philosophy

[sweetnpetite]

Well, I can't believe I'm the only here who goes through life feeling my way more than thinking it. If I'm approached my someone panhandling, I rely on my feelings whether to give them a dollar or not, rather than checking my personal manifesto for my stand on charity vs. the sins of altruism.

At the bottom, I believe that most philosophy is just rationalized emotion anyhow. Even our certainty that 1+1 equals two is an emotional certainty. It's a feeling, and the most effective philosophies are the ones that change the way we feel, not the way we think. All systems of thought have to start with a set of unprovable axioms, and those axioms are always feelings.

And Perdita's right about that: all the thinking in the world doesn't equal one teaspoon of passion, which is pure feeling. When it comes down to it, we're all feeling our way along, and philosophy is what we say about it afterwards (after all the girls have gone home).

---dr.M.

accept the part about 'after the girls go home' -because what if you are a girl? I know I'm being oversensitive, but that statement seems to divide the world into 'people' and 'girls'

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Observer

Immediacy! How can you shut your mind down enough to stay in that space? [/

Cannibis. That used to work.

Conversely, how do some people remain in the present full-time? I'm sure you know people whose lack of introspection keeps them in bliss, as if they were no more troubled by thought than the average beagle.

 

[cantdog]

No, sweet, that's what people say when they are alone. When the girls have gone home both groups are alone.

When they're still with you you don't discuss Hegel with them, there are more pressing things to do.

Cannabis

Yep, and the Sufis thought of that. Music, chant, dance, drugs, flames, rituals, mandalas-- all have been used to suppress the mind to reach that space.

But you need more than mere immediacy, you need concentration. It'll be a dreamy, stupid concentration or an obsessive, emtional one, because you don't want the analytic intellect to shut you out of the immediacy again.

As soon as you know it's on, it's back off.

 

[shereads]

No, sweet, that's what people say when they are alone. When the girls have gone home both groups are alone.

When they're still with you you don't discuss Hegel with them, there are more pressing things to do.

Speaking of girls, some of them might be a little jealous of the one in your AV. Who is she? And why are the two of you smiling?

 

[cantdog]

Speaking of girls, some of them might be a little jealous of the one in your AV. Who is she? And why are the two of you smiling?

That's Jelina. She stayed with us for ten weeks, with her mother Delene Jean. We discovered Jelina Jean in a batey in the Dominican Republic, with bilateral club feet. She had the tendon surgery in our hospital, and in this picture she has the braces on, although you don't see them.

Today she runs and rides the bike we took to her, goes to school and plays with her friends.

 

[sweetnpetite]

No, sweet, that's what people say when they are alone. When the girls have gone home both groups are alone.

When they're still with you you don't discuss Hegel with them, there are more pressing things to do.

I see what you mean (I think) but you are still speaking from a male point of view. (Ie. when *they* are still with *you*-ie, although you are speaking to me, you is not me, can't possibly be me, because you is a male with 'more pressing things to do')

Have you ever actually heard a woman use this saying? (just curious)

 

[shereads]

That's Jelina. She stayed with us for ten weeks, with her mother Delene Jean. We discovered Jelina Jean in a batey in the Dominican Republic, with bilateral club feet. She had the tendon surgery in our hospital, and in this picture she has the braces on, although you don't see them.

Today she runs and rides the bike we took to her, goes to school and plays with her friends.

I vote for your philosophy, then. Whatever it is.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I vote for your philosophy, then. Whatever it is.

I second that

 

[amicus]

Hodgepodge....

Specialized language becomes a necessity in practically every field of science, psychology and philosophy. As someone mentioned earlier, and I paraphrase,"... a word or a phrase that conveys a great deal of knowledge that might take hours of discussion, brings us to the point immediately..." E.G. if you are familiar with the 'Humane Genome Project' we can forthwith discuss it..if you are not or do not recognize the term...

Conceptual knowledge expands into more and wider concepts, each of which can be identified by a single word or phrase. Mathematicians, Physicists, and even our friendly poster the Biologist, often communicate with each other using very few words easily understood by the 'lay' public.


Second, an excerpt from Ayn Rand's "Philosophy and a Sense of Life":

"Since religion is a primitive form of philosophy-an attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality-many of its myths are distorted, dramatized allegories based on some element of truth, some actual, if profoundly elusive, aspect of man's existence..."

Ayn Rand was born and educated in Russia, English was her adopted language and she does tend to 'lecture' in some of her fiction. So you may criticize her literary style if you choose, but keep in mind that her works have been on the best seller's list for decades. And further, she is accredited as almost singlehandedly bringing the philosophy of Aristotle back into discussion on college campuses.

To continue with the excerpt:

"...A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of a man;s relationship to existence. It sets the nature of a man's emotional responses and the essence of his character."

"Long before he is old enough to grasp such a concept as metaphysics, man makes choices, forms value judgments, experiences emotions and acquires a certain implicit view of life. Every choice and value-judgment implies some estimate of himself and of the world around him-most particularly, of his capacity to deal with the world. He may draw conscious conclusions, which may be true of false; or he may remain mentally passive and merely react to events (i.e., merely feel). Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him. What began as a series or single, discrete conclusions (or evasions) about his own particular problems, becomes a generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant, basic emotion-an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences. This is a 'sense of life.'"

(If you search, The Ayn Rand Institute online, I would guess this article to be available. I read it originally in The Objectivist, a Newletter, volume 5 number 2, published in February, 1966)


I prefer not to quote or provide sources, I would much rather engage in a discussion based on personal knowledge and ideas and go from there. However, personal integrity is apparently not acceptable to some on this forum, they much prefer to accept something 'anyone else' has written or said, rather than face a debate on open terms.

So be it.

amicus...

 

[Guest]

I prefer not to quote or provide sources, I would much rather engage in a discussion based on personal knowledge and ideas and go from there.

Then I suggest you make some friends first.

Perdita

 

[gauchecritic]

Amicus,

I love you. You are a beaut.

You ask if I'm embarrassed about my "communism" (small c) even though you shy from the word, whilst proclaiming "running dog Capitalism" as the answer to the worlds ills. In a philosophy thread?

True, the industrial revolution, like the tide, raised the fortunes of all men, to a point where a greater percentage (USA) now 'own' their own homes than ever before in History.

Are you entirely certain about this? I'll give you the point anyway because I'd like to ask; How is this a 'good thing'? (You're lecturing a communist remember.)

How does an American owning his/her own home make the life of a Malaysian 10 year old leather worker (10c a day) that much richer?
Or the 12 year old Peruvian(?) girl who lives in a straw hut with her younger brother and sister who works daily on a mountainside (always above her father because of the nature of the work), splitting rock and manually heaving it down the mountainside (past her father) to be sold on by the company they work for?

And you may think that 'business owners' 'corporate leaders' have 'time' on their hands and by that luxury, use it for introspection. It doesn't work that way.

People immersed in the world of business are so focused, greedy I am sure you would say, focused on making their business even more efficient, (profitable you would say) efficient, that they have little time to think of anything outside that focus.

What they actually do, is contribute to charities, fund endowments and scholarships, invest in venture capital and put their own kids through college without borrowing from the rest of the population.

I've just looked it up again to be sure I wasn't being silly. Middle Class: That social group between nobility (Upper Class) and the Working Class. That is to say, those who are free from drudgery
Apparently you are concerned solely with the US whereas I'm including the world. I mentioned 'the soil' not on a whim but so as to include third world peoples and many millions of civilised society. (The leather worker or quarry girl mentioned above). If your definition of middle class is white collar, why don't you just say so and save us all this explanation business?

(Edited to add: The top 1% income level pay 20% of all taxes collected, and you are not even appreciative)

I appreciate this more than you can know, perhaps what you don't appreciate is that it's still not enough and I'd really love to see where you got those figures from.
Here are some more figures that you should take account of; 90% of the wealth in industrialised nations is concentrated in 10% of its population. Towards the end of the20C it was determined that in a city called Bradford in the North of England 90% of the working population were earning (and I mean earning) less than £10,000 per year. 181/2 thousand dollars at current rates. Capitalism? Oh right, they must be too stupid to be paid a decent wage.

Your hatred of a free society, a free market system, is so blantant, I wonder you are not embarassed by the exposure.

A free market system that takes thousands of jobs in the UK and transports them wholesale to the Indian continent in the name of efficiency? A free market system that is willing to set father against son and brother against brother, to decimate decades of village life in the vainglorious hope that a 'private' economy will find its own level in the market place.
("The Winter of Discontent" that you may have heard of actually was named for the strikes and 3 day week in 1973/4 rather than 78/9 which the right wing press has managed to make the world believe)

Yes, workers with IQ levels around 100 and less are in the majority, they always have been and always will be. Fortunately, the intelligence, energy and wealth of those better endowed, spills over and provides them with machinery to run, rather than shovel handles.

amicus

Do you really believe that the majority of the middle classes are that altruistic and that this stems from their (apparently) natural superior endowment in intelligence?
You accused me (and others) of blind dogmatism in an earlier post and yet you have the temerity and ineffable gaul to imply that the majority (your word) of citizens in the US, by virtue of their status at birth can rise only to the level of shit shoveler?

I am seething and hoping against hope that you will tell me that I have misunderstood what you said.

Gauche

 

[gauchecritic]

I second that

By a show of hands: All in favour?

Gauche

 

[cantdog]

Actually, sweetness, I never heard anyone use it but Zoot. For me, it's his, and I quote him when I use it. Point acceeded to, though. It's Zoot speaking from a male perspective. He and I do that.

I'm holding Jelina because she had that kind of pain. Tendon surgeries hurt as they heal up. Sometimes her pain was of a quality, she let us know, that the drugs were good to fix; other times, I was the cure. If I carried her and sang to her she felt loads better. She didn't know my songs-- "Buckets of Rain", "Please Give Me Someone To Love," "St. James Infirmary," "Summertime" (the Gershwin number from the opera), "A Woman Is A Sometime Thing," "One More Cup of Coffee," but she loved my tenor, especially on the blues.

 

[amicus]

Ah, majority rules! Raise your hand and burn the heretic!

You disappoint me, my left wing friend.

The average Standford-Benet Intelligence Quotient (IQ) in the United States is estimated to be 110-115.

That being the 'average' I leave it to your statistical genius to determine the number that are at 100 or less.

Seeth in the face of facts all you wish, there are folks who are still disappointed that the earth is actually a globe and not flat as they'believe'.

Thus it is with your 'belief' that a 'command economy' is superiour in all ways to a 'free market economy.' Such belief, like religion, can not be dealt with in rational terms.

You might, for your own edification, exemplify and promote the most successful of the 'slave economies' you find admirable.

Would it be China? The former Soviet Union. Would you pick an African Nation? Would it be the glorious quasi socialist states of Scandanavia?

How any rational person could advocate a central authority directing his or her choice of profession, income, living arrangements, number of children 'permitted', age of retirement, in other words, how anyone could advocate a complete sacrifice of individual choice in ones own life...is truly beyond me.

I would rebel first!

Oh, wait, we already did that!

Silly me.

amicus

 

[shereads]

How does an American owning his/her own home make the life of a Malaysian 10 year old leather worker (10c a day) that much richer?
Or the 12 year old Peruvian(?) girl who lives in a straw hut with her younger brother and sister who works daily on a mountainside (always above her father because of the nature of the work), splitting rock and manually heaving it down the mountainside (past her father) to be sold on by the company they work for?

You forgot to ask whether those people matter.

Here are some more figures that you should take account of; 90% of the wealth in industrialised nations is concentrated in 10% of its population.

It's also significant (though not to everyone, of course) that those at the top tax bracket have sufficient wealth that their lifestyles are not affected by the loss of the money they pay in taxes. Example, our VP takes home an extra $360,000 a year since the recent tax cuts, and has a net worth in the tens of millions. Someone making $30,000/year faces serious life choices when faced with the loss of a few thousand dollars. A millionaire faces none.

As author Molly Ivans put it, "Bill Gates and a nun walk into a soup kitchen occupied by 30 homeless people. The average income of all the people in the room is now in excess of $6 million a year. But 30 of them are still homeless."

Do you really believe that the majority of the middle classes are that altruistic and that this stems from their (apparently) natural superior endowment in intelligence?

Enjoying this. Been waiting for you to get back here and subject Andy Rand to the Cuisinart of your brain, Gauche. Thank you.

You accused me (and others) of blind dogmatism in an earlier post and yet you have the temerity and ineffable gaul to imply that the majority (your word) of citizens in the US, by virtue of their status at birth can rise only to the level of shit shoveler?

Yes, but these American shit-shovelers are provided with the finest shovels that German engineering and Mexican labor can produce.



Take no prisoners, G.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks cant (I almost spelt it Kant! Freudian slip or what?)

As Saul pointed out, our society is rapidly devolving into a large number of specialties. That is, groups whose power is based on their specialized knowledge and their specialized language.

This helps keep their knowledge in and outsiders out, allowing these groups to keep their power. The language also acts as a rite of passage. When you can speak the language, you are a member of the group.

Unfortunately, this also prevents them from contributing to society at large. Since society at large cannot even talk about the area of knowledge, the knowledge can't be used wisely. Nor can society say "no, this isn't a good thing. Don't do it."

This is the trap that philosophy has fallen into, in my opinion. It now talks only to itself. It can only talk to itself.

A pity, as it has more to offer, I think, than any other field.

 

[Guest]

This is the trap that philosophy has fallen into, in my opinion. It now talks only to itself. It can only talk to itself.

rg, that's too glib. I know academia has its potholes, but talk like that is what we're hearing now from government agencies who are cutting funding for grants. I really cannot brook any kind of anti-intellectualism, especially at this time in our history.

I know all the faculty in our philosophy department; they're no different than you or me. They're even funny and lewd at times. P.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm sorry p, if I came across as anti-intellectual.

I have great respect for any who use their intellect. Hell I even try to use my own in a groping and fumbling way.

But I was not limiting my screed to philosophers, just using them as an example. I used to be a computer programmer, and I feel the same way about them. Their inward bent and protective reactions against outsiders is one of the main reasons I left the field.

I try to study economics and psychology and come up against the same barriers.

And seriously, how much effect do philosophers have on today's world? Do they try?

Perhaps it was my disappointment at both the essays I tried to read and myself for not understanding them. Or often even being able to finish them. And they were introductory essays fercissakes.

I'm not a stupid person, and these essays sure made me feel stupid.

 

[shereads]

I'm sorry p, if I came across as anti-intellectual.

I have great respect for any who use their intellect. Hell I even try to use my own in a groping and fumbling way.

But I was not limiting my screed to philosophers, just using them as an example. I used to be a computer programmer, and I feel the same way about them. Their inward bent and protective reactions against outsiders is one of the main reasons I left the field.

I try to study economics and psychology and come up against the same barriers.

And seriously, how much effect do philosophers have on today's world? Do they try?

Perhaps it was my disappointment at both the essays I tried to read and myself for not understanding them. Or often even being able to finish them. And they were introductory essays fercissakes.

I'm not a stupid person, and these essays sure made me feel stupid.

Your intelligence was evident the first time you posted a sentence in this forum, RG. Don't let anything make you doubt the validity of what you bring to the world. If you ever write the story of your life, I imagine it will be a compelling read.

You're simply resisting the urge to divide ways of thinking into categories that can be analyzed and compared. An entirely reasonable philosophy, and a practical one too.

 

[shereads]

[

I'm holding Jelina because she had that kind of pain. Tendon surgeries hurt as they heal up. Sometimes her pain was of a quality, she let us know, that the drugs were good to fix; other times, I was the cure. If I carried her and sang to her she felt loads better. She didn't know my songs-- "Buckets of Rain", "Please Give Me Someone To Love," "St. James Infirmary," "Summertime" (the Gershwin number from the opera), "A Woman Is A Sometime Thing," "One More Cup of Coffee," but she loved my tenor, especially on the blues.

Thank you for that. You've given me a smile and tears at the same time. A rare thing.

Here's to fish jumpin' and high cotton.

SR

 

[gauchecritic]

Ah, majority rules! Raise your hand and burn the heretic!

You disappoint me, my left wing friend.

The average Standford-Benet Intelligence Quotient (IQ) in the United States is estimated to be 110-115.

That being the 'average' I leave it to your statistical genius to determine the number that are at 100 or less.

I'll let you answer that one. Yes, workers with IQ levels around 100 and less are in the majority

Seeth in the face of facts all you wish, there are folks who are still disappointed that the earth is actually a globe and not flat as they'believe'.

Thus it is with your 'belief' that a 'command economy' is superiour in all ways to a 'free market economy.' Such belief, like religion, can not be dealt with in rational terms.

Better and better. The flat earthers are an invention by a biographer of Christopher Columbus who invented, from whole cloth, an interview between "the church" and Columbus wherein "the church" (who at that time were the most prolific underwriters of scientific investigation, including the then science of 'alchemy': base metals - gold; atomic physics by any other name) was forever tagged as flat-earther. Not actually actual, just an amusing anecdote.

My belief about the socio-political theory which embraces communism (again, small c) is based on personal political experience hardened by witnessing hand to hand combat between family members instigated by a cruel and emotionless capitalist autocrat. So unfortunately, rational philosphycal thought is somewhat tempered by a vast hatred of chosen method. (To spell it out two nationwide strikes by the mineworkers brought about by Conservative governments) Suspend your disbelief and watch a film called "Billy Elliott". Every single circumstance which the story is set against I have personally witnessed and been involved with.

So my belief as to political theory is nothing compared to yours? Yours (and Ayns) is the one true faith?

You might, for your own edification, exemplify and promote the most successful of the 'slave economies' you find admirable.

Would it be China? The former Soviet Union. Would you pick an African Nation? Would it be the glorious quasi socialist states of Scandanavia?

So this is your considered and metered answer then? Get back to Russia.

How any rational person could advocate a central authority directing his or her choice of profession, income, living arrangements, number of children 'permitted', age of retirement, in other words, how anyone could advocate a complete sacrifice of individual choice in ones own life...is truly beyond me.

I would rebel first!

Oh, wait, we already did that!

Silly me.

amicus

Yes, I can see quite clearly that it is beyond you. The part that strikes me about "The Communist Manifesto" which, try as I might, I can't find the ones you mention above is: "Common ownership and the workers shall control the means of production."

The provision for the advancement of the working classes. Which unfortunately for your radical thinking would mean free education, health service and a living wage upon retirement from the everyday struggle. But if everyone was educated and could think for themselves surely no one would want to shovel shit.

Those very proles without whom you wouldn't have your third world made designer labels, your diamonds rough hewn from the living earth or your asian made computer memory.

I'd forgotten all about your revolution. I'll answer that with a fanciful quote from a once popular beat combo of my day. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

And speaking of "slave economies"...

Gauche

 

[Pure]

amicus,

your postings tend toward speeches, but what mostly strikes me about them is that your claims are essentially theological/metaphysical, without base in evidence or signs of reality.

you declare knowledge of the best society for everyone, but we don't know what your standards of 'best' are, or what if anything supports the standards. there is no objectivity to them. just as the pope thinks lots of catholicism is good, you think (I'm making this up, as an example) production of lots of goods is good.

or you maybe think 'liberty', never defined, is good. you have your criteria--such as, lots of objectivist writings disseminated-- but no support for them.

Supposing there was agreement on *standards* for the best system. That those were known objectively. You have another problem.

You further have a view that unregulated capitalism and minimal government is the system best meeting these standards, but you present no evidence of that.

indeed, as your mentor said, her vision of capitalism makes it an 'unknown ideal', something that's never existed. like More's Utopia. so there could be no evidence for its virtues.

there are periods, early in capitalism, say 1870 in the US or 1830 in Britain, but many persons, both worker and capitalist,
weren't happy with things. none of the history and human experience of this period count, for you. the reason is obvious:

both groups decided some gov regulation would improve things, such as, legislation about the working day, work safety.

many persons in a lot of countries continued in the direction of regulation, hence the expression 'mixed economy.'

you believe all these people are mistaken, that you and a few cult cohorts know what should have happened after the first, fairly unregulated period of capitalism. the path of regulation was all a mistake. where is your evidence?

even at the high echelons of business, there is support for a defintion of 'working day' and workplace safety.

here's where your objectivity flies out the door. lots of people say "I want a set 'working day'." many big businessmen say this, not just the workers. they say, "it's best for all."

you say, 'they're mistaken about what they want' 'they're brainwashed.' this is a papal or Savanarola-ish or Stalinist technique. it is the essential 'message' in all you've said. 'they don't know.'

the elite you're in ('your minority')--according to you-- know best.

'if they would listen to *reason* I could convince them,' you say. So said St Thomas. So say you. Yet you believe you possess more reason than those who disagree. And there's no evidence for that.

like St Thomas, when all the dust is settled, it's 'revealed religion', for you the religion of unregulated capitalism.

 

[amicus]

Pure....amicus puzzles as to how to respond without engendering further animosity....

You began by saying:

"amicus,

your postings tend toward speeches, but what mostly strikes me about them is that your claims are essentially theological/metaphysical, without base in evidence or signs of reality. "

I am an atheist, I do not lean toward theology to 'claim' anything.

'Meta Physical' simply means it is beyond the physical reality of existence and in the 'conceptual' category. So that metaphysics is "...that branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology and is always intimately connected with an epistemology." (Random House)

In other words, metaphysics deals with such abstractions as 'truth' reality and causal relationships.

And yes, that is my modus operandi, I seek to know truth.

I attempt to share that in my own inimitable way, whether you like it or not and you most likely don't like my prose or poetry either. So what?

The only proof of 'reality' as you and your like minded friends continue to demand, is when it sits up and slaps you in the face when you ignore it.

Reality, the Universe, exists quite happily without your approval or even your understanding. But immerse your body in 60 meters of salt water and certain 'absolute realities' will quickly make themselves known to you.

Most of the rest of what you said, was how do 'I' know what the 'right' 'best' 'good' system is...and how dare I advocate any thing with certainty in a world where nothing is absolute, true, or right...

I guess you can say that if you accept the moral and ethical premise that there is no right, no wrong, it is a 'situational ethics' or relativistic humanism.

If that is the case, then I shall never be able to communicate with you or your 'Hegelian' brothers and sisters.

When man first discovered the use of fire, he quickly learned that putting ones hand in the flame, was not a good thing.

I supposed he also discovered, the hard way, that drinking boiling water...was not a good thing.

Slowly climbing the ladder of experiencing both 'good' and 'bad' things, man eventually learned what 'absolute reality' was all about.

It has been a long journey from the Neanderthal Valley in Germany to the World Trade Center in New York City. Mankind made that trek by carefully understanding the laws of nature, the unchanging nature of reality and how mankind might use or conquer the forces of nature.

Somewhere along the way, a couple fellows named Thales and Aristotle began putting things together in logical order. The rational part of humanity has followed their lead.

The others just sit in their caves and yearn for the good old days when their leader told them what to do and how to do it.

I remain...amicus the amicable troll...

 

[shereads]

amicus,

your postings tend toward speeches, but what mostly strikes me about them is that your claims are essentially theological/metaphysical, without base in evidence or signs of reality.

you declare knowledge of the best society for everyone, but we don't know what your standards of 'best' are, or what if anything supports the standards. there is no objectivity to them. just as the pope thinks lots of catholicism is good, you think (I'm making this up, as an example) production of lots of goods is good.

or you maybe think 'liberty', never defined, is good. you have your criteria--such as, lots of objectivist writings disseminated-- but no support for them.

Supposing there was agreement on *standards* for the best system. That those were known objectively. You have another problem.

You further have a view that unregulated capitalism and minimal government is the system best meeting these standards, but you present no evidence of that.

indeed, as your mentor said, her vision of capitalism makes it an 'unknown ideal', something that's never existed. like More's Utopia. so there could be no evidence for its virtues.

there are periods, early in capitalism, say 1870 in the US or 1830 in Britain, but many persons, both worker and capitalist,
weren't happy with things. none of the history and human experience of this period count, for you. the reason is obvious:

both groups decided some gov regulation would improve things, such as, legislation about the working day, work safety.

many persons in a lot of countries continued in the direction of regulation, hence the expression 'mixed economy.'

you believe all these people are mistaken, that you and a few cult cohorts know what should have happened after the first, fairly unregulated period of capitalism. the path of regulation was all a mistake. where is your evidence?

even at the high echelons of business, there is support for a defintion of 'working day' and workplace safety.

here's where your objectivity flies out the door. lots of people say "I want a set 'working day'." many big businessmen say this, not just the workers. they say, "it's best for all."

you say, 'they're mistaken about what they want' 'they're brainwashed.' this is a papal or Savanarola-ish or Stalinist technique. it is the essential 'message' in all you've said. 'they don't know.'

the elite you're in ('your minority')--according to you-- know best.

'if they would listen to *reason* I could convince them,' you say. So said St Thomas. So say you. Yet you believe you possess more reason than those who disagree. And there's no evidence for that.

like St Thomas, when all the dust is settled, it's 'revealed religion', for you the religion of unregulated capitalism.

J, I'm so impressed that my jaw is hanging slack...Oh hell. I'm drooling, too.

That's my way of saying you expressed that quite well. Good luck gettin' anywhere with it, but well-said.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I supposed he also discovered, the hard way, that drinking boiling water...was not a good thing.

But then he figured out that drinking boiled water was. Go figure.

I personally give my kudos to the people who found out what was edible and under what bizarre circumstances they are. Brave or stupid or desperate or dared men and women they were and are.