Peterkin

What happened to ?

I think we just used to be students.

Maybe not everybody has them, but most of the people I've known did. At one time, sometimes or many times, we have a moment .... we hear something, see something, feel something, remember something.... otherworldly. A dead relative whispers a warning. A phantom pet hops up on the bed and curls up behind your knees. The grass calls your name. The stars threaten to suck you up into the sky. You wake up in the middle of the night and know that someone has died. You have an unaccountable urge to get in touch with with someone, because they need your help. When something weird like that happens, do you formulate a rational explanation? Do you ignore it? Do you look up research on such occurrences? Do you talk to somebody about it? Do you accept it as paranormal?

I can certainly see a number of intriguing - if narrow, winding and thorny - paths to follow! But I know for damn sure none of it is about work ethic or looking for a handout.

I see that you don't care. I see that I do care. I have no problem with your not caring; it just doesn't influence me. You can have the medal. I would not accept plaudits for torturing somebody. The right to comment on everything doesn't make you an expert on anything. So, you've downgraded the criteria from proof, to certainty to logical conclusion. Next come probability and inference, followed by educated and wild guesses.

They're consistent within a belief-system. Religion doesn't usually burden itself with intellectual rigour. The original people who told the stories were not preoccupied with mechanism or logic: they were telling stories from their collective history, aspiration, hopes, fears, dreams and those spooky personal experiences we all have that we can't explain and are often reluctant to discuss. Brains are complex electro-chemical machines, yes, but also quite unlovely organs, about which the ancients were less canny and curious than we are - they tended to prefer heart and liver. I don't know much about those children's memories; have no explanation to hand. Maybe some kinds of recycling does take place. I have met a few adults with recurring, vivid dreams of events in a life quite different from their own that are familiar and make sense in the dream world, but not in their waking life. I guess we just have to accept not knowing everything? I don't subscribe to any spiritual doctrine, and do reject all organized dogma, but I can't lock every door and window on the paranormal.

Mencken was hardly an expert on philosophy.... though he fancied himself the expert on every-damn-thing, and had harsh views on most of it.

The body is a different person, or different creature. It's the soul that's reincarnated. Whether the brain remembers past lives (in some belief systems, it does, at least subconsciously; hence a dreamscape quite different from one's waking world) is of little importance: it's the spirit that must go through different struggles and trials, shed layers of materialism, in order to become pure. The soul or spirit concept is internally consistent in the context of each mythology, though it doesn't make sense from a practical or secular POV. Thing about folklore and mythology, if you want to understand it, you have to accept its premises; look at it within its own frame of reference.

Go outside and take a walk. A brisk one; move all your muscles, breathe deeply, pay attention to your surroundings. Then come back in and sort your course material into four or more groups by priority: basic concepts, mechanical data, schematics, flow-charts --- whatever classification makes sense to you. Review one subject are, thoroughly, methodically. Put the books down, turn out the light. Go make a cup of tea. Drink it slowly, looking out the window or something, walk up and down the room, while thinking over the material you've just reviewed. Repeat as needed.

Exactly. I don't know. If I did a bad thing to prevent a worse thing, and it turned out as I hoped, I could probably forgive myself. I don't think I'd ever stop wondering whether it was the best decision I could have made, second- and third-guessing, dreaming about the alternate outcomes that were narrowly avoided. At least, that's what has happened when I've chosen the lesser evil in some real-life situation. I suspect it would be like that for most people who are not accustomed to making life-and-death decisions. Living with a guilt is not the same as being at peace with it.

Does it? Have you any documentation? Not so rare as all that, not restricted to India, and there are different versions. This is an idea entertained by people in very different parts of the world and cultures, for quite a long time. Because they loved Earth and some people on Earth. Because they wanted to see and participate in what happens next. Because they enjoyed living or liked a new challenge. Because they wanted another chance to do thing better. (Not because they're warriors... of course, i have no idea why anyone would choose to be warrior.) They don't need food and shelter and protection anymore. For a lot of people who had a crappy deal in this life, just not having to be afraid, not having to go hungry, not being cold and wet and in pain and oppressed anymore is more than reason enough to desire heaven. That's why heaven was invented in the first place: so many people were made miserable by other people. That's also why reincarnation was invented. IOW a republican flunky and adjectives are not normally capitalized

It wasn't your post I called ignorant. Correct. Of course it is - everywhere. No. But assimilation of members of small a minority population into the majority populations does tend to take place over time. However, if there is a large immigrant population of a different culture, they tend to remain longer in distinct ethnic communities. This adds colour and texture, sound and flavour to an otherwise bland culture. To some extent, the dominant culture changes; to some extent, the immigrant community changes; second and third generation offspring leave the community and assimilate into the greater heterogeneous polity, while fresh waves of immigrants refresh the exotic character of the immigrant community.

The ignorance explained in a nut shell.

One question at a time! Which god? All the ones I know about were egotists and racists and seriously flawed in several other ways. Fortunately, none of them were in charge of evolution.

Have you ever been in the USA? If there were any logic, it could be refuted. Since there is none, your whole thesis can be dismissed.

That's perfectly true. You simply claimed. If you caught them red-handed, in the very act of committing the crime, as in the examples you keep referring to, you already have the child and the bomb. If you didn't catch them in the act, you don't have proof of guilt. Yes. And? It would still be wrong if I did it. If you did it, if the CIA did it, if Stalin's or Torquemada's minions did; whatever outcome is valued by the users, it still remains wrong.

Yeah! What kind of obtusamus would bring philosophy (ptui! ptui!) into a philosophy forum? Was it this one? https://www.britannica.com/summary/torture

So, what more information do you need to extract by torture? Never mind, since you speak for all of modern western civilization, whatever you say will be right. For the subscriber, no proof is required; for the skeptic, no proof will be offered? OK

There is no "we" making the decision; the scenario does not allow time for a referendum. One person has to give the order; one of a few person(s) carry out the prescribed torture; somebody has to decide when to stop; somebody has to assess the information elicited. There is no "we" judging it, either. Even assuming the operation went to plan, and even assuming every member of the entire society learned accurately the particulars, this could only happen after the fact. And they would not all react in the same way. Some would vote for the medal; some would vote for impeachment; some would shrug; some would tut-tut. Those examples do not relate to a situation in which you require information; they relate to a situation in which you already have the information.

That's even more interesting. You mean, it exists, physically, in the world, where it's accessible to anyone? Written down in a body of philosophical works, indexed and footnoted? Or metaphorically, as a cultural meme or shared idea?

That clarifies the matter in general. I imagine you have a detailed chart in your head regarding which kinds of torture, used on whom, how long, in which situations. I wonder whether everyone who lists torture in both columns has such a chart. It would be interesting to survey - interesting, but exhausting.

A fixed, movable concept. OK Where did you get that idea? When and as it affects me, I face it on my own, make my own decision according to my own judgment and live with the consequences. I don't conceal my personal responsibility in some anonymous "rest of us WE" collective.

There is no "we". Each individual faces such decisions alone and lives with the consequences of his decision alone. No two people have the same line of demarcation for "extreme" or the exact point in time when the extreme must be faced. There is no established or precisely articulated protocol for "should": it's a personal judgment. There are two camps here: theoretical ethicists and applied ethicists. For the first, Right and Wrong are fixed constants, non-negotiable; for whatever reason we may resort to a Wrong action, even if it's less wrong than the available options, it's still Wrong. For the second group, Right and Wrong are approximate classifications, situational, subject to interpretation; if you resort to a Wrong action for what you consider a worthy reason, it moves into the Right column.

I think the stalemate is more the result of answering different questions. I'm not as concerned with the efficacy of torture as the ethics of it. The question I answered was: not "Does torture ever work?" (Yes, I'm pretty sure it's effective on run-of-the-mill criminals and their victims: it gets results - of some kind.) but "Is torture ever right?" (No. It is wrong; it is unethical; no expedient makes it right and moral.)

Who says there is a finite number of souls in the world, one to a customer? You might cohabit; some creatures may not yet have evolved to the point of having a soul. Or maybe at the bottom of the ladder, billions of new tiny bacterial souls are created every second; meanwhile, species are going extinct and their souls need new homes. Some of the pigs and chickens, zebras and rhinos have moved up; some of the humans have moved down, depending on how they lived their lives. At the top, a few, a very few exceptionally accomplished human souls are released from karmic bondage and depart the life-cycle. There is plenty of room for growth and proliferation. The math works itself out and needs no help from us. All gods move in mysterious ways, but the Hindu ones left a lot of clues for their people. It's okay to ignore an idea you don't find interesting. It's okay to reject an idea in which you see no merit. Both can be done with a minimum of effort.