MARXIST CHRISTMAS

 

VICTORY TO THE GLOBAL PROLETARIAT

 For those interested in FIFA Word Cup football, the quarter final match between England and France was a ripper.

Here's Corey Mohler's take on it.

ENTITLEMENT

 

This caught my eye recently: 'Nepo babies'

Lily-Rose Depp doesn't think that she's a 'nepo baby'.

First, some quick background on the term 'nepo baby'. It's shorthand for a nepotism baby – speaking to the privilege of being the offspring of the wealthy, rich and famous elite. It's a term that has popped up in the mainstream recently and has been used specifically to refer to kids of celebrities – think Brooklyn Beckham, Kendall Jenner, Jaden and Willow Smith, Dakota Johnson, Nicola Peltz Beckham and Hailey Bieber.

        - Mama Mia 

When asked what she thinks about children of famous parents having had their successes handed to them Depp responded:

 "People are going to have preconceived ideas about you or how you got there, and I can definitely say that nothing is going to get you the part except for being right for the part. The internet cares a lot more about who your family is than the people who are casting you in things. Maybe you get your foot in the door, but you still just have your foot in the door. There's a lot of work that comes after that."

"It's weird to me to reduce somebody to the idea that they're only there because it's a generational thing," 

Yeah right. Lily-Rose Depp's in a bit of self denial there.

There are of course, children of famous people who have made great careers and have contributed significantly to society, aided by an initial 'foot-up' from mum and dad but the majority aren't, generally because they just aren't very bright or have  entitlement issues. Donald Trump's an example of a not very bright person who was kick-started into his 'career' by extremely wealthy parents. Maybe that's not a good example as this buffoon just seems to lose money all the time not unlike Elon Musk who inherited vast wealth and gets involved in grandiose schemes, not because he's super talented but more likely because he's super wealthy.

The aristocracy of the past that elevated their untalented, generally stupid and undeserving offspring to positions of power and influence has been replaced by dynasties of rich celebrities and politicos like the Kardashians, the Assads, the Putins, the Arab trillionaires and the Depp-like film stars. Social media allows this to happen and the originals - the film stars, the political bosses and the wealth creators in industry, IT and science - pass on their wealth and influence to indulged children who dilute the original platform and everything just gets dumbed down. Fresh ideas and creative individuals will find it harder and harder to breakthrough this layer of dross. The prognosis isn't great for the future.

GOD, GOD, GOD

 When I wrote a post titled GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS (no punctuation on purpose), Robert commented:

This christian (usually Catholic) response has become a default setting for him.

Given the context of this latest comment, in a post about lusting after women (girls back in the day), I wondered (Anonymous) if porn movies were on his mind. If they were here's a video clip for him to consider while he's doing his cleaning jobs:

GOD, GOD, GOD

GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS

 

I like Corey Mohler's cartoons and have subscribed to the webcomics website for weekly cartoons.

They are intelligent, educated and irreverent.

When we are younger (and maybe still do today) we adopted ideas, disciplines and studies for not only our own edification but for a bit of impress value as well. At university, I admit my signing up for Garth Carpenter's Astrology course had very little to do with any willingness to lean how to create star charts - it was all about girls.

Mohler nails it.

ETHICS ACCORDING TO ROBERT (AND SOME OTHER GUYS).

 

Robert the apathetic sanctimonious sinner and toilet cleaner, in his most recent post took a change of direction from his usual  minimally worded posts about his cat, his dog, his goldfish and his god and rambled on rather confusingly about, well, who knows what?

Given that his ramble ran to nearly a thousand words (like wot he wrote) I thought that a response and an attempt at interpretation is required.

The full ramble post (untitled) can be seen HERE but I'll save you from that by extracting a few of the statements and commenting on them.

ONE

Somethings are right and somethings are wrong. But what yardstick do we use to decide?"
Richard" will we be discussing
Applied ethics, Moral theory or
Meta ethics? Because I accept
Utilitarianism... maximize pleasure minimize suffering."
Peter (quips) "To minimize suffering then destroy the world."

OK, I'm already stumped and not just by the grammar. I don't think that I've ever heard Richard discuss applied ethics, moral theory or meta ethics before. I have been subjected to lectured bored stiff  schooled by him on his fingering techniques (musical instruments), his driving ability, grammar and his toileting practices though. I am interested in ethics, believing the broad concept to be more sensible than religion and basically what religions are about without the mystical and hysterical trappings that embellish them. When I was at university I was an avid reader of Harry Stein's column on ethics in Esquire magazine. Separating the topic into 'applied', 'meta' and moral theory' though is a bit of a wank. Applied just means not theoretical and meta is another term for moral judgement and moral judgement just means reasoning. Sure philosophers have padded out their treatises by this sort of artificial bullshit, obviously picked up on by Robert's bogus catholic apologists and regurgitated to him like a mother bird cramming half digested food down a fledglings gullet.

Utilitarianism is simply the outcomes of being ethical and frankly doesn't deserve such a big word which I'm surprised at Robert using (and spelling correctly).

Moving on.

TWO

Peter said " I believe in a natural law".

Robert "Natural law is a rational creatures participation in god's law."
Peter "Rubbish"
Richard "I agree with Peter".
The door opens and Trent Horn walks in. "Hi guys, hi Barb! You know that the Cosmological and moral arguments are my favourites C.S. Lewis is moral realism or moral facts and truths. Ought to do good., Give up seat.'.
Peter says "Rubbish it is all instinct"
Trent said " No Peter the moral law exists. It is not instinct. " Richard said "Need a song book to know which keys to hit eh."
"Exactly" replied Trent " Need something beyond instinct. Having the score to a Paganini caprice is one thing but playing the notes another"
Peter interjects saying "Rubbish, morality is just social norms. "
Trent replies "So the minority would always be wrong?"
Peter replies "It is natural to behave morally".
Trent: "Naturalism does not explain all the details of morality where as theism does."
Peter "Rubbish,Verses 20 71 of the catechism say. 'We can know morality without God.' I was an alter boy and I remember Fr Bliss saying just that"
Trent thought for a moment, then clearing his throat replied " Moral ontology needs god though.
We didn't invent morals we slowly discovered morality. Sometimes we try to explain away morals but god says just do it, do not commit adultery for instance. Even Cane had a sense of morality. Often we do understand but do not feel an impetous to do so. Given half a chance we try to weasal out of the ten commandments.

Whew! There's a lot to digest there even if it was already half digested by Robert's mother bird (The Holy Seagull?).

Natural Law - is really a kind of anarchy or a way that Christians try to justify the existence of a god. I believe in science and nature of course but won't be hoodwinked into believing that 'natural law' usurps social laws (legislation, laws of coexistence and society) so sorry Robert.

Moral realism is yet another made up construct like ethical realism and is basically common sense. we don't need religion to tell us what is right and what is wrong and we certainly don't need sexually ambiguous prats who are into flagellation like C.S. Lewis to lecture us on this let alone this Trent Horn nutter.

Moral ontology sounds a bit like the invasive procedure I underwent in hospital on Thursday.

What the hell is a 'weasal' and who is Barb?

THREE

Evolution is targeted for survival. Morality comprises actions that are praise worthy and blame worthy. Some overlap but survival truths can change where as moral truths do not. Survival truth might kill the weak. Moral truths cry out for another explanation beyond mere survival."

Here Richard interjected ."Sam Harris says morality helps humans flourish and has a natural origin. Science can explain morality."
Here Trent looks serious "Morality is not just hypothetical imperatives. God commands things because the divine will knows what is good. An action is not good just because god says it is but rather because god is good. God is the good and what he commands will be necessarily be good."

Right, now we know that Robert has mastered the act of copying and pasting.

Why does morality have to have a negative side? Nietzsche is nice to quote sometimes but you have to be careful because a lot of his work was misrepresented after his death to appeal to fascists and Nazis.

 Morality, like simple ethics should just boil down to: "is this the right thing to do?"

I kind of lost interest when Robert has this Horn character say stuff like "Morality is not just hypothetical imperatives. God commands things because the divine will knows what is good. An action is not good just because god says it is but rather because god is good. God is the good and what he commands will be necessarily be good." This is just rabid christian/catholic nonsense and makes a mockery of anything that Robert has said copied and pasted before.

This [post has been assisted by a glass of Louis Roederer Champagne that The Old Girl gave me - the first alcohol I've had for over a fortnight so it might have gone to me head.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

 Thanks TC (I think).

TC asked me to do a post on spelling since the blogging community members have slipped in this area, even old Mr pedantic the ex-schoolteacher.

I thought that I'd list the names of some philosophers which are a minefield for the incorrect speller,

Here goes:

• Albert Camus
• Immanuel Kant
• Martin Buber
  Thomas Aquinas
• Socrates
• Ludwig Wittgenstein
• Martha Nussbaum
• Sigmund Freud
• Baruch Spinoza
• Cometan
• Edmund Burke
• Emile Durkheim
• Epictitus
• Hildegard of Bingen
• Jeremy Bentham
• Thomas Khun
• Socrates
• John Hick
• John Locke
• Marcus Aurelius
• Sor Juana
• Max Scheler
• Michel Foucaut
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Rene Descartes

Ha ha. I hope that you got as fun out of that as I did.