The Philosophy Thread

Lake Onondaga, near Syracuse, New York, went though the same ordeal that Lake Erie did, being a dumping ground for various factories. My dad used to sail his canoe there back in the 1930s, but it became too toxic for any contact with the water. I hear that it's recovered to the point where fishing is allowed again, but I don't know if it's safe for swimming now. The Onondaga Nation has been battling the state for years for jurisdiction of the lake, which the Haudenosaunee nations have always considered sacred.
 
The Onondaga Nation has been battling the state for years for jurisdiction of the lake, which the Haudenosaunee nations have always considered sacred.

Yes, I've done a bit of reading on it, and Indigenous peoples definitely look upon nature as sacred. All things contain spirits, and humans are just one element in a vast, interconnected existence. We're in nature, not above it.

Indigenous peoples have very different philosophies at heart than does the western European tradition. Chief amoung the differences is the European philosophy centering on "accumulation" while the Indigenous philosophy centers on "only what I need right now." You can see how these differing philosophies led to different views on how nature should be used (and abused).

A fascinating book I read is HISTORY, MANNERS, AND CUSTOMS OF THE INDIAN NATIONS WHO ONCE INHABITED PENNSYLVANIA AND THE NEIGHBOURING STATES - published in 1819 - it was written by the Rev. John Heckewelder - who spent many years living amoung he Indigenous people.

In the book, he recounts an anecdote that calls to mind the Natives' collectivist philosophy:

Some travelling Indians having in the year 1777, put their horses over night to pasture in my little meadow, at Gnadenhütten on the Muskingum, I called on them in the morning to learn why they had done so. I endeavoured to make them sensible of the injury they had done me, especially as I intended to mow the meadow in a day or two. Having finished my complaint, one of them replied: “My friend, it seems you lay claim to the grass my horses have eaten, because you had enclosed it with a fence: now tell me, who caused the grass to grow? Can you make the grass grow? I think not, and no body can except the great Mannitto. He it is who causes it to grow both for my horses and for yours! See, friend! the grass which grows out of the earth is common to all; the game in the woods is common to all. Say, did you never eat venison and bear’s meat?—‘Yes, very often.’—Well, and did you ever hear me or any other Indian complain about that? No; then be not disturbed at my horses having eaten only once, of what you call your grass, though the grass my horses did eat, in like manner as the meat you did eat, was given to the Indians by the Great Spirit. Besides, if you will but consider, you will find that my horses did not eat all your grass. For friendship’s sake, however, I shall never put my horses in your meadow again.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
I wasn't sure where to put this, but decided on the Philosophy thread, to see if we can make any sense out of this.

You may have seen the footage that is going viral online. A massive brawl on ice between two under-8 mixed hockey teams.

See the goalie come in and throw herself on the pile - that's right, the goalie is a girl.

Does this brawl say anything significant about the state of - anything?

 
Last edited:
I wasn't sure were to put this, but decided on the Philosophy thread, to see if we can make any sense out of this.

You may have seen the footage that is going viral online. A massive brawl on ice between two under-8 mixed hockey teams.

See the goalie come in and throw herself on the pile - that's right, the goalie is a girl.

Does this brawl say anything significant about the state of - anything?

Haha. One of the kids in blue nailed two of his own teammates.
 
Haha. One of the kids in blue nailed two of his own teammates.

I really thought I had seen a lot, but this one took my by surprise.

Where were the coaches? Where were the officials?
 
Not with 8 year olds. From what I understand, when the kids in my family played hockey, no fights were ever allowed.
Yeah, I'm partly having a poke at ice hockey. But only partly. I understand that the fights are a major part of the game. They could be eradicated, stiff penalties and bans for that kind of behaviour but the paying public and the athletes don't want it cut out of the game because, in important respects, it is the game. Put ice hockey into the search bar on Youtube and I expect there will be a plethora of best fights, insane hits, brutal brutishness. It's certainly there when I search rugby.

Kids mimic adults, especially ones they look up to, and with the internet can search and adore all those fisticuffs that your siblings didn't see unless they went to a game. Over and over again.

8-year-olds is a bit shocking, though.

I recall hearing parents shout "give him timber" from the hurling sidelines when my son was very young and I really didn't want to see anyone giving him timber. The culture for that kind of attitude is the responsibility of the parents and the coaches, extending to the governing bodies who can do something about it. Unless they think it's part of the game.

I was going to post D'unbelievables doing the hurling coach but it might not translate. It's funny because it's not a massive exaggeration. Oh, to hell with it, here it is.
 
I've only ever seen ice-hockey once before, and a fight broke out. Now I see it again ... and a fight breaks out. :-\ Yeah, seeing it breaking out between under-eights is a bit much. But they only imitate the adults. Monkey see, monkey do.

As for this guy ...


Jaysus! I could only understand about a third of what he was saying, but never mind. "Hit him again he's no relation!" :ROFLMAO:

"I don't want to see you coming back here with dirty jerseys, I want to see you back here with bloodstained jerseys! Now go out there and enjy yerselves!"

That coach sounds insane ... and probably at least half-drunk.
 
I went to one hockey game in Ottawa. I'd never seen anything as intimidating in a sports arena as the entire team getting replaced en masse and the newcomers going straight for their opposite number to quieten them down. Possibly surpassed by the introduction of the Bomb Squad in South African rugby.
That coach sounds insane ... and probably at least half-drunk.
The thing about that sketch is that its strangeness might attract a distant audience, its familiarity is what works for Irish viewers. I don't think the delivery is so much exaggeration as concentration, a bit like Atwood's claim that everything in A Handmaid's Tale is based on actual practices in history, just they didn't all happen at the same time.

Insanity yes but most coaches in Gaelic games are in between bouts of drunkeness when speaking to the Under 12's during the County Final. It's the County Final!

Back on track with the original post, and this being the Philosophy Thread, that row on the video went on a lot longer and deeper than should have been allowed. My guess is the adults in charge didn't see much wrong with it. Truly, the only metric of success worth mentioning with Under 8 sports is how many show up for Under 9's.
 
Here's a philosophical argument (albeit, possibly, a facetious one) that involves a pair of syllogisms ... but it requires a very brief introduction.

On my way to the train station this morning, I saw a man holding up a sign that said "God Loves You. God is Love." *shrug* Fine. No harm in that. Certainly better than the alternative.

But it inspired me to ask this pair of syllogisms:

Premise 1. God is Love.
Premise 2. Love is Blind.
Conclusion 1. Therefore ... God is blind?

And if we accept this conclusion, it prompts the second syllogism:

Premise 3. God is blind.
Premise 4. Lionel Richie is blind.
Conclusion 2. Therefore ... Lionel Richie is a god? *shrug*

With a certain generosity of spirit, we might say certain Lionel Richie fans view him as a deity (though not because of his blindness). But if we accept that, then we can go a step further and ask: is there a relationship between ocular prowess and spirituality (not to mention divinity)?

After all, some religions certainly appear to think so. There is a school of thought that says that by losing our sight, we acquire a "second sight", or a window into otherworldly matters. Be that as it may, when some people go blind, their other senses become more acute to compensate. (This isn't magic, but neuroplasticity -- i.e. the brain rewires itself, reallocating visual processing areas to enhance hearing, touch, and smell, leading to more efficient use and heightened awareness of details. Thus, it creates the perception of heightened senses as they rely on these skills for navigation and daily tasks, a process that can be trained

Coming back to folklore and religion, some gods are normally depicted as blind or half-blind. The Norse Höðr (who unknowingly killed his brother Baldr) and the Greek concept of Themis, goddess of justice (often blindfolded) are two cases. Notably, the Norse god Óðinn (Odin) sacrificed an eye for wisdom.

If we ignore gods and turn to kings, we find even more parallels:
- The Hindu king Dhritarashtra's blindness influences his tragic story, a common archetype for flawed rulers.
- The mythological Greek king Oedipus blinds himself in horror of his misdeeds, thus gaining wisdom.
- In Shakespeare's King Lear, both Lear and his ally Gloucester gain wisdom -- Lear through his madness, and Gloucester through his blindness.

It's possible to find an much more recent example: Logically, Clark Kent shouldn't be able to see without his glasses. But he only becomes Superman when he takes them off.

So, is there any validity at all to this hypothesis? Let's discuss! :)
 
is there any validity at all to this hypothesis?

Interesting, but I'm not quite sure what the hypothesis is.

Would you please state it in this form -

If (that is true), then (this is true) - telling us what you expect the cause (that) and effect (this) are
 
Sometimes reasoning takes you down strange paths. On their radio show "Car Talk," the Magliozzi brothers shared this wisdom, which I may have shared before on this forum:

power=work/time
knowledge=power

Therefore,
knowledge=work/time

time=money

Therefore,
knowledge=work/money

or

money=work/knowledge

As knowledge approaches zero, money approaches infinity.

In other words, the less you know, the richer you are.
 
Interesting, but I'm not quite sure what the hypothesis is.

Would you please state it in this form -

If (that is true), then (this is true) - telling us what you expect the cause (that) and effect (this) are

I'm thinking about the supposed relationship between ocular prowess and spirituality or divinity. That is to say:

- If being blind makes an entity (a person, a thing, a concept like "God") more "spiritual" (however spirituality is defined) and/or even divine ...
- Then does losing one's sight, in whatever shape or form, confer said spirituality/divinity?

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, the examples above sound convincing. On the other, I've met several blind people who weren't spiritual in the least.

Personally speaking:
- I'm partially-sighted (I've been wearing glasses all my life), and noticed my eyesight getting worse as I age.
- I also know that I've done a lot of thinking about religion and spirituality over the years.
- On the other hand, I'm not a god, or even a demi-god. ;)

So maybe the solution can be found through logic: the loss of eyesight usually occurs with age, and with age usually comes wisdom (perhaps spiritual), etc. Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion?
 
@Rath Darkblade - I think I understand what you are alluding to - does visual blindness give a person greater spiritual vision?

I imagine for some, it does, just like anyone else dealing with an extra layer of challenge in having to navigate this world.

Maybe it makes one more reflective.
 
Is past and future as real as the present?
 
Presentism if the philosophical view that only present things exist … that only the present is real.

It’s contrasted with eternalism (past, present and future things exist).

Two different theories about how to answer the question, “What is there?”

But if presentism is the answer, how do we explain dinosaurs, memories and progress?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
Back
Top