Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

https://nyti.ms/2nR56CO

---

Nice link from the N Y Times Trish,thanks.

Here's a link to the Charlie Rose Show from 3-13-17 ,interview / discussion with N Y Times columnist David Brooks who I find exceptionally insightful yet compassionate regarding the Trump presidency as well as the philosophical underpinnings of our current mind set .
Regarding the "crisis of solidarity" plaguing our society he says that it is a sense of isolation that we all feel because our society followed the wrong philosophers : Rene Descartes rather than St. Augustine , Jeremy Bentham rather than Viktor Frankl and J G Milne rather than Martin Buber . That discussion begins at 29:50 in the clip.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30216

Correction , that should be :" John Stuart Mill ( not J G Milne) rather than Martin Buber" . Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I think if the story doesn't materialize into something by the time we have reached Trump's 100 days in office, then the both Democrats and the media to need to put the story on the back burner for awhile. Just until they can find concrete evidence that can't be refuted by even the most irrational Trump supporter.

---

I think you're right. I think the minority party does not have subpoena power for these investigations though I could be wrong. But if all the Democrats can do is complain and can't compel documents or testimony then we should wait. In the House it's obvious Nunes will do anything to stall and distract.

The FBI investigation that Comey confirmed is taking place proceeds regardless and we have to have some faith that something will materialize. There are some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, but there's also a lot of noise. If even a fraction of what has been alleged is true, then at least a few people who have been associated with the campaign will probably be in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Nice link from the N Y Times Trish,thanks.

Here's a link to the Charlie Rose Show from 3-13-17 ,interview / discussion with N Y Times columnist David Brooks who I find exceptionally insightful yet compassionate regarding the Trump presidency as well as the philosophical underpinnings of our current mind set .
Regarding the "crisis of solidarity" plaguing our society he says that it is a sense of isolation that we all feel because our society followed the wrong philosophers : Rene Descartes rather than St. Augustine , Jeremy Bentham rather than Viktor Frankl and J G Milne rather than Martin Buber . That discussion begins at 29:50 in the clip.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30216

---

Interesting clip, thanks. Not sure I agree with David’s perspective on the philosophers we chose to follow. For one, I’m not sure that as a group we chose to follow the philosophers he said we chose. did we really choose Descartes, the skeptic over Augustine, the man of faith? Did we really choose reason over emotion? Should we choose emotion over reason? Are David’s characterizations of these philosophies accurate?

I almost always read David’s weekly column in the NYT and I look forward to the spot he shares on PBS News Hour each Friday with Mark Shields. I usually find his point of view understandable, if sometimes over intellectualized.

Very true Trish , however I find the whole idea very compelling. That as a society and as individuals we have lost the capacity to come together , compromise and make Democracy work . And that this is due , in part , to the sense of isolation that has resulted from our egotistical viewpoint ( Descartes " I think therefore I am" ) and utilitarianism ( Bentham and Mill) rather than humanism and compassion ( Buber) and morality and ethics (St. Augustine).
Furthermore , I find it interesting hearing David Brooks , an American Jew and Republican, citing R R Reno a Christian philosopher and Reno's ' crisis of solidarity'.

Brooks' parents were Jewish intellectuals. He relates a funny story about how growing up he was told to "think Yiddish , act British " and that his grandparents gave their children British names like Milton , Norman and Sidney in order to fit in ,which are now considered Jewish names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._R._Reno
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...g-idea-society

In the Guardian article Brooks seems to be saying we rely on rationalism too much in policy decisions. The debate between rational v. intuitive thinking reminds me of the debate people have about nature and nurture, where they want one to clearly predominate. I have played enough games involving probability to know that intuition is indispensable, but if I had to choose between reason and intuition I would choose reason because when intuition goes wrong the errors are often systematic.

If you don't know explicitly why you've made a decision, it's difficult to calibrate the next decision when you make an error. This may be true even if one is less likely to make an error depending solely upon intuition. But thankfully it's not an either or question. Intuition operates best if the person using it starts with a certain base of knowledge...you can make a better intuitive decision once you've looked at all the data.

It sounds like an interesting book overall. I'd have to read it to know whether I agree with its thesis or not.

I do not believe the issue of reason vs intuition, or the issue of individuality vs community are issues of quantity.

Until we join the Borg, we ARE individuals (as Descartes showed, there is no way to avoid it) and we BELONG to and depend upon communities. That dependency gets us involved in questions about what we owe to each other. Religion, ethics, ideology and politics have evolved divergent approaches to these questions.

Reason has no desire or motive. It has no focus of it’s own. But it is indispensable when we are motivated to solve particularly complex problems. The ‘ah-ha’ moments in science are moments of intuition and exuberant creativity. Coming up with a hypothesis to be developed and tested is the work of intuition. Developing and testing those hypothesis is largely a work guided by reason.

What is dangerous about intuition is also what’s good about it: the hold it has on ego and imagination. When a hypothesis fails, has been tweaked and fails again - one has to be willing to give it up. This is difficult enough to do when the puzzle to be solved is one without a lot of political, religious or economic consequence. But when the puzzle involves governance, the urge to stick with your hypothesis come hell or high water can be insurmountable. There is way too much science denialism going around today, and it’s not because people are too reasonable. It might be argued that the GOP’s ideology is too individualistic, disposing them against imposing regulations on individuals like big oil and coal. I don’t really buy it - not only because big oil and coal aren’t persons: The real culprit here is the lure of high profits for those who have a lot to gain from relaxed governmental (read communal) interference and regulation.

i remember that town hall meeting where farmer john stole the nation's heart. with tears in his eyes he said "i want you to sell my private information".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/o...ders.html?_r=0

My thought for the day is that if Donald Trump is eventually impeached, and it's too early for me to tell if that will happen, it may actually improve confidence in the strength of our institutions to resist dangerous leaders, despite the increasing hyper-partisanship of both parties.

If Trump requested that the Russians hack the DNC then he should be removed from power. If it is the Justice Department that brings him down, it would do a lot to restore people's confidence in the efficacy of our system of government, if not the common sense of our electorate.

I have a feeling that enough people are entangled in this that if he did it we will find out about it. I have no idea what degree of complicity he has, and at first I was concerned about whether anyone would diligently investigate, but I am starting to believe it's being taken seriously. It will be an interesting six months to find out what shakes loose. As I'm sure some of you saw, it turns out that Flynn did ask for immunity. It's not clear what he wanted immunity for, but he was denied it. But there's much more we don't know, so we'll see.

Here's an amazing stat I came across recently. Since 1980 the share of US pre-tax income going to the top 1 per cent has increased from 11% to 20%, while the share going to the bottom 50% has fallen from 20% to 12%. http://voxeu.org/article/economic-gr...-two-countries

Given this it's not surprising that so many people are unhappy with the existing system. What I find hard to understand is why so many of them thought the answer was Trump - the classic 1 per center who was proposing big tax cuts for the rich.