The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. It’s sort of a gaslighting version. He says dog whistle stuff and then it can be interpreted more ambiguously later on and people just move forward. You say it enough it’s just part of the landscape and normalized. HE gets to say it, if no one else. He praises and encouraged riots to stop counting of votes. He said he’d use the government to attack political enemies. His legal team thinks the president is fully immune from criminal wrongdoing. Then he redirects his actually alarming fascist tendencies to run of the mill corruption like Hunter Biden. It’s the psychology of a cult of personality. He can do no wrong, so he is immune.

In a sporting game, both sides follow the referee. If one side encourages the crowd to believe the referee is corrupt, then all the calls will be questioned and they will rig the game.

It’s also scary that other Republicans would think that if he is elected he won’t turn it into a semi-fascist style government to exact revenge.

I would quibble about Trump as actually fascist though. Fascists generally have an ideology. His is just narcissistic self-serving agenda for himself, co-opting the right for this agenda. He runs it more like a mob style organization so that loyalty gets favors and uses the primaries to outvote those who are against him. Liz Cheney was not liberal but she was voted out for one main reason.

Also fascist tend to be supporters of military. He has oddly called dead soldiers “losers and suckers”. You’d have to have an eerie mesmerizing hold to have any let alone most military people supporting you (not sure the latest polls but probably the case). So perhaps BC, can we split up a cult from fascism and just say its elements of both? Does fascism need a cult of personality or only ideology? Which is worse? Delusional support for person or belief en masse?

Yeah, and in the grand scheme of things those "issues" seem quite trivial. — 180 Proof

They are the very circumstances of how we live, so no.

(à la atoms swirling in void ... modes of substance ... the mediocrity principle ... descent with modifications by natural selection ... entropy ...) — 180 Proof

No one is claiming the mechanisms of our evolution are different than other animal. And we can probably agree humans, as with other animals, have unique features. They simply bring with it a set of issues that he discusses.

I don't accept that the result is we necessarily feel the way about ourselves and our lives that you, Brassier and Zigotti seem to think we do. — Ciceronianus

Why are we even deliberating this kind of evaluation? This isn't part of the rest of nature.. Yet here we are- displaying the very thing that Ligotti et al. are explaining... :chin:

It doesn't follow that we do, or must. But I don't think you achieve anything towards establishing the claims made by maintaining that any statement that someone doesn't accept the dreary perspective set forth in this thread does so in bad faith--as if someone like me is really miserable because condemned to live but pretending not to be. — Ciceronianus

No, it's not claiming you are, or must be miserable. And I'm not saying you have to agree with that. Rather, the "excess" of consciousness brings with it a set of issues that humans uniquely must face.

One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke. — Benkei

It’s quite a projection to post this being you are one of the most biased, toxic and well-poisoning posters on this issue. You seem to support any cause that is deemed the underdog, no matter how violent the means and ends.. No matter if it was they who started the violence or not.. No matter if they want peace or not. Also, the whole UN schtick is out the door being that NO ONE has followed the UN since 1947.. the very FIRST ignoring of the resolution.

The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans. — ssu

I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view.

This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian). — ssu

As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms.

The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters. — ssu

So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? That to me, seems like slightly different question than what are their goals, because it questions whether their goal itself IS violence for violence sake. Usually violence is a means to an ends. But if violence is actually the goal, that is a different story. That is something that cannot be remediated or negotiated. It can only be contained or stopped for brief time periods until they decide to pursue their goals again.

Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here? — ssu

Yes.

Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question.

@Banno

Is he moving his arm up and down? Pumping water? Doing his job? Clicking out a steady rhythm? Making a funny shadow on the rock behind him? Well, it could be that all of these descriptions are true. — SEP Anscombe

Cause in the way I was using it in my thread is agnostic to which approach you take in defining it. All that matters is a set of events that excludes other sets of events. A is not B, X is not Y. These set of gametes are not those set of gametes. Obviously, object in some level has to exist. So a red herring would be discussing what is X and what is Y.. Like everything is particles, so we cannot make such distinctions.

That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.

For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen. — ssu

Right, but what is the strategy here? Yes, these are leading questions.

Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no?

Well I do also feel the "separation from nature" bit is the weakest part of the metaphor, largely because I see no reason to suppose other animals are somehow "in tune" with nature. They're also each separate, existing as their own little system. — Echarmion

"In tune" puts an axiological spin on it. Can that be put another way though?

Perhaps self consciousness, as being aware of your own awareness adds an extra filter that makes our experience of the outside world especially remote. — Echarmion

Can you explain?

An interesting thought experiment, at some point some ancestor of ours, possibly not even a human, was presumably the first to be aware. But, being the first, they'd have no words to express this, nor anyone to mirror it back to them. So was awareness a group thing, that arose when a sufficient number of our ancestors, together, happend to have the brain capacity and just communally became aware of themselves and each other? — Echarmion

It probably arose with the mechanism of language-use. It also touches on questions of whether language was external first and then internalized, or was language meant for internal cognitive capacities first and then externalized as communication? Most people say the former nowadays, though you do have staunch nativists like Chomsky, who relies on less empirical data.. But this then diverges from the point of the OP, which is not about the "how" but the implications of self-aware beings, and how that differentiates from the rest of nature.

I'm sorry, but what you're doing is mischaracterizing objections to paint them in a certain light. A particularly dismissive, and condescending light. — AmadeusD

But that is exactly what is being done to the OP :lol: or turn it into a straw man/red herring to debate another point.

I can't say that flies with me. There's no bad faith whatsoever - but comparing questions and requests for elucidation as
equivalent of the peasants in a Monty Python sketch hearing the wrong things and giving their misinterpretations in an exaggerated cockney accent — AmadeusD

See your fellow OP-bashers to and see for yourself..

Clearly, you said I claimed "humans are special". Okay, let's assume that is what I'm saying. From the OP's own imagery, what do you think that means? Again, post is getting closer to it, if that helps.

You're free to elucidate why you think humans are special, and lend some credibility to the OP passages. Doesn't seem to appear anywhere - and i think dismissing the objections in teh same fashion might be an issue? — AmadeusD

Bad faith bashing is not welcome either. If you don't understand from what I have stated for why humans are "different" (not necessarily "special"), then I'm not sure what to say. I've already tried to analyze what the "psychogensis" was saying, but people want to focus on animal intelligence (facepalm).

It would be equivalent of the peasants in a Monty Python sketch hearing the wrong things and giving their misinterpretations in an exaggerated cockney accent.

Alright, guv'nor! 'Ow can 'umans be different from other bleed'n animals, yeah? I mean, look at them orcas, they can go on and 'unt in bleedin' pods, ain't they? It's like, "Cor blimey, mate, we got whales doin' group 'untin', and 'ere we are, 'umans, scratchin' our 'eads tryin' to figure out what makes us so bleedin' special!" It's a proper laugh, it is!

So an interesting idea is to FIRST be charitable to the idea and then see what you can glean from it. But you are categorically not interested, and instead seem to focus on the wrong things, not sure if intentionally or not, but it certainly shuts down dialogue. If you are open to actually creating an interesting dialogue about that which you comment, let me know.

s post is a good example of not necessarily agreeing fully but at least taking up the subject and playing with ideas of it. It seems @mcdoodle is going to do the same approach I'm afraid. As if this argument is about animal intelligence and not about existential differences in animal modes of life is the relevant issue. Is there anyway both of you can learn to figure out how to make a productive understanding of where I'm going besides focusing on red herrings and categorically dismissing ideas which are only partially presented as of now (being I can't copy/paste the WHOLE novel).

No, I didn't imply anything of the kind. No nation is a single unified entity that feels, thinks and acts with a single mind. — Vera Mont

No but a sufficient amount of a revolutionary mob, will act as if a single mind (pace French and Iranian Revolutions.. and ensuing reigns of terrors).

When a democratically elected regime is overthrown before it's well established, because of massive financial and/or military support for one of the authoritarian factions, — Vera Mont

"Who" is CHOOSING to support this these authoritarian factions? You gloss over it like it's a law of nature and not groups of people deciding things.

Then the fear-mongers, the scapegoaters, strongmen and religious revivalists gain ascendancy. — Vera Mont

Not on their own. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Hitler gets a majority from a parliamentary procedure of coalitions trying to gain a majority and then using the fascist-type by promoting him as leader.. and then precedes to wreak havoc. Trump is a much less dire circumstance, yet corrupting nonetheless, erodes the guardrails of democracy, currently. It takes support for those who want it, don't mind, or are indifferent to it. But here I am giving you examples of internal weaknesses in structure WITHOUT direct external interference. So, your theory fails that it is some axiom. It is all people doing human things, like making decisions to throw their support for things that are detrimental to justice, personal freedoms, or economic viability.

By the time the liberal factions can recover and regroup, all the repressive mechanism are in place. — Vera Mont

As is the case consistently shows in history, correct.

If nobody intervened, you'd be justified in saying "It's all their own fault. They made the wrong decision." But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame. — Vera Mont

But to only focus the blame on the external force is also wrong-headed. This is the tactic of the Left. You MUST show it to be the Elephant.. and the Tiger is always justified and can be explained away as not the Tiger but the Elephant. The violence too becomes explained away as "really" being the elephant FORCING the tiger.. as if they are simply the beaten animal lashing out. And here we get the roots of all the defenders, admirers, hedgers towards the Tiger's violent action.

I find this take in existence interesting. It reminds me of the "blind idiot god": Humanity has found it's god, it's creator, only to discover that it's like a terrible monster, a blind idiot with neither desires nor goals that just shambles forwards mercilessly.

In that sense we can view humans as an "excess". Humans are the product of a runaway process of increased mental capacity, which randomly gave us consciousness. Less some crowning achievement and more some weird freak. — Echarmion

:up:

Yes, you are now picking up the main themes of the OP. I think this is close to the conclusion of Ligotti in "Nightmare of Being".

I think it's useful to keep such a perspective in your "arsenal", so to speak. The idea that life is not "about" anything and that there's no reason to assume your existence is built around happiness as some general state can be liberating. — Echarmion

It's not necessarily that its not built on happiness, though that is certainly the case.

Assuming you mean "abnormal" or "unnatural" in that sense, while it's true those words are sometimes used in reference to monsters and freaks, I don't see why our abnormality would in that case condemn us to the state of misery which seems to be referred to in this thread. — Ciceronianus

As Ray Brassier wrote in the Foreward to Conspiracy:

We know what verdict is reserved for those foolhardy enough to dissent
from the common conviction according to which “being alive is all right,”
to borrow an insistent phrase from the volume at hand. Disputants of the
normative buoyancy of our race can expect to be chastised for their
ingratitude, upbraided for their cowardice, patronized for their
shallowness. Where self-love provides the indubitable index of psychic
health, its default can only ever be seen as a symptom of psychic debility.
Philosophy, which once disdained opinion, becomes craven when the
opinion in question is whether or not being alive is all right. Suitably
ennobled by the epithet “tragic,” the approbation of life is immunized
against the charge of complacency and those who denigrate it condemned
as ingrates.
“Optimism”; “pessimism”: Thomas Ligotti takes the measure of these
discredited words, stripping them of the patina of familiarity that has
robbed them of their pertinence, and restoring to them some of their
original substance. The optimist fixes the exchange rate between joy and
woe, thereby determining the value of life. The pessimist, who refuses the
principle of exchange and the injunction to keep investing in the future no
matter how worthless life’s currency in the present, is stigmatized as an
unreliable investor.
The Conspiracy against the Human Race sets out what is perhaps the
most sustained challenge yet to the intellectual blackmail that would
oblige us to be eternally grateful for a “gift” we never invited. Being alive
is not all right: this simple not encapsulates the temerity of thinking better
than any platitude about the tragic nobility of a life characterized by a
surfeit of suffering, frustration, and self-deceit. There is no nature worth
revering or rejoining; there is no self to be re-enthroned as captain of its
own fate; there is no future worth working towards or hoping for. Life, in
Ligotti’s outsized stamp of disapproval, is MALIGNANTLY USELESS.
No doubt, critics will try to indict Ligotti of bad faith by claiming that the
writing of this book is itself driven by the imperatives of the life that he
seeks to excoriate. But the charge is trumped-up, since Ligotti explicitly
avows the impossibility for the living to successfully evade life’s grip.
This admission leaves the cogency of his diagnosis intact, for as Ligotti
knows full well, if living is lying, then even telling the truth about life’s
lie will be a sublimated lie.
9
Such sublimation is as close to truth-telling as Ligotti’s exacting nihilism
will allow. Unencumbered by the cringing deference towards social utility
that straightjackets most professional philosophers, Ligotti’s unsparing
dissection of the sophisms spun by life’s apologists proves him to be a
more acute pathologist of the human condition than any sanctimonious
philanthrope. — CATHR - Foreward

I doubt anyone would claim we're the same as other animals in all respects, but our differences don't make us any less natural — Ciceronianus

This is totally besides the point, red herring on my argument. Of course humans are "natural". It's like making a point when someone says that it's good to eat "natural foods" and you say that "chemicals are natural because they are made of atoms". You are really taking that original point out of context for a cynical red herring ploy. I would then say, "Knock it off and get to the actual heart of the debate".

The point has more to do with what you admitted here:

I doubt anyone would claim we're the same as other animals in all respects, — Ciceronianus

And so just stick to that and don't try to be cute about it by hedging on the word "natural", which we all know humans are in the strictest sense of "made of natural stuff, evolved naturally".

We don't have to be like the other animals or the lilies of the field to avoid ruminating obsessively on the fact that our existence isn't sanctioned by the universe or justified by it in some sense. — Ciceronianus

And that isn't the argument either. No one is saying that the "universe needs to sanction our existence". Rather the point is that we are not like the rest of existence and this leads to a unique circumstance and shifts our mode of being- one of deliberative means, and self-reflection.

If we speak of poetry we need only "cast a cold eye" on life and death, and pass by as Yeats put it in his poem Under Ben Bulben and his gravestone. — Ciceronianus

You notice how you are pleading a case here, "We need only...". You say it as if it is a given, but then proscribe it as a claim one should endorse. But here you demonstrate how humans mode of being is different, as you decry against such claims.

Essentially the argument is, if the president slowly encourages anti-constitutional / democratic practices, they are immune if the legislative branch gives it a pass. The irony being, when the legislative branch uses as its excuse (for those who might not have appreciated the attempt), "This is for the courts to figure out". Whereby the courts point back to the legislature AFTER they already acquitted him. Bravo.

Hold fast to the center — unenlightened

The cunning of Geist is to use your suffering and your despair to hold you to its purpose. One fantasy fights another. — unenlightened

But it just gave you a judgement- "Hold fast to the center". The supposed neutrality of the "wizened words" of the Tao Te Ching, at the end of the day, is an advice column for radical neutrality. It's still a choice to listen to it, take it in, read it, or whatever. And that choice is a choice made from the deliberative nature of our species. This divides us from the rest of creation which simply exists. We don't need to "catch the winds as like a kite" and try to get things going with fits and starts towards this or that reason, incentive, or outcome. Other animals don't need to figure out the best way to be, they just are.

But the first coup wasn't their idea. That was interference from a world power with hugely disproportionate economic resources. — Vera Mont

That doesn't address my point. I stated:

That decision and impulse itself cannot be blamed on the West, EVEN if the West did interfere in their politics earlier. — schopenhauer1

In fact, it wasn't the "impulse" but that impulse that was ACTED UPON. I mean, I could argue that my first impulse might be, "Screw you, I'm going to show the West how great we are by going back to a theocratic state." But the impulse was followed through and enacted. Rather, the eventual response could have been, "Oh wait, I could form a more robust democracy that becomes an economically thriving state for its citizens, without being exploited".

I think your implicit premise is that if "the West" interferes, the ONLY response is to then move to radicalism or authoritarianism. That is not the case, nor is the West forcing that to be the case, once a revolution takes place. Or alternatively, the West isn't "stopping" the populous from doing a mass revolt.

And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. — ssu

And what of the actions that you keep pointing to and discussing? This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? You’re playing both sides by using sorting language on their escalation and now saying oh it’s not so bad. Either they want the region in conflict or they don’t.

People are silly a lot of the time. Especially when they're disillusioned and feel betrayed, they tend to reach for the security blanket of tradition. — Vera Mont

Indeed they are. For whatever sociological or psychological reason, they chose poorly as to how to formulate their new government. That is an internal failing. That decision and impulse itself cannot be blamed on the West, EVEN if the West did interfere in their politics earlier.

Cos they wanted him in power, silly! — Vera Mont

I meant the Iranians.. not the Americans. Why didn't they "revolve" into a better democracy and not a theocratic regime? It's not like they had to form a theocratic regime. But that's what they wanted, silly!

And then took over primary role with its own form of imperialism. It's still short-sighted, Look at the mess they made of the middle east in the last 30 years. — Vera Mont

A lot of the mess originated in Cold War policies. However, to be fair, it's not like they had great players to choose from internally... In the left corner you have Saddam Hussein.. in the right even worse...

What's romantic about helplessness? — Vera Mont

(fetishizing terroristic suicidal violence that has shitty means and ends) you mean?

Really? It's okay for a big global power to overthrow the democratically elected and set up a horrible shah, for contempt? — Vera Mont

Yep, here we are again. All the big bad West. Why didn't they overthrow the Shah and form a democratic government then? That would REALLY show the West. Yes, American foreign policy during the Cold War was short-sighted, and in this case was going along with the last gasp of Britain's imperialism.

I wasn't. All major powers interfere with other nations to promote their own economic and strategic ends. — Vera Mont

Pretty much. Self-interested nations are the default. That doesn't necessarily mean exploitive. It's up to the other side to understand how to tango correctly -- to let the exploitation be engines of growth. That takes the fortitude to not take money in autocratic and kleptocartic ways. And in that sense, it is not the West's fault for the failure of internal pressures to create a better way. Tunisia, though not perfect, has definitely gotten better than where it was.

Did i forget to mention the USSR? And China? In other times, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan... All great global powers, in all eras, have their own agenda and use the weaker nations as pawns. — Vera Mont

Countries have the ability to change from internal pressures. Not everything is from external exploitation. It's not that you are wrong, it is just what you choose to focus on and make excuses with.

Now, that does sound partisan. — Vera Mont

Again, I am acknowledging that external forces can make decisions that are not beneficial, but those external forces ("The Western economic system) is the reality. The fantasy is the "liberation" from it. North Korea and Iran aren't better off because they represent an anti-Western, oppositional stance. The West is still the best orientation to head towards- liberal democracies, integrated strategically, with Western economic systems. Again, that just takes leadership. Often what appears to be Western exploitation is simply government ineptness and corruption. It's hard to parse it out completely.

Yeah, and it helped bring about their own revolution. — Vera Mont

Indeed, but were the circumstances great to begin with? That was again, the violent extremism of France's unique political dynamics. And yes, just like Iran didn't have to "revolve" into a theocracy, France didn't necessarily have to revolve into the chaos of the Sans-Culottes, Jacobins, Hebertists, Dantonists, and their Reign of Terror. The roots of the Enlightenment were there - but it was the irony of taking the rhetoric of the Enlightenment of Voltaire and Rousseau and using them to illiberal extremes.

Not that their regime wasn't riddled with inequities and stupidities, but that decision, because they had a long-standing feud with England, was very bad from their own POV. — Vera Mont

Well anyways, you actually make my point that the unintended consequences of interfering in volatile revolutions (like the Arab Spring) are why it was a "way and see" approach under Obama. But there are plenty of Western organizations willing to help those on the inside, if they are willing to make the first moves to implement the revolutions (without turning them into illiberal democracies).

That is to say, just as much as you think it is the lie that the West doesn't want to work with liberal democracies because it's not in their interest, I think the West does prefer to work with them over authoritarian or just any regime. It brings stability, and more chances for trade anyways. "The boogie man" of the West, shouldn't be used as an excuse to not internally resist authoritarian, corrupt, or fundamentalist regimes by pro-democratic forces. External forces are willing to help, but it takes a large internal movement to do so. France didn't help the US right away, but eventually they did in 1778 when they saw the the US was winning at the Battle of Saratoga, and their involvement is what tipped the scales to defeat the British in the American Revolution.

'Humans are not the only animals capable of slow and thoughtful deliberation.' Orca hunting, corvid theory of mind, are other examples that demonstrate complex deliberative thought.

The more general point I am making is that you and Ligotti are in my view mistakenly describing action driven by the 'emotional' as somehow inaccurate and wrong. What is the case for that? It seems to me to privilege an imagined 'rationality' that in action can't be separated from emotion: the two are intertwined. — mcdoodle

Just wondering- do you think there is a difference between an orca hunting in deliberative ways, or even playing games like toss the the human into the sea, and human levels of deliberation? I did not say that other animals can't deliberate, but that our being is of an existential one, whereby deliberation is our primary modus operendi. I can starve myself as an ascetic because of some religious reason. I can kill myself because of depression or simply because life is meaningless. I can decide to jump on one foot whilst singing "la cucaracha" whilst standing on the edge of the Empire State building in my underwear.

It's not just degrees of freedom either. It is the self-reflective capacities to reflect on reflecting on the reflecting. Some animals can eat, drink, take a walk sleep and do it all their lives without much else. They don't need much else. They don't need to force themselves to get caught up in whatever it is to "be". Humans need salves for their being. They can't stand it. It does divide us from the rest of creation. We are aware that we are aware that we are aware, and that does make us a different kind of creature. We know of the excess. We can feel it. We need to fill it.. And if we don't we need to deliberatively choose to not fill it. We know we cannot idle away, unless we choose to. We know we need to find something interesting, unless we choose not to. But choose we must. We know that we must choose too.

So, it must happen internally. But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it? — Vera Mont

These are all the tropes. I said in another thread:

There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.

*slinks away* — AmadeusD

:wink:

Sure, go into a political thread, copy and paste a news article that supports your side and don't say anything.

But its not his circus if i say something stupid. — AmadeusD

I've noticed he does it in other posts. It's not just him, though. There are posters that make an argumentative or provacative point and just leave. Kind of throw the bomb and turn your back sort of thing.

Ive had his position explained to me, and respect it. If i've said something dumb, it must be super-challenging to address it after several years of doing it for other people.
It's unhelpful for me, but he has his reasons — AmadeusD

Well, perhaps you are similar, so be it.

than hit-and-run — AmadeusD

He loves to do that kind of posting.. I call it "drive by", but funny you had a similar term. Make a quick post with the most argumentative point and then get out and not respond for a while.

Sorry, but I don't think there is a "human craving for justification on matters of life and death." I think some humans crave that, but it's foolish to do so, and I know of nothing which makes it a necessary human characteristic, i.e. a part of being human. And like it or not, humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal. — Ciceronianus

Yes, I knew those were the things you would bring up as your responses.

1) I would just replace "matters of life and death" (although when it comes time for those, it will be different perhaps), with rather the "excess" of consciousness concept. You will try to question this as not meaning anything. Deny that that is a thing. But it covers a certain "way of being" whereby we are "unstuck from time" if you will. The inability to truly live in the moment more than it being a case of X deliberative function (work ethic, flow state, cultural feature of believing in the idea of monetary incentive, meditation, etc.).

2) Humans are part of nature, but they are also very much not like the rest of the animal kingdom, and not in a "yes, and a dog isn't a cat" way, but see 1.

Really? I find that hard to parse from the material you've quoted. — AmadeusD

The excess of consciousness is the "Human".. So to me, it is about bad faith trying to constantly keep away from the existential implications of this.. that we need to deliberate our way into being "caught up", that we know of our own dissatisfaction and must find ways to cope with it.

What — AmadeusD

Unlike other animals, we are self-reflective, ripped asunder from a mode of being that other animals have access to. We instead have as I said:

That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness. — schopenhauer1

A further, what? — AmadeusD

Just emphasizing our unique isolated condition as opposed to the rest of nature. We developed self-reflection which puts an extra level of burden and responsibility upon us- one
where we have to choose which mechanism to give us ballast.

Getting into 'wtf' territory... — AmadeusD

Again, the "exile from Eden" imagery.

This sounds like the need you mentioned. I'm unsure why, then, I was asked to defend that position? — AmadeusD

What would have to be done to live this new mode of being, cut off from being "in the moment", a fully existential being. Self-reflective, wholly different in kind, even if evolved from the same mechanism.

This passage seems to be some kind of chimera of Theistic creation thinking and the fallacy of pretending the past was a golden age (ironically, given the 'ideal past' concept from the OP). Obviously, this passage is out of it's wider context so i'm not able to say more than how the passage itself strikes. — AmadeusD

Older times, being a mode of being like how other animals live.

I'm not suggesting there is. I don't think there's any need to overcome anxiety about life and death. It's also part of human behaviour.

Of course, some people run to these things for comfort - But i would posit theism is a much, much, MUCH more ripe example that, according to some (even atheists) fulfills a 'human need'. My point is merely that these behaviours are human, and do not release or jettison humanity in the subject (imo). — AmadeusD

I don't think Ligotti / Zapffe is suggesting it's not human. I see it akin to a sort of bad faith. The "human" here is equated with the "excess of consciousness". As Ligotti points out, we are irrevicobly divided from the rest of nature.

Everything changed once they had lives of their own and knew they had lives of their own. It even became impossible for them to believe things had ever been any other way. They were masters of their movements now, as it seemed, and never had there been anything like them. The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. Something had happened. They did not know what it was,but they did know it as that which should not be. And something needed to be done if they were to flourish as they once had, if the very ground beneath their feet were not to fall out under them. For ages they had been without lives of their own. Now that they had such lives there was no turning back. The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. Nothing could be done about that, having as they did lives of their own. But something would have to be done if they were to live with that which should not be. And over time they discovered what could be done - what would have to be done - so that they could live the lives that were now theirs to live. This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

I don't think its reasonable to dismiss Zen, true Stoicism, meditation etc.. as somehow arbitrary attempt to 'not be human'.
These things are human behaviours. — AmadeusD

Why is there a need for them?

Life isn't good or bad because I can't change it, nor is the cosmos. They merely are. My part is to live. I can (and do) live without judging the cosmos. — Ciceronianus

This isn't quite addressing what this OP and Ligotti is getting at. You can't escape your orientation towards living, as we are existential beings. To deny this is indeed, bad faith. And then Zapffe would be doubly correct in regards to what you are suggesting:

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.

Instead, do the best you can with what is in your power and take the rest as it happens, to paraphrase Epictetus. — Ciceronianus

No man, you aren't paying attention, you are already reaching for that card you nicely keep in your pocket to hold up. You aren't addressing the issue, which is the excess of consciousness. You can't escape it :sweat:, even if you tried with whatever X philosophy of "overcoming" (Nietzschean, Stoic, etc.). Rather, it's all anchoring mechanisms, ignoring, and the like. We need to stabilize the "liquid fray" that is the excess to keep it in line. Get the flow where there isn't any natural flow. Get to being where there isn't naturally being. Get to the "task at hand" of living, when there clearly is no impetus either way, other than cliches, cultural narratives.

Remember that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the heritage and, at least officially, the aims of the Islamic revolution to promote the Muslim World. The hostility against Israel comes basically as a popular endeavor to woo the Arab street to support the Islamic revolution. Yet the Islamic republic is inherently against the present-day monarchies and the non-theocratic democracies (at least in name democracies) of the Arab states. And then there is the Sunni / Shia divide to that and also that Iranians aren't Arabs. So a lot of reasons for divisions.

And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.

I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. — ssu

:up:

I just want this to be kept in mind when discussing all of this. There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.

It seems odd to me to regard this as 'not natural' when you've ascribed it as being like inside other animals' minds, where it presumably is 'natural'. I went back to your quotation of Ligotti in an old thread where he talks about

...laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own...
— Ligotti

Interestingly this is the opposite of how Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics counsels us to live. He explores what are common emotions and considers how to cultivate what he sees as those promoting eudaimonia/well-being, and how to limit the negative emotions. This is, as he sees it, a virtuous education or an education in virtue: we apply rationality to our emotional lives. Rationality is not the opposite of the emotional, these aspects of us need to work in concert

But Ligotti and perhaps you seem to claim that emotions are 'inaccurate', arbitrary'. For me, emotions - informed by rationality - are what guide us to the true, accurate, right, good. A 'flow state', to which I have committed myself by rational deliberation about my emotional life, is a way of living well. — mcdoodle

I think you misread the point here, and which is why it seems like it is normative and descriptive. Ligotti is being descriptive here, not counseling (in what I have so-far quoted). That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness. As stated in the OP:

Unlike other animals, even clever ones like certain corvids, or domestic animals, or even elephants, dolphins, and apes, we seem to have something totally different in our existential orientation. Whereas Schopenhauer's dissatisfaction personified as "will-to-live" is much more in the "now" and "immediate" and the "being", we are much more in the self-reflected now, the analysis, the planning of the future, the angst, the anxiety, the what ifs and what did I dos, the regret, the isolation, the inability to "turn off" for large portions of time unless dead asleep. We have exited Eden, and to gain some sanity we provide for ourselves stories and narratives, mainly to soothe ourselves that this situation is not so bad, but those are just salves, protective hedging. — schopenhauer1

So yes, flow states might mimic the sort of "in the moment" the animal already has but it is not wholly "being in the moment". Rather, as I stated, it is a rather clumsy deliberative, baroque way of getting "caught up" in the moment, like a kite that needs to find that wind current at the right momentum and angle.

Ligotti isn't really pessimistic enough (like e.g. P. Mainländer was) about his pessimism (which is kind of funny). Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. Useless, futile, absurd. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Yeah, based on our exchanges, I do remember this being your position. I was just seeing if there was something else I was missing. But, as I stated earlier, I don't see antinatalism's importance in being about outcomes, or even realistically achieving those outcomes, but as part of a web of related ideas on a certain stance towards the world.