Not at all. Telgan is still around too. :) You just need to click on the respective nations to look. They even have exactly the same amount of endorsements. See?
Barbara Tuchman: A Distant Mirror. The Calamitous 14th Century. How did people in Western Europe experience their world, which included the Hundred Years' War, peasant uprisings, and the black plague? Advantages: Fluid and vivid writing. Poignant quotes. Drawbacks: Sometimes a little long-winded, which can lead to skipping some parts. Medievalist scholars disagree on some aspects, so usual caution about remaining sceptical applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_W._Tuchman
Mary Beard: Women & Power: A Manifesto We know that we learn the prejudice from our culture that feminity and power don't go together well. But how does it actually work? What are the stories our brains tell us? Should women adapt and change if they want to be taken seriously, or rather, should we change how we conceive power? Advantages: Witty and erudite. Drawbacks: A bit short for the price, therefore perhaps a case for the library rather than the bookshop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beard_(classicist)
Walpola Rahula: What the Buddha taught Sri Lankan Scholar writes a clear and succinct introduction. Advantages: non-authoritarian attitude. Reliance on a person's own responsibility, on their own experience what is wholesome and unwholesome, characterises the Buddhist attitude of mind. From the Buddha's discourses as recited in oral tradition and later written down. Drawbacks: It's a theoretical, not a practical introduction. A reader who wishes to learn to practice meditation will need some other work or instruction to complement the theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpola_Rahula_Thero
Nudist Dreamland is 13 years ago today. Good grief! How old does that make me?
The centre of Nudist Dreamland life is Tommy's bar. Anyone who drops by today gets a free milk and honey. Or since that's a good-life metaphor that doesn't actually taste very good, you can ask the barman or barmaid for whisky, champagne, whatever.
Cheers Rose. I have not watched a lot of Mary Beard's BBC stuff, but more than happy to give the book a go - sounds interesting. Bought and due to arrive today :).
I have just read Rutger Bregman's Human Kind: a hopeful history. Nice writing style and some (general audience wise) very well constructed arguments. Definitely worth a read on the argument to advance progressive ideals based on state of play of so called human nature from Hobbes and Rousseau. What made it come alive a little more was the examples and a very relaxed style. Is fairly new however, so the paperback isn't out quite yet and second-hand copies are hard to come by the now on-line which is worth the price drop comapred to new.
I’ve noticed we haven’t had a genuine philosophical debate (or any debate, for that matter), so I thought I’d ask a question:
What are your thoughts on sports and their players’ ridiculous wages? Or, in other words: do you think it’s fair that something as non-essential as a sport should be more profitable than more essential features of society, such as construction?
I honestly could not but help remind myself of the famous Marx quote:
...makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
No. It is not fair. But I think asking if it is fair is the wrong question to pose.
I have often thought that the salaries of star athletes and celebrities are out of whack, especially when compared to other professions (fire fighters, for example - people who put their lives at risk to help other people). But I agree with Telgan, "fair" isn't the right question. When I look at the long list of things that aren't fair in the world, this one barely registers.
The wandering elmo
Southern alberdale
What would be the correct question to ask, then? I am no philosopher.
That's a good question - perhaps you are more of a philosopher than you let on to be.
There is not one "correct" question to pose here - any question that allows us to look more deeply into an issue and learn more about the world we live in counts as "philosophical" in my book. For example, how would a just society compensate its citizens for different jobs? This allows exploration of what a just society is and how it functions. Or, if you have a more practical bent, how should a state ensure that essential services such as construction and health care are adequately supported and compensated while allowing its citizens freedom to pursue their interests? This sets up some parameters that may conflict with one another but each have value of their own.
In truth, your questions were fine and generated a discussion - the fault is within me. Anytime I see a question about fairness I immediately think that life is not fair and that questions of fairness open up so many more questions than they answer. Is it fair that Lebron James makes millions playing a game while a surgeon who literally saves lives day in and day out makes less money? Probably not. But why stop there? If we are talking about fairness and Lebron James, he might have something to say about fairness and living as a black person in the USA. And while we are at it, how many surgeons in the USA are black? It is interesting that 17 of the 20 wealthiest black Americans are athletes or entertainers. If this reflects that other avenues of wealth are relatively cut off for black Americans, is that fair? This is the rabbit hole that I go into when fairness is the focus.
But I am no philosopher either, so if any real philosophers want to jump in, please do!
Southern alberdale and Sometimes curious thinker
Xki emissary to philosophy 115
Can it not be said that athletes in major leagues have effectively seized the means of production, and through collective action, at least fought for their fair portion of the massive profits that their labour generates for their employers? I can't see how Marx could be opposed.
Well... What is it that professional athletes get paid for - really? How do consumers of goods generate income for athletes, their managers, the companies that sponsor them? When consumers watch games with ads, when consumers buy goods associated with an athlete via ads, what do these consumers pay for? Would you say that people in professional sports are part of the entertainment business? If a consumer is convinced the income is not adequate for the services rendered, what can such a consumer do? In light of this, what's your opinion on governments funding sports?
Also: Rest in peace, great actor Sean Connery - who, among many other roles, starred brilliantly as William of Baskerville in the 1986 film adaptation of The rose.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Name_of_rose_movieposter.jpg (Warning, wikipedia article contains spoilers!)
Latest Forum Threads