Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Home » Forums » The Loveland Arms – pub chat » Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Tags:

Author
Topic
#5468

We seem to have lost the old Thought Provoking (TM) mind expansion thread, so here’s a replacement.
.
Astrology:
.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/06/i-was-an-astrologer-how-it-works-psychics
.
Before you scoff, there are some interesting insights in the article that you don’t have to be a believer to appreciate. Here’s a couple of extracts that made me wonder:
.

I’d understood organised religion to be something between an embarrassment and an evil. Yet as Aids did its dreadful work – this was the 1990s – I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying. Christian volunteers checked on derelict men with vomit down their clothes. I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

.

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.

.

Some repeat customers claimed I’d made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer’s memory would add new elements. I got to test this theory after a friend raved about a reading she’d had, full of astonishingly accurate predictions. She had a tape of the session, so I asked her to play it.

The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single one. My friend’s imagination had done all the work.

.
And my favourite:
.

I can still make the odd forecast, though. Here’s one: the venture capital pouring into astrology apps will create a fortune telling system that works, because humans are predictable. As people follow the advice, the apps’ predictive powers will increase, creating an ever-tighter electronic leash. But they’ll be hugely popular – because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

Viewing 87 replies - 1,101 through 1,187 (of 1,187 total)
Author
Replies
  • #107621

    Is the part that Jesus’ death brings redemption for our sins part of the gospel, or is that introduced later, in Paul’s epistles? I thought it was a later addition. I like the gospels, but Paul’s epistles are mostly bad.

     

     

  • #107680

    There is a clear divide in the Bible between what Jesus teaches and the old testament teachings, the Jewish laws etc. You could even see the gospels as a rebellion against those Jewish laws. For which Jesus was crucified.

     

    It lends some credence to fringe theories Jesus travelled to India and was educated in the teachings of the time, Upanishad style Hinduism and maybe even Buddhism. It is also known Buddhist missionaries travelled to the East and also the West to spread their teachings. This happened in the time of Ashoka the Great who ruled India about 250 BC and later. There were also connections between Greece and India, after the conquest of Alexander the Great. It is hypothesized that Greek skepticism was influenced by Indian philosophy, Pyrrho the skeptic travelled with Alexander the Great.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #107696

    It lends some credence to fringe theories Jesus travelled to India and was educated in the teachings of the time,

    There was a suspense fiction novel released in 2011, BREATH OF GOD by Jeffrey Small, that used this theory as part of the plot, much like the Dan Brown books (DAVINCI CODE, THE LOST SYMBOL, etc). A fascinating concept.

    It’s interesting that when Conservative “Christians” quote the Bible to defend their intolerant positions against gays, immigrants, and other groups, they never actually quote Jesus Christ’s words nor his actions. Jesus is too Liberal and Socialist for their tastes.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #107750

    Everybody tries to get Jesus on their side in a debate.

     

    I like the gospels a lot, but I don’t take it literally…the “turn the other cheek” stuff. People are allowed to fight back against evil. I think it’s more a “suggestion” than a law.

  • #107754

    Is the part that Jesus’ death brings redemption for our sins part of the gospel, or is that introduced later, in Paul’s epistles? I thought it was a later addition. I like the gospels, but Paul’s epistles are mostly bad.

     

     

    That’s an interesting question. Without doing a complete re-read, I’m pretty certain that it’s not in the Gospels, only the Epistles. Not only Paul’s though. I’m sure Peter also refers to it.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by DavidM.
  • #107756

    It’s interesting that when Conservative “Christians” quote the Bible to defend their intolerant positions against gays, immigrants, and other groups, they never actually quote Jesus Christ’s words nor his actions. Jesus is too Liberal and Socialist for their tastes.

    It’s impossible for me to take any of that stuff seriously, but you do have to wonder why there are so few on-camera talkshow moments where someone goes Jed Bartlett on them.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #107978

    The main battle going on in the world right now is probably who gets to decide what is truth, what is fact. This is a consequence I think of the vacuum left behind after Christianity became a spent force in Western countries. We have seemingly become an expertocracy, where failure to comply with scientific fact is seen as a moral failing. Similar to how in Christianity faith is required for salvation.

     

    However I think there is also an agenda behind the experts (even if there should be no obligation whatsoever to believe experts, even if one believes they’re always fair and impartial.) Ocasionally you see it happen that an expert gets kicked out of the group for violating certain taboos.

  • #108004

    I wish. I think the opposite is happening, people becoming more and more divorced from scientific/academic processes and rejecting any kind of empiric method when it doesn’t speak to their “truth”. It’s what Colbert made fun of like twenty years ago, but it’s gotten worse and worse.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #108006

    Eh over here almost everybody is worshipping at the feet of the experts. Don’t know what it is like in Germany. I would have been all with you there a few years ago laughing along with Colbert but right now I think there is something to be said for the gut, in certain cases anyway. To let moral intuitions speak sometimes instead of what the officially sanctioned experts on the screens tell us. Many experts are morally repugnant.

     

    edit: sorry, that’s too harsh. I think there are some experts who are morally repugnant but I’m sure most mean well.

  • #108012

    but right now I think there is something to be said for the gut, in certain cases anyway.

    You should only listen to your gut after you have applied critical thought to what it is telling you.

    Here is a great article expalining why your gut reaction is not always right:
    Should You Trust Your Intuition?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #108023

    but right now I think there is something to be said for the gut, in certain cases anyway.

    You should only listen to your gut after you have applied critical thought to what it is telling you.

    Here is a great article expalining why your gut reaction is not always right:
    Should You Trust Your Intuition?

    Thanks for the suggestion. ;)

  • #108071

    Honestly many of our deepest and greatest moral feelings are gut feelings. Love your neighbor, etc. These things are not necessarily rationally justified. You could “rationally” come to the conclusion that many people, or maybe all, ought to be eliminated. That net human suffering and damage to the environment is so great that it’s better if human beings never came into existence. You could argue free will had to be taken away because people could use it to make bad decisions. That democracy is a bad system because most people can’t comprehend the thoughts of experts. Human life, happiness, freedom, such things are inherently valuable even without being justified by rational analysis, or a stamp of approval from the experts.

  • #108117

    Problem is that many people’s guts tell them stuff that’s ideologically been drilled into them in their childhood that’s not great. Like how women should play a certain role, or people of other races, or how everybody’s lives should be aimed at consumerism. Your gut is nostalgic by nature, and that’s not always a good thing.

    edit: sorry, that’s too harsh. I think there are some experts who are morally repugnant but I’m sure most mean well.

    I don’t know about the Netherlands, but the thing in Germany was that if you actually listened/looked at what the experts were saying, it was both completely rational and based in very sound morals. What was done with this expertise by politicians was not always as good, and the blame for everything that went wrong was blamed on not only those politicians, but also the experts advising them, regardless of the extent they were listened to.

    That’s the problem. The experts didn’t make any of the decisions, and things mostly went badly when the politicians did not listen to them – but that often wasn’t made public at the time (as nobody wanted to throw shit in a difficult situation where people were already frightened enough as it was).

    I am not talking out of my ass, either. We had the fortune that during the epidemic – I mentioned this back then – we had a podcast on a public radio station where Germany’s leading expert on corona viruses (and one of the world’s leading experts), Christian Drosten, would be interviewed and talk about the state of things every week for one and a half hour. It was fantastic, because you got the state of the research and the situation straight out of the horse’s mouth, every week, aimed (as much as possible) at lay-people. That was a huge comfort at the time, to feel as well informed as anyone could be. I was able to see through much of the bullshit in the media instantly.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108124

    Corona is one of those areas where rationality and good intentions can lead to bad outcomes. I’m sure many of the experts who advised lockdowns, vaccine mandates etc were thinking they were doing right, but they were doing wrong. BTW there were experts in every country during corona, and they all advised differently. (Many of these people I don’t have bad feelings towards, I understand it was an incredibly difficult situation and they thought what they did was the right thing. How ever it’s different if they engaged in mockery and villification of those who thought differently, as some did. Those people who did that, frankly, can go fuck themselves)

     

    Still it’s just one example. Another big one for me is the history of psychiatry. Scientists and doctors are as capable of being assholes as anyone.

     

     

     

  • #108127

    Corona is one of those areas where rationality and good intentions can lead to bad outcomes

    This perfectly describes your attitude towards the lockdowns.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108128

    There’s at least about 40,000 people who would be alive in the UK today if De Pfeiffel hadn’t dithered for over a week after being advised to lockdown… twice.

    I always think about that whenever I hear alt-right-adjacent vaccine-denial thundercunt conspiracy-theorist bollocks about “lockdowns being proved wrong”.

    Sorry, no: lockdowns and vaccine mandates saved literally millions of lives and prevented millions more cases of Long Covid. We could, and should, have saved more.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Daniel R.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Daniel R.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108131

    prevented millions more cases of Long Covid.

    I have two friends with severe respiratory issues as a result of Long Covid. Was at the cinema with one of them last weekend and they had to use an inhaler after walking up a flight of stairs.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108136

    BTW there were experts in every country during corona, and they all advised differently.

    They didn’t vary all that much, really. Even the supposedly big difference between, say, Sweden and Germany wasn’t all that big if you look at the actual recommendations of the experts. Again, the conclusions the countries’ politicians took from that sometimes varied greatly, on the other hand.

    How ever it’s different if they engaged in mockery and villification of those who thought differently, as some did. Those people who did that, frankly, can go fuck themselves)

    And again, I don’t think you’ll find many actual expert researchers who did any of that. Mainly because these people tend to be very nerdy scientists and they don’t have that kind of approach to public controversy – even when they are attacked viciously, as Drosten was.

    Still it’s just one example. Another big one for me is the history of psychiatry. Scientists and doctors are as capable of being assholes as anyone.

    Weeeeeeellllllllll… pychiatry is a comparatively young science, and I think the biggest assholery in that happened before there was much of an established scientific method for it. I think the state of psychiatry today is pretty solid, and that’s thanks to the field being more and more scientifically sound. That the conclusion you’re drawing from this is to reject the scientific progress is paradoxical to say the least.

    I mean, I don’t disagree that doctors and scientists can be assholes. But even where that is concerned, the truth is that most of them honestly care about helping people. (And this is also my personal experience of working in a hospital during my fifteen months of civil service.) And guys like Drosten or Tegnell could make an incredible lot of money if they were working in a private industry and not in the public health sector.

    But more importantly, the scientific method works regardless of the personality of individual academics. That’s exactly why it makes more sense to trust science than your gut, or the guts of other people who give their opinions on these matters.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108159

    Tbf I realize I contradicted myself, saying we live in an expertocracy but also saying many of our decisions are made to a large extent on “gut feelings”.

     

    Of course I’m not saying “never trust an expert”. But I think these moral checks, based mostly on feelings and intuitions, are important. And they’re an individual thing, even if the entire world says you’re an asshole, your opinion is your sovereign right.

  • #108162

    It is. However, during the pandemic, people also were of the opinion that not only their opinion, but also their behaviour in public was a public right even at the price of putting other people’s lives at risk. The limit of your freedom is the right to life and freedom of other people and all that.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108184

    The behavior part has to be collectively negotiated, to see what level of risk people are willing to live with.

     

    I know you don’t like Mark Rutte, but he said one thing during the pandemic, during the first lockdown I think, which I thought was admirable, namely: “When the people don’t want this anymore, then it stops. We are not a dictatorship.”

  • #108185

    I don’t disagree. But there as here, there was always a large majority supporting non-medical interventions – often more so than politician were willing to enact – because people basically didn’t want to kill the elderly. I would say that by and large at least in Germany, the pandemic was actually a great example of a great majority of society agreeing to limit their own freedoms to protect its weakest and most-at-risk members. It was a beautiful act of solidarity, even with everything that went wrong. It is unfortunate that so many are unable to see it that way anymore.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108235

    This is amazing, bees have rich emotional lives:

     

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/02/bees-intelligence-minds-pollination

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108496

    Who are today’s most influential thinkers? Are there still important, influential philosophers?

  • #108500

    Besides Donald Trump?

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108504

    Besides Donald Trump?

    Arjan said thinkers, not stinkers.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108571

    It seems the culture has gone insane.

    It is culture wars and yes it is very much about being in one ‘gang’ and adopting a suite of stances. It’s often a career option too, people essentially pay to agree with you.

    If we look at the trans issue for example, Graham Linehan is one of the high profile players here. Originally he posted quite a reasoned response to criticism of a TV episode he wrote. Then he moved to claiming feminist credentials and safety for women from possible abuse of self ID. A couple of weeks back he posted mocking a trans men team that played against a CIS men’s team and lost heavily.

    Why? Who cares? There is no safety issue there, a team of all trans men are not going to enter anyone’s spaces or cause any unfair harm. It has gone from reasoned to just ‘fuck the other side, I hate them for no reason that can be explained’.

    5 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108687

    It seems the culture has gone insane.

    It is culture wars and yes it is very much about being in one ‘gang’ and adopting a suite of stances. It’s often a career option too, people essentially pay to agree with you.

    If we look at the trans issue for example, Graham Linehan is one of the high profile players here. Originally he posted quite a reasoned response to criticism of a TV episode he wrote. Then he moved to claiming feminist credentials and safety for women from possible abuse of self ID. A couple of weeks back he posted mocking a trans men team that played against a CIS men’s team and lost heavily.

    Why? Who cares? There is no safety issue there, a team of all trans men are not going to enter anyone’s spaces or cause any unfair harm. It has gone from reasoned to just ‘fuck the other side, I hate them for no reason that can be explained’.

    I was watching a video about all the trans stuff on youtube, after this American douchebag Michael Knowles said “transgenderism must be eliminated”. And the person who did the video had a good point: what would that even look like? Everybody has to stick to a standard version of their assigned gender? Men can’t wear pink? Women can’t get muscular? It’s such a silly issue really when you think about it. For me this whole issue of “changing gender” is just simply being free to express yourself like you feel, it’s nobody else’s business except possibly the doctor when you need some medical intervention for it.

     

    The issue of “men penetrating women’s spaces” has to be solved pragmatically I think. I can understand there might be women who feel uncomfortable seeing a penis in a women’s changing room but the solution isn’t “let’s forbid transitioning gender”.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #108810

    There are very disturbing end points potentially here. I used to work with a CIS woman who had facial hair, she had a kind of light beard. I had a CIS male Chinese Malaysian boss who had never shaved in his life because that is quite common in East Asia that some men have next to no bodily or facial hair at all.

    There are trans women that ‘pass’ exceptionally well, you wouldn’t know if nobody told you. So the only end game of proof there is genital inspections at these spaces and nobody would want that. The truth for people like Linehan, and me for that matter, is 99% of sexual assaults against women are caused by straight men like us.

    I think there are areas for debate, sport is one, there are advantages that cannot be measured just by testosterone levels especially with those that are very power/endurance based rather than skill. Elite sport is by its nature exclusionary though, I can’t fight Tyson Fury in a boxing ring because I am too light and small.

    Prisons another one, Piers Morgan openly lied on Bill Maher’s show that the Scottish government allowed a rapist to claim transition and stay in a women’s prison. Firstly all sex offenders there are segregated and secondly they decided that was too dangerous and moved them. A pragmatic decision but we aren’t allowed those in culture wars.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #109032

    Yeah, in the end it’s always about wanting to control other people. And it’s such a shame that there are feminists who have turned out to want that, as well. I think that supposed fear of male abusers invading female spaces is actually a need to control who can claim to be a woman and who can’t. It’s obvious that that’s what so many men want – as the idea of rejecting a male identity, or of trying to claim one when you supposedly have no right to it goes against every idea of masculinity that the patriarchy has drilled into us – but that so many women who are supposed to have freed themselves from that patriarchy took those men’s side is a tragedy.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #109037

    Lot of people use the language of rebellion but what they actually mean is “I want to be in charge of what we have now”

    4 users thanked author for this post.
  • #109104

    Besides Donald Trump?

    You’re being facetious, right?

  • #109113

    You’re being facetious, right?

    Absolutely; Trump is about as philosophical as a Happy Meal. Sometimes I feel confident that a winky emoji is not necessary; that was one of those situations.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #109136

    I didn’t mean politicians, but actual thinkers, like The Rock or Taylor Swift.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #109402

    The future is samizdat.

  • #111577

    Christopher Hitchens, who I agree with sometimes and sometimes not, said the golden rule was kind of stupid: after all, if you can’t treat Charles Manson in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated, you can’t put him in prison. Sometimes you have to d something to people who do bad things that they might find unpleasant. What we actually have to do, is treat people in ways that are appropriate for them. Which is far more difficult to do. How do we determine what is appropriate for whom?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #111580

    Christopher Hitchens, who I agree with sometimes and sometimes not, said the golden rule was kind of stupid: after all, if you can’t treat Charles Manson in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated, you can’t put him in prison. Sometimes you have to d something to people who do bad things that they might find unpleasant. What we actually have to do, is treat people in ways that are appropriate for them. Which is far more difficult to do. How do we determine what is appropriate for whom?

    I think it depends on the person and the expectations of the relationship by both parties.

    I believe most people extend a baseline amount of “credit” for courtesy and respect upon first meeting. Subsequent interactions determine how that credit is increased and/or decreased. The higher a person’s “line of credit” is, the more likely we are to forgive certain incidents in the relationship. If the person is constantly mean or disrespectful, the lower our tolerance for “risk” is with them.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #111596

    if you can’t treat Charles Manson in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated, you can’t put him in prison.

    If I did what Charles Manson did, I would want to be put in prison.

    I mean, I wouldn’t want to be put in prison, because I’d be a loony psychopath, but if I was thinking rationally, I would want to be put in prison.

    So I think it still works.

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #111598

    Yeah that’s the problem with the tought experiment, you’d have to imagine yourself in a situation where you wouldn’t be you, you would be a very dangerous and probably unhinged person.

     

    It’s also difficult say in the context of an armed conflict, where you killed someone from the other side, you”d think you were totally justified in doing that and wouldn’t want to go to jail for it, but the ther side would want you in jail (or even dead).

  • #111600

    Christopher Hitchens, who I agree with sometimes and sometimes not, said the golden rule was kind of stupid: after all, if you can’t treat Charles Manson in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated, you can’t put him in prison. Sometimes you have to d something to people who do bad things that they might find unpleasant.

    I think that’s kind of missing the point. It’s about how you treat people in general, leaving out the complexities of relationships and what the other person maybe deserves. It’s a rule of thumb about how you should treat people you don’t know (yet), as Todd says. Strangers at the bus stop, waiters, classmates on the first day of school. The golden rule is a great way to express how you should behave towards people in general.

    When it comes to people who have demonstrated that they are mean, or violent, or untrustworthy, it’s kind of obvious that the golden rule doesn’t apply anymore. Hitchens does have a point in that it is difficult to find the appropriate response to that kind of behaviour when your normal approach is to be kind.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #111616

    Of course it plays into the whole matter of wether any kind of unpleasant punishment can ever be approproate. Is it ever right to punish what is perceived as evil with measures that would hurt the perpetrator? Are we to be held responsible for the bad things we do? Did we do those things of our own free will, or were we compelled to do it by circumstances, thereby leaving us innocent? Of course some jurisdictions have laws against “cruel or unusual punishment” but you could argue prison conditions in most countries are cruel and people should therefore not go to prison.

     

    On the other hand, if we don’t face repercussions for bad things we do, we never learn. Sometimes when I walk in the supermarket I hear parents being angry with their child, and it stings me sometimes: hw can parents be so mad at their children? However sometimes you probably have to to teach your children not to behave ina certain manner.

  • #111625

    Of course some jurisdictions have laws against “cruel or unusual punishment” but you could argue prison conditions in most countries are cruel and people should therefore not go to prison.

    That’s pretty much just the US I think that has that written in law, and yeah the issue is it is like most laws hugely subjective.

    They have had many arguments over which parts of the death penalty are cruel or unusual (stopping hanging and firing squads) and those are ongoing but you are right a definition that broad could include any prison sentence or solitary confinement or whatever. A strip search could be cruel and unusual if you think it is or a court does.

    It’s my big kind of pointless mission in life to point out that law is a quite useless and ineffective tool in defining how people behave. I’m not advocating lawlessness but if harsh sentencing were the key then the US with most citizens in jail should be the safest country on Earth, it isn’t.

    In the 90s The Netherlands had a very lax approach to cannabis especially, while global treaties didn’t allow it to be formally legalised you could buy it without problem in the allocated coffee shops. The UK and US at the time that had sentences of several years for even using had more smokers per head of population. Singapore in 2003, which has a mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking, had more ecstasy users per weekend than the UK.

    So set your laws as you want but you either need buy in from your populace or very effective enforcement. It’s no use declaring purple curtains are illegal unless you have enough curtain inspectors to check every house, and if that’s a ridiculous ask the public will reject it eventually.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #111641

    There was a Chinese theocratic state which didn’t really punish crime, the only thing they did was a kind of community service for repeat criminals.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Five_Pecks_of_Rice#Law

  • #111688

    I’ve got this theory that because we’re all exposed to the media as long as we’re awake (and they might want to claim our dreams too) and the media push mostly bad stuff (war, crime etc) we’ve got a twisted view of what life in general is like, and wether people are good or evil. I can’t remember who or what exactly but I think a poet wrote about a farmer just ploughing his field while close by two armies were slaughtering each other. For most people even during war life goes on (WW2 could be an exception but even that only lasted 5 years.)

     

    I think certain groups have a vested interest in making people feel scared, miserable and angry. It’s easier to control people that way.

     

    edit: I know that for many people life does suck, in a way that is beyond their control, like because of a terrible illness or because they can’t escape an abusive environment, but I don’t believe this is true for the majority.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #111732

    I’ve got this theory that because we’re all exposed to the media as long as we’re awake (and they might want to claim our dreams too) and the media push mostly bad stuff (war, crime etc) we’ve got a twisted view of what life in general is like, and wether people are good or evil.

    Oh yeah, absolutely. Like how people keep believing that crime gets worse every year in many countries the statistics actually show the opposite is the case.

    I think certain groups have a vested interest in making people feel scared, miserable and angry. It’s easier to control people that way.

    I don’t think you even need to believe in a grand conspiracy for this. It’s quite simply the rules of the media. People will keep watching if they’re scared or angry. That doesn’t just work for social media.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #111737

    Speaking of media, I’ve noticed recently that the local and (to a lesser extent) national news broadcasts are tagging too many events with the adjective HISTORIC!!

    Word to the newsroom: just because something has never happened before does not automatically make it historic. Unprecedented, perhaps; but not historic.

    Carry on.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #111765

    I don’t think you even need to believe in a grand conspiracy for this. It’s quite simply the rules of the media. People will keep watching if they’re scared or angry. That doesn’t just work for social media.

    Still I don’t doubt that there’s a big effort underway to get humans in line and obedient. It is also economically expedient for the media of course.

  • #111778

    Like how people keep believing that crime gets worse every year in many countries the statistics actually show the opposite is the case.

    Yup it’s a repeating thing. While there have been slight increases recently crime has fallen dramatically in countries like the US and UK since the 1980s, so much it has engendered many theories on why, like legalising abortion from the Freakonomics guys or removing lead from petrol (which I think is the more convincing one but as with most things it is going to be many factors).

    You have stories about young peoples bad behaviour but modern kids study harder, drink less and take fewer drugs than when I was 18.

    While I think for some it is deliberate to keep people scared, some organs like the Daily Mail make it very obvious that’s their aim, I still go back to the theory Alain De Botton gave in a talk for even the most balanced media. News reports the unusual, if it’s what happens normally it isn’t news. What we view as a ‘window onto the world today’ is almost the exact opposite, it’s things that happened today outside the norm.

    Conflicts like Syria which filled the headlines when they started are now never mentioned because that conflict is the status quo, it’s not ‘new’s any more. 25,000 people in a row being generally polite to a McDonald’s staff member is not news, the one who has a fit and throws a chair goes viral. So we see a one in 25,000 incident as the way things are today.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #111784

    Conflicts like Syria which filled the headlines when they started are now never mentioned because that conflict is the status quo, it’s not ‘new’s any more. 25,000 people in a row being generally polite to a McDonald’s staff member is not news, the one who has a fit and throws a chair goes viral. So we see a one in 25,000 incident as the way things are today.

    Even Ukraine/Russia isn’t getting the daily coverage now that it was getting a year ago, here in the US. But then, news programs here stopped being about “news” long ago, and are more about entertainment; it ain’t newsworthy unless there are great graphic videos to go with it.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #112232

    When studying philosophy, I think it’s worthwhile to take Chinese philosophy into consideration. While current day China is awful in most respects, ancient Chinese philosophers had many good insights. The two main currents are taoism and confucianism, they’re often presented as opposites but I believe they do have similarities too.

     

    The classics are the Analects by Confucius, the Dao de Jing (or Tao te Ching)  and the Zhuangzi. Great books for sinking your teeth in.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #112837

    It seems to me some people’s morals are basically conditional on what other people think of their opinions. Morals is basically a hierarchy determined by the powerful who will stomp on your face forever if you do a  mindcrime.

     

    These system for control work subtly, but in the end there is the boot that will stomp on your face. In the Netherlands the boot seldom comes into play, but there is a strong pressure for “normality”. It makes me mistrust many of those saying we need better mental healthcare, because statistically many of them must be the same who recoil from someone behaving unusually in public, so it’s not really about helping others, but more making them “act normal”.

  • #112838

    It seems to me some people’s morals are basically conditional on what other people think of their opinions. Morals is basically a hierarchy determined by the powerful who will stomp on your face forever if you do a  mindcrime. These system for control work subtly, but in the end there is the boot that will stomp on your face.

    This feels like maybe a reaction formed by giving too much weight to online arguments and conflicts of opinion.

    I think that, in general, most people’s morals are about trying to do the right thing – which is a simplistic way to describe a huge range of complex things, but is what it tends to all boil down to in the end.

    The idea of a “mindcrime” and fearing other people’s reactions seems like a social media argument thing to me. But that microcosm of interactions often doesn’t represent the real world very well, certainly in terms of overblown and polarised reactions but also in terms of the kind of tribalism that you see forming around certain subjects.

    When you discuss these subjects with people in the real world you tend to get a more measured and nuanced conversation, and less likelihood of a knee-jerk extreme reaction against an opinion that someone doesn’t agree with.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #112839

    In the Netherlands the boot seldom comes into play, but there is a strong pressure for “normality”. It makes me mistrust many of those saying we need better mental healthcare, because statistically many of them must be the same who recoil from someone behaving unusually in public, so it’s not really about helping others, but more making them “act normal”.

    I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive. I think people can have that kind of reaction to unusual behaviour when it surprises them and/or they don’t understand it. I think that’s natural when encountering something outside the norm.

    But I don’t think that means you can’t be sympathetic or supportive, and in favour of better healthcare and support for mental illness.

    In terms of wanting people to appear “normal”, I suppose that is one way of putting it – but when the deviation from the norm that you’re talking about is a damaging mental illness, surely bringing someone closer to the norm is desirable?

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #112840

    I wouldn’t call that morals, but more generally speaking, you’re not wrong – public discourse, and thus what we perceive as truth or as “right”, is influenced by societal power.

    This is basically what the Michel Focault school of post-structuralism is all about.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #112890

    I think I need to read Foucault some day. I just hate that he was a pedophilia apologist.

     

    Did you read anything by Foucault, Christian? Anything you could recommend (and is readable, unlike Derrida who I couldn’t read at all)

  • #112908

    Overall, I think it is best not to go along with most of the things going on today. It is not good to be well adjusted to a sick society. Now going full Diogenes is a pretty daunting thing, but he had a lot right.

     

  • #112913

    Did you read anything by Foucault, Christian? Anything you could recommend (and is readable, unlike Derrida who I couldn’t read at all)

    I read some of his essays during my time at uni, but it’s been too long to remember the specific texts, I’m afraid.

  • #113071

    It’s maddening that there’s not a good one word translation in Dutch for the Confucian term “ren”. I think in English the best translation would be benevolence or humanity. In Dutch if I had to pick one translation I would choose menselijkheid or possibly menslievendheid, but that has an emotional tone to it that “ren” doesn’t really have. Menslievendheid (the quality of loving mankind) is connected to the emotion of love, and “ren” is something other than that, something more broad and austere.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_(philosophy)

     

     

     

  • #113394

    This is a good article by the LA Times on Robert Sapolsky’s view on our lacking free will. I don’t agree with Sapolsky as I think there are many things which are subject to free will but I do agree in many other cases people are compelled by circumstances and free will is not applicable.

     

    https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-10-17/stanford-scientist-robert-sapolskys-decades-of-study-led-him-to-conclude-we-dont-have-free-will-determined-book

  • #113395

    It’s a good article.

    For me Saporsky falls into the same trap that often mostly right-wing politicians fall into.  On one end, there is it’s all determined, versus “pull yourself up by your bootstraps / believe and achieve”.

    The reality is a combination. I may decide one day I want to be a barman. But no belief in myself is going to overcome the fact that my hearing and sound location is bad, nor am I good at retaining info quickly and accurately, which are key skills / abilities.  There are factors that constrain my choices.

  • #113396

    I may decide one day I want to be a barman

    Genuinely read that as Batman at first.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #113398

    Hhn, still works in that version.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #113403

    I may decide one day I want to be a barman

    Genuinely read that as Batman at first.

    To be fair, Ben often says, “I am the night!”

  • #113413

    I also feel that it is generally good if people feel they have some control, that good decisions and good learned habits have good outcomes. So it might be bad if you teach people they have no free will, because then how can you control anything?

     

    (Of course you also have to learn some things are beyond control)

     

     

  • #113456

    Read some stuff about the “mos maiorum”, the old Roman code of conduct, and I think it’s interesting to what extent it corresponds to basic Christian conservative values. Especially the gravitas, piety and sobriety.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #113501

  • #113963

    I think we’re constantly bombarded by this type of news to keep us agitated and unbalanced. Like when you go to the Dutch meteorological website to see the weather, you also see an infinite stream of articles protecting doom and gloom.

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #114809

    Bought a Dutch book about Diogenes and one about Heraclitus. The former was a very new book written in 2022, the latter is from the 70s. Reading them I was astonished by the contrast in style, the book from the 70s had terribly convoluted long sentences with endless subclauses making it very hard to read. I wonder if that’s a linguistic development, a movement toward shorter, easier sentences. If so, I am not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Of course it’s better when writers make themselves more intelligible but maybe there’s some nuance lost by moving to easier sentences.

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by Arjan Dirkse.
  • #114818

    Bought a Dutch book about Diogenes and one about Heraclitus. The former was a very new book written in 2022, the latter is from the 70s. Reading them I was astonished by the contrast in style, the book from the 70s had terribly convoluted long sentences with endless subclauses making it very hard to read. I wonder if that’s a linguistic development, a movement toward shorter, easier sentences. If so, I am not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Of course it’s better when writers make themselves more intelligible but maybe there’s some nuance lost by moving to easier sentences.

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by Arjan Dirkse.

    TL;DR

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #114838

    Honestly whe it comes to philosophy everything worth saying can be condensed to the length of a tweet. You can make it longer but that’s a stylistic choice.

  • #114839

    I do not think that is true at all. You can make a statement in tweet lenght, but you cannot construct an argument or examine a perspective thoroughly.

    It’s great if the RESULTS of that train of thought can be summarised in tweet lenght (and probably it usually can), but that’s not the same as thinking something through carefully.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #114843

    Pretty sure tweet length is designed so that posters don’t have to think something through carefully before tweeting.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #115141

    This is an interesting read on Chinese right wing dissident web discourse. Apparently in these circles there is a lot of separatist sentiment, with people favoring a free Basuria (Sichuan), Hakkaland (Fujian), Cantonia (Guangdong), Diantnam (Yunnan), etc. Regions people often assume are entirely integrated into China proper. They regard the Han identity as artificial. I always kinda assumed such discussions didn’t really take place because of Chinese internet censorship.

     

    https://thechinaproject.com/2019/03/13/chinas-intellectual-dark-web-and-its-most-active-fanatic/

  • #115691

    Protestantism was always bug fucking crazy, but this just takes the cake. I’m not even really Christian, but this is disturbing.

     

  • #115715

    we've made a few changes

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #115725

    It’s just fucking weird…Christians kicking a Bible. It’s not that I feel insulted, I am just stunned by the weirdness.

     

    Ona completely different note, and I don’t want to get too political, but I am really dreading the implications AI will have in society. It’s now easy as shit to make a completely convincing video of someone committing a crime for instance.

  • #115752

    Oh yeah, there is a lot to dread. I’m hoping the good will outweigh the bad, though, and it’s not like we have a long time left for our civilisation so we might as well just see what happens with all that stuff.

  • #115756

    Nah Kali Yuga is supposed to last thousands more years so we still have time.

  • #115758

    Well, I said “our civilisation”. Obviously, Kali Yuga will continue with a further descent into a dystopian hellscape that will continue to get worse for those 400,000 years until the dawn of Krita Yuga will release us from the 1984-like lives of pure torture that people will have had to endure for those millenia.

    So, yeah, I guess everything is cool…

  • #115760

    Eh I am not that pessimistic. But I can’t get into politics.

  • #115784

    I was really just having a bit fun with the idea of Kali Yuga, which I have to admit to actually knowing nothing about.

    Although I actually am that pessimistic where the line of thought before that is concerned, and paradoxically that’s a part of what makes me such a vehemenet neo-phile. I don’t actually believe that a Banksian Culture-like fusion with AI is going to be our salvation… but it’s probably worth giving it a shot, as I don’t see many other hopes.

  • #115790

    Are you going to take the chip in the head? Eventually i think they’ll push it like the vax, and call you a conspiracy nut if you don’t want it.

     

    I sort of take that for granted these days, that we are in a decline. We kinda lost the inherent essence of what it is to be human.  “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying “You are mad, you are not like us.” Still there are things to hold on to I think. I love being outside, exploring nature. Yesterday I went outside with the goal of listening to and watching as many birds as I can. That just gives me a huge thrill that makes up for a lot of the shit.

     

    I admit there’s a lot of bad stuff. But I think there is also stuff with which you can balance it out.

  • #115821

    Are you going to take the chip in the head? Eventually i think they’ll push it like the vax, and call you a conspiracy nut if you don’t want it.

    I don’t think that’s going to happen during our lifetimes, it’s just Elon Musk pushing his nonsense. But we’re still turning into cyborgs; I am pretty convinced that what we have right now on our phones will soon be part of our normal field of visions – via glasses, then lenses, then implants – and we’ll all be moving through an augmented reality, constantly supported/annoyed by AI assistants and whatnot.

    I admit there’s a lot of bad stuff. But I think there is also stuff with which you can balance it out.

    Certainly, yeah. I honestly also don’t think that people are any worse than they were at any other time, the problem is that we aren’t controlling the things that play towards our worst impulses. There’s still a chance for us to do that, to tame the algorithms. Hopefully, we’ll get it done soon.
    Oh, and late-stage capitalism and its destruction of our environment. That’s not a problem we’re going to solve, unfortunately.

  • #115824

    I am pretty convinced that what we have right now on our phones will soon be part of our normal field of visions – via glasses, then lenses, then implants – and we’ll all be moving through an augmented reality, constantly supported/annoyed by AI assistants and whatnot.

    That strikes me as horribly dystopian. I sincerely hope things do not go that way. I already saw articles of people experiencing headaches, bloodclots, visual distortians and stuff from that Apple monstrosity.

     

    I am not 100 % convinced that “Apple” is not the Biblical apple, by the way. These things seem quite apocalyptic, in the biblical way. It rewires the brain in a way that makes us, well, not much more than receptacles for dumb stimuli. Soulless zombie creatures. Really I am much less worried about the climate or Putin than this stuff.

  • #115827

    I am not 100 % convinced that “Apple” is not the Biblical apple, by the way.

    Fuck, I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of that. Heh.

  • #115828

    There’s even a bite taken out of it in the logo! It is a bit spooky.

     

    It is not that crazy to look through what is happening today through a religious lense, I mean that stuff is in our collective  subconscious for a reason. Apocalypse, Kali Yuga, Ragnarok. This type of explanation speaks to us. It is all worrying of course but I try not to let it overwhelm me. I just hope people will make good choices, and that’s all I can do. For the rest I try to enjoy life.

  • #115829

    And now I am reminded of that old Gaiman short story, “Only the end of the world again”.

    Oh, here it is, cool:

    https://cdn.humblebundle.com/misc/files/hashed/d0d2473802f9b06ad10b9ee9f4f545ed331aa3c1.pdf

    “Perhaps. The end of the world is a strange concept. The world is always
    ending, and the end is always being averted, by love or foolishness or just plain
    old dumb luck.”

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 87 replies - 1,101 through 1,187 (of 1,187 total)

This topic is temporarily locked.

Skip to toolbar