Tridimity

Not an abstract concept if they are an integral part of your life and you of theirs; if you are involved in one another's lives and have a substantial degree of contact but that is not occurring in the context of a romantic relationship. It is possible to get to know people pretty well in this way, and especially if they do not realise that you are paying attention, because then they do not alter their behaviour according to the way in which they wish to be perceived. There is then no need for embellishment although I accept your point concerning the flaws which may not be immediately apparent and which would require the kind of interaction only possible in the context of a romantic relationship in order to be discovered. If you entirely accept your own flaws, would you really need or crave the approval of anybody else; would you still really desire the love of another, wouldn't you just be content with yourself and feel no compulsion to be accepted by another?

This is the part that doesn't seem to fit with reality as I see it. It seems to me that it is possible to be lacking in self-esteem and yet to also have loving feelings for another person with whom one is not in a relationship; to watch them from afar, in their interactions with other people, and to think that they are brilliant and to love them for it. In my experience, the appreciation of natural beauty, for example, the beauty of a rainbow or a waterfall, is not diminished any by a lack of self-esteem - so why should it be different for our appreciation of the beauty of humans?

I just realised how scary it must be to reject a marriage proposal from s1eep. "You said no! That means you love me, you love me!"

Thanks iNow, just read Sam Harris' article - the story about the parents who lied to their child as a prank for their own entertainment purposes is sickening. Of course we know that the child will get their candy back - but the child doesn't know this, and arguably, what the child is upset about is not so much the thought of losing candy as the realisation that their parents do not care about them or their feelings sufficiently as to treat them consistently. I often see variations on this theme of not fully respecting children's thoughts and emotions, mostly by parents in public places with their children, who think that it is sensible to threaten, blackmail or bribe their child into behaving in a way in which they want the child to behave. We would not accept these kinds of lies and disrespect of thoughts/feelings if they occurred in an adult-adult dynamic - we would typically label it as 'bullying' - why do people generally deem it more acceptable for a parent to do this to their own child? Assertiveness is the preferable option in all human relationships, regardless of age or any other demographic factor. Probably the best lesson that an adult can teach to a child is the correct reasons for believing in something, along the lines of Richard Dawkins' letter to his ten year old daughter on the 'Good and Bad Reasons for Believing': http://lucite.org/lucite/archive/atheism_-_dawkins_articles/richard%20dawkins%20-%20good%20and%20bad%20reasons%20for%20believing.doc.pdf This ought to be Life Lesson 101.

I guess that both of the above scenarios can be regarded as having as their basis the instinctive desire to propagate one's own genes. The former type of love confers a survival advantage while the latter is perhaps an inappropriate (in evolutionary terms) response to the scuppering of a biologically programmed plan to reproduce. The latter would confer a selective advantage if not for the over-reaction: which is perhaps the reason why evolution has conferred upon most people the psychological and emotional capacity to swiftly move on from rejection and to consider reproduction with a different partner, making oneself equally vulnerable to rejection and heartbreak, as if the first failure had never occurred. It seems that all types of love are at least partly selfish - even friendly love can be regarded as mutual support for the purposes of survival. How quickly we cease to love somebody once they no longer represent a viable reproduction or survival benefit!

As you say, the size of the defence budget does not necessarily correlate with mortality rate. However, the availability of funds may help to determine whether or not a nation goes to war: that decision will likely be made on the basis of a risk/benefit analysis - how pressing is the humanitarian question (for the more cynical/realistic, how much do we desire the other country's resources) versus how much are we putting our own nation in danger. If this assumption is correct, then cutting the defence budget to an equal extent (in real terms) across all nations ought to discourage engagement in unnecessary conflicts, or those for which the risks outweigh the benefits. If the departments for defence were left to their own devices, then yes, they probably would choose to cut any humanitarian aid before they cut military spending. Perhaps a multinational institution could be created, akin to the UN Security Council, that has the power to collect and store the funds re-allocated from the defence budget of each nation and to pay the nations their respective funds on a term basis for the purposes of furthering medical research. Any nations found to be involved in conflict without sound basis (i.e. under any circumstances except for the purpose of resolution of human rights abuses) then the nation would be held accountable by fellow member states and sanctions would be applied including confiscation of their funds.

Thanks CharonY, As will be apparent, I have zero background in Psychology. I too would deem that a neutral self-esteem - a realistic acceptance of one's own attributes and flaws - ought to suffice as a basis for building a healthy relationship with another person. The phrase is often used as a self-explanatory truism however I was unsure as to whether the 'loving' of oneself refers to a highly positive self-image or merely to a neutral self-acceptance - the latter seems closer to the mark. It still seems to me, though, that it is possible to have loving feelings for another person and to maintain some kind of romantic relationship with them, even if one has not yet reached self-acceptance. Perhaps it would represent for some people a kind of psychological and emotional break to quit self-hating for a while and to focus instead on loving somebody else - although this state of affairs may lead to co-dependency or to a one-sided dependency. I would think that it would be possible to have loving feelings for another person from afar, i.e. while not in a relationship with them, even when one's self-esteem is lacking. Perhaps I should look at the literature Tri

It is oft said that, in order to love others, one must first love oneself. What is the reasoning behind this assertion? I can appreciate the fact that, in order to accept the love of another person, we must first love our self - otherwise we are likely to disbelieve their positive comments about our self and to reject their love as we may feel that it is not deserved; that we do not deserve happiness. However, the assertion aforementioned implies that it is impossible to have loving feelings towards another person if we do not first love our self. I cannot think of satisfactory reasons as to why this may be - as far as I can tell, it is possible for a person to lack self-esteem or even to have an extremely negative self-image and yet to still be able to appreciate the qualities in another person to the extent of loving the other person. Have I simply misinterpreted the statement or are there reasons underpinning the statement which I have not thought of? Also, is a neutral self-esteem really insufficient - do we really need to love our self before we are able to love others?

There is something poetic about combatting war- and disease-mediated mortality simultaneously - and without necessarily increasing overall expenditure, just re-allocating the funds. Imagine if all of the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq invasion had instead been invested in medical research.

Like the US and Iraq? I wouldn't call that a war between countries with relatively similar forces. The point is to not make much difference to the outcome: the re-allocation of funds to medical research ought to have zero impact on military outcomes so as to assuage any nations who fear a re-allocation-induced relative disadvantage to their defence capabilities, when compared with other nations. As iNow has pointed out, a flat rate is not the way to go, because it may differentially impact on the defence capabilities of different countries.

Good point iNow. Hm, how about altering the initial proposal such that each nation makes an equal re-allocation from their defence to medical research budgets, equal in the truest sense of the term, rather than a flat rate which would, as you say, impact upon LEDCs more so than on MEDCs? This would, in practise, be extremely difficult to achieve, although the intentions of the OP are admirable.

That's right, John Cuthber. If all nations re-allocated an equal proportion of their defence budget to medical research, then no one nation would be at a disadvantage in terms of defence capability (they would all be on par with one another). All nations would stand to benefit from the increase in medical knowledge - that is the international nature of Science.

Nobody cares whether or not you believe in God - we just are not willing to passively tolerate the assertion that 'atheism is a religion' 'Science is ultimate truth', as a statement, does not make sense. Science is a way of thinking not a list of facts and any scientist worth their salt will readily admit that they cannot claim absolute truth. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, if there were a scientific perspective on God, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to confirm his existence, and so the scientific perspective would technically be Agnostic in the same sense as the scientific community are agnostic about Earthly life forms that use a non-DNA or RNA code for inheritance (only the latter is more likely than the former). It is not possible to defeat something which does not exist. When did character traits enter the discussion? It is futile to try to associate belief or non-belief in God with certain character traits - for example, some theists are (on the whole) kind while some are not; some atheists are (on the whole) kind while some are not. If this is intended as a tirade against Science - frankly nobody cares whether or not you agree with the scientific approach - but at least be consistent if you do not, start by turning off your PC.

You probably cannot have Evolution without it.

Well, I've been pointing out the heterogeneity problem for ages, at last it is getting some attention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24957089

So, Evolution will cease...

TAR, The flow of consciousness that has culminated in our individual consciousnesses has obviously, thus far, been uninterrupted through the generations. However, as a result of genetic and environmental differences, none of us think in exactly the same way as our parents thought or as our more distant ancestors thought. Each human is unique and so, while we may try to hold on to memories of how our parents and grandparents thought, we cannot accurately replicate their thought patterns - meaning that each human death represents the death of a unique consciousness. Perhaps, by that stage, our technology and knowledge of Neuroscience may have become sufficiently advanced that it would be possible to download software that feels, to all intents and purposes, akin to everyday phenomena. Some people do this already except the "test tube" is made of bricks and mortar and is paid for in monthly installments

Haha, reminds me of this from Drifters on E4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FVWozAnpo8 "I was wondering if I could have my old job back?" "I thought you said it was demoralising, underpaid and humiliating" "It is, and I would like to do it full time" Liberty, in its most absolute sense, is the freedom to do exactly as one pleases. I have often thought that the ideal of liberty is fallacious unless co-existing with the ideal of mutual responsibility - as iNow has highlighted, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." ~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. We have a mutual responsibility not to encroach on one another's freedoms, which perhaps means that in a sense we are never truly at liberty in the absolute sense of the term, so representing a paradox. Moreover, if it is happiness that one is ultimately seeking, I doubt that liberty alone is sufficient as a means of achieving this objective. A person may be free to flounder in absolute liberty and still fail to achieve happiness.

My previous job was in the Biomed sector, I am 100% with you on this, but acceptance of the inevitability of death - kind of a mental preparedness for when it eventually happens - and extension of longevity via biomedical progress are not mutually exclusive options. One can dedicate one's life to combating mortality and still retain a calm intellectual acknowledgement that, one day, this life will come to an end. To deny the truth or to emotionally kick and scream will do nothing to reverse the inevitable loss of biological order and therefore seems counterproductive.

It's refreshing to meet a fellow fan of Prof. Cox - over at a Forum I used to frequent, a number of the members were critical of him, I think because they were jealous of his youthful nature. I still don't understand all of the Science featured, although that is of course the result of the limitations of my own mental capacity, and not of Cox's delivery of the Science. Time to watch it again, I think, and hope that more sinks in.

Icona Pop - I Love It http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp7DC8yS6_c

Just to share the following lecture on space and time as presented for laymen by Prof. Brian Cox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO2YovSZEyA

Currently re-reading Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain

I was replying directly to posts directed to me - mostly by Villain The topic of my posts is also in line with the OP - the thread title is, 'Are atheists religious?' It has been argued that atheists are religious because they take an active position on the matter of the existence of God. I outlined the reasons why atheists become involved in the God question - and so why the argument that 'atheists are religious because they are involved in the God question' is fallacious. You will notice that this directly relates to the thread title.