in order that we have food to survive....something we could not do ourselves, we are lucky the idiots have more practicality than we do...less we would all be dead.
I have found philosophy to be of great practical value, morality is no mere navel gazing, it is a careful weighing of how to live well. And I wouldn't call people like myself who make a living by planting food idiots. I find there is much of philosophy in how and why I plant corn, beans, amaranth, beets, and taters the way I do.
As for Conan, do try the original stories, a successful barbarian warlord is a thoughtful being. It takes a lot of smarts to live through such harrowing dangers, and worldly merchants of violence have often been reflective types. The famous Renee Descartes, whose coordinate system married geometry with arithmetic in a novel way which our own society is practically speaking dependent on, was a soldier of fortune.
Quote from: EmpJohnIV on November 25, 2019, 03:43:34 PM
Yeah, keep teasing Colorado, we keep looking down on the 49 lower States.
Mt. McKinley waves back. And down.
Quote from: EmpJohnIV on November 26, 2019, 03:55:49 AM
I have found philosophy to be of great practical value, morality is no mere navel gazing, it is a careful weighing of how to live well.
Here I disagree, morality is born of pure practical selfishness, one may be able to survive alone, but it is much easier to survive within a group. It doesn't take long to learn that working with and for the collective, even if one needs sacrificing some of ones personal opinions or "philosophies", presents a much better chance of a longer life, safer life and adds the advantage of group protection for your own offspring in return for your own. We see this behavior in children, though we hasten the learning curve by admonishing negative behaviors earlier. As mankind "advanced" philosophy was more of a way to suggest how we should treat those outside our own tribe. Whereas before we may simply kill intruders, now we are learning that there are advantages to learning how to use them to our advantage, and that takes more thought.
QuoteAnd I wouldn't call people like myself who make a living by planting food idiots.
I was being facetious as in philosophers sitting on a hill pondering bout shit instead of getting in the dirt actually doing the shit.
Quotea successful barbarian warlord is a thoughtful being.
maybe. The most successful however, had a very simple philosophy that required little thought. "Mercy is the seed of regret" Ghengis Khan was more akin to Conan than Descartes.
QuoteThe famous Renee Descartes..... was a soldier of fortune.
Descartes was born into wealth, hardly comparative to Conan.
I don't discount that many philosophers have had an impact of human civility and culture. I disagree with their attempts to present the human animal as something other than a successful one.
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2019, 09:37:20 AM
Here I disagree, morality is born of pure practical selfishness, one may be able to survive alone, but it is much easier to survive within a group. It doesn't take long to learn that working with and for the collective, even if one needs sacrificing some of ones personal opinions or "philosophies", presents a much better chance of a longer life, safer life and adds the advantage of group protection for your own offspring in return for your own. We see this behavior in children, though we hasten the learning curve by admonishing negative behaviors earlier. As mankind "advanced" philosophy was more of a way to suggest how we should treat those outside our own tribe. Whereas before we may simply kill intruders, now we are learning that there are advantages to learning how to use them to our advantage, and that takes more thought.
It is true that our niche is one extremely dependent on living with in a group. There are practical concerns about how practically to do that, the art of it. Any given approach is riddled with trade offs. Moral philosophy is precisely the skill of using our capacity to think and reflect to review and inform our decision making in the practice of that art specifically, and the more general practice of applying to our lived life our thoughts on how we must, or should like to live. I am mystified how your just so story about children and tribalism is anything other than an example of the tensions in human life which make moral philosophy so useful. It seems as though there is a particular doctrine of moral philosophy you have in mind, which you reject, and which you have in turn conflated with the more general practice. Like the old joke goes "I am getting John a book for his birthday." "Don't do that, he already got one."
Perhaps the moral history of our own culture, with commandments, and an attempt by some thinkers to reduce morality to an algorithm (Don't do X, If Y do Z, If N And M Then do J Or K) and the evident limitations of that approach is too much a paradigm for morality? Ethics which wallow in simple lists of Good and Evil are but one speices of a diverse genus; they are no more moral philosophy at large than learning how to read a blueprint makes one an architect.
When I say moral philosophy is useful to me, I consider how my thoughts on how I should like to behave have interacted with my lived situation thus far, and try to learn to think and behave in a way that works more inline with my values, including the ways that my values interact with others.
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2019, 09:37:20 AM
I was being facetious as in philosophers sitting on a hill pondering bout shit instead of getting in the dirt actually doing the shit.
There is that type in philosophy of course, but very few have been so privileged. And of those who are, how poorly to they actually compare to the other distractions available to the thus privileged?
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2019, 09:37:20 AM
maybe. The most successful however, had a very simple philosophy that required little thought. "Mercy is the seed of regret" Ghengis Khan was more akin to Conan than Descartes.
Descartes was born into wealth, hardly comparative to Conan.
Ghengis Khan is a closer parallel, but that guy is also one of the most dramatic rags to riches story in human history, and was no dummy. The Great Khan, to explore your example, was actually famous for granting position in his hoard to defeated enemies who he was able to reckon as trust worthy... that tactic depends on a top tier level of judgement. He established systems of learning in his empire, and was successful in conflict by way of analyzing the cultures he sought to absorb and figuring out how to win their loyalty. A few thousand horse archers don't rule a continent with out some cunning PR. One of his main tricks was figuring out that most city folk resented their aristocrats and that they would love an invader who could get rid of those aristocrats, provided the new ruler-ship didn't impost on their lives more than the old. My point simply being that looking at actual historical cases of war lords of the kind Conan was based around you find something much more than an orc, or bar room thug, generally you find a person who can skillfully combine abstract thinking with decisive action; which is all the more terrifying!
Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2019, 09:37:20 AM
I don't discount that many philosophers have had an impact of human civility and culture. I disagree with their attempts to present the human animal as something other than a successful one.
Right, that is what confuses me so. Because there is nothing I can see to suggest that Philosophers are any more guilty of privileging humanities position that their respective eras and cultures are. Indeed for 300 years philosophy has turned out the avant-garde of pressing back on that view, and your own position seems to me but a regurgitation of cutting edge 19th century philosophy on the matter. Granted, in philosophy defenders of Human Exceptionalism have also made their stands, but they have been on the retreat for centuries; usually giving up ground in that fight generations before the innovators of other disciplines, artistic or technical, catch up.
My position, or rather, opinion, is that morality is selfish based, rather simple. And I use the word selfish to imply that it is driven by ones desire or want to satisfy oneself by whatever means is needed. There is knowing what is short term versus long term. I don't believe there is such a thing as complete selflessness, as even the desire to feel good by donating with anonymity provides one with the desired effect of feeling good.
We all know morality is subjective and we understand the root of morality is simply to gain what we can at the least expense to our self while gaining as much as we can. That is the individual goal. But as a culture we broaden our understanding of morality to include the goals of others and how that will also effect us.
You and I may agree it is morally right to feed a hungry child, but there are others who would disagree simply because there is no return for them.
Philosophy helps explain how to achieve a selfish goal without appearing to be selfish.
or something like that.....
Quote from: EmpJohnIV on November 26, 2019, 01:02:34 PM
It is true that our niche is one extremely dependent on living with in a group. There are practical concerns about how practically to do that, the art of it. Any given approach is riddled with trade offs. Moral philosophy is precisely the skill of using our capacity to think and reflect to review and inform our decision making in the practice of that art specifically, and the more general practice of applying to our lived life our thoughts on how we must, or should like to live. I am mystified how your just so story about children and tribalism is anything other than an example of the tensions in human life which make moral philosophy so useful. It seems as though there is a particular doctrine of moral philosophy you have in mind, which you reject, and which you have in turn conflated with the more general practice. Like the old joke goes "I am getting John a book for his birthday." "Don't do that, he already got one."
Perhaps the moral history of our own culture, with commandments, and an attempt by some thinkers to reduce morality to an algorithm (Don't do X, If Y do Z, If N And M Then do J Or K) and the evident limitations of that approach is too much a paradigm for morality? Ethics which wallow in simple lists of Good and Evil are but one speices of a diverse genus; they are no more moral philosophy at large than learning how to read a blueprint makes one an architect.
When I say moral philosophy is useful to me, I consider how my thoughts on how I should like to behave have interacted with my lived situation thus far, and try to learn to think and behave in a way that works more inline with my values, including the ways that my values interact with others.
There is that type in philosophy of course, but very few have been so privileged. And of those who are, how poorly to they actually compare to the other distractions available to the thus privileged?
Ghengis Khan is a closer parallel, but that guy is also one of the most dramatic rags to riches story in human history, and was no dummy. The Great Khan, to explore your example, was actually famous for granting position in his hoard to defeated enemies who he was able to reckon as trust worthy... that tactic depends on a top tier level of judgement. He established systems of learning in his empire, and was successful in conflict by way of analyzing the cultures he sought to absorb and figuring out how to win their loyalty. A few thousand horse archers don't rule a continent with out some cunning PR. One of his main tricks was figuring out that most city folk resented their aristocrats and that they would love an invader who could get rid of those aristocrats, provided the new ruler-ship didn't impost on their lives more than the old. My point simply being that looking at actual historical cases of war lords of the kind Conan was based around you find something much more than an orc, or bar room thug, generally you find a person who can skillfully combine abstract thinking with decisive action; which is all the more terrifying!
Right, that is what confuses me so. Because there is nothing I can see to suggest that Philosophers are any more guilty of privileging humanities position that their respective eras and cultures are. Indeed for 300 years philosophy has turned out the avant-garde of pressing back on that view, and your own position seems to me but a regurgitation of cutting edge 19th century philosophy on the matter. Granted, in philosophy defenders of Human Exceptionalism have also made their stands, but they have been on the retreat for centuries; usually giving up ground in that fight generations before the innovators of other disciplines, artistic or technical, catch up.
I'm curious Emp, (Didn't you mean Imp???:) what do you mean by morality and how is it (if it is) different than ethics? Where do both of those come from?
@EmpJohnIVLeadership Secrets of Atilla the Hun - Machiavellian business success book?
@aitmOk, now I'm smelling what you're stepping in. I figure whether an action is done for selfish or selfless reasons isn't something I think about much from a deep perspective. Obviously we can define terms in the abstract such that everything is selfish, similarly we can critique the concept of the self (like Buddhists or the like) realize that the concept is kinda vague and hand wavy in philosophy, and get along fine with out habitually tying every inference back to this concept. There is no self as a separate entity, all that blah. All of this is just training games for philosophy which are to be put away once practiced on.
In the real world when I am interacting with people I know and they bend over backward to help me I call that selfless. Obviously they have something they get out of it, but unless they are working on a back stab it don't matter to the slightest degree. If somebody does me a solid and they get off on it too, all the better! Responding to such lived experience with sophistry of 'technically they are just out for number one' strikes me as cynical naivety. If someone imposes on me, maybe probably I help them out, I take action to keep those close to me well, this is good for me. This is to say that the wellness of my community is integrated in my thinking with my own benefit, my selfishness is big, and those close to me are part of my self, a big self; in latin this virtue is called magnanimous (big self).
Some people are always looking to get one over on some body, tell me you've met the type. What are such people called? Petty. That means small, they are small people. Obsessed with small wins, some people can do no better, so sad. The petty only win in the smallest part of a self, maybe not even all the self of their own body can they serve. Have you never felt sorrow for one whose selfishness can not even serve their own self but is caught by a single appetite, or a single dream that moves and enslaves the whole person?
So yes, selfishness in all cases. and as the movie Tautology Club taught us "The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club" "the second rule of tautology club... is the second rule of tautology club!" Yes, the self is the self, how insightful. But is the self well? Is it a suffering sickly self? Is it an infecting or a healing self? What use dose the word self add to those questions, except to a grammatical habit?
Maybe Imma step up and give an ethical maxim I learned for myself years back when trying to get disentanged from the confusion of selfishness and selflessness: "Covet the friendship of those whose selflessness and selfishness cannot be distinguished"
@Mike ClSo I basically use morals and ethics interchangeable, depending on what I feel like typing, they are latin and greek respectively for customs, 'the done thing'.
@Baruch What works works. Hang with some thugs some time, those rough folk got a wisdom, an ethic, their own. Not for me! But I can respect those creatures that thrive in an ecological niche I would wither in.
Quote from: EmpJohnIV on November 27, 2019, 12:15:22 PM
@Mike Cl
So I basically use morals and ethics interchangeable, depending on what I feel like typing, they are latin and greek respectively for customs, 'the done thing'.
I tend to do the same. If pressed I usually say ethics are personal or maybe codes of conduct for various organizations. Morality is group/society norms. But I usually use them interchangeably.
I see morality and ethics as subjective, and not as christians love to say, objective. I operate with my own set of ethics. I realize my society has formalized what it terms morals--in a code of law. And my ethics have changed or evolved over time. I also say that my personal ethics are unique. I pick and chose from various sources what to consider my ethics are. (I tend to stay away from using the word 'morals' because it is too churchy) My bottom line ethic is based upon something like--First do no harm; or a version of the Golden Rule.
That's all fine and dandy hand waving self aggrandizing handkerchiefs but it doesn't change that whether one realizes it or not, motives are indeed driven intrinsically by selfish motives...like it or not, deep "thinking" or not.
"Selfish" is a polarizing term. The Left hates selfishness. The Right loves it. It is weaponized politically.
Unfortunately, ethics/morality cannot be separated from political positions. Economics also can't be separated from politics. This is currently reflected in identity politics that considers everything racism etc.