Happiness is a moral obligation [Darleen Click]

	Return to Protein Wisdom homepage « We are all Alice [Darleen Click] \| Home \| NYT reporter escapes Taliban, is rescued by Pakistani army…(The Sanity Inspector) » June 20, 2009 Happiness is a moral obligation [Darleen Click] Take away quotes: 1:30 “We are morally obligated to at least act as happy as possible. Even if you don’t feel it. You cannot be guided by feelings. How we act affects others.” 2:21 “No matter how unhappy you may feel or say you may feel at any given moment, it is a decision you make on how to act.” 2:50 “You share with your friend or your spouse, you share as much as possible about your life, you should share how you feel, but you don’t inflict a bad mood onto anybody.” 4:09 “We think that our actions should represent our feelings or be determined by our feelings, but the fact is that we can make our feelings respond to our behavior. How we act influences our feelings more than our feelings should be allowed to influence our behavior.” 4:37 “When you think of people who have done great harm in this world — historically, Nazis, Communists, terrorists — they are not from the happiest group of humans.” Some where, some time in the 1960’s it came to be accepted that if one did not act in accordance with one’s “feelings”, one was a “phoney”. Indeed, any manner of bad behavior could be/would be excused because the actor “geniunely felt” that way. This mentality dealt a blow to politeness, manners and civil discourse. It also ushered in reams of micromanaging laws, statutes and regulations on behavior where personal moral obligation, duty and honor once held sway. We are a smaller people for it. And the Left works to make us smaller still. Posted by Darleen @ 5:59 pm Comments (416) \| Trackback 416 Comments ::: Post a comment » Comment by twolaneflash on 6/20 @ 6:14 pm # OUTLAW! Comment by Jeff G. on 6/20 @ 6:46 pm # â€œWe are morally obligated to at least act as happy as possible. Even if you donâ€™t feel it. You cannot be guided by feelings. How we act affects others.â€ So we have to morally give our selves over to the collective? Why not financially, then? Sorry. I’m selling on this one. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 6:48 pm # after listening to him 4 awhile/ and putting up with his morality play by play suddenly he gets divorced.. happy happy fun joy Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 6:53 pm # I agree, Jeff, the first sound-bite is a little “borg-like.” But the rest of the points make sense to me, having lived with someone for many years who strove to chain her behavior to her emotions–and justified whatever pain she inflicted on anyone by saying, “Well, I can’t help it if that’s how I feel.” What’s that they say about bad rubbish? Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:02 pm # JeffG It is more in line with Robert Heinleins admonishments that politeness is more important between husbands and wives then to strangers (and that politeness and manners are the oil of society that keeps rubbing parts from causing too much friction). You certainly don’t deserve a waitress slamming down your plate or cussing at you because she’s in a “bad mood” and you just happened to be in the way. Certainly the unlucky lighting guy who inadvertently upset Christain Bale didn’t deserve to be on the receiving end of Bale’s bad temper. There is a societal compact on how we should treat each other – default mode, if you will. Being in a bad mood is no excuse for unjustified behavior. I would rather it a moral obligation than a law. But what we have because too many have decided that FEELINGS justify any behavior is soul-numbing, complicated laws. And it certainly goes hand-in-hand with intentionalism … our current “feelings are everything” culture gives precedence to the “genuinely offended”, regardless of intent of the charged “offender”. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:05 pm # pdbuttons what’s divorce have to do with one’s morality? Oft times divorce is the moral thing to do. it’s like saying an employer is immoral if they ever fire someone. Comment by Joe on 6/20 @ 7:10 pm # Talking about being happy (or not)… U2’s Bono confused over people asking him about his sex change operation. Schadenfreud. Comment by Jeff G on 6/20 @ 7:12 pm # You certainly donâ€™t deserve a waitress slamming down your plate or cussing at you because sheâ€™s in a â€œbad moodâ€ and you just happened to be in the way. Certainly the unlucky lighting guy who inadvertently upset Christain Bale didnâ€™t deserve to be on the receiving end of Baleâ€™s bad temper. Those aren’t moral obligations, however. Civility and morality shouldn’t be conflated, and I don’t think there’s any reason to suggest we must always be civil. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:15 pm # don’t like his preachin/ got different take on him after he quietly divorced just don’t like the preaching/that’s all/ be quiet/ like hume cronyn/paul newman like ensign/ that’s all/ no biggie Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:16 pm # Cowboy IMHO I believe we all have succumbed to contemporary culture that refuses to seriously discuss moral issues AS moral issues. We all kind of buy into the stereotype that the minute the word “moral” comes up we visualize some fire-n-brimstone, swaddled in black, frowning, angry preacher ready to banish any fun, pleasure or humor from our lives. Certainly the vast majority of pop-entertainment portrays any kind of religious person as either hypocriticly evil or a fool. Our HopenChange moral ruler is not if we overturn cop cars and set them on fire in celebration but if we recycle. Those Iranians risking their lives in the streets in defiance of a totalitarian government are standing for Liberty (maybe nascent Liberty, but Liberty none the less) What are (some) Americans standing for? More paid vacation? Wow, there’s a cause! Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:17 pm # I think, Jeff, the important thing is what motivates (if you will) your incivility. I can be pretty damned un-civil when I choose (ask my students!), but what Darleen is suggesting is that emotion isn’t a good reason for that–or other–behaviors. Comment by Joe on 6/20 @ 7:17 pm # Robert Heinlein also said an armed society is a polite society. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 7:18 pm # This message makes perfect sense to me, but, full discolsure, I am a God bothering Catholic. And, one of the tenets of our faith is to spread God’s love throught the world to all peoples; and a principle way of going about this is to spread happiness and good feelings around to all the people you meet throughout your day… Sometimes this seems hard. As my younger brothers and I have moved into our 40’s we always have a good laugh between ourselves about how our “adventurous” pursuits when we were young are all coming back to haunt us, physically speaking. But we all agree that no matter how bad it hurts when you get out of bed, that you stand in a warm shower for a while and it will feel a lot better; after that, you make a point of just ignoring it as much as possible and go about your day. We have a fraternal pact concerning the threshold of old fartdom, and have decided that whichever one of us is first caught answering a friendly, “How ya doin’…” with a laundry list of physical laments has truly begun the slide down the other side of the proverbial hill. Better always to answer with, “I can’t complain” and share a few laughs and some good cheer as much, and for as long, as possible… In other words, only impinge on others in a positive way; indeed, as I pointed out I find this, in a religious sense especially, a moral obligation… This can indeed be extended to all forms of public interactions and behavior. And, while I strongly believe in Genuineness and “keepin’ it real”, I don’t think that is a liscence to take on an attitude of, “Eff everyone else, I’m doin’ what I want”, if what you want imposes on someone else; it’s an issue of personal responsibility… The left in America decided to adopt the wide open, “it’s all good”, “I’m only keepin it real” outlook as an excuse for people behaving like irresponsible teenagers, hoodlums, or just making bad decisions; they were relieving them of the societal pressure of the guilt that went along with behaving as if they had no responsibility for the effects that poor choices caused. So in addition to doing away with notions of personal responsibilty, they were also relieved of fault for their bad choices… This gave the socialist and pan-communists the excuse meddle in our lives in an ever burgeoning and disturbing way. For you see, if we were no longer expected to live with the consequences of poor decisions, well then they had the excuse to redistribute wealth; the meme increasingly trending toward equality of outcome-a perversion of the concept of equal opportunity which was one of the pillars ofthe nations founding… And, it also gave them the opportuniy to increasingly micromanage laws, statutes and regulations on behavior. Because, if no one was really responsible for their actions, well then they’d just have to save us from ourselves! And of course,the ones who would do that were our “betters” in the do-gooding left wing intelligentsia; guys like Obama and his crew who know what is really good for us individually, and as a nation… And yeah, while I wish him and his family well, I don’t have to support his political agenda… And can hope he fails, for the good of our country! Best Wishes to all Comment by Joe on 6/20 @ 7:19 pm # The Japanese custom of bottling it in, then going out, getting rip roaring drunk, and being free to say anything you wish to your boss is okay in some cases. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:19 pm # pd oh… divorced “quietly”. Hmmm. Well, that’s moving the goalposts. So he should have divorced loudly? Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:20 pm # I believe we all have succumbed to contemporary culture that refuses to seriously discuss moral issues AS moral issues. I think that’s mostly because our contemporary culture largely disbelieves in anything purporting to be morality–making people who espouse it either suspicious or, as you say, foolish. Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:23 pm # Bob: As a fellow God-bothering Catholic-type, let me thank you for saying what I was striving to say, only more succinctly, with better detail and clarity…sheesh! Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:24 pm # Jeff But civility does fall under morality. Morality/morals is the template by which we live our lives. A waitress has no legal obligation to treat you civilly, so the only other obligations she may working under is either workplace rules or internal moral code. I really do think that “morals/morality/values” have been so poisoned by contemporary cultural stereotypes it is as hard to have a serious discussion about them — kind of akin to having a serious discussion about race or sex. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:25 pm # his bosses want product product prager divorce placement… not so high… y u pickin on me? Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:26 pm # Yeah, but at least no one would suggest race or sex just don’t exist. Oh, wait… Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:30 pm # pd Yeah, I’m picking on you because you trotted out the usual Leftist tactic of dismissing anyone that dares talk about morals/behavior/ethics/etc by saying “oh look, that person got divorced HYPOCRIT!!!” without ever considering if divorce IS immoral. sloppy, pd, I expect better from you. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:31 pm # btw, pd, I’m divorced and remarried. What scarlett letter should I have tatooed on my forehead? Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 7:34 pm # man you start doing this happiness thing too much you goin’ put acorn, uaw/eeiu, feminists, environmentalist, rev al/jesse, LGBTTIQQ2S activists and/or the demorat party out of business. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:35 pm # i apologize/ i just don’t like prager/ his remarry after telling me lot’s o stuff about love/committed-ment-blah bla rang hollow after that nuttin’ personal/ good luck/ many happy days oh…love ur writing thanks Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:41 pm # True dat, newrouter. Emotion is the stock and trade of most progressive legislation. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:41 pm # and in sickness… and in health… Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 7:43 pm # i just donâ€™t like prager/ his remarry after telling me lotâ€™s o stuff about love/committed-ment-blah bla yea b/c failure is never an option with some when viewing others lives Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:43 pm # i wanna marry a lighthouse keeper[clockwork orange[ Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:43 pm # pd What has love and commitment have to do with divorce? Do you believe that an employer talks about being committed to providing a great work environment and treating his/her employees well, then fires someone is now a hypocrit? Should people stay married regardless of behavior of one of the spouses? See, this is yet another area that is just not discussed seriously … we all seem to think that good/successful marriages are just something we “luck” into. No one wants to really discuss the nitty gritty of what makes some work, some fail and how we move on. All we get is these cartoonish caricatures. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:46 pm # jeez/ i like his messge/ just thinkin he’s more of a tool for it newt fuckin gingring? i’d lay down with Palin… anytime… Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:47 pm # and in sicknessâ€¦ and in healthâ€¦ But not in alcoholism and wifebeating. I didn’t sign up for that one. Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:48 pm # …as a reformed castigator of failed marriages and divorce, I can say that, at least in my state, one spouse can completely and irreversibly f* up a marriage and proceed with divorce regardless of the other spouse’s commitment to marriage, children, etc. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:48 pm # i just believe marriage is a sacred contract… i do! Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 7:49 pm # Sorry for the rambling piece, it was really stream of consciousness; can you tell? More succinctly put; My religious beliefs compel me to treat everyone with civility and good cheer. The civilty aspect is reinforced by the constitutional** premise of equality in our society as well, for if all folks are equal then I should treat all folks equally, and as I would expect to be treated myself. So, I can formly say, with respect to civility, that both my religion and the constitution influence my actions; but churlish behavior is really most influenced by religion… Likewise, my actions with respect to society at large are governed by constitutional principles. I have the right to speak my mind, unless I infringe on someone else by slander or cheat them through connivance; and the press gets super rights to speech protection, the obverse of which is the open season that public figures must contend with. I can do what I want, as long as it doesn’t diminish the freedoms of another; this is essentially the guiding principles in a nutsell… But in a world where most traditional ideas of moral obligation, duty, and honor have gone by the wayside and been replaced by moral relativism, situational ethics, and selfish notions of personal gain, these traditional values have been necessarily, unfortunately, replaced by law and statute… I’ll shut up now, because the fine Sardinian Rose that we are enjoying here is causing my ideas to run on-and-on… Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 7:49 pm # unless i hit the lottery/… ha/ha! Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 7:57 pm # But in a world where most traditional ideas of moral obligation, duty, and honor have gone by the wayside and been replaced by moral relativism, situational ethics, and selfish notions of personal gain, these traditional values have been necessarily, unfortunately, replaced by law and statuteâ€¦ Dammit Bob I could kiss you! I keep saying the same thing … that too many people when confronted with their own bad behavior say “but its not illegal“, as if there is no moral code BUT the law … which of course is the basis of all sorts of Leftist “you are a victim!” legislation. please keep talking Comment by David R. Block on 6/20 @ 7:58 pm # Just sent Jeff a monetary supplement. May he receive several more. Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 7:58 pm # Bob, you’re not rambling, but lay off the red sardines–they’ll screw with your cognitive abilities! Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 6/20 @ 8:00 pm # When it comes to learning about happiness, you can’t do better than sitting at the feet of the masters. Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 8:04 pm # divorce meme is like the chicken hawk meme which is close to the teabagging meme Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:04 pm # David: Thanks for the reminder. I had intended to pony up earlier, but had forgotten. Jeff–I send you the O-TAX FREE gains of my day’s labor, mowing a lawn and mulching two flower beds. I know it isn’t much, but does it count more if the humidity was high today? Comment by serr8d on 6/20 @ 8:05 pm # Should people stay married regardless of behavior of one of the spouses? To the point of legally actionable physical – psychological abuse, if children are involved, I’d say ‘yes’. There’s plenty of evidence that much of modern society’s failures can be attributed to the breakup of the two-parent family, or more succinctly put, it’s the lack of a two-parent authority bloc keeping track of their offspring(s) that allows such as these to inhabit this planet. I’m a firm believer that, if you have kids, the parents should stay together until they are of legal age (unless one or the other commits a jail-worthy offense). You beget ‘em, then you own ‘em, and are responsible for ‘em. Both of you. Comment by serr8d on 6/20 @ 8:06 pm # Did I all of a sudden forget how to do links? Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 8:07 pm # b/c you know the pursuit of happiness is so much bs b/c failure is not an option and we have laws to make you have it Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 8:08 pm # Just because something is not codified as illegal, doesn’t mean that it’s not just plain wrong… Moved on now to a lovely Reisling… Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:12 pm # Reisling, Bob, really? My wife’s favorite, but I just can’t. do. it. Way too sweet for me. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 8:14 pm # Late term abortion, legal in a dozen states, is just plain wrong; especially these days when more and more extremely premature babies go on to live a normal life… I don’t mean to muddy the waters or jack the thread to discuss abortion; not my desire. It’s just that these “beings” are so obviously human lives that it’s very hard to see the rational that could decry arbitrary murder and at the same time condone unconditional, late term abortions… I’ll have to check and see if those same states have banned the death penalty… Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:16 pm # mod squad my first wife…she was a shape shifter… always on and on and on about… the third clarence williams… my second wife /we wuz happy…until i saw her clarence william the second posters.. ain’t right!… then… my peggy… like lipton tea/ we be… happy?…. we made lurf…then she called me “that white guy” we’re still married! Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:16 pm # Prager may as well have titled his talk “A Pretense of Happiness is a Moral Obligation”. Happiness as a state of mind(?) strikes me as all too contingent a circumstance to be a fit case upon which to hold an individual morally responsible. One may choose a moral path by which to make possible one’s happiness, yet achieve nothing of the kind due to circumstances entirely outside one’s control, like the accidental death of a child, for instance, or some other act of outside agency. I would no more hold a survivor of a death camp responsible for his subsequent lifelong unhappiness than I would hold the fly Obama killed the other day responsible for his own death at Obama’s hands. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 8:16 pm # This one is deliciously fruity, but not too, and has a hint of dryness; but not too dry as to give you heartburn… Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:17 pm # serr8d I stayed for almost 3 years too long after my husband had, essentially, given up being a functioning spouse (wake up, go to work, come home, drink until passing out, rinse repeat … start drinking bourbon at 10 am on Saturday and Sundays until passing out … miss all the kids events, etc). I finally said “no more” after he beat me in a drunken rage (I guess putting holes in the walls of the house had lost its allure). No, I didn’t have him arrested for it. I just made him leave. I had 11 great years of marriage a couple of so-so ones then 3 years of hell. I’m now in a very successful, loving marriage. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:18 pm # Let me put that another way. Prager is a dolt. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:20 pm # his subsequent lifelong unhappiness chronic unhappiness requires psychological help, otherwise it can have bad consequences for both the individual and anyone around them Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:21 pm # Prager is a dolt or maybe what he is saying makes you uncomfortable. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:22 pm # and/ after the horror/ u write so well thanks darleen… {darleen..chuck berry song?) Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 8:24 pm # TSI, Kermit and Elmo are the Yoda’s of happiness… Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:25 pm # No, not uncomfortable Darleen. He may have a point even, but if he does he just doesn’t know how to say it. As I said, if he said, “A pretense of happiness is a moral obligation” he might just (barely) be able to make a cogent case of his argument. However, the fumbling he goes through isn’t good. It’s bad because it is so thoroughly ridden with self contradiction. Comment by B Moe on 6/20 @ 8:27 pm # chronic unhappiness requires psychological help I prefer drugs, but to each his own. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:29 pm # sdferr It’s about a 5 minute summary introduction to a subject he has been writing and lecturing on for over 20 years. He knows what he is talking about. Happiness is a personal decision we make. If we wait around for someone/something to “make us happy” (oh, when I get that new job…when I make X dollars…when I get that facelift…THEN I will be happy!) we will be sorely disappointed. Good lord, look at Hollywood actors … Money, fame, syphocants and some of the unhappiest people on earth! Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:30 pm # B Moe, I’m with you. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:31 pm # i wish bette davis would shoot me.. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:32 pm # shoot me… a glance! Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:32 pm # Bullpucky. Imagine telling a survivor of Teblinka, “You are immoral because you can’t get over your awful experience watching your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Uncle, Aunt, Grandmother, Grandfather, Son, Daughter, Spouse, Neighbor, etc. x 1,000 being murdered at the hands of the State. Come on man (with the help of all the psychological counseling in the world), get over it!” That sort of statement, it seems to me, borders on being immoral in itself. Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:32 pm # sdferr: I don’t think Prager is at all saying that happiness is a state of mind. He’s saying that your happiness, or lack thereof, shouldn’t dictate your behavior. As a thinking being, you have the power to act in the way you THINK is best, and emotion is a poor catalyst for that behavior. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:37 pm # Cowboy, what it the title of his talk? “Happiness is a Moral Obligation“. Plain as day. He chose it, not me. I understand he wants people to fake it when they are not happy and can’t do anything about that state. That’s why I say, pretense of happiness. Emotion and thinking, by the way, so far as I can see, cannot be severed. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:41 pm # sdferr One of my friend’s father (died about 3 years ago) fought with the Big Red One — North Africa, Battle of Bulge — he saw horror beyond imagination, survived where so many of his fellow soldiers did not. He came home and actually sought out psychological help …married his pre-war sweetheart, had many children (good Irish Catholic boy) and lead a happy life and refused to inflict his experience on his kids. THEY would not have deserved his unhappiness. I would never say to someone they shouldn’t “feel unhappy” but I would tell them to get help if their behavior was harmful to themselve or others. That would be MY moral obligation. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 8:43 pm # sdferr, If you live by the “count your blessings” paradigm, then regardless of the outside circumstances effects on your life, you will find a way to be happy with your current situation… I’m not saying that rememberance of past tragedies won’t bring you down. But to use the concentration camp victim example, if that person chose instead to marvel over, and be thankful for, their survival, it would go a long way toward stemming any unhappiness that reminiscence might bring into it… We’ve all had a few setbacks; some worse than others. But I truly believe that you have to walk it off and get back into the game of life; and keep making a future that you can be thankful for, as you fullfill the purpose, and achieve the destiny, you were put here to… To live in the past is to die in the present, and eliminates the future… I’m not arguing with you friend, nor invalidating your opinion; just giving you the outlook of someone who’s been on the edge… Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:43 pm # sdferr: The Behavioralist shrink I saw for a couple of years after my wife left would definitely disagree with you! As per his title, I think that Prager’s engaging in hyperbole here, but maybe I’m wrong. Darleen and Bob seem to have a better idea of his connection between morality and happiness than do I. I guess the snippets that so resonated with me were those that sought to divorce (yuck) the NECESSITY of behavior following emotion. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:47 pm # THEY would not have deserved his unhappiness. Fine, so he can fake it under Prager’s analysis (assuming he accepts it), I suppose. Though I don’t think that Prager’s analysis goes far enough to establish this assertion as adequate to a general rule. Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:50 pm # Oh, and sdferr, least you think otherwise, as Bob says above, I’m not picking a fight with you either. Complete disclosure–we buried a good friend today and his death and the family he’s left behind (a young wife, a 14 year old girl, and twin 12 year-old boys) has colored my view of this topic. He had a brain tumor that surfaced 7 years ago. He lost his hearing, sometimes couldn’t see, was in a perpetual state of pain and though he battled valiantly against the despair he felt about leaving his wife and kids, he didn’t miss a fucking beat. Instead, he bought a boat. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:50 pm # are u saying/ u didn’t/ that ww2 vet was unhappy? that’s ur premise?…as he? u just say it… hmmm… Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:52 pm # Fine, so he can fake it Jeebus, sdferr, did you miss where I said he sought help? And you don’t believe that “acting happy” influences one’s emotions? Or maybe you missed the study that being around happy people MAKES more happy people? Have you never worked with a sourpuss whose demeanor poisons the workplace? What makes you think that doesn’t work in reverse? Why the fuck then should manic-depressives take drugs? I mean, aren’t we then turning them into phoneys “faking” their reality? Comment by Cowboy on 6/20 @ 8:52 pm # [sorry] …took his kids fishing, skiing. Sat with me to cheer on our daughters playing bad volleyball. Judged the twins Science Fair projects with me. Loved his wife to the point of distraction. Was he happy? I don’t know. And that’s the point. Whether he was or not isn’t the point. He did what was right. Gotta go now. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:53 pm # Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics has a great deal to say about happiness as a telos for human beings. Check it out. I don’t believe, by the way, that an unhappy man is necessarily doomed to be an immoral man, far from it in fact. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 8:54 pm # Instead, he bought a boat. Cowboy, my condolences on the loss of your friend. He sounds like one upstanding human being. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 8:56 pm # this is a sad thread my dads dead/ but my family disagrees every memorial day… what to plant?…. i always say corn… for the fuck of it.. and the tasty hade! Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:57 pm # â€œNo matter how unhappy you may feel or say you may feel at any given moment, it is a decision you make on how to act.â€ It needn’t be a case of merely feeling unhappy either (as this is shifty rhetoric on Prager’s part), it may simply be the case that someone is unhappy (with good reason, we might conclude in some circumstances). To pretend is part of the game, is it not? Comment by Ric Caric on 6/20 @ 8:57 pm # Those of us in the red states know that people in the sixties were just following the Bible. One of the top ten commandments says “thou shalt not lie.” Folks on the right should try following it sometime. Comment by serr8d on 6/20 @ 9:03 pm # What’s the opposite of happiness? Why, personal failure of course. Unless you can get on a path that’ll lead you to (or at least allow you to exude a semblance of) happiness, then life will probably suck for you. And, unfortunately, you’ll cause life to suck for the people around you. Any good speaker (and Prager is one) will tell you that, in order to turn your mental ship around, you have to face towards happiness first. Acting happy is a baby step, but it’s a start. If you can crack a smile at work, and lighten the way for someone else who might be holding back something much more wrong in the way of life’s problems, then yes, you should do so. No one likes a glum face in the workplace. Home life is much trickier: the pretense levels are washed away. A powerful mind will help hold a family together; best if there are two minds that share the burdens, one up when the other’s down, and so forth. Of course alcohol – drug – spousal abuse is contraindicated. Either shape up or hit the road. Again, all of this should be pre-planned, for the children’s sake. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 9:04 pm # sdferr immoral is not HOW you FEEL, but HOW you ACT. (good intentions do not excuse an immoral act) Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:04 pm # press pause get a drink and english… i’ll wait//”’[[[99 i would like to give jeff money but i’m off grid… mpitts2@gmail thanks Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 9:05 pm # Sorry to hear about your friend’s death Cowboy. Bob, you say “…if that person chose instead to marvel over…” well sure, if. But what of the case of a man who did not so choose, or could not so choose? Not choosing to forget may be very important, not just for the one choosing but for those with whom he manages to communicate the depths of despair he experienced at the hands of the evil doers. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 9:05 pm # What the hell are you talking about Darleen? Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 9:06 pm # â€œthou shalt not lie.â€ Folks on the right should try following it sometime. algore first Comment by TaiChiWawa on 6/20 @ 9:09 pm # Unfortunately, some people are happiest when they are being uncivil. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:10 pm # the only ting i loathe… is peep on cell phones who don’t blinky their intentions… i get vocal yell/ but/ i calm down…quickly… just…being nice/y’all aside/ who’s ur fav food network shill? gotta go ta/ta’s sandra lee! pup tent! rachel ray has man hands… oh yes she does! Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 9:11 pm # One of the top ten commandments says â€œthou shalt not lie.â€ The Prof is about as sincere as he is knowledgeable about the Ten Commandments. Hey Prof, does that mean you would have turned in Anne Frank when the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if any Jews were there? Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 9:11 pm # Cowboy, My condolences… May God speed his soul to heaven, bless his family, and grace them with the comfort and strength they need in their time of greiving… Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:21 pm # jesus christ/ superstar! Comment by SBP on 6/20 @ 9:24 pm # One of the top ten commandments says â€œthou shalt not lie.â€ Liar. It says “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”, which is a very small (and despicable) subset of the larger class of lies. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 9:25 pm # sdferr, You have a very good point, underpinned by classical philosophy. Stil, there’s a difference between forgetting a tragedy and reliving it every moment of your life. It does not erase the memory to actively live in the present. But, constantly reliving the pain of the past may cause you to not live in the present… I’m not being argumentative with you, nor discounting your point of view. But regardless of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, all things being equal, I believe it’s better to find any silver lining possible and be as happy as you can. Both for your well being and so’s to not bring others down unneccesarily… Besides! recall the psychological research that says if you smile, physically, it will actually enhance your mood through the release of hormones or some other neurochemicals! I always enjoy your thought on the subject at hand… Comment by SBP on 6/20 @ 9:25 pm # Sorry to hear about your friend, Cowboy. There’s a lot of that going around these days, it seems. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 9:29 pm # Folks, remember that Prager famously has a hard time defining his terms. I have listened to him on and off for years and even read his Happiness Is a Serious Problem book, and I still don’t know exactly what he means by “happy.” I don’t think he means “cheerful” necessarily, and he doesn’t link happiness to what happens to you. So if something horrible happens in your life and you fall into a deep funk, I don’t think that’s what he means by being “unhappy.” He also excludes biochemical mood disorders — fortunately for me — but still I don’t know what he means by “happy.” However, his book did make one point that stuck with me — humans are insatiable: we can never have enough love, sex, food, comfort, success, money, power. So the fact that we try to sate our desires in order to be happy is a universal error. The other thing he says about happiness that I agree with is that happy people make the world better, whereas unhappy people don’t. I hope he leaves out artists and writers and such, because they’re famously unhappy but produce marvelous things on occasion. As a 30-year sufferer of depression, I don’t understand what it means to be a “happy” person, and maybe I never will. But I can sometimes manage “content,” and if that’s as good as it gets in this life, I can live with it. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:30 pm # hit and run reason i troll this site… bob reed… sweet! Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 9:31 pm # I believe itâ€™s better to find any silver lining possible and be as happy as you can. Both for your well being and soâ€™s to not bring others down unnecessarilyâ€¦ Bob, I am not advocating gratuitous ill behavior in public, at work or at home on account of an inborn awareness of one’s personal unhappiness, if that is what you folks have taken as my gist. Not at all. My complaint with Prager is merely that the man’s thought is shallow, his arguments are poorly conceived and poorly delivered. That doesn’t mean that everything he has to say is false either. Just to say that it needs to be carefully circumscribed or parsed to pull out the little bit worth preserving and discard the rest. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 9:32 pm # Still, thereâ€™s a difference between forgetting a tragedy and reliving it every moment of your life. It does not erase the memory to actively live in the present. But, constantly reliving the pain of the past may cause you to not live in the presentâ€¦ If I’m low on my meds, past hurts come back as vividly as if they’d happened yesterday. I also understand that sometimes Asperger Syndrome causes people to vividly relive past pain (I had an Aspie friend who often relieved the past vividly like that, whether she wanted to or not.) I don’t know how you neurotypicals handle life anyway, so I can’t offer any advice on happiness. Sorry. Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 9:34 pm # are demorats “happy” when they lie? mikey moore is a liar is he happy? can “happiness” be an s/m thing on society? Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:34 pm # yeah… but… who frames the arguement?… is michael jackson moonwalkin? or a child molester? winners write hi..herstory Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 9:35 pm # My complaint with Prager is merely that the manâ€™s thought is shallow, his arguments are poorly conceived and poorly delivered It’s a SUMMARY for goodness’ sakes. 5 minutes out of 20 plus years. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 9:36 pm # My complaint with Prager is merely that the manâ€™s thought is shallow, his arguments are poorly conceived and poorly delivered. Sometimes I wonder what color the sky is in Prager’s world. I like him, but he often gets fixated on an idea he has cooked up and then never alters it in the face of criticism or challenge — not because he’s stubborn but because he doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the disagreement. He drives me crazy like that sometimes. Other times he’s so spot-on it hurts. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 9:36 pm # …because theyâ€™re famously unhappy but produce marvelous things on occasion. Here’s one, Dicentra: Among School Children I I walk through the long schoolroom questioning; A kind old nun in a white hood replies; The children learn to cipher and to sing, To study reading-books and histories, To cut and sew, be neat in everything In the best modern way – the children’s eyes In momentary wonder stare upon A sixty-year-old smiling public man. II I dream of a Ledaean body, bent Above a sinking fire. a tale that she Told of a harsh reproof, or trivial event That changed some childish day to tragedy - Told, and it seemed that our two natures blent Into a sphere from youthful sympathy, Or else, to alter Plato’s parable, Into the yolk and white of the one shell. III And thinking of that fit of grief or rage I look upon one child or t’other there And wonder if she stood so at that age - For even daughters of the swan can share Something of every paddler’s heritage - And had that colour upon cheek or hair, And thereupon my heart is driven wild: She stands before me as a living child. IV Her present image floats into the mind - Did Quattrocento finger fashion it Hollow of cheek as though it drank the wind And took a mess of shadows for its meat? And I though never of Ledaean kind Had pretty plumage once – enough of that, Better to smile on all that smile, and show There is a comfortable kind of old scarecrow. V What youthful mother, a shape upon her lap Honey of generation had betrayed, And that must sleep, shriek, struggle to escape As recollection or the drug decide, Would think her Son, did she but see that shape With sixty or more winters on its head, A compensation for the pang of his birth, Or the uncertainty of his setting forth? VI Plato thought nature but a spume that plays Upon a ghostly paradigm of things; Solider Aristotle played the taws Upon the bottom of a king of kings; World-famous golden-thighed Pythagoras Fingered upon a fiddle-stick or strings What a star sang and careless Muses heard: Old clothes upon old sticks to scare a bird. VII Both nuns and mothers worship images, But those the candles light are not as those That animate a mother’s reveries, But keep a marble or a bronze repose. And yet they too break hearts – O Presences That passion, piety or affection knows, And that all heavenly glory symbolise - O self-born mockers of man’s enterprise; VIII Labour is blossoming or dancing where The body is not bruised to pleasure soul. Nor beauty born out of its own despair, Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil. O chestnut-tree, great-rooted blossomer, Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole? O body swayed to music, O brightening glance, How can we know the dancer from the dance? Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 9:37 pm # You see the world through your cynical eyes You’re a troubled young man I can tell You’ve got it all in the palm of your hand But your hand’s wet with sweat and your head needs a rest You’re foolin’ yourself if you don’t believe it You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe it How can you be such an angry young man When your future looks quite bright to me Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 9:41 pm # Itâ€™s a SUMMARY for goodnessâ€™ sakes. 5 minutes out of 20 plus years. Like I said, Darleen, I’ve heard Prager’s PoV on this for many years, not just from this video, and I still don’t understand what he’s talking about exactly. I have a really hard time acting like everything’s OK when it isn’t, so I really bristled the first time I heard Prager say that I have a moral obligation to “act” happy no matter what. “How will you know I’m in trouble and need help if I’m faking it?” I thought. Then I decided to exclude myself from the mass of humanity that he’s talking about, so I hardly pay attention anymore to this particular topic. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 9:46 pm # i’ve read ur posts with language riddim sweet thanks Comment by LTC John on 6/20 @ 9:49 pm # I don’t mind being polite and not being an downer, but c’mon. Where do I buy the Happy Helmet? Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 9:50 pm # dicentra He also said that you should share your life, everything about it including HOW you feel with your friend(s) or spouse. He is a great believer we should all have close friends to love and love us just as we also have spouses. He is also a great believe in psychology and drugs to help. But his main points on this is not using our unhappiness as an excuse to inflict our bad mood on spouse/child/stranger — Isn’t it funny how we will treat a stranger with more civility and politeness than our own spouse? — And that we have to look INSIDE for happiness, not wait around for it as if it were going to be delivered by FedEx to our doorstep. I, too, have been listening to him for years. No, he’s not perfect but he so much more “gets it” in startling ways as to make one gasp. His happiness model and not inflicting bad moods has really been super helpful with my husband … tightly-wound techie, artistic type. It was an epiphany to him and made him a better person towards his son and others. Given him a lot of peace and patience. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 9:54 pm # Mood control, or better, mood projection is one thing. Happiness is another. Not the same, not even close. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 9:58 pm # He also said that you should share your life, everything about it including HOW you feel with your friend(s) or spouse. Do you know that’s the first time I’ve heard him say that in this context? However, if you have a mood disorder, after awhile people get tired of hearing about how crummy you feel. Even my mother doesn’t want to hear it so much. I have no friends and I have no spouse, and if I did, I’d have learned to stop talking about it to them long ago. It’s a downer for them when it never changes. But like I said, Dennis excludes people like me from his injunction, so I’ve learned to stop listening to him. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 10:00 pm # Mood control, or better, mood projection is one thing. Happiness is another. Not the same, not even close. I don’t think that ultimately Prager equates good moods with happiness, but in this video he does. I don’t feel like tracking down his book to find his definition either. Oh well. Maybe I’ll check the dark humor over at Twitter, which is pretty good considering the circumstances. Jeff should get his licks in, too, if he feels like it. Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 10:03 pm # president o! is pursuing his happiness are you? Comment by SBP on 6/20 @ 10:03 pm # I have no friends Yes, you do. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 10:05 pm # happy helmet/ see/ lord/ jack/ hawaii/ [star) police city/ flag/ dan= o/{book’ em) 2 non whites- irish “smart- “Chin- ho Kelly” ^^^^ Kono? a Zulu{muscle/ dumb wog!) Female..Tiny waist/? money?/ we’re broke!. jill st john?/ brenda vacarro? get back… broads are the least of our worries…. [PHYLISS SCHALFLY!. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 10:06 pm # Yes, you do. Not in the meat world. I used to, but they all got married and moved away. We send Christmas cards and maybe one phone call a year and that’s it. But thanks for the sentiment. I’ll stop spilling my guts all over Jeff’s bandwidth now. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:08 pm # dicentra what SBP said Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 10:12 pm # Being in search of happiness (not Obama’s happiness, by the by) I’m heading to the kitchen for a slice of pie, chocolate pecan pie, to see what it has to say about the subject. Guessing, it’ll probably sound something like “EAT ME!”. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:14 pm # sdferr my husbands late sister was born with several disabilities … she had major heart surgery and other surgeries before she was five years old. She was mentally challenged, never getting mentally older than 14/15 years old. But she was tenacious, loyal, loving and unflappably happy. She worked harder than any one I’ve known and took great delight in all her triumphs. Even on her deathbed three years ago of heart failure she never acted the victim. Was she just too stupid to know how unhappy and miserable she should have been? Must have been that god-bothering Episcopal church she always attended. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 10:15 pm # u have a “kitchen” i drive thru burp denounce ur non-stick stick-ee-nes Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 10:16 pm # # Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 8:32 pm # Bullpucky. Imagine telling a survivor of Teblinka, â€œYou are immoral because you canâ€™t get over your awful experience watching your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Uncle, Aunt, Grandmother, Grandfather, Son, Daughter, Spouse, Neighbor, etc. x 1,000 being murdered at the hands of the State. Come on man (with the help of all the psychological counseling in the world), get over it!â€ That sort of statement, it seems to me, borders on being immoral in itself. And there’s Imre Kertesz’s zinger line in Fateless. Such a beautiful “fuck off” too. “Imre, you’ve got to forget about what you saw in there, you’ll never be happy unless you do.” “No, I don’t think I don’t think I’ll just forget about it.” Imre spent a lifetime writing about Auschwitz. He won a Noble Prize in Literature reminding himself of the horror. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 10:16 pm # I’ve no way of knowing how unhappy and miserable she should have been Darleen? Who would know? If she wasn’t unhappy and miserable in fact, then perhaps we ought to conclude that she shouldn’t have been? Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:17 pm # Dicentra I think that for all humans, because of the nature of memory, can actually feel the very same emotions when remembering an event as they did at the time that event happened; the difference comes in how you deal with those returning emotions. In my own family we notice that some have a tendency to flashback easily, and, when discussing a past transgression for instance, can be every bit as angry many years later s they were at the time it occurred… I think that for neurotypicals, the difference is in the frequency we remember bad episodes vs the good ones… I’m sorry to hear of your bouts with chemical imbalances; I am certain that it’s made your life difficult at times. One of my aunts suffered from that condition to the point of irrationality and/or paranoid schizophrenic behavior at times. I’m glad that you’ve learned how to manage it… But, for what it’s worth, you looked pretty happy to me in the photo you posted of yourself at the pub, from your trip to Rome. Best Wishes Comment by Mastiff on 6/20 @ 10:18 pm # sdferr, Granted that Prager’s phrasing is unfortunately imprecise. However, I would recommend to you Victor Frankl. Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 10:22 pm # Being in search of happiness … Iâ€™m heading to the kitchen for a slice of pie, chocolate pecan pie Sounds like happiness to me! But, for what itâ€™s worth, you looked pretty happy to me in the photo you posted of yourself at the pub, from your trip to Rome. ‘Twas for the photo. MaMa said “smile,” I smiled. But I did have a good time on the tour. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 10:23 pm # i want two set of bob reeds babies…. it could happen… start fighting for second place! Comment by dicentra on 6/20 @ 10:24 pm # Here’s a happy guy! Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 10:31 pm # i’ll adopt a shut up baby… sssh… shhshh… bough ,,shhhs/ breaks… if…shush! if… Stop it!… if scarlette johan..shhss… would lend me..shush! SHUSH! Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 10:32 pm # I thought I saw post after post of Darleen giving advice on how to be “happy.” Quick, someone splash Tabasco sauce in eyes. Will the High Priestess of Hypocrisy never cease her miracles; just bake me a chocolate pie with a stinky dead mackerel inside! Darleen, first of all Styx sucks. Secondly, you live in a plastic fish bowl of warm self-righteous piss. You’re a very nutty hate bag. Happy? I don’t think so. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:35 pm # “Isnâ€™t it funny how we will treat a stranger with more civility and politeness than our own spouse…” I heard that young Texan Joel Osteen evoke a similar analogy. He said, isn’t it funny that we use the finest china and silver for our guests, but more often use paper plates and ordinary flatware wit the ones that are closest to us. Instead, if our guests warrant the fine china and silver, how much better settings should we provide for our dearest loved ones… I don’t think he’s talking about “stylin’ and profilin’” as much as not taking folks for granted… But Praeger, I don’t know much about him really… Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:37 pm # “Mood control, or better, mood projection is one thing. Happiness is another. Not the same, not even close…” A strong distinction sdferr! And really, that’s probably more what Praeger is getting at; he simply is not precise in his expression… Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:38 pm # I don’t think someone chronologically an adult who lives off his parents can offer even the first word on happiness let alone morality. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 10:39 pm # i like thor thor? is there a moonbat site i can go on to intellegent squak about my conservative beliefs? thanks Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:41 pm # “I have no friends…” I’m your huckleberry…Just don’t tell my wife! Comment by newrouter on 6/20 @ 10:41 pm # Will the High Priestess of Hypocrisy i agree john edwards is a faggot. 2 not 1 2 Americas people! Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:42 pm # Bob, With my first child I received as gifts some beautiful little dresses and outfits. I wanted to “save them for a special occassion”, and lo-and-behold, my daughter outgrew most of them before they were ever worn. My other girls wore every fancy infant dresses they were gifted with from day one. I always let the kids play in the livingroom, too. (I grew up in an era where some of my friends had moms that roped off the living room “for guests” only) Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:45 pm # Choclate Pecan Pie! I’ll be right over! It’s only a short drive…From NYC… But for Choclate Pecan Pie! That’s something these yankees know knothing about… Ruglach-yes, Cheescake-yes, Pecan Pie-not a shot…Nor Bar-B-Que NC style… Comment by Les Nessman on 6/20 @ 10:47 pm # Jaysus, SOMEONE on this thread must have taken the sourpuss pills twice today and will.just.not.let.go. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:48 pm # La vita Ã¨ bella Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 10:51 pm # # Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 10:38 pm # I donâ€™t think someone chronologically an adult who lives off his parents can offer even the first word on happiness let alone morality. And do I live in my Mommy’s basement, too? You’re a dumb-filled liar, born jealous and raised up nice and dumb. Seriously, why would you prattle your life away making up lies about people you don’t even know and doodling little I-Hate-Obama cartoons if at your core you weren’t a miserable turd of a person. I’ve never done anything to you except blast away at your thoughts on a message board, why do you burn with hate over it? You require more than Dennis Prager to manage your anger therapy. You got issues. Might I suggest you take an axe to a tree? George McBushy found the help he needed when recusing himself to go clear brush down at the farm. That could be the ticket for you too. Comment by sdferr on 6/20 @ 10:58 pm # Not chocolate pecan pie, but almost as good to my way’a thinking. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 10:59 pm # Thanks for the compliments pdbuttons I didn’t miss them… Best Wishes Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:02 pm # Amen to your #133 Darleen, Life’s too short, and the end can come upon one frightfully quickly… Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:04 pm # La vita di Dio ci dÃ infatti Ã¨ dolce. Comment by Darleen on 6/20 @ 11:11 pm # If your fatherâ€™s friend was a really-real soldier, a Russian one Yes, thor, American WWII soldiers were fake poseurs. Normandy is filled with fake American soldier graves. What a sad little life you pretend at. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:12 pm # Kursk was an ugly battle; the largest armored engagement evah! God bless all the survivors, and all those that sacrificed their tomorrows for our yesterdays… Ð”Ð»Ñ Ð³ÐµÑ€Ð¾ÐµÐ² Ð² ÐšÑƒÑ€ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ Ð±Ð¸Ñ‚Ð²Ðµ! Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:13 pm # God bless all the survivors on all sides, that is… Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 11:15 pm # They estimate as many as 17-million Russian civilians may have died during the Great War. It’s probably a high figure but let’s run with it. Shot, exploded, starved, frozen dead, and so if 10-percent of ‘em must’a looked like Maria Sharapova that’s 1.7-million sex hungry long-legged blond tennis stars. That’s the final definition of war crime. The hot blonds that weren’t allowed to be. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:17 pm # from my porch i see people coming after me you the boss of me? Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:18 pm # verdun Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:21 pm # gates of vienna Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:23 pm # bobby one shot orr \or betty needle orr Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 11:29 pm # Making the world safe from Cuban construction workers and those half-built landing strips of civilian airports, Ronald Reagan was the shit, man. He knew how to get some. By the way, 18-Grenadines civilians died laying in a hospital that we accidentally lobbed artillery into. Any remorse for their loss? Ronald Reagan was the shit, man. Mr. Happy, that’s what he was. Full of pride! Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:38 pm # rose garden nap ronald reagan would dope-slap… some Iran bitches… Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:40 pm # Careful thor… Reagan was playing a different cold war realpolitik than during WWII… And you’re being a bit fast and lose with your facts. The Cubans that were there were military engineers… And you’re leaving out the part about civilians leading US troops to enclaves of both Grenadan and Cuban troops… The civilians didn’t seem to like the dictator or the soldiers too much; methinks they may have had a reason… Reagan restored America’s standing in the world at a time when it had reached a low ebb. And, he essentially brought an end to the cold war, although it would formally end under big Bush… Shouldn’t you be catting around on a Saturday night? I mean, there are conquests to be made… Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:41 pm # north east/ west and south does my teeth make me look fat? whatever you say… Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:44 pm # “Letâ€™s listen to Rush in a extended cab pick-em-up truck! Fuck yeah!” Isn’t this a line from that puppet movie? Where some puppet’s had sex? I think folks have got to hit the rack thor. After all, Mass is early in the morning… Indeed, I’ll have to call it a night myself at 0143 est… Enjoy yourself; see you on the flip side! Comment by Bob Reed on 6/20 @ 11:47 pm # g’night pdbuttons Until next time, Be cool! Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:49 pm # double wide aside.. my plastic flowers shine on… please abort yourself! Comment by mojo on 6/20 @ 11:52 pm # Now hear this: The beatings will continue until morale improves. That is all… Comment by thor on 6/20 @ 11:54 pm # What dictator? Are you talking Fidel’s buddy that was shot before we needed to save the place for the med students? Your facts are baloney. CIA bag men paid off the dictators who signed that OAS statement. Script writers for Bonanza could have done a better job at making up the story for invading Grenada. Greg Brady could’a gone in there with nothing but a Nerf ball and done that job. Comment by Mel on 6/20 @ 11:55 pm # Hey thor. Long time no see. I trust all is well. Hello as well to Bob. Thor, the Soviets fought well. You will get no argument from me on that. However, War II was more than the European campaign. The war in the pacific was every bit as bloody and hard fought. I suspect you are well aware of that and are just looking to get a rise out of people. When you see your Dad next, please give him my regards. Semper Fi. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/20 @ 11:56 pm # like the french people the russians think their artists… as they wait in line Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 12:00 am # update…5 star update!~!!! French people do sigh… Ha!/ Russians think they’re artists! as they wait in line. Comment by Mel on 6/21 @ 12:05 am # Mr Buttons, I’ve been drinking since lunch and I still don’t get that. Comment by Ted Nugent's Soul Patch on 6/21 @ 12:09 am # “They estimate as many as 17-million Russian civilians may have died during the Great War.” Too bad more of them weren’t finished off. The world would have been a much better place. Comment by Adriane on 6/21 @ 12:10 am # sdferr, This is not a good explanation but here goes … Internet article from England recently on mothers who can not bond with their children. Case in point a woman whose mild case of post partum blues never went away. Not exactly hated with baby, but never loved her. The woman freely admits it although to professionals, not to her daughter. Had a second child and bonded without difficulty. Cuddles the new baby, talks to the new baby (the older sister was sent to Grandma’s much of the time before school). While the woman has never talked to the older daughter about how much she hated having her and being her mother, it is mostly unnecessary as the child has guessed from watching her mother and the new baby. While the older daughter coped as a child, she now cries, tries to push her way into a hug (usually while her mother cuddles the new baby), and finally has started destructive attention getting behavior … which lead to the therapist … which lead to the mother talking about how much she hated (and by her own admission from no fault of the older daughter – as easy child to care for, not fussy) being a mother to her first child. In your opinion, what moral obligation, if any, does the mother have toward a child that she hates? What civil obligations does she have? What fault does she have for her older daughter’s acting out? Would the world have been a better place if the mother had hidden her hatred rather than acted on it and pretended as if she loved the older daughter as a baby with hugs and cuddles, smiles, happy talk, et cetera rather than disdain and isolation from the daughter? Even if there was no happy feeling on the part of the mother in participating in these activities? Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 12:15 am # we have russian envy but we have.. french cine’ who couldn’t keep a rock band 4/4 beat for all the dollars in america.. but they try… oh lord/ they try! Comment by thor on 6/21 @ 12:16 am # Comment by Ted Nugent’s Soul Patch on 6/21 @ 12:09 am # â€œThey estimate as many as 17-million Russian civilians may have died during the Great War.â€ Too bad more of them werenâ€™t finished off. The world would have been a much better place. The world would have been a better place if you were born a buffalo. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 12:19 am # stalingrad? more mongols…uhh/ cowbell Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 12:21 am # a nazi just a strange friend that ur ukraine dance hasn’t met yet Comment by Ted Nugent's Soul Patch on 6/21 @ 12:25 am # “The world would have been a better place if you were born a buffalo.” The world would have been a better place if Simo Hayha had been cloned. Comment by Mel on 6/21 @ 12:28 am # Thor I have never denigrated anyone’s or any country’s service in that war. Why do you do that? We all paid a terrible price. Some more than others, but all paid. Oh, and I plan on more drinking. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 12:45 am # Oy, Adriane, that’s a frightfully difficult case you’ve got for an example there. Not least on account of the confusion of “hate” and “indifference” in the narrative, presumed variously to be displayed by the mother toward the elder child, the lack of specificity running over the whole story (how old is the eldest daughter now, how old the mother, etc.), if not on account of the generality of the ensuing questions you draw from the case itself: “(1)[W]hat moral obligation, if any, does the mother have toward a child that she hates [can we say rather, is indifferent to?]? (2)What civil obligations does she have? (2)What fault does she have for her older daughterâ€™s acting out? (4a)Would the world have been a better place if the mother had hidden her hatred rather than acted on it and pretended as if she loved the older daughter as a baby with hugs and cuddles, smiles, happy talk, et cetera rather than disdain and isolation from the daughter? (4b)Even if there was no happy feeling on the part of the mother in participating in these activities?” It’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps my best tack is, “don’t begin”. But then I’m stupid that way, so I’ll give what I can understand of your query a go, if first you can tell me, what has prompted your question (or questions)? Why would you think I, of all people (not a mother, for instance, not a father, even) might have anything useful to impart on the subject? Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 12:46 am # fuck the russians fact; we got more facts than they do fact;we’re to big to fail! suck it! fact; factoring in/ some curve we got Texas Comment by Mel on 6/21 @ 12:53 am # That one I get, Buttons. Thanks and good night all. Comment by pdbuttons on 6/21 @ 1:08 am # the cirqui solei ain’t the bolshoi/ but/ what is? state fair corn dogs makes me want to sing!… about the crappy life i left behind… America… the Beautiful… get with the program… Comment by Jeff G. on 6/21 @ 1:23 am # I can never do more than giggle at thor’s impassioned need to teach the rubes that their Reagan-worship is so much false consciousness — and yet he can’t see that his own Russia worship is nothing more than the same kind of romanticizing that gives us books like American Holocaust. It’s one thing to be critical. It’s another entirely to turn into a less academically successful Ward Churchill-goes-to-Minsk. Comment by Jeff G. on 6/21 @ 1:26 am # As to Adriane’s example, I’d day you have more of a moral obligation to your child than you do to somebody who’s throwing you 15% for making sure their Diet Coke is constantly refilled. Good discussion, though. Well, except that thor can’t seem to discuss without insulting everyone’s intelligence by overvaluing his own. Comment by Adriane on 6/21 @ 1:43 am # Well. Heinlein once wrote “Delusions serve a functional purpose. A mother’s delusion about the beauty, intelligence, etc. of her offspring keeps her from drowning it at birth.” The older daughter in my example would have been better served (IMAO) if her mother had acted lovingly toward her instead of acting as she truly felt, i.e. completely indifferent to the survival of her child. Creative Delusionalism, as it were. Even, for example, if the mother never lied by saying, ‘I love you!’ if she had said, ‘You’re a wonderful baby!’ (which by her own admission was true) the older daughter would have at least grown up with a sense of being loved, even if she were not truly loved. If the mother had given the older daughter a hug, even if she didn’t want to, the child would have experienced at least the hug. By the mother’s own admission, she never remembers hugging the older daughter. Even if the girl later found out the truth behind the hug, the memory of the hug would remain and the child’s happiness in the hug would remain. Despite the adult hurt of learning the truth. All of these things, again (IMAO) are what Pager is talking about. For example: 2:21 â€œNo matter how unhappy you may feel or say you may feel at any given moment, it is a decision you make on how to act.â€ The mother was unhappy about being a mother, but short of putting the child up for adoption of killing the child, the little girl is here. She is here, now. In treating the child “honestly”, the girl was neglected. The mother’s decision to ‘In your face’ her own unhappiness, as it were, was done to someone without the maturity to shrug it off, philosophize about it, et cetera. IMAO, again, the older daughter’s childhood (and now, the rest of her life, depending on how she can overcome the neglect), was brought about by the mother’s inability to take responsibility for placing her actions and the content of interaction with the older daughter subservient to and not in the service of her emotions. I can, for example, acknowledge that I hate my next door neighbor, but still speak respectfully to him in our chance encounters. I have never pretended to enjoy my chance encounters with neighbor; I have never told anyone what a wonderful person he is. I have never told anyone that I hate him either. I am quiet happy to take that truth to my grave. For my own honesty, I acknowledge that I hate the man. For my … I don’t know … contribution to the neighborhood, I don’t act on it either. I don’t slash his tires (which is illegal) but when he needed my truck moved, so his tree service could have it, I moved the truck even though I had to jump it. ‘I am miserable as all hell AND I am not going to have another slice of cake.’ ‘I hate being a mother AND I am going to give my daughter a hug because she needs to have hugs.’ ‘I hate the French duplicity at the UN AND I’m not going to call those things Freedom Fries cause I think that’s stupid.’ Conscious disconnect between feelings and actions, because I am always free to choose actions. Rambling. Sorry. If you don’t want to bother replying, that is OK, too. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 1:56 am # (1) What moral obligation does the mother have toward a child she ~~hates~~ is indifferent to? A: Why not presume the same moral obligation she would have toward a child she loves to pieces? Why would a moral obligation to one’s offspring be dependent on a variable emotional attachment, rather than on say, the burden that child will have going forth into the world carrying 50% of your genetic material (which may be great or may be crappy, being a luck of the draw more or less). The mom (and dad) begat the new thing, after all. Without which, nothing. (2) What civil obligations does she have? A: These would be dependent on the laws or customs of the society in which she lives, would they not? If she is British, then she would be obligated to follow the laws of Great Britain. If she were a member of a hunter-gatherer tribe, then she would follow the customs of that tribe. (3) What fault does she have for her eldest daughter’s acting out behavior? A: Insofar as the narrative of the case presented has drawn a linkage between the mother’s behavior toward the child in infancy (and beyond?), who am I to assert anything otherwise? So, let’s take the linkage as a given and assign to the mother a nominal responsibility for initiating the daughter’s subsequent attention seeking behaviors. Whether the daughter is to be held blameless for her outbursts (does she exhibit outbursts?) will be dependent on her age, her grasp of her own situation, etc and so on. She may not find that she will be forgiven her deficit forever for instance, if deficit it be, and may be required by her peers or her society to find a means to overcome the difficulties with which we presume she is saddled through no choice of her own. That may mean modifying her public and private behaviors (differentially), though it may not mean she will ever have a happy memory of her relationship to her mother, since by definition, she hasn’t got one. Can she make one up (a fantasy happy relationship with mom)? Perhaps, but it’s doubtful. (4a) Would the world [the world? Can't we ask rather something more circumscribed, like, would the daughter have been better adjusted or happier?] have been a better place if the mother had hidden her hatred rather than acted on it and pretended as if she loved the older daughter as a baby with hugs and cuddles, smiles, happy talk, et cetera rather than disdain and isolation from the daughter? (4b) Even if there was no happy feeling on the part of the mother in participating in these activities? A: These sorts of things are impossibly difficult to forsee or predicate backwards in time. Maybe — probably — we might want to answer, yes, better, fake it by all means, but that assumes an awful lot. Can we ask a mother who though actually indifferent to her child had the foresight (and possibly, experience in an earlier child bearing) to know enough to realize that she ought to fake it and then goes ahead and does fake it? Then we ask, how did that turn out, did it work, was the child observably ordinary in re her comfort in her deluded assurance that her mother loves her in the regular way mothers do? Or did it not work out, was the child clued in by tiny unavoidable hints of body language or tone of voice that the mother conveyed despite her best efforts to do otherwise? Comment by Adriane on 6/21 @ 2:39 am # sdferr - Can you imagine this, then: (1) What moral obligation does the mother have toward a child she hates is indifferent to? A: Why not presume the same moral obligation she would have toward a child she loves to pieces? expanded to the Family of Man, and not specifically to a or your biological family? For example, this person … I would no more hold a survivor of a death camp responsible for his subsequent lifelong unhappiness … Would he, unhappy as he his, not have the same set of moral obligations toward his fellow man, if he loved them to pieces? Again, I am not saying that this man has an obligation to lie to his friends, Romans, and countryman anymore that the unhappy mother did. I am not suggesting that he run around saying, “I love you man!” when obviously he does not. But he can say to the man next door, “You’re a good father.” He can say to the waitress refilling his Diet Coke, “thanks.” An he can be the most wretched man on Earth from the memories he has and still get out of bed and shit in the toilet instead of shitting in the bed. He can borrow a book from the library and return it on time. He can visit the Holocaust museum and not shoot anyone (IDenounceMIA). None of these actions demand he lie about his unhappiness nor his memories. But does any set of unhappy circumstances permit the ‘in your face’ treatment of others like the above example of the unhappy mother? {And yes, the needs of the One sometimes out weighs the needs of the Many. But life goes to heck in a handcart when everyone decides he’s the One.} Good night to all. Thanks to our host for the forum. Comment by thor on 6/21 @ 2:44 am # Not only critical, I’m spiteful. I don’t think radicalizing Nepalese into Maoist hotheads is any different that whipping up the prairie peasants by engineering evil onto ACORN, Ayers and Obama. Besides, isn’t that the angry blonds over at Fox News’s job. You’re missing the tits for that kind’a work. University trained Commie recruiter, that’s where the steady union money is. At least in Russia there’s no cottage industry in happiness trainers and Bible-quoting politicians. I think you should check it out before you knock it, oh wise one. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 2:45 am # Can you imagine this, then: (1) What moral obligation does the mother have toward a child she hates is indifferent to? A: Why not presume the same moral obligation she would have toward a child she loves to pieces? expanded to the Family of Man, and not specifically to a or your biological family? No. But does any set of unhappy circumstances permit the â€˜in your faceâ€™ treatment of others like the above example of the unhappy mother? Who said anything about an in your face treatment? Certainly not I. See comment #95. Comment by SDN on 6/21 @ 4:29 am # Professor Caric reminds me of that Robert Heinlein quote: “A skunk is better company than a man who prides himself on being frank.” Of course, RAH also reminded us that “Delusions are often functional. A mother’s delusions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, etc. are all that prevents her from drowning them at birth.” When that particular delusion leads to the survival of a Professor Caric or a thor, one recognizes when it isn’t functional at all. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 4:32 am # Comment by Mel on 6/20 @ 11:55 pm # It’s useless, Mel. Making nice to whore is like trying to pet a rabid wolverine. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 4:33 am # “All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can â€” and must â€” be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly â€” and no doubt will keep on trying.” -Robert A. Heinlein Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 4:34 am # “Comment by Ric Caric on 6/20 @ 8:57 pm # Those of us in the red states know that people in the sixties were just following the Bible.” Boy that is thor level stooopid. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 5:55 am # Comment by Jeff G. on 6/21 @ 1:23 am # I can never do more than giggle at thorâ€™s impassioned need to teach the rubes that their Reagan-worship is so much false consciousness â€” and yet he canâ€™t see that his own Russia worship is nothing more than the same kind of romanticizing that gives us books like American Holocaust. My romanticizing adds a little zip to the truth taco, amigo. Ronald Reagan was a lying senile dupe, and the Russians defeated Hitler. That’s where I stand. Until you Prof a class in Contemporary Denialism and your mastery of subject changes my world view, I like where I stand. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 6:01 am # I donâ€™t think radicalizing Nepalese into Maoist hotheads is any different that whipping up the prairie peasants by engineering evil onto ACORN, Ayers and Obama. You know, if you could ever be bothered to actually read the threads you are posting in you might not sound like such an incoherent idiot. At least not so incoherent, any way. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 6:04 am # See, the Americans were too impatient to win WWII you guys. If we would have just waited until Hitler sailed across the Atlantic, then lost half our population while old Adolph shot his wad against us, we could have won just like the Russkies did. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:18 am # They estimate as many as 17-million Russian civilians may have died during the Great War. And some four times that many Russian civilians died at the hands of various of their collectivist powers last century, jeenyus. You’re the jeenyus I mean, jeenyus. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 6:20 am # Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 6:04 am # See, the Americans were too impatient to win WWII you guys. If we would have just waited until Hitler sailed across the Atlantic, then lost half our population while old Adolph shot his wad against us, we could have won just like the Russkies did. This is meant to wipe that fake American grin off your face (Happy Father’s Day, btw): Hitler wouldn’t have come over here with a strategy of winning the hearts and minds of those he conquered, he’d have ordered his troops to put bullets in American hearts and blow the brains out the back of our heads. He didn’t order the S.S. to shoot Jews in Russia, he ordered ‘em to shoot anyone who looked Jewish, spoke like a Jew, who looked Russian, or spoke Russian; you could say Hitler was a man of liberal parameters with phonetics and flexible with physical profiling. The Nazis cleared the Slavic killing field to the last gopher, butthead. Thanks for playing. Sorry you couldn’t stay. Here’s your hat. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 6:24 am # What the fuck? Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 6:26 am # Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:18 am # And some four times that many Russian civilians died at the hands of various of their collectivist powers last century, jeenyus. Youâ€™re the jeenyus I mean, jeenyus. Uh no, no they don’t. And those were Ukrainians, not Russians, jeenyus’opoochka. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:29 am # Uh yes, yes they did, jeenyus guiltmonger. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 6:30 am # What they die of, old age? Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:31 am # Apparently. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 6:34 am # PREFACE* This book is part of a project on government genocide and mass killing in this century. The aim is to test the hypothesis that the citizens of democracies are the least likely to be murdered by their own governments; the citizens of totalitarian, especially Marxist systems, the most likely. The theory is that democratic systems provide a path to peace, and universalizing them would eliminate war and minimize global, political violence. This was the conclusion of my Understanding Conflict and War,1 and has been further confirmed by systematic, empirical tests since.2 Spare me the motherfuckin’ Red Scare propaganda, eh. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:37 am # I like this part best. Jeenyus. You know, thor, seriously, if there are a twentieth century people more continually deserving of one’s empathy and love for the great majority of that century, I can’t easily think of one. Meaning: Your chronic looney tunes on the place does Russia an injustice. Comment by Ukranians on 6/21 @ 6:37 am # Yeah. Move along. No Red Scare here. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:38 am # Then debunk away, historianoffski. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:38 am # 199 for 196. You child. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 6:43 am # Shouldn’t you be calling for B-52 bombers to be loaded with hams to drop on Tehran about now? You’re a goose stepping American from a lost Monty Python episode, JHo. Yes, Russians deserve empathy, but not your pathetic BS’ing of their history and parrot screeching of anti-Russian propaganda. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:43 am # Do a good job and I’ll front you a decrepit old Norton with no tailight and a knapsack for to tour ÐÐ¾ÌÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð—ÐµÐ¼Ð»ÑÌ with, thor. You jipsee jeenyus. Comment by Rusty on 6/21 @ 6:44 am # I especially liked how the NKVD set up its maxim guns behind thier own Russian soldiers with orders to machine gun the lot if any turned and ran. The man on the right got the rifle. The man on the left got the bullets. Quantity has a holocaust all its own. Yes indeed. Germany rained down V1s and A4s on Moskow like falling leaves. Wait! That was London. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:45 am # Regale, thor. Regale. It’s not even nine here yet. Damn “anti-Russians” anyway. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 6:47 am # I sense a book deal, thor. Better late than never! Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 6:50 am # How do you spell Jabberwocky in Cyrillic? Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 7:03 am # Germany rained down V1s and A4s on Moskow like falling leaves. Wait! That was London. But it was the Soviets what bombed the shit out of the Urals, Rusty. A hundred thirty times more than the Yanks did in WWII. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 7:04 am # Face it, Americans know no limit to propaganda meant to diminish their Russian military betters. And foisting up that Ronald Reagan chump as defeater of the Soviets is like ripping a tuna and beans fart to the face of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. That ain’t clean boxing. Comment by Pablo on 6/21 @ 7:08 am # Soviets? You mean from the defunct USSR? Heh. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 7:09 am # Look bunnies. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 7:11 am # One of these days I’m gonna go someplace for a couple dozen months and have it change my worldview to the point I’ll be a prick from that point forward, amen. Comment by Pablo on 6/21 @ 7:12 am # Hitler wouldnâ€™t have come over here…. This Hitler? Huh. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 7:14 am # And foisting up that Ronald Reagan chump as defeater of the Soviets is like ripping a tuna and beans fart to the face of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Ohh, I am betting it hurts a lot worse than that. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 7:26 am # “Ronald Reagan was a lying senile dupe,…” whore is an ignoranus, comletely unlettered as to history. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 7:27 am # “Spare me the motherfuckinâ€™ Red Scare propaganda, eh.” Truth ain’t propaganda, fuckface. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 7:29 am # But you wouldn’t know truth if it grew fangs, snuck up on you and bit you in your shriveled little scrotum. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 7:31 am # “Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 7:04 am # Face it, Americans know no limit to propaganda meant to diminish their Russian military betters.” Yeah, gotta love those human wave attacks, you ignorant fuckface. Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 7:44 am # I love a good war as much as the next guy, but Ronald Reagan’s big doin’s in Central America that maimed and killed women and babies, his absurd Grenada island Rasta-shoot, his bitch in heels retreat from Lebanon, his bush popping of Khadafi’s kid daughter and bogus Berlin wall toppling makes him the biggest pussy flincher in American history. Yet, since the Republicans have no war real heroes, they act as if he sacked Constantinople right after buttfuckin’ Napolean. I’d like to butcher the man’s horse right in front of son, the gay one, Jr., or that other closet gay one, whichever. Comment by JHo on 6/21 @ 7:57 am # Look, #210! Comment by easyliving1 on 6/21 @ 7:59 am # Happy is he who forgets (ignores?) what cannot be changed. - quoted in Our Famous Guest, Mark Twain in Vienna, Dolmetsch Comment by The Ghosts of a lot of Peole killed by Carpet Bombing on 6/21 @ 8:07 am # Grozny Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 8:17 am # 177.Comment by Adriane on 6/21 @ 1:43 am Adriane, Great example. I’d also toss up one of those reality shows I stumbled across (TLC? Discovery?) called “Half Ton Teen”. Here’s a 19 year old 800 pound boy, barely able to leave his bed … and who is his enabler? The person who is feeding him his every wish, bathing him, cooing over him and killing him because she can’t say “no” — his profoundly, chronically unhappy mother who never got over the untimely death of her first born son at age two. This teen, he whines, he snivels, he acts like a spoiled 10 year old and he is the legacy of her unhappiness that she spills on everyone around her, including creating a hapless husband paralyzed in quilt by her unhappiness. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 8:20 am # NOB Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as “empty,” “meaningless,” or “dishonest,” and scorn to use them. No matter how “pure” their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ~~ Robert Heinlein Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 8:31 am # Fat people vote Republican. Comment by Silver Whistle on 6/21 @ 8:55 am # and the Russians defeated Hitler Except when they were his allies, doing German ally work. You know, invading Finland, killing Finns. And invading Latvia, murdering Latvians. And invading Poland, murdering Poles. And invading Lithuania, murdering Lithuanians. And invading Estonia, murdering Estonians. All that Hitler defeating would have to wait for later, huh? Long after other nations had been actully, you know, fighting Hitler, instead of merrily slaughtering half of Eastern Europe with him. Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Green Fathers Day Edition » Pirate’s Cove on 6/21 @ 8:56 am # [...] last, but not least, Darleen Click (protein wisdom) tells us about happiness being a moral [...] Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 9:11 am # The Russians defeated Hitler. Deal. Comment by Silver Whistle on 6/21 @ 9:16 am # The Russians defeated Hitler. Deal. No deal. History says you are mistaken. Got a good case? Write a book then. Fill it full of facts. Put those little footnote thingeys at the bottom, and a big old reference list at the back. Do some research, read something. Until then, you are just an internet ignorant without a fact to his name. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 9:23 am # thor thinks you win fights by getting your face punched in. I think he may have been a judge for some of Ali’s later bouts. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 9:23 am # -thor “They estimate as many as 17-million Russian civilians may have died during the Great War.” And the inconvenient truth is that more Russians died at the hands of Stalin and his goons during the various pograms, crackdown, and state engineered famines between 1924 and 1941, as many as 20 million, than ever did at the hands of the Nazis… The irony is that the purge of the military in 1933-34 was a major couse of the Russian military’s crushing defeats suffered at the hands of the Germans for the first couple years of the war on the Eastern front… Fortunately for all, the running dog capitalists in the west supplied the Russians with the materials, tanks, trucks, small arms, ammo, and other supplies, as well as important intelligence on the German’s offensives and troop strength, to enable them to withstand an onslaught that would have otherwise ended disastrously… Oh, and thor, Reagan pushed the Soviets past the tipping point, and restored America’s standing in a world where they had come to be viewed as an inept paper tiger… Regardless of all the CIA bogeymen you choose to talk about… Be Cool! Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 9:42 am # “Ronald Reagan was a lying senile dupe, and the Russians defeated Hitler.” Both statements take liberties with the truth, mi droog… While these may be your opinions, that doesn’t make them common wisdom or even factually correct… But, this is ground we’ve covered before… Agree to disagree, and all… Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 9:58 am # thor, I believe tha Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church had a few troubles with the Soviet overlords… “Religion is the opiate of the masses” doesn’t mix well with the Holy Mother Church… You loathe Reagan precisely because he brought about the demise of the former Soviet Union; without firing a shot…The Afghani’s did all the shooting… I admire the historical Russians more than you give me credit for thor, to me, it’s not a simplistic binary choice; a zero sum tensor between Russians or Americans… I’ve always said that we should ally with them against the Chinese anyway… Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 10:14 am # “Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 9:11 am # The Russians defeated Hitler.” Wrong, dung beetle. Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 10:16 am # Ronald Reagan: â€œWe welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!â€ President Obama: â€œCanâ€™t I just finish my waffles?â€ Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 10:18 am # “Comment by The thor on 6/21 @ 8:31 am # Fat people vote Republican.” And dumb, ignorant coprophiliacs vote Democrat. Oh. Look. It’s thor. Comment by Danger on 6/21 @ 11:00 am # “I donâ€™t know how you neurotypicals handle life anyway, so I canâ€™t offer any advice on happiness. Sorry.” Dicentra, Last week was a tough week here at PW and today I got a package from home with some fathers day cards. My yougest daughters card had a drawing showing her crying which brought back memories of when I left for Iraq. I try to counter the tendancy to dwell on difficult experiences by visiting this site and by writing things like this: http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=2851 For those of you who have not seen it please have a look (it is at the pub if my linkage-fu failed) It was a labor of love where I offer some encouragement, poke some fun at some people I admire and even manage to take a few shots at our trolls (that is referred to as a teaser folks so what are you waiting for?;) Bob, The question I had the Col Louchette ask me in the item above really applies to you. Now you are giving encouragement in three languages. Sheesh is right. You recently referred to yourself as a Piker. Well if you are a Piker then I guess that makes me a tricycler just trying to fit in here in Jeff’s playground. Happy fathers day Comment by Jho on 6/21 @ 11:12 am # Regardless of all the CIA bogeymen you choose to talk aboutâ€¦ thor’s angling for a nom to the Institute for Fallacies and Non-sTarters in Internet ThrEads (INFANTILE) new category: Strawmanning our own cartoons. Comment by Jho on 6/21 @ 11:13 am # … Comment by Jho on 6/21 @ 11:14 am # Sorry. Laughing too hard here… Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 11:27 am # Danger: Read the thing; your link-fu is fine. Glad you can work things out like that. Me, I am firing on only 3 cylinders health-wise (physical and mental), so the best I can do right now is slog on and wait for the right diagnosis and treatment. Where o where is Greg House when you need him? But does any set of unhappy circumstances permit the â€˜in your faceâ€™ treatment of others like the above example of the unhappy mother? Let’s look at the perpetually angry Leftist, whose anger (UN-happiness) is the impetus for everything he does and thinks, and there we have Prager’s point. Which he does make, often — that the Left is profoundly unhappy, and they’re determined to make you unhappy, too. BECAUSE OF THE EQUALITY! Here’s a 19 year old 800 pound boy, barely able to leave his bed â€¦ and who is his enabler? The person who is feeding him his every wish, bathing him, cooing over him and killing him because she can’t say “no” Exhibit A for how the Nanny State kills the soul of the nation it pretends to serve. There’s no better metaphor, Darleen. Thanks for bringing it up. Comment by Danger on 6/21 @ 11:36 am # Dicentra, I guess there are exceptions to the Laughter is the Best Medicine prescription. I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless and happy fathers day Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 11:49 am # Danger, Thanks for the compliments friend, we all use the graces we’ve been given to serve God, by serving others… PW is the place where we’re all equals; the way He made us and the constitution intended… You fit right in just fine… Again, your piece at the pub was Outstanding! Have a happy day, and may God bless you and keep both you and your family… Best Wishes Comment by Danger on 6/21 @ 12:14 pm # Thanks Bob, I have had quite a few compliments on the post and find them encouraging ( Although if Jeff likes it I may just have a Sally Fields moment;) Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 12:17 pm # Apropos of this thread… Coincidentally, I just listened to this lecture given by Arthur C. Brooks to the BYU student body, wherein he discusses the link between charitable giving and happiness and prosperity. Takeaways: 1. Charitable giving makes you happier, and happiness makes you prosperous. 2. If we turn over our charitable giving to the gubmint, our nation will become less happy and therefore less prosperous. I recommend listening to (or watching) the whole thing (35 minutes). Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 12:19 pm # I guess there are exceptions to the Laughter is the Best Medicine prescription. Not strictly speaking. I do feel better when I laugh. I was feeling really depressed about my life and about the country, and then I went and saw Glenn Beck’s stage show, and the laughs did me good. I’m also getting the entire Cheers series from Netflix, and that helps, too. Boy, that show has aged well. Not a bad episode in the lot. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 12:48 pm # Re-reading the thread I find I can’t say it has made me happy. Odd, no? Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 2:39 pm # Odd, no? No. Too much thor. Not enough Jeff. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 2:55 pm # Thor had zero to do with my disappointment in the thread. Not enough Jeff resonates true to me, though my irk, such as it is, is more my fault than anything else dicentra. Seems to me that the subject of moral obligation deserves better than I’ve been able to muster in its defense here. Remember the Schultz cartoon that had it that “Happiness is a warm puppy.”? Feels like what we’ve got going on here. Analogizing — Warm puppy:Moral Obligation::My Effort:Dennis Prager, and too, I still believe Dennis Prager is a dolt. So, not happy. Comment by Rusty on 6/21 @ 3:03 pm # People who vote democratic are stupid. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 3:15 pm # sdferr I believe the fault really lies in that we have been crippled for the last several decades of actually discussing moral imperatives in anything resembling serious discourse. I want to help pry off the braces and exercise those atrophied muscles. Even if we disagree, our discussing our disagreements can/should lead to new discoveries … or more accurately, rediscoveries. Ayn Rand said something to the effect that we all live according to an internal philosophy whether we can articulate it or not. “Philosophy”, “morality” … both words describing a template or framework or “rules of the road” on how we live our day to day lives. What we value informs our morality and rules our judgments. I’ve always found the line “you can’t legislate morality” nothing but a sophmoric bumpersticker sentiment because you cannot legislate without morality. It is just WHOSE morality and WHOSE values will be legislated that is the debate. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 3:18 pm # When you say “whose – whose”, to what then have you already committed yourself? Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 3:38 pm # When you say â€œwhose – whoseâ€, to what then have you already committed yourself? A battle of wills. Yay! Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 4:05 pm # sdferr If I had to label my belief/moral system (and labeling comes with its own significant limitations) I would call myself a classical liberal by way of ethical monotheism. I believe individuals must ultimately be responsible for themselves, but am I no way a “libertine.” If someone is going to walk off a cliff, I feel I have a moral obligation to warn them. But if they want to walk off it anyway, I will not force them to bend to my will (I will, of course, prevent them from taking innocents with them even if I have to revert to force.) My touchstone is “is this a voluntary interaction freely entered into by the individuals?” From that I support laws against fraud, theft, extortion, slavery, etc. I also believe that human beings transcend the animal world. We are of it, it is not us. We have a divine spark, if you will, and that gives us inherent rights that other men may try (and may succeed in) usurping or convincing us that only Government grants us rights but it is NOT theirs to grant or suspend. And while I consider myself a Conservationist, it is based on God’s admonishment to be good stewards of the earth, to respect His gifts. I do not buy into the religion of misanthropic Environmentalism which regards human modernity/intelligence/invention as plague upon Mother Gaia. I am by far repulsed by Utopianism because I see what banal evil mischief is done in its name. I hope that’s a good start to let you know where I am coming from. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 4:54 pm # Care to butt in here dicentra and help out to explain what’s missing from Darleen’s picture in answer to my question? I have a sneaking suspicion you know what I’m aiming at. Darleen, that’s a pretty hair-raising mish-mash of stuff you’ve got listed there, so I end up somewhat more confused than I’d hoped to be going in. Your answer doesn’t speak to the “will to power” analysis dicentra alludes to above though, which analysis in turn stands behind the reason I had posed the question I did in that particular form I did: ” whose – whose” in response to your statement “It is just WHOSE morality and WHOSE values will be legislated that is the debate.” When questions of morality or the right ordering of human life appear in that form, “whose values [there's that frightful word again! Thanks Mr. Prager!] will rule”, the question whether “any possible value[s] (or good, if I may) stands outside and prior to every particular embodiment in some particular person” has already been decided in favor of the negative. Or to put it another way, the inquiry into the good has been abandoned in favor of a more or less simple power struggle. Whether that philosophical position can properly be labeled “Classical Liberal” I’m not sure I can say, though I rather doubt it. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 4:58 pm # This discussion has mostly been about some outside agency “forcing” us to act in a fashion that said agency believes would be best for us. I think of the idea of, modeling your actions to be in accord with the way of thinking you wish to have, to be a workable concept for an individual to use to change their life themselves. Using moral suasion to influence others to lead a life more like your own is also fine and has been done forever. This page talks about that. “Hebraic learning is primarily concerned with issues of obedience, life-oriented wisdom, and the interrelationship of all things under God. Basically, the Hebrew concept of knowledge is â€œright actions lead to right thinking.â€ We learn best by doing what is best. Maybe that is why Jesus modeled the life he inspires us to lead. “ I do not believe that using outside physical force to change someones actions can, except in extermis, be effective in changing their thoughts. When it is done effectively the change is to the entire person and is a degrading of the personality to be a lesser, simpler, more dependent being. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 5:08 pm # why does the word “values” frighten you, sdferr? I find that more telling than that you seem confused by what I wrote. Our values inform our morality. When the Founding Fathers crafted this American experiment it was their values that won out among all other value systems. Theirs was just as “mish mashy” as mine because we each come to our own system individually and America, while resembling other values systems, was unique by design. I can live within the American political environment because I share the majority of American values even if I quibble with a certain thing here or there. And I would contend that the antipathy the Left has for America is because they hold radically different values, values they wish to transplant into the body America and proclaim them True American values. Is Man an end or a means? That’s the first primary value. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:09 pm # A don’t think I’ve earned one quite yet thor. Maybe a bit later if I manage to negotiate our way out of this here minefield we’re standing in with out getting all blowed up into meat confetti. Comment by Danger on 6/21 @ 5:12 pm # Geoffb, Nice find and in keeping with the fathers day spirit I found this article on the same site. http://www.thesimpleadvantage.com/familyandrelationships/7-ok-8-practices-to-raising-a-healthy-happy-and-well-adjust-kid Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:15 pm # Darleen, see if you can find some of those founding fathers talking about values, will you? Without having done an exhaustive search myself, I don’t think there is going to be much there to cite. I could be wrong but that’s just not the way I recall them talking about such things. One of the reasons I describe the term values as frightful is precisely that most people haven’t got a clue what it is that they are buying into when they buy into that term. I have at best a tiny clue and what I find there isn’t the stuff of “classical liberalism” for one thing, so it strikes me as a somewhat daunting thing to take on. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 5:15 pm # One branch of my family… Russian Jews who fled the pogroms of Soviet Russians, so scarred by the horrors visited upon them by their “fellow Russians” they changed their names and hid their Jewish heritage even in America. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:16 pm # It is the talk of F. Nietzsche and M. Weber for another. Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 5:18 pm # Care to butt in here dicentra and help out to explain whatâ€™s missing from Darleenâ€™s picture in answer to my question? I have a sneaking suspicion you know what Iâ€™m aiming at. Uhhh. I’ll need to take a nap first. brb Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:19 pm # oh, so booooooring, huh? Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 5:27 pm # sdferr good lord, read this in its entirety then tell me it was written by people with no values. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:29 pm # Darleen, why do you insist on grafting onto those now dead poor fellows who because they are dead can’t be here to defend themselves in their own terms the rhetorical terms-of-art of men of a later age? I don’t get it. Comment by Danger on 6/21 @ 5:31 pm # Since this post deals with happyness I wonder what kind of wisdom happyfeet would bring to it. Darleen, Happyfeet was worried about you while you were out. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 5:32 pm # By the way, though I think we have been through this before, a page search for the term “value[s]” on the Declaration yields, wanna guess?, that’s right!, nothing, nada, zippo. One would think that were the term actually an important one to the men of that time it could at least do us the favor of showing up in the more important documents of the age, no? Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 5:54 pm # oh, so booooooring, huh? No. Just too heavy to do so without proper cerebral rejuvenation. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 5:59 pm # sdferr oh, because the DOI is a document based on a particular set of values but never uses the word, then the evident values aren’t really there. that’s some argument That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Yep, no values there. None at all. Nothing to see, just an opinion floating untethered to any thing and no more worth then saying “Governments are instituted to grant rights and men are subservient to the power of the Government and serve at its pleasure.” All cultures are equal, there is no good/evil right/wrong it is all just opinion caused by brain chemistry in the limbic brain. Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 6:09 pm # My initial response is that what we have here is failure to communicate. Because the term “value” is usually linked to the concepts of dogma, theology, and other churchy stuff. As in “values voters,” i.e., religious people who vote for the president because of his religious affiliation. And I am sure that the term “value” never appears in the constitution. I suspect that you’re both using the term “values” as a synonym for “morals,” ness pa? But you should each define that term before you go on, methinks, just to be sure. Allow me: If you look at “value” as a verb, the theological stickiness tends to abate. For example: what did the Founders value? individual liberty over collective cohesion political liberty over tyranny democracy over monarchy natural rights over hereditary privilege etc. Everyone has “values” in that sense, because everyone tends privilege some things over others. Which gets us back to the original question of WHOSE values/morals etc. Which then gets us back to Harry Potter (oh yes it does!) and what Quirrelmort said to Harry at the end of Philosopher’s Stone: “There is no good and evil, there is only power… and those too weak to seek it.” Which means that in our pluralistic society — where we do not agree on a common arbiter of what is good and evil — it’s going to come down to who is powerful enough to impose their values on the rest. Did that help or did I muddy the waters? Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 6:31 pm # All cultures are equal, there is no good/evil right/wrong it is all just opinion That right there is a nice summation of what the term “value” has brought to political philosophy Darleen, and is precisely why I don’t like to use it. It has accompanied the very ruin you yourself descry. How about that? Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 6:48 pm # “You donâ€™t admire Russians else you wouldnâ€™t be insulting them with your Jerry Bruckheimer-esque Reagan-as-Soviet-Impaler BS. The Russians defeated Hitler. The Russians removed the Soviets from power.” The Obama position on Iran used and conceived as a way to slam Reagan. A nice piece of flim-flammery there. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 6:53 pm # “Values” like “violence” is a word used to conflate things that should not be conflated and to confuse and defuse other words like good, evil, moral and immoral. “Values” amoralizes what it touches. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 6:55 pm # That helps, I think dicentra. …because the DOI is a document based on a particular set of values but never uses the word, then the evident values arenâ€™t really there. thatâ€™s some argument What happened to our shared intentionalism Darleen? What?, we’ll just toss it aside for now and we’re good to go? I have a pretty good idea what you mean to use the term for, but the question I have been posing is whether you have a good idea of how the term will fit or not fit with the classical liberalism of our other shared political-philosophical heritage embodied in the Declaration and Constitution, among other documents. I know, I have long known that you seem wedded to the term to describe a “set of moral precepts” or a “personal collection of moral principles” and so on, but have spent this time trying to persuade you that these are in fact terms of art in the field of political philosophy, and as such, ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to the contexts in which they were first laid down and defined, which contexts were most certainly not classical liberal. Let’s look a Merriam-Webster for a minute [I will add emphases here and there for stress - sdferr]: Etymology: Middle English, worth, high quality, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *valuta, from feminine of *valutus, past participle of Latin valÄ“re to be of worth, be strong â€” more at wield Date: 14th century 1: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged 2: the monetary worth of something : market price 3: relative worth, utility, or importance 4: a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement 5: the relative duration of a musical note 6a: relative lightness or darkness of a color : luminosity 6b: the relation of one part in a picture to another with respect to lightness and darkness 7: something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable It seems to me that the relative and the utility in the third definition ought to give away the game. If we were to attempt to establish a self-evident truth or an unalienable right, would we want to begin with a relative something or other? It strikes me as plain on its face that would be the last object we would have. Or is it otherwise and I am simply mistaken? Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:12 pm # Just an aside dicentra, the Merriam-Webster dates “family values” to 1916. The entry reads “values especially of a traditional or conservative kind which are held to promote the sound functioning of the family and to strengthen the fabric of society” Culture is another of my bugaboo words, by the way. People see nothing in the least worrisome about applying it to times and peoples who no more thought of themselves in terms of culture or a culture or having a culture than they thought of themselves as the result of genetic seeding from outerspace. Grafting of this sort, while it may help us to understand people now long dead in terms with which we are grown familiar, will do nothing but get in the way when we attempt to understand those same now long dead people in the terms with which they understood themselves. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 7:17 pm # Here are (1 and 2) the two earlier threads on values and principles. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:21 pm # yeah! the late innings relief pitching has arrived right at the moment my arm is giving out. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 7:22 pm # dicentra America is founded upon a particular set of values, you listed some of them. Our Founding Fathers didn’t say explicity “these are our VALUES” because in their time they lived and breathed them everyday and assumed those reading such documents as the DOI would already know what they were talking about. America may be pluralistic in the sense that it is made up of many peoples from a variety of different cultures, but you will find legal immigrants are much more in touch with American values because they CHOOSE to come here to participate in them. E Pluribus Unum … from many, one sdferr keeps getting it backwards, he thinks “values” come from political philosophy when a coherent political philosophy cannot be wrought without a set of values informing it. You can discern values not just by the expressed philosophy (and I would caution against taking any profession of philosophy at face value) but by the behavior and actions of the person professing. Obama says he wants competition in healthcare (privileging of freemarkets informed by a value of voluntary association between individuals) but his plan is will destroy private health insurance and remove choice from the market place. His value — that he has expressed before in other settings (when talking about “positive rights”) is that the Government should be the primary and controlling partner in every citizen’s life. Obama’s political philosophy is informed by different values than the political philosophy of, say, the late William F. Buckley. Certainly “power” is always part of the equation, but power is another morally neutral term that is either good/bad/worse dependant on circumstance. A constitutionally-constrained government operating on the consent of the governed gains and weilds its power much differently than the Iranian mullahs or the Taliban. I do believe there is good and evil and I am not afraid to judge least I be judged because I want to be held to the same standards by which I judge others (the real meaning of that Biblical passage). That means MY values are as open to examination as the values of other people/societies. Without values then all moral judgment is moot….which is just what the Left wants and what they are achieving by caricaturizing the word and making usually reasonable people like sdferr scared shitless of the term. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 7:25 pm # when we attempt to understand those same now long dead people in the terms with which they understood themselves. sez the guy claiming the Founding Fathers had no values. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:27 pm # I’m not scared of the term used in the contexts with which it is associated Darleen, for cryin out loud. I was “scared” or used the term frightful because I could foresee the very fruitless discussion we are now engaged in (or not engaged in, as the case may be) coming at me headlong when I brought it up. You are, I must give you credit!, one very hard-headed person though, so there’s that. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 7:34 pm # Values are those things of worth that inform our inner philosophy/morality and influence our behavior and actions whether we have examined and can articulate that philosophy/morality or not. What is worth MORE? Rights of the individual or rights of the collective? Both sides of the question represent a value. Each informs the basis of separate political philosophies. The debate becomes then, which value is better, why is it better and which political philosophy geniunely reflects that value. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 7:36 pm # Don’t really know enough about Prager’s whole viewpoint to contribute much. What I have come across though, does make it seem like he’d do well to more carefully chose his words or define them more often. As you noted above sdferr, adding “the pretense of…” — and keeping that as a bright line — would do his argument good. I don’t like the strong form of the argument regardless. Substitute other emotions for happiness and it becomes apparent. To me, it seems more sensible to be happy if there is something to be happy about, sad if there is something to be sad about, angry if there is something to be angry about… Why the emphasis on happiness? Personally, I value satisfaction (from completing a task well, from honoring my commitments, etc) above happiness. To me, being unhappy (for a neurotypical) is a great motivator. In regards to values vs principles, I’m not a big one for using the word values unless that’s exactly what I mean. To me, values are like numbers on a number line. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 7:38 pm # But, the weak form of the argument, “in general, try not to bring others down”, sounds okay to me if it isn’t overdone. I try to do it when I can. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 7:41 pm # Perhaps it’s better to say that the founders wrote the DOI and Constitution to codify principles and laws that reflected the same. And, it’s safe to say the their values were an outgrowth of the enlightenment principles that they embraced… So the assertions in the DOI, and the laws in the Constitution, were the codification of the principles by which they believed that the least tyrannical form of governance would manifest itself… And, it’s no stretch then that their values also were an outgrowth of these same principles… As dicentra noted it’s a communication thing; I believe that were all talking around the same points, but are just on different sides of the bush! This is a very nuanced question in the true sense of that word, and not the hijacked Obama usage of it… Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 7:41 pm # sdferr I actually don’t believe it is “fruitless.” I want to drag the word “values” and “morality” back from the sneering Leftists and their cynical bedfellows in the collectivist Religious sphere to respectabilty. I consider if we could all talk about “values” without all the immediate, kneejerk stereotypes jumping immediately to mind, more people could actually become coherent about their beliefs and be able to articulate and defend them. I first went back to college in my 40’s and sat in Freshman classes where 18 year olds, newly minted high school grads, could not write a coherent paragraph, let alone a sentence. They were never taught the building blocks of putting together a well-written report/essay/story. Diagram a sentence? Phoenics? Thesis paragraph? Subject/predicate? No, they were taught to “be real” and write “what you feel”. They were deliberately crippled … so much easier to sway and control. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 7:44 pm # “The Russians removed the Soviets from power.” Sure thor, But you avoided my direct assertion regarding the Holy Mother Church and Her persecution during the Soviet era; and are involved in a semantics gotcha over Soviet and Russians… But, it’s your opinion, factual or not… Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:44 pm # My stumbling block over happiness in ethics or political philosophy mostly arises (and I freely admit this may be entirely idiosyncratic with me) over the discussion Aristotle gives the idea in the Nich. Ethics. The question whether happiness is an end or telos of political life and organization is pretty central to Aristotle’s discussion. I came away impressed by his argument that happiness is a heavily contingent circumstance and therefore, it seems to me, as such isn’t fit to be attributed as a moral obligation, which again, seems to me must be of such a kind as to be amenable to an individual agents control if it is to have any meaning whatsoever. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:48 pm # I too aim at coherence Darleen, which is why I want to keep novel coinages and usages out of any discussion of the intentions of our founders thoughts on the subject of political philosophy. Or discussions of their predecessors and antecedents, for that matter. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 7:56 pm # This brings to mind the soma of Huxley’s Brave New World. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 7:58 pm # Say more bh, it has been ages since I read that and I can’t recall it now. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 8:01 pm # “values” is not “novel coinage”. Either the Founding Fathers privileged individual rights over collective rights; either they privileged government by consent of the governed over government by divine right OR our American experiment is a grand joke on us all because they really did not value something different then what was offered under King George and all of this was just an occassion of cosmic pique. If you find something of more worth than something else, and state it so, then you have expressed a VALUE, and if you act upon that value, then you have demonstrated a rudimentary philosophy/morality. Building blocks, friend, building blocks. The foundation is there whether you wish to acknowlege it or not. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 8:03 pm # Soma was the euphoric used to keep the population under control. “One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments.” By keeping the populace happy, it removed the motivation created by unhappiness. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 8:03 pm # Can I shout goddamn it one time? Just to relieve my tension, would that be ok? Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 8:07 pm # Were it possible, Darleen, for you to time-transport yourself back to 1765 and undertake a conversation with James Madison, and during that conversation use the term values in exactly the sense in which you use it today, he would have no clue what the hell you were talking about. That, I here assert, would be a sufficient demonstration that for my purposes, the term values in this context is clearly a new coinage or usage. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 8:10 pm # Not hearing any objection then…………. Goddamnit! Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 8:14 pm # undertake a conversation with James Madison, and during that conversation use the term values in exactly the sense in which you use it today, he would have no clue what the hell you were talking about You know this because you already took that trip, right? yes, a snark, because you are deliberately ducking my point. A rose is a rose, even it’s ìž¥ë¯¸ ê½ƒ in Korean. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 8:15 pm # erg…the charactures didn’t come through. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 8:17 pm # A rose is a rose? In a discussion of the precise use of philosophical language, the metier of political philosophers, a rose is a rose? Wow. Look, all you would need to do is find an example or five thousand where Madison or Jefferson or Franklin or one of those great thinkers uses the term values as you do. You won’t find it, I’ll wager, but you are most welcome to try. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 8:22 pm # Somewhat related short essay. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 8:24 pm # They talk about truths. Principles. Morals. Good. Evil. But not values. Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 8:36 pm # If you feel you stand apart from them, that’s one thing. If you feel you stand above them, then implicitly, you’re a value monger. Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 8:47 pm # I hate judgmental cowards Your self-loathing has been apparent for months now. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 8:48 pm # So thor, Are we to believe that you are at the right hand of Obama, being above us all and such? Seems to me you’ve been taking Nietzsche to heart more than Foucalt, if you actually believe that you are such an Ãœbermensch… Seems a little elitist, and egotistical, to believe in your own exceptionalism… Be Cool! Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 8:49 pm # They talk about truths. Principles. Morals. Good. Evil. But not values. Semantics, semantics, semantics. You’re all arguing past each other. Whatevs. Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 8:50 pm # Perhaps it would be useful if y’all showed an example of a “principle” as opposed to a “value.” Comment by Bob Reed on 6/21 @ 9:01 pm # Gee Dicentra, I tried to get at that in #287… Principle: Man has a natural right to Freedom, self governance, and private property-both ideological as well as material… Value: The right to unrepressed speech in a free society… This is a tough nut to crack… Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 9:03 pm # Well, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle springs to mind. It’s true for everyone. Now, if I made a judgment on its relative worth compared to Bernoulli’s principle, that would a value I held. And it wouldn’t be true for everyone. Are you saying you think principles are the same thing as values globally, or just in regards to this discussion, dicentra? Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 9:04 pm # dicentra I believe values and principles are inextricably bound together – thought and action, worth and rule of behavior based on that worth. Two sides of the same coin and that coin can be gold or a slug. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 9:04 pm # Whose got a reasonable handle on mathematical history, anybody reading here at the moment? Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 9:07 pm # Sheesh, that should oughta read “who’s” as in who has. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 9:11 pm # When someone says, “You know, Mr. Smith is a person of good moral principles” they are usually relying upon observation of Mr. Smith’s behavior — he treats his wife well, his children are healthy and happy, he visits and helps his parents, he volunteers his time with others, he is a honest businessman … etc. Principles are observable and substantiate (or contradict) expressed values. Comment by SBP on 6/21 @ 9:13 pm # Whose got a reasonable handle on mathematical history, anybody reading here at the moment? Not an expert, but I’ve studied it a bit. What’s on your mind? Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 9:15 pm # So, SBP, roughly speaking, when was set theory discovered or invented or formulated? Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 9:18 pm # Cantor, maybe? Late 1800’s? Low confidence in my answer. Comment by SBP on 6/21 @ 9:20 pm # Hmm… I believe it was first developed by Cantor, and then put on a more rigorous foundation by Bertrand Russell and those guys. Then, of course, Goedel upset (pun intended) the whole applecart. :-) Comment by SBP on 6/21 @ 9:21 pm # Oh, and yeah, Cantor was definitely 19th century. Russell was partly 19th, partly 20th (I have the sense that he lived to some ungodly age). Comment by bh on 6/21 @ 9:22 pm # It would make sense, his theorem was set based. Comment by Darleen on 6/21 @ 9:22 pm # sdferr You might understand where I coming from if you remember I’m the mother of 4 (now grown) daughters and as a parent I wanted to raise my children to be people of good character. I needed to impart to them a set of rules they could internalize and use to guide their behavior — IE principles. But for those principles to make sense to them so they could be internalized (bought into) then I had to give them the underlying values that informed the principles. Goodness (and moral principles) are not innate, they have to be taught … like brushing one’s teeth and eating well. It is a destructive society that promotes physical health and sneers at “spiritual” health. So please consider that I’ve spent a good part of my life dealing with the practicalities of values/principles/morality/philosophy. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 9:26 pm # “Then, of course, Goedel upset (pun intended) the whole applecart. :-)” And will upset this one if the object is to use set theory to illustrate the relations of “values”, “principles”, “truths”, “morals”, “good”, “evil” and use that to prove something about those relations. These concepts are more slippery than the math used to hold them. They escape the rational. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 9:28 pm # Perhaps transcend it rather than escape. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 9:30 pm # So, (and I’m only using set theory as an example here, some other branch or theory would do just as well for my purposes, but whatever…) So, it has its own bunch of axia and starting points, questions to answer, jargon and symbol group that goes along with it. As with the term “value”, were we to carry set theory back to men who lived long before set theory had been proposed, put down on paper, and broaching the subject with these men, began to talk using that jargon and symbol collection, they wouldn’t have a clue what we were getting at would they? That is, until we sat them down and put them through the rigors of working through the development of the theory for themselves, which I assume they would have little trouble with since after all, the theory is clear, concise and rational? So, I think, it would be with the use of the term “values” in the sense in which we use it today. Initially, confronted by that term under that meaning, men of the late 1700’s wouldn’t understand what we were getting at, until we put them through the series of questions that later arose and necessitated the creation of the term. Once they had dealt with those questions and answers, I’ve no doubt they’d “get it”. But they didn’t live to go through those questions. They never used the term with that sense. Comment by TaiChiWawa on 6/21 @ 9:42 pm # The term “value” is used in The Federalist Papers. Most often it denotes a measurement of utility but in addition to being applied in a monetary or property context, it is used as a designation of esteem placed on certain ideas being proposed. I don’t think the founding fathers would misinterpret a statement such as “I value our friendship” as a remark about usefulness rather than high regard. Comment by sdferr on 6/21 @ 9:51 pm # Here is the search on FP for “value”. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 10:09 pm # FP #47 No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. FP #41 Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it. FP #77 Those who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will in all probability be less subject to inconstancy than any other member of the government. FP #10 He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. These all seem to me to still be about something other than what the term “vaules” conjures today Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 10:09 pm # Values Comment by dicentra on 6/21 @ 11:17 pm # Let me see if I can clarify this, taking Bob’s first attempt and altering it. Principle: Most people will abuse the power they have over others. I understand a principle to be a truism, though this usage might be endemic to the LDS lexicon and not generally recognized. We do use the term “a man of principle” to say that someone has standards and sticks by them. Self-Evident Truth: Man has a natural right to Freedom, self governance, and private property — both ideological as well as materialâ€¦ I would hazard that our Founders had more confidence in the truth of their ideas than we do. They were not poisoned by moral equivalence and “who are you to say…?” types of thinking. They decided what was right, through logic and reason, and they stuck to it. Value: The right to unrepressed speech in a free societyâ€¦ is good. “Value” in this sense is what you value, what you hold to be better than something else. However, I perceive a conflation of “values” and “morals” in this conversation, which may or may not be a good thing. In 166, Darleen said: “good lord, read this in its entirety then tell me it was written by people with no values.” In this context, I believe Darleen means that the people who wrote the DoI were not equivocating in the least in terms of what they believed to be TRUE. They were not engaging in po-mo moral equivalence (hey, you guys can do the monarchy thing if you want, but we’d like to do our own thing over here, if that’s all right with you) nor were they trying to find middle ground with the King of England. On the other hand, they were not making theological assertions, either, but recognizing only that rights come not from man but from “their Creator” (whoever or whatever that is). In a pre-Darwinian world, creatio ex accidentum was not an option as it is today. It seems that sdferr’s resistance to “values” originates in the strong religious connotation that implies that one adhere to a particular theology in order to arrive at what to value. Which we religious people do: we value what we do because of what we believe to be true about metaphysics and theology. And those who are less religious may also hold to many or most of those values, but they also know that there will be a handful that they just can’t get behind, and they’re not particularly thrilled to have to accept the whole values package when they don’t accept the theology. I think that’s what sent Charles over the edge with the Creationism thing: he was OK making common cause with Christians over the WoT but was uneasy about the rest of the enchilada. Also, Darleen? Would you delete thor’s comments on this thread from now on? I sprained my index finger scrolling past his droppings as it is, and there’s no need for him going forward. Comment by geoffb on 6/21 @ 11:31 pm # Ah, a “Happy Father’s Day” missive from thor to all Dads, and Moms too. Special and short. Comment by lee on 6/21 @ 11:55 pm # Seems thor is giving an example of an unhappy person inflicting everyone else with his ugly disposition. Yeah, I’d say what he’s doing is immoral. Not that I want a law or anything, just saying, can you imagine living in a world populated with nothing but thors? It would be hell. (see what I did there?) Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 12:08 am # Insanity is fun, eh? Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 12:31 am # From the same show, and to all a good night. Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 12:35 am # I actually give thanks that Walthor’s parents keep him on a cash leash, dependent and needy, rather than letting him lose among adults and ::horrors:: possibly breeding. He is a genetic dead end and his poison will end with him. He lies so readily and so vigorously it really makes no difference and is castrated of any power, just background noise pollution, like a small, angry, damaged child spewing profanities at the wind. sad little pseudo-male Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 12:50 am # dicentra I cleaned up his later stuff at your request. Usually I just ignore it but I won’t tolerate his threadjacking when it bothers others. Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 12:53 am # also, dicentra, one quick thing then I really do have to get to bed I believe that the Founding Fathers used “truth” the way we (or some of “we”) use “value” (and I don’t believe “values” are intrinsically theological) All in all, for all the frustrations, a great discussion. Comment by Adriane on 6/22 @ 4:39 am # [Adriane]Can you imagine this, then: (1) What moral obligation does the mother have toward a child she hates/is indifferent to? A{sdferr}: Why not presume the same moral obligation she would have toward a child she loves to pieces? [Adriane, continuing]expanded to the Family of Man, and not specifically to a or your biological family? {sdferr}No. Then, purely as a slippery slope conjecture, and not to put words in your mouth … you have no problem with, say, the government of Saudi Arabia being concentrated among descendants of King Abdul Aziz… They would certainly agree with you that family can and should be treated differently than outsiders. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 7:23 am # Truth, morality, these are things that are “self evident” that come to all humans from outside, from “our creator”. Principles are held by a person but are also thought to be of universal nature. “Values” takes these universals and puts them on a personal basis. Attaches “truth”, “morality” to an individual and in so doing makes them into personal things. Things which are changeable, fluid, of human not divine origin. “Values” is the birth mother of “moral equivalence”. “Violence” is a birth father of the same. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/22 @ 7:34 am # Dicentra, Thanks for clarifying what I was stubling about trying to say in your #326… Not surprising really though, as you are such an intelligent and special lady… You have my most sincere thanks and highest regards Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 7:58 am # â€œValuesâ€ is the birth mother of â€œmoral equivalenceâ€. Only if you accept the premise that all values are equal. As dicentra says in 326 Value: The right to unrepressed speech in a free societyâ€¦ is good. â€œValueâ€ in this sense is what you value, what you hold to be better than something else. We all act upon our internal values whether we know it or not. In Atlas Shrugged many of Rand’s characters are acting on values they either they have never acknowledged or they act contradictory to the values they profess. Hank Reardon is especially disdainful of all the “moralizing” talk but his refusal to get involved and to leave it to his philosophical enemies is what almost destroys him. He does base his own actions on an internalized value system but wrestles with guilt because he never challenges the contradictory system around him. and the insidious thing, his enemies know it and they spend a great deal of time trying to keep him from self-realization of his own value system. THAT is what the Left is doing right now, the same tactic they use in controling speech and getting their philosophical enemies wrapped up in apologizing and self-censoring because the non-leftists have conceded their right to defend their own value system. I Comment by Eric Cartman on 6/22 @ 8:15 am # Well, Darleen’s a bitch she is a big fat bitch, she the biggest bitch in the whole wide world. She’s a stupid bitch, if there ever was a bitch. She’s a bitch to all the boys and girls. (Kyle: Shut your fucking mouth Cartman!!) On Monday, she’s a bitch. On Tuesdays, she’s a bitch and Wednesday through Saturday, she’s a bitch. Then on Sunday, just to be different, (pronounced kah-may-ahh-may-ahh) she’s a super king kamehameha biatch. Come on you all know the words! Have you ever met my friend Darleen? She’s the biggest bitch in the whole wide world. She’s a mean old bitch and has stupid hair. She’s a bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch she’s a stupid bitch. (Woo!) Darleen’s a bitch and she’s just a dirty bitch. Have you ever met my friend Darleen? She’s the biggest bitch in the whole wide world. She’s a mean old bitch and has stupid hair. She’s a bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. gasp Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch she’s a stupid bitch. Darleen’s a bitch and she’s just a dirty bitch. I really mean it… Darleen….She’s a big fat fucking bitch. Big old fat fucking bitch Darleen….Yeah chaaaah! Comment by Momma Bushy Toots on 6/22 @ 8:17 am # These kids, that’s who you have to watch. Before you can shake a toot they’ll sneak off and start reading poetry. Devil compositions! I sat in class with ‘em so I know exactly what they do. Instead of the Constitution they’ll memorize lines of Pushkin, Lautreamont, Colet and a perpetual orgy of Commie shit. Must.Remain.Calm. Worry not, founding fathers, I will crush their little liberal adolescent spirits. I blog! And I quote Ayn Rand! Comment by Danger on 6/22 @ 8:20 am # Happyfeet, You got any words for wisdom for our angry visitor Eric here Comment by Eric Cartman on 6/22 @ 8:22 am # When these Iranian Achmadinabooooshes are chanting “Death to America!” They’re don’t really mean death to all the boys and girls, what they really mean is: Well, Darleenâ€™s a bitch she is a big fat bitch, she the biggest bitch in the whole wide world. Sheâ€™s a stupid bitch, if there ever was a bitch. Sheâ€™s a bitch to all the boys and girls. Comment by SDN on 6/22 @ 8:28 am # Danger, unfortunately the only real answer for “people” like Cartman comes in calibers and gauges… Comment by Danger on 6/22 @ 8:33 am # SDN, Probably right, I am just not sure he is worth wasting any brass on. Of course target practice is important too! Comment by Eric Cartman on 6/22 @ 8:41 am # Aww, isn’t it cute, two fairy wingereds butt fuckin’ each other with their duck guns. Well, Darleenâ€™s a bitch she is a big fat bitch, she the biggest bitch in the whole wide world. Sheâ€™s a stupid bitch, if there ever was a bitch. Sheâ€™s a bitch to all the boys and girls. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 8:45 am # I’ve no idea what you are getting at Adriane; you are right to conjecture that I do not like having words or political arguments placed in my mouth by others, so do me that courtesy please. Abstracting from your line of questioning Adriane of a couple days ago, this is what I was answering “no” to: Can you imagine this [...] expanded to the Family of Man… No, I was saying, I can not imagine the non-existent “Family of Man”, without which the rest of the question is moot, sorry. We can talk about the Saud’s in another context, perhaps? As to dicentra’s conjecture that: It seems that sdferrâ€™s resistance to â€œvaluesâ€ originates in the strong religious connotation that implies that one adhere to a particular theology in order to arrive at what to value. I would say, no, actually, not so much, as thoughts of theology or thoughts of theological thinking aren’t the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the political problems arising in the context of values talk, though they aren’t the last either. I don’t get a “strong religious connotation” in the term values; which isn’t to take a position as to whether I should get a strong religious connotation (if I were better or differently educated, say). It is only to say, I don’t. A strong sociological connotation would be somewhat closer, I guess. The term falls into the field of “political science” in my mind, which, isn’t a place I admire all that much. I don’t have a resistance to values talk in general, even, when it comes up in the context in which it was born and in which it makes sense. I do and will continue to resist the ex-post application of values talk onto prior political thinkers, who were not thinking in terms of values talk, were not thinking about values, didn’t talk about values, didn’t search for values, didn’t puzzle over the 1001 values problem, etc etc. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/22 @ 9:06 am # I may be wrong, but I believe that Cartman is actually thor masquerading so as to make deleting his comments a harder task… Comment by Danger on 6/22 @ 9:13 am # “I may be wrong, but I believe that Cartman is actually thor masquerading so as to make deleting his comments a harder taskâ€¦” I think you are right Bob it fits his M.O. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 9:18 am # My problem is with the word “values” as opposed to “value”. “Value” is a personal judgment of worth. A thing that is attached to something and personally derived. It is only about the thing not the thing itself. “Values”, as used today, means to replace the thing with the personal judgment about the thing. It implies that the personal judgment is to be of universal application. It is a trap that brings “will to power” into play. The trap is that these judgments “values” are of personal origin. Once this is accepted, that the personal may be applied to all as a universal verity, then it becomes a power struggle and “will to power” becomes the deciding factor. Win the struggle and your “values” win, are best, because you won, not because they are better by being from “our creator”. The Left did this to language to make their way of thinking to be the way of all. Their way is that the one winning the power is the creator of all values for all. I need more coffee. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 9:24 am # geoffb, I think we continue to see the political struggle between natural right and history/values play out every day in the world before us. Take this piece by A. Klavan today for instance. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 9:36 am # A quote from sdferr’s link. My bold. “President Ronald Reagan’s response to the 1982 crackdown on the Polish union Solidarity by the Soviet Union: “The struggle in the world today for the hearts and minds of mankind is based on one simple question: Is man born to be free, or slave? In country after country, people have long known the answer to that question. We are free by divine right.“” Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 10:06 am # This piece by Fouad Ajami is also worth a read though I believe it gives Obama too much credit. He is/will be worse than Carter, by an order of magnitude if his will is allowed to prevail. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 10:19 am # geoffb, can you tell me what you think Adriane is getting at (– I could use the help of a fresh pov and trust yours in particular –)? I feel like I’m missing something. I haven’t felt as though I have any firm footing with a view toward understanding her stance vis a vis my criticism of Prager’s rhetoric and arguments and consequently don’t understand what it is she’s driving at? Comment by dicentra on 6/22 @ 10:23 am # I cleaned up his later stuff at your request. Thank you. I also cut the mold out of the cheese before cutting a slice for myself, as well. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 11:32 am # Blue Cheese? Kidding, I do understand the reference and yes mostly that mold needs cutting. Comment by ushie on 6/22 @ 12:23 pm # Henry James wished us all to be kind. No, it isn’t a liberal quality, nor is it conservative. It helps us to avoid exploiting or damaging others, which I believe was his central concern. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 12:39 pm # sdferr, That is a lot to go over and I am trying. I get hung on the, for me at least, fact of a distinction between several things that seem to be lumped or at least the smaller expanded beyond it’s limits. A mother has created the child. This creation and the child’s complete helplessness and dependence creates an obligation. One which goes beyond “civility”. It is the obligation to, in all ways, act in the best long term interests of that being which you have created. In the case cited that would have been to let the child be adopted by another who would love them. The relationship between parent and child is central to the continuation of society. As is the one between the parents themselves which we call by the name marriage. Marriage which is the thing created by them, between them. Which creates it’s own set of obligations and is a subject of much dispute lately. Our obligation to society is not one of a mother to a child. Our obligation to society in general does not extend beyond civility to others not of our “blood”, and then only if they extend the same. We are not obligated to destroy our children or marriage on the altar of society. We are not obligated to allow society or others to destroy us. In fact society is obligated to preserve and protect the individual. Tyranny is the turning of this obligation around by use of force. The “Family of Man” is a creation, a conglomeration, a fictional thing, going beyond even the collective of a society. A society of societies. As such the obligations of one society to another are of civility if that civility is returned. The obligation of an individual to such a conglomeration is nil, and optional only. I believe that you cannot by force make another to “love” you. That is something which comes from within a person and is not forced from without. The mother cannot be forced to love the child but does have the obligation to give her creation a world where the baby can be loved. A society cannot force another society to be free. Freedom can only come from the individuals in a society creating it for themselves. The obligation of a free society to one which is not free is to allow/encourage/create such a world that the individuals in the unfree society will create a free one themselves. Probably a ramble there. If more cogent thoughts occur I will express them. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 12:58 pm # Thanks much geoffb. As I’d hoped you’ve given me another angle from which to think about the questions I have. I’m going back to the Prager thing to listen once more and transcribe a bit to see if I can get a firmer handle on his argument as well. Comment by navtechie on 6/22 @ 2:36 pm # sorry I am late to the party. let me see if I can discern what Prager is saying: – being emotionally stressed and distressed does not give you carte blanche to inflict your pain on others. it would be akin to someone with ebola running around shoving their tongues down every person’s throat they see. No? You cannot easily avoid someone who is in a pissy mood and wishes to spread their “pissed off’ness”…it takes some effort, and in the meantime they have dropped their issues on you and spoiled your mood. It is a moral issue. It is wrong to -make- someone else feel bad just because you do. period. also…this giggletastic negation attempt of Prager’s message because he is divorced is pure comedy. As though somehow him having a divorce somehow makes the message any less true or valid. you chumps. that is a typical leftist cop-out..when you don’ agree with a message or it makes you uncomfortable, attack the messenger to justify your own shortcomings. but alas, it comes down to simple manners and politeness: two things that are sorely lacking today. The whole “fuck you, I do what I want” mentality is what has polluted this country for 3 decades now and we have Little Joe the II in office to prove it. bah! I am tired and fear a tangent coming on. toodles. Comment by Rusty on 6/22 @ 3:30 pm # I think ‘happiness’ meant something a little different in 1775 than it is taken to mean today. I think happiness then meant secure financially. To own land or a shop or a ship or a manufacture was a dream for most english immigrants. It was taken for granted then that freely aquiring and disposing of property was not only good for you, but a benefit to society at large. Colonial america under king george had restrictions on how property could be conveyed. For example. You may own the land, but the king owned all the timber that was suitable for ships rigging. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 3:32 pm # I’ve droned on too long on this topic already but drone away I will because ……….. Prager is an ass. That’s right, I said it. Ok. So much for the assertion part. (It’s a rhetorical technique we could “learn” from Dennis Prager at his “university”.) Happiness cannot be a moral obligation when and where another moral obligation conflicts with and overrides the “pretend” happiness Prager urges us to project. What? I said, Prager is an ass. Weren’t you listening? Here’s Prager: …you don’t inflict a bad mood on to anybody. That’s a different thing altogether. And we all have the capacity, and I can prove it. Ask someone who was just miserable to, let’s say, to his or her spouse and then somebody comes to the door, have you ever noticed how nicely they act to the stranger? How come? They just went from an awful mood, inflicting their terrible mood on a spouse and now a stranger has walked into the room and they’re very nice. Notice the sleight of hand at work here. “…just miserable to his or her spouse [...] inflicting their terrible mood on a spouse…”, he says. Well? So what? Didn’t the spouse deserve the imposed misery in spades for the wrong she had done? Huh, Prager? How come you don’t fill out the picture man? Does it upend your ridiculous thesis when you do? You bet it does. So, turning from justly going off on his miscreant spouse (she stole his $5,000.00 porn collection and surreptitiously threw it away, you know, Prager didn’t tell you that part) to answer at the door some unknown stranger who has done nothing to harm the “moody” spouse-hollerer, why would the spouse-hollerer have reason to holler at the stranger? He wouldn’t. And doesn’t. Because he’s a decent fellow. A nice man, as Prager likes to say. So Prager wants us not to unjustly impose on others. Duh. But treating others justly isn’t an injunction to “be happy”. Treating others justly may tend (tend!, that’s another of Prager’s favorite words, slippery little devil of a word, ain’t it?) to contribute to ones ultimate happiness but by no means will guarantee it. Evenso, you wouldn’t want to treat people unjustly, whether treating people justly made you more happy or not. ‘Cause it isn’t about being happy first, is it? It’s about doing right by people (and yourself). Yet the moral obligation the spouse-hollerer does have is to holler at his thieving wife, so she gets the picture not to steal his stuff. If he doesn’t forcefully communicate his ire to her, the next thing he’ll know she’s gonna be making off with his hash-pipe collection (valued at $20,000.00 US). Where will it end, the thieving? Mood and moodiness come on people for a purpose. They aren’t will-o-the-wisps, they aren’t a fanciful change of clothing donned like a Halloween costume to be traded out for another one; they are but one of our many means of communication, and pretty damned effective at that. Any “university” that requires this level of parsing to tease out the message from the rest of the trash being communicated isn’t a university worth attending. So, y’know, I’d recommend people should avoid Prager university, ’cause it’ll either waste your time or deepen your ignorance and you wouldn’t want to suffer either outcome. There, I said it. Comment by Ric Locke on 6/22 @ 3:50 pm # Bah, sdferr. I haven’t followed this whole thread, and I sure as Hell haven’t watched the Prager piece — the man’s an asshole, I fully agree. But what you’ve done here is file the serial numbers off the Sixties moonbattery — “Let it all hang out!” — and given it a fresh coat of paint. Jefferson, in the Declaration, talked about “…the pursuit of happiness.” Now pursuit, in his day, had not yet contracted to its modern meaning of simply “chase” — it was still used to describe an avocation, a hobby, while having “chase” as a primary meaning. The designers of the Trivial Pursuit game were using it in Jefferson’s sense. And I would say that yes, being habitually (and, possibly, deliberately despite provocation) “happy” — contented and pleased by life as it is — is something of a moral obligation. If you aren’t engaged in the pursuit of happiness you’re unlikely to catch it unless somebody else hands it to you, and that’s not a burden you should lay on others. That doesn’t mean you can’t be displeased or even angry in specific circumstances. But I know, and I’ll bet you do too, entirely too many people whose pursuit is the opposite of happiness, the perpetually aggrieved, the habitually irritated, dyspeptic, angry people. They harsh my mellow, man, and they ought to be preserving and enhancing their own mellow. Regards, Ric Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 3:53 pm # You assert upon me what I have not said, Locke. Go find my advocacy of “let it all hang out.” You won’t, because it isn’t there, save perhaps in your imagination. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 3:55 pm # “They arenâ€™t will-o-the-wisps, they arenâ€™t a fanciful change of clothing donned like a Halloween costume to be traded out for another one;” I would put a caveat that this applies to “normal” people. The sociopaths are well known to use the emotional play acting and the reactions of normal people confronted by an emotional person to gain the upper hand in a relationship. Comment by Ric Locke on 6/22 @ 4:00 pm # Mood and moodiness come on people for a purpose. They arenâ€™t will-o-the-wisps, they arenâ€™t a fanciful change of clothing donned like a Halloween costume to be traded out for another one; they are but one of our many means of communication, and pretty damned effective at that. New serial numbers, fresh paint, and a “New! Improved! 2009 Model!” placard on the same old heap. Regards, Ric Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 4:05 pm # One might ask, geoffb, where the moodiness Prager talks about comes from in the first place? Is is a function of upbringing only? Is it a function of an inborn natural condition? Is it a blended thing of both of these? Does it manifest differently in one group of people than in another? If there are differences, are those differences learned? Is scowling endemic to Belgians but not to Yanomama, for instance? Would a Yanomama recognize a scowl on the face of a grouchy Maori? Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 4:07 pm # You aren’t worth my efforts Locke, if you choose to read that for let it all hang out. Comment by B Moe on 6/22 @ 4:20 pm # This thread is making me really unhappy. Comment by Ric Locke on 6/22 @ 4:21 pm # Well, sdferr, I’ve got to bug out pretty quick, but it’s hard to see how you’re arguing anything else. “Mood and moodiness come on people for a purpose”, you say, and I don’t see where anyone’s disagreed with you about that; the question is what to do about it. If all that’s to be done is go with the mood of the moment, that’s precisely “letting it all hang out” — it is specifically what the originator of the phrase was advising. But it’s perfectly possible for us to modify our moods of the moment, by a combination of rational and seemingly irrational methods. “Whistle a happy tune.” “Let a smile be your umbrella on a rainy, rainy day.” It isn’t necessary for us to surrender ourselves to whatever our endocrine system cooks up in response to external events. I can’t whistle, but standing up straight and walking with (even simulated) confidence helps me, and I note that it can help others as well. And we live in civilization. “Civil” behavior — that which is obligatory, if we are to successfully live in large groups — is or should be incumbent upon all of us; and that’s really all I see of the “moral obligation”. Responding as prompted by our ductless glands, without trying to override our moods using rationality, is a sure prescription for uncivil behavior, and leads to the gradual breakdown of civilization. So the moral obligation is both internal (to help modify our own moods) and external (to cope with the madding crowds, and help them cope with us). Regards, Ric Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 4:26 pm # Maybe start by reading the thread Ric. I’ve stated plainly that I don’t advocate incivility. Look at 95, in context. What, by the way, was all that business in the very comment you cite? Why would I be talking about behaving justly, for instance, were I inclined to advocate no rational control? Why not simply be unjust to one’s glands content, if reason plays no part? Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 4:30 pm # Oh, and listen to Prager, please. Suffer along with the rest of us. You might find that he sees change of mood as only so much mouthwash and deodorant. Pingback by Steynian 366 « Free Canuckistan! on 6/22 @ 5:05 pm # [...] Happiness is a moral obligation [...] Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 6:13 pm # I understand the “embrace the suck” way of not letting the unintended and the unstoppable negatives happening in the world be a source of misery for yourself and those around you who have done nothing to cause them. The old sayings “Happy wife, happy life” and “Misery loves company” have truth in them. Civility should be the default relationship but you do not have to be, and have reason to not be, civil to those being uncivil to you. Tit for two tats is a stable solution. Or the “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is the result of enemy action” take on life. A smile may or may not turn away anger but it also rewards and enables that behavior to continue. Intended and stoppable bad behavior should not receive reward, punishment is the just reward and should be aimed at the correct target. If Prager is against emotional “spray and pray” then he has a point. One that I would agree with. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 7:28 pm # Heh, spray and pray geoffb? I hadn’t heard that one before. How about “Let yourselves go people, let it all hang out man, give reign to your glands, read Aristotle!”? Yeah, that’ll send ‘em careening into the aisles next Sunday morning when the pastor starts to get a teeny bit boring. Comment by geoffb on 6/22 @ 7:42 pm # That was not aimed in your direction sdferr. And I have never heard it before either but do not claim originality. I understood you, and your intent, at least I believe I have. I meant exactly that if Prager was against that particular thing then I would agree. I do not agree that we must always be or act as if being happy. Besides how do you know happy if you don’t experience it’s opposite? TV is calling as is my wife. Time to unwind a bit. Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 7:49 pm # One might ask, geoffb, where the moodiness Prager talks about comes from in the first place? I don’t know squat from Prager, but here is what I know about feelings. They are absolutely stupid, in that they are only responders. That’s why you can go to a movie, and feel sad, scared, or inspired by the story. You know you are just in a dark room watching a film, but you still feel angry at the bad guy for screwing up the heroines life. Or feel sad because the heroin died. Or feel scared ‘cuz of the spooky music and Psycho is going into the bathroom with that big asses knife. You feel, only by what you are thinking. Thinking dark depressing thoughts…”jeez this sucks, it’s cold and damp, I’m probably going to get sick, my job stinks and my co-workers are assholes, my wife ignores me too much, and my dog hates me. My kids are brats, and their friends are a pain in the ass, etc., etc..” Think along those lines all day, and you are going to be miserable SOB. Now, try taking the advice of Jesus, and count our blessings and give thanks for everything…”Man it’s cold, glad I have a car. And my health. My wife has been distant, I should pick up dinner tonight, she probably needs a night off since she’s been working so hard, good woman that she is. And the kids are going to their friends house, we will have some time alone. If I play my cards right, I could have an epic night!” Train yourself to be positive and optimistic, and you will be a much happier person. Give free reign and power to you feelings in and of themselves, and you have a country awash in people on anti-depressants. Yeah, you can pull a outlier, “what about if you’re a paraplegic orphan wrongfully arrested and in jail being ass raped by a gang of men with really big, ah…, feet? What then?! Huh? Huh?!” I don’t think that’s really the point. As usual, Ric got right to the point in #368. And it’s not pretending, it’s choosing. Sdferr, you got very frusterated by your choice in how you viewed this discussion. By taking the attitude that you have to convince everyone how right you are and wrong Prager is, you took responsibility for others opinions, and set yourself up to feel frusterated. By taking the attitude that you will argue your opinion, and let everyone else decide for themselves, you can take satisfaction no matter if anyone changes their mind or not, because you have a realistic perspective of what you control. So there it is, by changing your (speaking generically, not to anyone in particular) attitude to one that won’t set yourself up for failure, and making a conscience effort to keep your self-talk upbeat and positive, you will be a much happier person, and those around you will respond to you in a better way too, since few people enjoy hanging with a sourpuss, making your happiness even easier. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 7:50 pm # oh, I didn’t think you did (aim over here), just remarking on the madcap hilarity of it all. Rest easy in the unwind. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 8:01 pm # I’ve no idea why you would choose to make my arguments take on such a personal tincture lee? am not claiming that I am unhappy and by god I’m going to stay that way. I mean, that’s just stupid. I haven’t been frustrated by my “choice in how [I] viewed this discussion” at all. I have been frustrated at one point that I had not done enough (and I’m not sure I have yet done enough) to clarify Prager’s clouding of the serious question of “moral obligation”. I was frustrated at Darleen at another point in her insistent refusal to quit applying “values talk” to the political thought of the founders. Other than that, despite being frequently taken falsely to be espousing things I’ve never advocated (as you are doing here again) I think I’ve maintained a generally upbeat attitude on the whole. Oh, and it is pretending Prager advocates. He says as much. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 8:02 pm # I am not…… apologies for the typo. Comment by Bob Reed on 6/22 @ 8:22 pm # “Spray and Pray”… Descriptive term for trying to hit a target with a high rate of fire, high recoil, relatively innacurate, fully automatic weapon… Like tryin’ to hit a tennis ball at 50 meters with a MAC-10, caliber .45 acp, held at arms length like a pistol, with the selector on “full” auto… Youo might hit everything but your intended target… Cheers! Comment by serr8d on 6/22 @ 8:24 pm # Wow. This still goes on. The word is, act like a Gentleman. Or a Lady. Projection of a pleasant public visage no matter what sort of pressures one is under in one’s personal life is a virtue. Whether or not it is a moral obligation depends on whether or not one has personally acquired a basis of morality by which to measure one’s public projection(s). Children are naturally unpleasant; they learn quickly how to act, with the proper training. (Many adults today don’t have proper basis by which to measure their actions, and remain as children). In other words, if a person is low on morals, and that person for whatever reason fails to control (project) him or herself in public, you’ll probably find that that person was given substandard morals training. If your parents or preachers or teachers taught you well, then you’ll sublimate your inner dickheadedness and project as a pleasant person (and, surprise! your dickheadedness quotient will drop, and you’ll find it easier and easier to be happy and project pleasantly without having to pretend!). So many people today haven’t the basis to be nice. But there are many who do; it’s best to stay in their company. Birds of a feather, and all of that. For the rest? Well, finishing schools? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 8:33 pm # Iâ€™ve no idea why you would choose to make my arguments take on such a personal tincture lee? am not claiming that I am unhappy and by god Iâ€™m going to stay that way. I mean, thatâ€™s just stupid. I was just taking your feelings of frustration to make the point that feelings come from thoughts. I never made any remark as to weather you are happy or not. As for Darleens values talk, I think you are being willfully obtuse. I didn’t have any trouble understanding her premise that everyone has their own personal value set, and it influences their political thought. If you have trouble with someones word precision, perhaps you could apply context in an effort to communicate. Or not. Whatever makes you happy. Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 8:34 pm # whether, that would be… Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 8:37 pm # Obtuse lee? I haven’t shown any inability to understand Darleen’s take on values talk, at least not that I’m aware of. The problem arises when I point out that to understand the founders, it’s incumbent on us to drop our modern political baggage at the door and try hard to think as they thought, not forcing our terms on them. So how is that obtuse? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 8:46 pm # Because it’s not unreasonable to say “The founders valued individual liberty, free enterprise, and self determination, which values were key in their crafting of the Constitution.” To object on the grounds that the founders didn’t think of “values” in the same way we do today is to willfully circumvent the point. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 8:49 pm # Ha! That’s a good one, tell me another. lol! Comment by bh on 6/22 @ 8:54 pm # Brief essay on the origins of “the pursuit of happiness” with bonus points for it’s Nicomachean Ethics reference. If even the happiness itself isn’t our modern conception, isn’t sdferr’s interpretive approach quite reasonable? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 9:06 pm # OK, how about this. Regardless the founders understanding of the word “values”, they had an understanding of the concept, whatever signifier they used to describe it (the reason for Darleens rose is a rose quote you scoffed at), and their political philosophy was built around the concept we now describe as personal values. Just as everyone’s is. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 9:12 pm # Under the spell of lee’s circularity I guess, I’m reminded of the crazy circularity in Aristotles’s argument in Nich. Ethics on acquiring “right habits”. Where do right habits come from, we ask Ari.? Oh, they come from the right habits of your father who passed them on to you. Wha’, we reply? Where did he get them Ari.? From his father, says Ari. Hokey smokes Ari. we blurt out. Are you ever going to say where right habits come from? Well, says Ari., what’samattayou? I just did. No, lee, they didn’t have a conception of values fit to the modern conception. That was the point all along. Sorry. Maybe, you would want to go read up on the origin of values talk and get to the bottom of its meaning and use in modern political thought? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 9:25 pm # From bh’s link: Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of â€œthe pursuit of happiness,â€ they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure So, reading it that way, is Pragers contention that happiness is a moral obligation unreasonable? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 9:36 pm # Maybe, you would want to go read up on the origin of values talk and get to the bottom of its meaning and use in modern political thought? Talk about circularity. If you have trouble with someones word precision, perhaps you could apply context in an effort to communicate. Websters: valâ‹…ue â€‚â€‚/ËˆvÃ¦lyu/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [val-yoo] Show IPA noun, verb, -ued, -uâ‹…ing. â€“noun 1. relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess. 2. monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in value. 3. the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange. 4. equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.: to give value for value received. 5. estimated or assigned worth; valuation: a painting with a current value of $500,000. 6. denomination, as of a monetary issue or a postage stamp. 7. Mathematics. a. magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like: the value of an angle; the value of x; the value of a sum. b. a point in the range of a function; a point in the range corresponding to a given point in the domain of a function: The value of x 2 at 2 is 4. 8. import or meaning; force; significance: the value of a word. 9. liking or affection; favorable regard. 10. values, Sociology. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy. 11. Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself. 12. Fine Arts. a. degree of lightness or darkness in a color. b. the relation of light and shade in a painting, drawing, or the like. 13. Music. the relative length or duration of a tone signified by a note. 14. values, Mining. the marketable portions of an orebody. 15. Phonetics. a. quality. b. the phonetic equivalent of a letter, as the sound of a in hat, sang, etc. â€“verb (used with object) 16. to calculate or reckon the monetary value of; give a specified material or financial value to; assess; appraise: to value their assets. 17. to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance. 18. to regard or esteem highly: He values her friendship. Origin: 1275â€“1325; ME < OF, n. use of fem. ptp. (cf. valuta ) of valoir < L valÄ“re to be worth Synonyms: 1. utility. Value, worth imply intrinsic excellence or desirability. Value is that quality of anything which renders it desirable or useful: the value of sunlight or good books. Worth implies esp. spiritual qualities of mind and character, or moral excellence: Few knew her true worth. 3. cost, price. 18. prize. See appreciate. OK, I guess you get to pick which definition of the concept the founder were unaware of. Are there any they were aware of that would fit in with what Darleen and I are talking about, taken in context. You know, in the interests of communication… Comment by bh on 6/22 @ 9:37 pm # A couple sentences later, the author says, “The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to â€œsocial happiness.â€” The civic virtues (like “courage, moderation, and justice”)that compose what they meant by “the pursuit of happiness” would be the obligation, not the individual himself being happy. By my understanding anyways. I’ll admit, I’ve never before come across the idea of happiness as a moral obligation before. To be honest, the very notion itself strikes me as more equivalent to the 60’s “if it feels good, do it” than any counter argument put forth on this thread. YMMV. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 9:41 pm # bh, double bonus points to Miss Hamilton for conflating Lucretius, an outright hedonist par excellence with Soc., Plato and Aristotle, who, whatever differences they may have had on any number of other subjects, at least all agreed to be anti-hedonists together. Do you understand Prager’s bald statement “Happiness is a moral obligation” as a true statement lee? Or do you think it just a bit of hyperbole (to be presumed harmless in its way) along with Cowboy upthread? Sort of like the Schultzian “Happiness is a warm puppy”? Or do you think, along with me that, standing on its own, it is an outright falsehood? Bear in mind that I have insisted on a distinction between the “pursuit of happiness”, which Prager does not use in his title, (though he does mention it in the course of his talk as though it were the very same as happiness) with the idea of happiness as such. Comment by bh on 6/22 @ 9:42 pm # Okay, back to the TV. For what it’s worth, this is another thread that Darleen started that I found very interesting, even though I somewhat disagree. And, it’s gotten me to crack upon Aristotle, the Federalist Papers, etc. So, good stuff. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 9:44 pm # Have you read the thread lee? We, or I, cited Merriam-Webster’s definition upthread somewhere and we had a discussion about that there. bh provided a link to an earlier couple of threads, one by Darleen, the other in response to Darleen’s by Jeff which carried on at some length on the question of values and the terminology of Classical Liberalism. Comment by bh on 6/22 @ 9:45 pm # crack upon = crack open, above. Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 10:11 pm # Well, as I admitted up front, I’m not up to speed on Prager, and appearently even those who are say he’s a little hard to nail down on word definition. So for the purpose of this conversation, lets dismiss the warm puppy and view happiness as an intellectual attainment of peace with your lot in life. I think the moral obligation isn’t so much about it being immoral to feel unhappy, but rather it is immoral to act uncivil to others because you feel unhappy. Therefore, if you don’t feel happy, fake it to he extent you are not abusing others. So yes, for example, I think it is immoral to yell at your kids because your boss yelled at you. Much better to forget that for the moment, and later (or first), in an unemotional process, figure out what you need to do to achieve peace in the workplace. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 10:27 pm # Right. Right you are. Common sense is likely sufficient to instruct a man not to be unfair to someone who doesn’t deserve to be dumped on, just because the man might have a residual bad mood from an earlier incident in the day. But that is as simple, as I said above, as an injunction to do justly by others, no different than an injunction not to cheat people for instance. It shouldn’t amount to a charge to be happy in fact as a moral obligation, particularly when happiness is necessarily contingent on matters that may be entirely outside our control. It makes no sense to me to place an obligation on someone that they have no possibility of fulfilling, like a wife saying to her husband, “don’t get hit by a drunk driver and killed on your way back from the cleaners, dear, or you will be guilty of a moral failure towards me and the kids.” Of course the mere pursuit of happiness without any pending obligation to achieve it is a horse of another color. “Be good”, Prager could say and he’d get no argument from me. Be happy? Ridiculous. Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 10:28 pm # You might find that he sees change of mood as only so much mouthwash and deodorant. do you not really get it, or are you being deliberately dense about his analogy? Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 10:30 pm # when happiness is necessarily contingent on matters that may be entirely outside our control How we respond to external stimuli is almost always in our control and that is the nub of the difference here … What rules? Your head or your heart? Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 10:31 pm # He practically jumps to apologize for the analogy as soon as it comes out of his mouth Darleen. I think he understands that it’s a pile but he’s willing to use it anyway. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 10:34 pm # How we respond to external stimuli is almost always in our control That is plain silly. Think of a normal response were a gunshot to go off near someone where they are entirely unaware it’s going to happen. They quite naturally jump out of their skin. Control? Not so much. Comment by maggie katzen on 6/22 @ 10:55 pm # That is plain silly. um, she did say “almost always” Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 11:02 pm # yeah, I know. The point though is that an awful lot of stuff is built-in, hardwired so to speak. Comment by sdferr on 6/22 @ 11:07 pm # Besides maggie, as I’d pointed out upthread, what are we to say to the survivor of Sobibor? Hey, get over it. Look, you’re alive! Just think how much fun you’ll have hanging out with humans who don’t want to kill you at the drop of a hat. Oh, wait, you’re moving to Israel? Are you sure you wouldn’t rather go to Florida? Comment by lee on 6/22 @ 11:16 pm # happiness is necessarily contingent on matters that may be entirely outside our control Guess it depends on your definition of happiness. How do you define it Sdferr? I’ve told you mine, and it’s not dependent on anything outside my control. It only depends on my making peace with my circumstances. Having faith in a loving God is key. For example, do you think happiness is impossible for a paralyzed person in a wheelchair? Or a blind person? Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 11:35 pm # what are we to say to the survivor of Sobibor? Hey, get over it Where did I or anyone say that we dismiss or delegitimize someone’s justified pain? But emotional pain is like a physical wound … you treat it, you work to heal it, and you may always have a scar but it is then only a scar. Would you encourage or enable someone with a festering wound to keep picking at it and reinjuring it so they can continue to bleed in public and shove that wound in other people’s faces? You know the dial on the oven in your kitchen isn’t just on/off, it has DEGREES on it. You might like to learn there are a lot of settings between 0 and 500. Comment by Darleen on 6/22 @ 11:39 pm # He practically jumps to apologize for the analogy as soon as it comes out of his mouth Darleen. I think he understands that itâ€™s a pile but heâ€™s willing to use it anyway. God, I get it. Prager annoys the shit out of you. Here’s this religious Jew talking about icky stuff like civility and moral obligations and harshing your entitlement to be pissy in public cuz like its a FREE country and who is anyone to tell ME how to act out of accordance to my transitory FEELINGS. Comment by bh on 6/22 @ 11:50 pm # Darleen, there is a large difference between making the case for civility and saying there is a moral obligation to be happy. Towards the latter, what could be more subservient to emotion than saying there is a moral obligation to be happy? Happiness is an emotion, right? Comment by sdferr on 6/23 @ 8:29 am # I don’t know Dennis Prager at all Darleen, don’t listen to his radio show, I haven’t read any of his books and mostly have only encountered his thought here (I think I’ve heard him interviewed a couple of times, though I can’t say what the interviews were about). I don’t have anything against the man himself. His religion? I know next to nothing about and would grant him the same deference in that as I’d grant anyone else. His rhetoric, on the other hand, I’m not so keen on. His propensity to turn moral philosophy, a subject I take fairly seriously, into a patter of sloppy happytalk, I don’t like at all. The more serious the subject — and ethics is about as serious a subject as we humans can find — the more careful I think we ought to be in handling it. We should be able to expect as much from those who would presume to educate us in the subject. Being serious, by the way, doesn’t mean, in my opinion, the banishment of humor, but does demand care, precision, thoroughness, truthfulness and the like. That you would mistake my arguments and characterize them thus: …harshing your entitlement to be pissy in public cuz like its a FREE country and who is anyone to tell ME how to act out of accordance to my transitory FEELINGS. I do find somewhat surprising, to say the least. I have not argued for incivility. I have not argued for myself “personally”, that is, I have not argued for any personal “entitlement to be pissy in public cuz like its a free country and who is anyone to tell me how to act out of accordance to my transitory feelings.” I don’t believe that, I wouldn’t argue that, it makes no sense to me at all. In point of fact, as far as my own public behavior goes, I probably come as close to behaving in the manner Prager urges us to behave as it is possible to do, but that is neither here nor there. I have consistently argued against Prager’s titled proposition “Happiness is a moral obligation” for all the reasons that have been spelled out across the entire thread. Perhaps I’m wrong. I don’t think my arguments on that score have been shown to be incorrect, though no small number of people have spent more effort trying to impute other arguments to me that I have not made (as you have just done), than have made an effort to deal with the argument I have made, so perhaps I ought not assume that argument has carried the day against Prager just yet. That, however, wouldn’t be at all out of the ordinary in a discussion of moral obligation. Such discussions, at least in my experience, tend to go on interminably and without a fixed resolution, ending usually in rather more puzzlement than less, which, the way I see it, is a good thing. Comment by lee on 6/23 @ 5:40 pm # ? Happiness is an emotion, right? Bh, let me ask you. Do you consider yourself a happy person, generally speaking? Is your answer based on your emotions? See I think that’s the real lesson in what Prager is saying. Don’t be a slave to your emotions and feelings. Think life served you a steaming pile today? Well, grow up and take it like an adult. It could be a whole lot worse, and is for many people. Keep a stiff upper lip and try and rise above it. Don’t wallow in your misery and take as many down with you as possible, as way too many grown up children in our culture do. I think some here are trying to take this for more than it is. It ain’t a commandment, that failure to heed will brand you an immoral person. It is a ideal that if internalized, will not only help you treat others better on a consistent basis, it will be good for your own soul, and make you a more balanced, happy person. In this too, practice makes perfect. Comment by B Moe on 6/23 @ 5:47 pm # I haven’t read much of this thread, the reason being that in my mind happiness is far too vague a word and objective a concept to even try to discuss. Satisfied would be more something I could get my mind around. Being satisfied is what I strive for, and I try to be civil to those around me. I don’t see where happiness has much to do with anything, really. But honestly, if things aren’t going to my satisfaction I am not going to be very happy by any definition, I am not very good at pretending otherwise, and I don’t think that makes me immoral. Comment by Rusty on 6/23 @ 8:03 pm # #386 Thanks bh. That was helpful. It’s been awile so forgive me, but could this also be along the same lines a Boetheus’ greatest good? I’m trying to put it context here. Happiness being akin to sacrifice for the greater good.? Pingback by Obligatory wandering dick post [Darleen Click] on 6/24 @ 7:01 pm # [...] Power corrupts because of the temptations it offers. Sanford’s allowing himself to cheat on his wife is just another example of allowing feelings to excuse bad behavior as was previously debated. [...] Comment by bh on 6/24 @ 8:02 pm # lee, sorry I’m so late with this. For most of my adult life, happiness has been coming in second or third to working and the denial of pleasure. But, yeah, I’m a fairly content guy. I think that’s partially because I don’t expect life to be happy. Many times, it hasn’t been, but that doesn’t mean I’m not still doing the right thing. When my mom died, I had to become the legal guardian of my siblings. Not fun. Not happy. Neither was working two jobs to make it through school rather than drinking beer and chasing tail full time like my high school friends. I always thought that was part of being an adult, part of being a conservative, the way we’d forgo our own desires for others or a longer term plan. If it’s simply a matter of manners, yes, stiff upper lip, all of that good stuff. As a philosophy? Bunk. Rusty, I’m not sure, to be honest. Sdferr or GeoffB might be better schooled that way than myself. Comment by bh on 6/24 @ 8:04 pm # Rather than derail the thread above, I’ll say it here. I fault Sanford mainly because he thought his happiness was (a moral obligation?) more important than his responsibilities. Trackback by Free animal sex. on 6/28 @ 3:47 am # Animal sex stories…. Free animal sex pictures. Free animal sex stories. Animal sex mpegs. Animal having sex. Free animal sex mpegs. Free animal sex pics…. RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=15076 Leave a comment If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. Name (required) E-mail (required) URI Your Comment « We are all Alice [Darleen Click] \| Home \| NYT reporter escapes Taliban, is rescued by Pakistani army…(The Sanity Inspector) »
"...the funniest man in the world" Chaos Overlord, Chaos Central Search for: Subscribe Sign up to receive emails whenever Jeff feels like posting. PW Pub It's always Happy Hour at the pub! Buy stuff Tip Jar Recent comments geoffb on Liberal Academic determinism? sdferr on Liberal Academic determinism? bh on Liberal Academic determinism? dicentra on Liberal Academic determinism? dicentra on Liberal Academic determinism? Archives Greatest Hits a protein wisdom philosophy primer (8) academics (15) from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136) identity politics (17) in which celebraties comment on current events (80) language / intentionalism (46) legal (5) Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Fre (12) My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130) NSA / FISA (46) Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (38) Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (28) protein wisdom's DNC coverage (16) protein wisdom's RNC coverage (19) protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20) real-time empirical observations (57) red pills found behind the sofa cushions (52) Scenes from my driveway (72) Talking back to 80s music (49) The Martha Stewart Chronicles (131) The protein wisdom interviews (12) The protein wisdom original poems (131) Uncategorized (13723) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)		About Contact Login Subscribe \| Comments RSS