Karl

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." Is attributed to St Thomas Aquinas regarding religious faith.

You would have to prove that animals have reason and the current position is that they don't. If you ever wondered why animals aren't capitalists, builders, or engineers is because they cannot conceptualise, they do only what is instinctive. They aren't born as we are, they function from the get go because they are bereft of the learning cycle necessary for humans. They learn to walk, fly, swim, hunt, mate and fight and that's all they require. After that they are automatic. It doesn't mean they lack intelligence, or that they are incapable of emotion, but they have no reasoning and therefore self sacrifice is simply beyond them. We are the weakest physical species on the planet, but it is the ability to conceptualise and reason that has made us dominant. So, not at all a comfortable answer as you describe it, but a reasoned argument based on factual evidence and scientific knowledge. If you can produce evidence to the contrary the entire scientific world is waiting to hear it.

As it has now been agreed by Governments across Europe that there is a problem in multiple countries with dark skinned men, of indeterminate origin engaging in sexual harassment of women, then the subject is no longer one of Government complicity in failing to make it public. They certainly did discourage the press from reporting the issue in some sense of that there is no longer any doubt. This thread has moved beyond that subject and into culpability, punishment and prevention. I'm not sure we know sufficient facts to determine any of those things. These men have effectively vanished and it seems there is little evidence to support any kind of investigation, only eye witness accounts.

That means a definition for the Tao in the same way that the church defines God. I understand the intrincist position on God-I happen not to accept it, but it's clear enough. I am unable to argue with an intrincisist that begins with the premise of an omniscient, omnipotent creator from the outset. Much less can I argue with a Daoist which I can't even begin to comprehend when the subject is the Tao.

Same as any question on faith, it is predicated on a belief and not a fact and therefore-for myself-I cannot even begin to answer something which has that predicate. You have effectively narrowed the discussion, but as its your discussion I respect your terms and bow out.

Funnily enough there was a program on that subject the other night. It showed monkeys that abandoned their progeny as soon as the adults survival was threatened. Up to the point of defending their young, most animals do, but that is an innate instinct and not a reasoned choice. If the danger to their own survival rises they will abandon their young and in some cases they will even resort to eating them. At times we also act instinctively and abandon reason, it's not the case that we always will use it. Typically during riots there is an abandonment of reason-rioters often can't understand why they committed acts of violence, they describe it as 'just going along with the crowd'. Of the stock market it is said that 'men go mad in numbers and only recover one at a time'. People describe 'crimes of passion' or 'blind hatred'.

They don't sacrifice themselves they haven't that capacity. In the case of Ants, all effort is towards reproduction and survival of the nest. They don't choose if they should reproduce as humans do. In the case of Whales-as far as I understand it as I'm not a marine biologist-they end up getting confused during navigation and get into difficulty.

Only to those that imagine to world to be one in which being alive means someone else must die.

Nah stop it, you two are just messing about. You do know that you don't lose weight just fail to maintain it either by decreasing consumption or by increasing energy output, or by a combination of both ? Yeah you know that ;-)

I thought you were just having a laugh when you said that. I'm still thinking you were joking ?

Animals possess intelligence though, but not reason. They cannot choose to go against that which would promote their own survival. You could offer an argument against both the finger trap analogy and the baker/thief example. It would be interesting to hear your rebuttal.

I don't look to win you know Bob. Just to discover the truth if it's possible.

It's not convoluted. :-) It's the finger trap and the philosophy that goes with it that is convoluted. An animal would struggle to escape because they are incapable of deploying reason and thus going against their instinct to continue pulling. A man has experience, reason, logic and volition and can escape. It proves nothing about mental attachment except in the physical sense-the harder one grips the more one can hold on to something. The finger trap is only a trick which can be overcome by using the mind.

If you weren't attached to your finger then it would not be your finger. If you were not first attached to your freedom then you would have no need to remove your finger. If you were not attached to your mind you would be unable to reason your finger out of the trap. If you weren't attached to your eyes, muscles, Gravity, air, planet nothing at all would be possible. If you are attached to the idea of non attachment then this is a problem because the finger trap shows clearly that existence exists, independence is reality, our senses touch that reality, our mind grasps it and our muscles work to perform actions within that existent reality. Try and ignore existent reality and the finger remains stuck.

Its not compassion that is required. When people are ignorant it is one thing, but quite another to evade on deny the need for virtue and principles, or to ignore knowledge that already exists.

Precisely. Which is all the more reason to gain fairly earned values in life, because that's the one we are living.

If it is wished to take a fundamentalist approach to the teachings of non attachment then I suggest it must ultimately result in Nihlism. Can I suggest another approach ? That there are earned and unearned values. That the baker who can prepare a loaf of bread is happier than the thief who must steal it. The baker has earned the value of the bread and does not fear it's loss, for he can always make another as he had made the first. He is not pleased to lose the value of his effort, but it is an irritation only. The thief, in contrast, cannot make another and lives in fear of starving, or being robbed, or caught stealing. Earn a value and it is never lost-one remains unattached in that way. Take an unearned value and one is attached and unhappy.

Just because something is transient doesn't mean that it should not be sought or attained. It does not mean it isn't attainable, or that it is intrinsic to self. The potential always exists, but some action must first occur for that potential to be reached. It is not always possible, but it isn't impossible.

That it is a dangerous path that will eventually leave the person unable to interact, survive or experience happiness. Once a person has externalised their internal dialogue they feel responsible for every misery in the world. The result is inevitably depression and/or suicide. However, the path taken is already that of someone who had wished to surrender their mind and give up personal identity. Hard to know why this happens. It's the same as someone entering a cult and giving up control to a leader, or becoming alcoholic. Just a different way of achieving the same result. Advice: Go see the Doctor immediately and cease any practices.

Agreed on the inflation, but fixing wages don't improve that, they just move the chance of employment further up the ladder. In effect it is enforced poverty leaving people with no alternative but to live on unemployment or take up a life of crime. It's benefits are only to those who are paid substantially more than the minimum wage in order that they are protected from competition by those who might ask for less. This is well known Marblehead. It isn't just a libertarian fantasy or conservative tough love, it is an economic fact understood by all economists. It suits governments to appear to be helping, unions to protect their members and big business to prevent competition from businesses that might undercut them.

True. It seems to me that US citizens are less passive than Europeans. The US remains relatively free despite the attempts of successive progressive governments. Obarmy is having a go with his healthcare, minimum wage and gun control orders to get you all to tow the line. If death camps were set up in Europe we would all stand in an orderly line awaiting our turn. Ironic that the US government pretends to care about peace at home whilst bombing and invading half the planet.

I didn't mean the sheep like tendency to follow, but a conformal passivity. We are kept passive by subtle psychological means and the fear of loss of safety/income/care. Arabs are kept in check by religiosity and physical brutality. They fear Gods wrath and the stick of the state, they aren't secure as such and have no concern over the loss of safety, just their own lives through state action. Europe is therefore a honeypot for those brutalised by dictatorships. They see mild mannered wealthy people and women as prostitutes. We haven't woken up to it and our masters think it's only a matter of time before the same tricks used on us work on the immigrants-they just don't want us kicking off and waking up ahead of their plans.

Yes, that's a bit of modern history I certainly hadn't factored in. Well said. In a sense then, the Eastern Germans are still smarting from the separation and its ramifications. I got the impression that they were so happy with their new found freedom and reunification that they joined spiritually with the West, but the wounds run deep eh ?

We should stop apologising for white, Western European history as well. It's time to realise we did much good as well as some bad. We spent much of our time being overrun by Muslims who were anything but pleasant chaps and happily slaughtered, enslaved, mutilated, raped the population, whilst imposing taxes on Christians that they often could not pay. We castigate ourselves for our short history of slave trading, but the Arabs make us look innocent, it was the Europeans who halted slavery, the Muslims would have cheerfully carried on. The vast number of fortified towns in Southern Europe are a direct result of Islamic attacks which drove people to abandon their fields and live centuries in siege conditions which created starvation and disease. We don't owe anything to Muslims or Arabs. They even plundered the oil wells after accepting payment for the land on which they were situated. They neither had the money or expertise to drill or operate the wells, but they took them anyway.

On the rise and gaining any kind of popular political traction are two different things. In the UK we have problems with the hard left anti-austerity groups but they are irrelevant nuisances in the scheme of things. Even UKIP who are really old style conservatives couldn't get more than one seat in parliament despite 4 million votes. I suspect the Nazis will, at most sway the government into making some decision to back away from open borders, but that's about all. Germany is very left of centre and liberal so a load of Nazi thugs-whos very existence is guaranteed to have civilised Germans racking up guilt-is prominent in the psyche. Of course I don't know that for certain but I know the deep chasm of guilt that permeates the German consciousness and a world that will never allow the reich to be forgotten. Germany is like a lodestone of guilt. If anyone is going to over compensate for past actions, and represent European culture in the guilt Olympics it's the poor old Germans. It seems to me the only pride is in manufacturing things and being efficient, national pride seems verboten.