Is Russia pretty liberated from their horrendous 20th Century experience, or are they still scarred? — frank

Among the people I know and their parents, there's a lot of nostalgia and affection for Soviet times, but WW2 still leaves scars, because most families lost a few members.

But the most immediately painful scars are from the 1990s. Nobody wants to go back to that, and that's partly why Putin has been popular. Pro- and anti-Putin often agree that he did what had to be done in his first years in power. Anti-Putin people differ now in thinking, come on, that's enough, time to go.

I have never seen it referenced by either side of the debate — David Cleo

Darkness is briefly mentioned in the colour entry on the IEP when discussing dispositionalism. It seems to suggest that unlike naive colour realism (primitivism or non-reductive realism), dispositionalism better deals with darkness.

Maybe like this: the apple is red but I just can't see it.

There are spies everywhere, I assure you

Kinda makes sense.

By the way comrades, we currently have $144 USD in our PayPal account, and that's after the monthly $49.99 came out on Nov 1st. So we're doing all right, so long as PlushForums don't bump us up to the higher rate--which I actually expected long before now.

Sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed. It's much appreciated, because let's face it, who wants to see ads in this haven of sanity--er, you know what I mean.

The money just sits there and covers the monthly hosting cost and some other hosting-related stuff. (Except for the funds that I funnel down to the Donbass People's Militia, of course)

hotheaded, ginger, Dutch firebrand @Benkei — The Opposite

I really lolled

:cool:

On the other hand, I could interpret you as saying that the parallel case is true, namely that Putin is both corrupt--the top silovarch who has used his power to become mega-rich--and dedicated to the security, stability, and prosperity of his country, as he sees it.

Sounds about right. Unless you've read back over the past couple of pages, it's unlikely you did mean that, but it's a good angle nonetheless. And it's actually implied in what I wrote: "makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist", and "the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself".

Oy vey

Talking to these cold warriors is like this:

silly person: Hitler invaded Poland and the Soviet Union so he could kill more Jews and steal their gold!
jamalrob: That is a misrepresentation of the Nazi project, and it makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist. His invasion was a form of colonialism based on the principle of Lebensraum, or "living space" for the German people. With the Nazis, this principle, which went back to the late nineteenth century, took on a more virulent form, combined as it was with the notion of the Aryan master race and the assumed inferiority of the Slavic and Jewish peoples. Hitler's territorial expansion Eastwards, and the extreme measures considered necessary to ensure its success, were thus based on and justified by the racialist dehumanization of the local populations. So killing the Jews, rather than the Nazis' central aim, was merely a means to the end of German and Aryan hegemony.
silly person: Hitler apologist!

Yes. Many Russians repeat Putin's half-truth that he reasserted state control over the oligarchs and took back the country's assets, but of course, the relationship is not so simple. As you suggest, it's more like the Tsar with the boyars in medieval times: the oligarchs are still around.

You list some truths, but your comments about Russia's "imperialistic ambitions" and defence spending don't fit my understanding at all, and your last sentence is just silly. So you've nailed your colours to the mast. Well, okay, but that's not what this discussion is for.

How would you characterize him and his — tim wood

Putin is a ruthless authoritarian who (1) sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries (this is not necessarily a recommendation, but it's far from mere gangsterism), (2) is genuinely popular, because (2i) he brought stability, security, and some economic improvement following the traumatic disaster of shock therapy in the nineties, and (2ii) he prevented the breakup of Russia by making an example of Chechnya.

What was cartoonish, or wrong or mistaken, in Hippyhead's post that you refer to? — tim wood

Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think.

To be fair, I hear it from Russians as well sometimes. I disagree with them too.

I guess the analogy wasn’t clear enough then, because the point of it was that we can (and should) intervene just enough to find out if our help is welcome by the people we think are in need, even without it being explicitly called for. If the apparent victims want us to butt out, we should. We shouldn’t just assume that they want us to, and go headlong into attacking their apparent enemies. — Pfhorrest

Right, fair enough. I thought the analogy was designed just to show that reality is messier than we can know from the outside, and that your own intervention was misjudged, but yes, that makes sense. But crucially, you did intervene, and in the case of humanitarian intervention it may be impossible to draw a line between tentative and full-on intervention (in the analogy, the man attacks you just for butting in where you're not welcome, you defend yourself, etc). And taking your analogy further, the woman may have been too fearful of the man's reprisals to admit that she needed help.

I once saw a man and a woman fighting (physically) in a public place, and out of concern for the woman I stepped in to ask her if she was okay or needed help. They both stopped fighting and explained that it was play fighting and she said she was fine and didn’t need any help, in a believable manner. I’m glad I didn’t just assume she needed my help and wade in punching the guy. — Pfhorrest

The same thing happened to me. I was bitter about the experience.

I hope this analogy is clear — Pfhorrest

Yes, in fact it's a nicely concise way of saying what Marchesk and I subsequently said, about the messy and disastrous realities of intervention.

But obviously I was looking for a clear-cut case: wouldn't you agree that there are cases that are clear-cut enough for pacifism to be morally reprehensible, even without an explicit call for help?

:up:

Great stuff. I'll chew on it.

This also raises issues of why countries like the US or the EU get to intervene. Does that mean China and Russia do as well? — Marchesk

This is an excellent point. In terms of global authority, and even moral authority, the US doesn't have it all its own way, certainly not these days. Among the most powerful countries, each has different interests and priorities, and intervenes in different places supporting different sides. Who has the moral high ground?

One reason I'm more inclined to agree with you, @Pfhorrest, @Daniel, @Coben and others here, against Paul Edwards, is precisely the situation that the question, "who has the moral high ground?" reflects, namely, one in which great powers are competing internationally for influence and authority, and internally for domestic approval. Simply put, I cannot trust the USA to do the right thing, or to attempt to do the right thing carefully. Their meddling overseas has been reckless and destructive, and often makes the world a more dangerous place, even if it is well-meaning. As it happens, I think it is sometimes well-meaning on the part of many of its proponents, and yet also founded on an ignorance about other parts of the world; but just as much, or even more, is it about building up their international stature, spreading their influence, undermining their competing great powers via proxy conflicts, bolstering their public approval back home, and so on. This means that welfare, peace, and justice for ordinary people are not as such the highest priorities. (Much of this can apply to China and Russia too)

By the way, that's part of my answer to my own question above:

A strong man ought to help a frail old lady who is being beaten by someone younger and stronger than she is, even if she is not asking for help. The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening? — jamalrob

The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening? — jamalrob

Shouldn't the cost of intervening be factored in? A country like the US is often in a position to interfere, but then what are the consequences? You get embroiled in someone else's civil war? Then it turns into another nation building exercise with troops still stationed there a decade later? — Marchesk

Okay, so one answer to my question is that unlike the analogy, the possible costs often outweigh the moral imperative--costs in terms of, say, peace and stability, and in humanitarian terms. Would you want to generalize this to say that US involvement always makes things worse? Or would you say that it's fine under certain conditions? What would those be?

Nothing gives a government or group of people the moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country other than a direct attack or a genuine call for help. — Daniel

I’m almost a complete pacifist, and even I’ll say it’s fine to go help someone else under attack if they want it, and they’re in the right in that conflict, and we can afford to stick our necks out for them. — Pfhorrest

But this is difficult to swallow. For both of you, apparently, silent genocide victims ought to be ignored even by countries in a position to help. Aside from the sometime legality of humanitarian intervention under the aegis of the United Nations and international law, moral intuition tells us that innocent victims ought to be helped even if they don't ask for help. A strong man ought to help a frail old lady who is being beaten by someone younger and stronger than she is, even if she is not asking for help. The situation with humanitarian intervention is significantly different from that analogy, but exactly how is it different, and what are the consequences of that difference for the moral rightness or wrongness of intervening?

I am not arguing for @Paul Edwards's position, and I am not saying you are both wrong, but I don't feel that his challenges have been fully met.

@Benkei What's your view?

Yes, good point. In fact, I was just thinking that I'm not quite clear on what the "liberal" in liberal imperialism and liberal intervention actually means.

We should use language which makes the distinction between the two clear. — Hippyhead

It's good that you want to be careful with your language, so I applaud you for that. But the language you use when you're trying to use language carefully, as in this last post of yours, is not much better. You have a cartoonish view of the Russian state.

I honestly think the focus on Russia has largely been played for the domestic audience: It's Russia which 'explains Trump', and not the fact that the democratic party is a hollow waste of space that no one cares for if it wasn't for the even larger unmitigated disaster that is Trump. Also Trump is friendly to Big Bad Russian Tyrant, and Democrats are not, so please vote for us. That's not the whole story of course - Russian support for Iran no doubt plays into it, especially if the neocons are trying to weasel their way into democratic FP decision making. The animosity to Russia makes very little strategic sense for me otherwise. Any clues? — StreetlightX

That's what I was thinking, but I think there's more to it. I think that Biden sincerely believes in doing everything he can to undermine Russian influence and power, partly to enhance American legitimacy and moral authority, but partly because he has delusions that the Russian people want American help. If we look at Biden's track record and that of the Obama/Clinton administration that he was a part of (Ukraine 2013/2014), his currently stated position on Russia is totally consistent with that, in which case he might be seeking to continue and intensify the cold war against Russia.

I just realized I may have to clarify something for suspicious readers: my criticism of liberal imperialism here is not in any way connected with the criticisms of liberalism that have occasionally been heard from the Russian government and leadership over the past few years, and my opposition to American cold warriors should not be seen as support for authoritarian rule.

Hm, I must be paranoid about being seen as a Putin apologist.

As our reward we now get to enjoy some (certainly not all) snooty Europeans lecturing us about what baby killing war mongers we are pretty much any time we try to liberate from bondage any one else in the world. — Hippyhead

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but note that the authors of the article that prompted the discussion and that I linked to and briefly wrote about in the OP, are American, and they don't mention the killing of babies.

My instinctive position on the matter is probably obvious from the OP, but it's partly just that: instinctive. I'm open to other views. I was looking for some serious analysis from people who know more than me.

Paul Edwards makes the case for aggressive military action to overthrow despots.

In that thread I applaud the clarity of his moral vision, while debating some of his suggested tactics. Personally, that seems a constructive way to proceed on such topics. — Hippyhead

I've read that discussion. To me it's a very unattractive, rather deluded and unhinged vision.

BUSH: Would you like to see Saddam back in power?

OBAMA: Would you like to see Al-Qaeda restored to it's former glory?

TRUMP: Bring back the Islamic State? — Hippyhead

Not for me thanks. Aside from the crucial fact that at least one of these achievements has been won at great cost to the people in the region, and aside from the prior role of the US in maintaining Saddam in power, in the growth of al-Qaeda, and in opening a space for the growth of ISIS by invading Iraq and then allowing the country's disintegration--aside from all of that, the US has done some good things, but it still doesn't follow that US liberal interventionism is, currently, a wise way forward that will make things better on the whole. By "liberal interventionism" I'm referring to efforts ostensibly to spread democracy or help suffering populations by means of interference in sovereign states: meddling in elections, imposing sanctions and other economic punishments, sponsoring opposition groups, regime change by direct military force, and so on. Arguably, destroying al-Qaeda and ISIS on its own doesn't commit you to the full liberal interventionist program.

Good points, especially about Iran, which is where Biden obviously doesn't fit with the neocons. What led me to this stuff in the first place was my narrow focus on Biden's aggressive attitude to Russia.

They wish to wipe the Iranian REGIME off the face of the earth. So do most Iranians best I can tell. — Hippyhead

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean they want the US to do it for them.

1) Have you ever been to America?

I've seen it from the Canadian Falls at Niagara. Does that count?

2) At what point in American history did you become an adult?

The era of R. Reagan and F. Bueller.

Near as I can tell his appeal is to the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated, the racist, the white man with antebellum southern sensitivities and a sense of entitlement to return to a pre-13th amendment country — tim wood

To add to @Baphomet's posts, which directly confront Tim's comments, I think it's also important to understand the class-based and ideological nature of this kind of prejudice. To that end, it's worth going back to this Jacobin article from 2016:

Burying White Workers

It's worth reading in full.

As an aside, there's one particularly interesting part of the article that goes some way to explain how all this class hatred sits so happily alongside woke identity politics:

Despite off-the-charts wealth inequality, Democratic Party liberals have been concerned not with an egalitarian reckoning to unite the have-nots against the haves but with inclusion: bringing different “interest groups” into the professional class while managing everyone else’s expectations downward.

This kind of “inclusion” politics — the chance at climbing one of a tiny handful of rickety ladders to the top — is the only economic program the Democratic Party mainstream is selling to those not already in the upper tiers. Sure, this politics is better than nothing. But as Ralph Miliband put it, “access to positions of power by members of the subordinate classes does not change the fact of domination: it only changes its personnel.”

Standing outside of this shift, unmoved and — as the Democratic Party sees it — ungrateful, are white workers. Not just those silver-haired remnants from the unionized, manufacturing heyday whose jobs have been offshored or, more likely, de-unionized, but the vast swath who’ve been forced to adjust to the new norm of low-wage, flexible, service-sector hell. Even with the college degree and boatload of debt needed to obtain it.

Part of the explanation is that unlike with white workers, many of the hardships workers of color face fit neatly within an acceptable liberal narrative about what’s wrong with our society: racism. And when racism can be blamed, capitalism can be exonerated.

Liberals can delude themselves into believing that it is nothing more than the accumulation of individual prejudices stashed away in the minds of powerful white people that has destroyed black and brown communities in Detroit, Ferguson, and Chicago’s South Side.

Class stratification, capital flight, and the war against organized labor are thus sidestepped completely. The liberal elite is spared from having to question the fundamental injustices of capitalism.

But as far as I can see as an outsider, most of the American Left choose to ignore this and just throw in their lot with the liberals. Leftists, correct me if I'm wrong.

Great post.

Reflecting that, American anti-Russian sentiment, which Russians are sensitive to, has been getting significantly worse since 2013, according to this Wikipedia article. — jamalrob

Incidentally, I recently went to see the movie Tenet here in Moscow. The audience found Kenneth Branagh’s cartoon Russian villain and the other Russian references hilarious.

But probably not. — StreetlightX

Indeed, I guess nothing except a resounding Trump victory could have made that happen. Even in that case, I actually find it impossible to imagine them confronting it at all.

Is that not a new development since the advent of Trump-Russia collusion? I remember in 2017 thinking it strange that it was the Democrats not the Republicans who were making such a big deal about how Russia Is Bad. — Pfhorrest

That was my understanding too, but I think it’s part of a longer term decline in relations. Reflecting that, American anti-Russian sentiment, which Russians are sensitive to, has been getting significantly worse since 2013, according to this Wikipedia article.

I agree, but go easy on him. He has a pathological condition in which any mention of Russia sends him into a bloodthirsty frenzy.

You seem not to understand Russians at all. — ssu

Lack of understanding has never stopped him before.

Well, it's not up to me. My people will decide.

Busy sorry

In fact, it's not a problem. I presented it like that for fun, just to see how you'd all react.

It's rational. She's Russian and wants the best for her country. The Democrats are the anti-Russia party, and there's the expectation of new sanctions and other economic problems that will likely get worse with Biden in charge.

My wife is pro-Trump. What should I do?

You called?

EDIT: oh I see, no: Hippyhead.

You're forgetting, HH: everything right now is the worst it could ever be and we're at the final crisis point.

As always. :wink:

I am somewhere between Epicurus/Aristotle & Aristippus on the pleasure question, but even the latter taught that the pursuit of physical pleasure should be restrained by moral concerns. — Saphsin

Thanks, I didn't know that Aristippus and his crew were hedonists to the degree that they were. In what way did he think that there should be a moral restraint?

Do you think the observation of the impoverished life being widespread and the lack of opportunities to pursue such pleasure for many people may have been a contributing factor? — Saphsin

I'll interpret this question in two ways.

(1) Philosophers themselves have lacked those opportunities and have become scornful or suspicious of bodily pleasures and the physical world in general because of that, just like the "incels who glorify aceticism" that I mentioned.

(2) Or philosophers, noticing that most people live impoverished lives in which they have little chance of indulging in bodily pleasure; or little chance of indulging in bodily pleasures in an artful, varied, endlessly stimulating way; or without the danger of great suffering; noticing all that, philosophers put forth propaganda to make the people feel better about it. That is, they want to spread a message of self-abnegation to help people cope with their impoverished lives.

I now think that you mean (2), but I originally thought you meant (1). Maybe I hadn't read it properly. I'll look at both anyway.

(1) Nietzsche is interesting here. He's not a hedonist, because he celebrates pain as much as pleasure, but he does attack the "despisers of the body", and even if he just had Christians in mind, maybe we could add some of the philosophers too. For Nietzsche, a life without a variety of bodily pleasures and pains is an impoverished one.

Your question, then: could this very impoverishment lead philosophers to despise the body?

"Body am I, and soul"—so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."

The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.

An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.

"Ego," sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not "ego," but doeth it.

What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.

Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.

Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego's ruler.

Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?

The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.

Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.

No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:—create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.

But it is now too late to do so:—so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.

To succumb—so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.

And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.

I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

So according to Nietzsche, the answer is yes. This is a form of ressentiment.

The idea appeals to me, but I don't know if it's true of philosophers, so much as, say, religious fanatics, puritans, Christian moralists, etc. In any case, in response to the OP, it does suggest that Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll indeed ought to be "part of the philosopher's quest".

As for the other interpretation of the question...

(2) On one hand, no: it seems to me that philosophers sometimes almost define the common people as those who go through life indulging themselves in eating, drinking, and sexing too much. Their lives are not impoverished enough when it comes to pleasure or self-indulgence. On the other hand, yes: philosophers have offered ways of dealing with worldly suffering, like the Stoics and others who advocate caution at the very least: enjoy yourself occasionally but don't go crazy cos it'll end in tears. So I think it's a good point, but it very much depends on the historical and social context, and the motivations of the philosophers.

This question arose in my thinking about the answers put forward in a thread about the ethics of masturbation. I was astounded by the puritanical thinking ... — Jack Cummins

I was too, when I first joined the original philosophy forum. It's tempting to dismiss it, as if it's just a problem with incels who glorify aceticism and the life of the mind because they can't enjoy the life of the body. But that won't do, because the attitude seems to be shared by many of the great philosophers, not least Plato. The basic dichotomy is between the rational mind (the soul) and the corrupting and deceiving world around us, the world we sense and enjoy and suffer from. So the roots are deeper than Kant and Christianity. Maybe we can pin the blame on the Buddha and Plato.

There were other Greeks who were less sniffy about pleasure, like Aristotle and Epicurus. For Aristotle, pleasure isn't to be denounced or celebrated: it's necessary for a good life, but everything in moderation. Epicurus thought it was fine to enjoy a nice meal but mainly because when you're satisfied after eating it, you cease to want, and this ease and satisfaction is where the best pleasure lies.

I think there is something of Plato's scorn remaining here:

It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. — Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

Nothing says FUN! like sober reasoning, eh?

It seems doubtful that there can be a philosophy that celebrates physical pleasure, that celebrates an unbroken succession of drinking bouts. After all, philosophy is inherently inclined to favour the life of the mind, because that's what philosophy is. And who would challenge the view that indulging in nothing but drinking and lusting doesn't make for a great life? I'm not sure if any philosophers positively celebrate wild pleasure. The Marquis de Sade, perhaps.

In our somewhat Abrahamic context, we might see Epicurus and Aristotle and especially Plato as moralizers, but this might be an anachronism. It might be better to think of their criticisms of kinds of pleasure as pragmatic, as the criticism of ways of life that impede happiness, or flourishing, or finding the truth. In which case, maybe their similarity to the puritanical people to be found on forums like this is only apparent.