Peterkin

There is no such thing as a 'good' or 'bad' foundation. There are reasons for building a structure, and if the structure meets the needs it was designed to meet, it lasts. Ignorance and knowledge co-exist all the time. Every moment is the present for one moment. Every society, at every moment, is at the cutting edge of its evolution; every generations know all that is available for it to know, and yet members of the same generation vary greatly in what and how much of that they know. The Chinese of 2000 BCE had technology and skills and refinements that the Australians of that time lacked, and the natives of Australia were boat-builders and pioneers 60,000 years before that. Everybody knows something that other people don't know. That has nothing to do with foundations. Somebody had to have an idea before he could communicate it to anyone else. The little children were not told of it until long after any particular belief system had been established. There are no 'sides'. All human ideas can be applied by people with good and bad intention, for good and bad purposes, or even purposes that seem good to one and bad to another or that seem good in one situation and bad in another. All human institutions are subject to abuse, co-optation and corruption; an institution or capability or tool may become dangerous, may be put to the service of evil. That does not make its foundations irrational.

That's not about causation; that's about personal POV. The cumulative actions of masses of people cause social disaster, which then affect individuals variously. Also, the causes, origins and development of social disasters can be plotted in retrospect, and to a some extent, depending on the point in their development that the data is collected, social disasters that are about to take place can be predicted. In theory, collective reaction could prevent, mitigate or reverse them.

The foundations of religion [general term for a social phenomenon] are not interchangeable with the tenets of any particular religious belief. And yet the phenomenon of religion has lasted for thousands of years, if not tens of thousands; even particular religious institutions have lasted hundreds, and in some cases, at least two thousand years. What's "not very long" in the life-cycle of a skyscraper? Social structures are not like buildings; they have different foundations and serve different purposes.

All the same, I would not want the thread reopened and further trivialized. There is subject matter there that could be discussed to some purpose, but once it's become bawdlerized, there is little point in continuing. Perhaps the phrasing of the question was unfortunate.

In that case, any disasters you may cause are within your power to prevent. If that ability is projected onto other people, then they, too, have the power to prevent any disasters they might cause. If that ability is projected onto large collectives of humans, then they could all control the forces that cause social disaster; therefore social disasters are not caused in the same way that earthquakes, meteor strikes and natural floods are cause - by the unconscious, uncontrolled forces of physics.

Humans can now control geology and cosmology? That's very frightening news, given that humans can't seem to control their own greed, short-sightedness and power-lust. I guess hope does spring eternal. It doesn't show the whole picture of man-made social disasters? You may be right. I left out slavery, cultural genocide, child abuse, systemic discrimination, maybe a couple more. I suppose it's just too large a picture to fit into such a small frame.

Then please explain the flaw in my reasoning. P1. social disaster [is] just another natural disaster akin earthquake, flood, meteor strike, etc P2. Earthquakes, meteor strikes and natural floods are caused by forces beyond human control. C. Humans cannot control the natural forces that cause natural disasters. P1. Social disasters are natural disasters. P2. Social disasters manifest as human actions. C. Humans cannot control human actions. P1. Human action is required to take measures to protect against or prevent / minimize effects of natural disasters. P2. Humans cannot control the human actions that cause social disaster. C. Humans cannot take effective measures against their own actions. Evidence: Human History - nationalism, imperialism, religious zeal, oppression, crime, famine, pandemic, environmental degradation, cyclic economic collapse, war and climate change

And that has worked... when? What makes me think that if we can't control the action, we also can't control the reaction? Just a hunch.

I see. Okay, then, what measures are appropriate against the coming of an Alexander? The Persians had a largish standing army; so did the Egyptians, yet both nations were devastated. Ukraine had an army and could see Russia looming - and yet there they go, dying by the thousands, as usual. If human madness indeed a force of nature, there is no possible safeguard against it and no place for humans to hide from it.

I have no frickin' idea why Putin - or any other megalomaniac - does anything. But then, I've recently been informed I have no sense of humour, which may account for my incomprehension of massacre. You mean, what we do ourselves is as inevitable as geology? No will, no intelligence - just physics? If the proposition is true, the question is moot: our response to what we do is as inevitable and uncontrollable as the event itself.

Must be.

And little children are unlikely to be interested in, or understand, either. (But I have to admit, I'm not sure I could depend on my own equanimity in the same room with Gervaise. So I just won't go there. )

Well, he's one to talk! The man who terrorized two continents, razed 3 cities of civilizations more advanced than his own, devastated another 70, assassinated rivals, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians, committed half a dozen genocides, enslaved, displaced and impoverished huge swatches of population that were never a threat to him. Yeah, apathy is the answer to that, just as it is to Putin.

Knowledge is never misplaced. Even if the purpose and focus changes over time, the more you learn, the more you can do with it. Just be careful you don't burn out - slow ans steady is the magic formula.

So, children's shows send mixed messages about violence and its justification. And children, especially school-aged boys, never watch anything less benign than My Little Pony. And children the world over are sweetly, blissfully unaware of war, terror, persecution, dangerous border crossings, refugee internment and domestic violence. But they do watch the incredibly boring Academy Awards ceremony and do understand a passing reference by a fast-talking comic to a movie they've never heard of and wouldn't have been allowed to see. That's what will influence them. And this will become a frequent occurrence in classrooms the world over. I pity the teachers, but blame the parents. Shouldn't let the small ones stay up so late.

I can't tell which quantities you're comparing.

1. It wasn't proposed as a discussion of specific philosophies 2. It was not a proposal to discuss Rationalism, what it holds as a test of knowledge (or even truth). 3. It was not proposed as a discussion of dogma or faith. It was a proposal regarding the foundations of a wide-spread social phenomenon that encompasses many kinds of institution in every civilization, in every period of history, in every form of governance. Each of those institutions was or is based in a rational purpose and organized on a rational system of administration. In every society, religion has served and does serve one or more rational purpose. It is not uncommon to reject religion of any kind. That decision is usually based on a rational reason. It is not uncommon to profess a religion one does not truly believe. That, too, is based on a rational reason. It is not uncommon to refuse to take part in any discussion in which the word 'religion' is mentioned. Nor is it uncommon to participate without contributing.

Just to be fair, it isn't referring to religion. It doesn't say "rational religion"; it says "rational foundations". As with other institutions, like nationalism and capitalism, the canon may sound outlandish, the practices may seem bizarre, but a function is served: somebody benefits.

Has anyone said it's "right"? It happens, that's all. And it's not a great big world-altering deal. The guy's apologized and resigned. What more do you want?

Another instruction? Okay. No judging, no dismissing. Just thought I'd offer a little solace, but won't do it again.

I'm confident that they will recover without intensive psychotherapy. Odds are, so will the schoolchildren. All the others can probably afford whatever therapy they require. Oh, come on! It's a teeny-weeny tempest in an overpriced champagne flute.

What? You mean the schoolchildren of the entire world have never before seen anyone hit anyone else? And now that they have discovered the joy of slapping, they will indulge it henceforth?

You don't know what's been going on in his head. He didn't just decide to make a public spectacle of himself and of the wife he was supposedly defending. Something's been struggling to get out for a long time, and this was a trigger moment - a high anxiety, high tension, high adrenaline moment - when the last chain broke. It's a nothing event: just another crass remark by a celebrity, just another outburst from a celebrity; neither is rare or special; it's not like this changed anything in the real world. But it happened on a big stage, on a day when people were eager to be distracted from war and the imminent end of the world - welcome fodder for gossip. Significant for the persons directly involved and nobody else.

He wasn't making a comparison. He was invoking a meme. Very small potatoes as cheap shots go, but certainly not a compliment; merely drawing attention to the most obvious feature. (Baldness, btw, was not Demi Moore's most attractive feature, the head-shaving was just the scene people remember.)

Not to me. It's for the principal to adjudicate this little schoolyard set-to. Such things have always happened, and will keep happening whether it has meaning or not - mostly not, except to the participants - even when everyone involved knows they shouldn't behave that way, and that consequences will ensue. It's simply human nature to forget our good manners sometimes and to lose our rag sometimes. No civilization has completely subdued human emotion. I don't know. Refinement in humour may be one indication of virtue, but I'm not convinced that it's sufficient indication. A peasant with a sharp tongue and a quick temper may be or may not be a better person than an aristocrat with impeccable deportment. There was then, as there is now, a vast range of tastes and sensibilities. I just don't think bald jokes were ever funny, no matter who is being joked about, so the comparison of one cheap shot with a bunch of other cheap shots doesn't prove anything except that comedians are one of those elements that hold constant: when they can't think of anything witty, they jibe at some vulnerability.