Why can't there be different reasons for different invasions? Shouldn't a professor expert be able to grasp that two nations with two different positions in relation to Russia could mean two different reasons for invasion? Russia being angry about the Nato border expansion is not the same as invading Ukraine, even if Nato is a driving force for pushing the invasion to occur. But I guess it's hard for you to understand that there can be different reasons even if Nato is involved in both. Nato is a driving force for Russia's military actions in different ways for different nations. For the old USSR states, their membership would block any reestablishment of the old empire. While Nato in Finland and Sweden would enlarge Nato to the north much further as well as block much of the Baltic sea. That's why I didn't say Russia would invade Sweden entirely, but just invade Gotland, since that enables a larger presence in the Baltic sea.

But it doesn't matter anyway since Nato wouldn't invade Russia, this is just Russia's paranoia driving their actions and Nato needs to expand against such mental illness. Russia is just too stupid to understand that its aggression is what drives Nato, both Sweden and Finland wouldn't have thought to join Nato if it weren't for bloathead Putin. Russia does not have power over other nations and any argument positioning other nations as needing to do what Russia requests and wants is just Russian apologetics.

Sweden and Finland may join Nato because WE want to be secure against Russia, but I guess you would point out that we are slaves to the US for doing so. :rofl: Alright Dr Professor

Finland to decide within ‘weeks’ whether to join Nato

This is scary. It makes sense. But damn, what a mess. — Manuel

What is scary? It's scary for us in Sweden and Finland as the invasion of Ukraine showed us how the only way to be safe from the crazy people in Russia is to be part of Nato.

What's scary right now is that Sweden still hasn't 100% decided and it would be a clusterfuck if we didn't join while Finland did. Russia would probably invade Gotland to keep a buffer zone in the Baltic sea if that happens.

If we both join, then I'm glad that we at least have some protection against the degenerates in Kremlin.

The US has had none of the factors you describe from Russia yet you say it is experiencing the same (or similar) problems. — Isaac

Why don't you read things correctly?

Russia already had the groundwork made to enable what's happening now, but we can see it in places like the US as well, where corruption and Trump radicalism have the same kind of symptoms.If unchecked, it could create a foundation for changing the political landscape entirely and if people "don't care about politics" then one day they'll wake up in a world they didn't want to be in. — Christoffer

To interpret this for you: Russia already has the groundwork to enable these problems, but the US doesn't... YET. We see the behaviors of corruption and radical movements of people under Trump. And if people "don't care about politics", they could wake up in a world similar to places like Russia. That is the point of the text, that unchecked political movements toward authoritarianism are ignored by comfortable people with apathy.

You seem to miss context when reading something, almost like you read sentences detached from the surrounding text. As you can see, I'm talking about how Russia's political groundwork for authoritarianism can happen in other nations and if the radical behaviors of the people match up, it could change the landscape in the same direction as Russia has now ended up.

How? Websites, newspapers and social media spreading 'misinformation' have been increasingly banned since Covid times. — Isaac

Yes, they spread misinformation in a time of crisis. The problem is the uneducated with a megaphone spreading misinformation that hurts other people. How many people died during this pandemic due to misinformation telling them not to get vaccinated?

Naysayers have been ridiculed, de-platformed, sacked — Isaac

That's not what I've seen. The ones that have been ridiculed, de-platformed or sacked have all taken part in spreading dangerous misinformation or acted with such disregard for safety, like nurses not caring for protocols when people risk dying around them.

Protests have been met with militarised police under emergency powers. — Isaac

The large gatherings who didn't have permission during a time when large gatherings need to be avoided? People who don't understand how a pandemic works, who don't understand that large gatherings could create super-spreading events which result in people outside of this gathering getting killed by the consequence of such a super-spreading event, don't know what the fuck they're talking about. To be blind to how pandemics work is to ignore facts.

If you can't see the difference between police trying to handle people acting stupid and risking other people's lives, as in the case of Covid demonstrations during a pandemic - and police silencing freedom of speech as a form of authoritarian censorship, then I don't think you have the ability to see different topics in their full complexity and just react to trigger markers bound to your ideological ideas.

Could you explain just how much more vocal you expect the 'moral majority' to be? Summary execution perhaps? — Isaac

At least on par with the vocal minority advocating for extreme nationalism, racism, antivaccine, conspiracy theories etc. it would balance the "marketing" of such movements.

He touches upon just what the problem is. The young in Russia do not mix well with what Russia has always been and people just ignored everything. The old people were either too scared to say anything, even when the iron curtain lifted, or they were hardcore Stalinists who just wanted a new daddy to take care of them, so they blindly followed the next masculine power who looked the part. All while the young who grew up in families with decent economical stability had access to the internet and knowledge about the world, thought that they lived in a nation that was just like any other stable democratic nation, with the same freedoms and rights. But it's this ignorance of what is going on underneath, the blind eye to political events unfolding that creates the groundwork for what is happening now. The young moving out of the country means that the only people left are Putin radicalists, and people who are even more scared to do anything just like back in the Soviet era.

This is what happens if people don't actively make efforts to fight against dangerous political movements in a nation. Russia already had the groundwork made to enable what's happening now, but we can see it in places like the US as well, where corruption and Trump radicalism have the same kind of symptoms. If unchecked, it could create a foundation for changing the political landscape entirely and if people "don't care about politics" then one day they'll wake up in a world they didn't want to be in. We can point out that it's not easy to do something in a nation that is so authoritarian as Russia, but it didn't become that overnight.

One of the biggest problems with the world today is people being too comfortable to understand their apathy. Generally speaking: radicals, extremists, conspiracy nuts and so on, make up a very small minority of the world, but they still move mountains politically since they are so vocal. We usually just dismiss them as "a very vocal minority", without realizing that such a minority being vocal can have a large impact. Marketing people for a company is "a very small vocal minority", but they still get people to buy their products. So if they are a minority, then the educated, morally balanced, and larger portion of the world should be more vocal against them, against the destructive bullshit they spread. But people love their apathy.

And other countries in other parts of the world have to pay the price for your life quality and freedom.

Like those poor South American countries that produce the lithium for your precious electric cars. Those countries are destroying their own land and their own people with dirty industry so that you can be "high on indexes of life quality and freedom".

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others. — baker

You don't seem to know much about Sweden, do you? Like, you don't even seem to know that our small/mid economy compared to the big superpowers, spend more of our GDP on foreign aid and support for the poor of the world than most other nations in the world. That we have a greater focus on fair trade agreements and handling the economy in a sustainable way than most.

If you're gonna try and blame Sweden for being a "bad western nation" I would say that it's a bad direction to try and argue hypocrisy. Maybe the rest of the western nations should copy Sweden more before throwing out any blame. Lead by example.

What a wonderful army Russia has that writes "For the children" on the side of their missiles hitting civilians at a train station. And with the constant flow of reports on the war crimes and the evidence piling up. Well, there seem to be some lovely people in that army who really care about the Ukrainians.

I think I'm moving away from the idea that these soldiers don't know what they're doing in Ukraine, I mean, some obviously don't, but there seem to be a large part of them acting out pure terror and destruction. Mass murdering state-funded psychopaths by another psychopath. Taking out all of them is not justice, revenge, or some blood lust, but simply that such depraved people in such a massive destructive force cannot be allowed to exist as a risk. I understand how that Russian soldier felt while driving over his commander, I hope everyone drives over these monsters.

including by mods. — Olivier5

This I agree with. I think that a definition of being a mod is to at least keep a civil tone and argue for it. Baden does it, Benkei does not.

That's why I could never be a mod on a forum like this, I sometimes fail to keep a civil tone, but I at least try, even in the most stupid situations. But I wouldn't want to fail and have such authority doing so, it reflects badly on the entire community in my opinion. I simply don't think Benkei should be a mod. It becomes a problem when the authority is the one misbehaving so that any criticism of that behavior is filtered through the same person being criticized.

As I mentioned before, it feels like a role-play of authoritarianism.

No, the correct thing to do is address their arguments, which stand on their own merit. — Baden

Hasn't he done that as well? I understand when the fallacy is used as initial counters as ways to discredit before engagement, but if their arguments have been countered properly, and they just keep repeating the same things over and over without adjusting to the objections and counterarguments, sometimes directly quoting from the people in "that group", isn't questioning that rhetorical similarity part of pointing out the inability of proper discourse on their part?

I'm all against fallacies, but if countering their arguments just leads them to repeat themselves without ever engaging with those counterargument criticisms, then how do you show the problems with their arguments if they ignore such criticism? Using different examples, like how the rhetoric is similar to other people with clearer agendas can put such counterarguments in another perspective, in the hopes of the criticism getting clearer.

I just mean that if the arguments have been countered over and over, maybe the correct thing would be for them to comply with proper discourse before the one's criticizing their opinions get criticism for their attempts at getting through with that criticism?

I just think that the context of the players and behaviors in the current discourse warrants a rhetorical comparison like Oliver did without it being a fallacy. If he initiated his response to their argument with it, yes, but not after pages of him properly battling their ill-conceived arguments. With their allowed low-quality arguments, I think a different tactic is allowed since it might be the only way to show their opinions and arguments exist within a certain context of bias.

The example on that website is showing an initial response to a first argument, not that the Owl has been discussing the topic for hours or days before the Owl points out that the opponent continues to repeat themselves without taking into account the criticism laid forward and that this is the same kind of repetitious nonfactual behavior... as Dr Corrupt used.

I just think there's some context missing here.

From the link:

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument."

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of Benkei, Isaac or mage @boethius.
— Olivier5

QED. — Baden

:up:

So the correct thing to do is to rather ask the question... Why is their rhetoric similar to "that group"?

Guilt by Association Fallacy — Baden

Isn't guilt by association about making the connection to such a group first and then go into the argument or avoiding criticism? Didn't Oliver connect the rhetoric similarities, not the people, in order to show how the rhetoric, their actual arguments, and opinions share similarities? I'm not sure that's a guilt association fallacy?

"Person A's opinion is bad because he's just part of "that group", is an example of guilt by association. But "Person B's rhetoric and opinions sound exactly like "that group" focuses on the actual argument's similarities with another group's arguments.

I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to one form of government. Let's look at all forms of government. Do they teach effective criticism of government? Do they teach about money at all — FreeEmotion

I agree. That argument was more focused on the effect of education for people who don't have access to it or are in some ways not allowed by their government, for the obvious reasons of keeping the propaganda narrative intact. But my take on epistemic responsibility is that schools should include media literacy and critical thinking as part of the curriculum of foundational skills like reading, writing, and math. Education cannot use the same idea about how individuals navigate through life today as it was before the internet, before media became part of the internet, and bot-algorithmic manipulation of the truth happens at millisecond speed.

Teach them to ask this question in schools, for a change:

Is “democracy” really America’s cause? Is “autocracy” really America’s great adversary in the battle for the future?

Not all autocrats, after all, are our enemies, nor are all democrats our reliable friends. — FreeEmotion

Questions are part of critical thinking, also fine-tuning a number of sequential questions in order to deconstruct a concept. Like, asking those questions can lead to questions about why some nations fail at democracy, why some autocracies work, but not others.

The problem is generally that teachers aren't educated in how to manage such lectures, how to give students the creative freedom of such investigations while making sure they always stay on track with not getting into bias or making faulty arguments. In essence work in a Socratic way.

I don't buy for a second the US narrative of spreading democracy and peace. They have massive interests and by playing chess with the world with clever wording, they can make sure such interests are made.

Education, in my perspective, is a key part in making sure future generations stand up against anything that isn't good for all of humanity. Indoctrination is the enemy of the world, inventing narratives for people to be biased towards so they won't criticize what is actually going on, as well as making sure conspiracy theories won't blind people from real issues. Governments of the world must be somewhat glad about the extreme spread of conspiracy theories because they know those groups won't ever have enough power, but also that they get all the attention of the media and social media so that real issues and agendas become easier to hide.

But all of this needs a heavy load of responsibility, epistemic responsibility. Nothing is black and white and it's easy to march against the problems of the world and be wrapped up in further bias through that. Like how many are unable to criticize Russia enough for their actions in Ukraine, always moving into whataboutism because they've been critics of the US for so many years they've forgotten about Russia, even stood by Russia because they oppose the US. Epistemic responsibility works in every direction.

Then we're done here, you have proven your inability to function through argument because that is not a counterargument. I've presented sources and elaborations of the premises and you just flip them instead while obviously haven't read more than the first part. So you are a waste of time, good luck with your "studies" professor expert :lol:

OK, then remind me of the premise. If "Critical thinking is something which needs teaching" is the conclusion of a logical argument - not just an assertion - then there should be a premise (or premises) leading logically to it. Remind me what those premises are, because I must have missed them. — Isaac

Ok, let's make it super clear. The conclusion is originally more: "Teaching critical thinking is needed to help people see past authoritarian propaganda." So, dividing them into two inductive arguments:

[p1] Critical thinking is a method of thought [p2] needed to be trained and nurtured to become [C] a mental tool against cognitive biases.

[p1] Societies with long traditions of propaganda and state lies develop strong belief biases over many generations. [p2] An individual who never gets exposed to anything other than propaganda and state lies as their source of information about the world and their government, has a high probability of accepting that information as truth if they don't see anything contradicting that propaganda, and if they have no knowledge of the possibility of such propaganda being wrong. [p3] While some individuals can develop high cognitive abilities of logic, the awareness of existing biases and fallacies requires external information to be taught in order for those concepts to be known to that individual. [p4] The method and process of evaluating and examining a claimed truths, facts, or conclusions in search of its actual truth-value while being aware of one's own biases and cognitive limitations so as to not contaminate the process, is called "critical thinking". [p5] To perform valid critical thinking as a method, one must know facts about biases, fallacies, and cognitive limitations. [C] Therefore, teaching critical thinking is required to help a large portion of people in authoritarian states to see past authoritarian propaganda and understand media literacy.

Now [p1] and [p2] True or false? Look at history, even the Soviet era, look at North Korea, Nazi Germany look at major authoritarian regimes and times when the church and king had all the power. How grinding down actual truth over generations, decades, and centuries places the common man in a position where it's next to impossible to see any other reality than the one that has been taught by parents, state, church, and other citizens. The only time such status quos break down and collapse is when the suffering and acts by those in power conflict with the truths that have been taught. For example, a church promotes peace in a nation but slaughters citizens in front of their eyes. Many effective authoritarian regimes conducted such slaughters outside of the citizens' view, so as to not conflict with the established propaganda. The more effective the propaganda machine, the more likely people will form biases to a point where they could even be exposed to contradicting evidence and still accept the propaganda narrative as true. For example, people call relatives in Russia to say are suffering through war and their relatives don't believe them, regardless of the evidence sent to them.
For [p3] True or false? People can develop high intelligence and high levels of logical thinking, but higher intelligence does not equal being immune to bias. The only way to be aware of one's own biases is to learn about them and how to spot them. Learn how to form arguments that don't come out of those biases and form fallacies in reasoning. That kind of knowledge can form naturally, but on a scale that encompasses an entire people, that probability is close to impossible. The knowledge about biases and fallacies and the understanding of these cognitive processes have been formed through philosophy and science over a very long time and many many researchers and thinkers to a combined body of knowledge. That one person would naturally develop the same extensive knowledge without any education is close to impossible, and a whole people doing it has such a low probability that it can't even be a valid factor against this premise. [p4] True or false? While we can debate on how to actually define "critical thinking", this is a short summary and general description found everywhere. The ability to critically evaluate something and be aware of the biases that contaminate that evaluation process. [p5] True or false? Since biases and fallacies are epistemic facts needed to understand one's own thought process in a more objective manner, they need to be taught through education of those facts in order to enable proper critical thinking to take place. So in the conclusion, all those premises support that teaching about critical thinking is required to help people understand how the propaganda forms their biases and how critically examining state information can only be done while being aware of how the biases formed through the history of that authoritarian state.


Now, I would like to hear you do an argument for how education is not required whatsoever. And how parents teaching children works better, especially in the context of [p1] and [p2] in my argument. But I think I know what will happen, you will not do that and you will continue to demand more of my argument than you are willing to give about your own.

So because I'm a professor, I should understand the things you think are the case? Why? — Isaac

You don't present any argument for "what the case is", you conclude that it is better for parents to just teach their children instead of formal education, and I object to that because parents teaching children a broad education requires the parents to be unbiased, but in authoritarian states, the state propaganda narrative is so ingrained through generations that those parents won't be unbiased but have a strong belief bias. And you ignore dealing with this objection and defend your position only with an appeal to authority: "I'm a professor and you are wrong".

I haven't once claimed I'm right because I'm a professor. I haven't claimed I'm right at all, in fact. I've said that the evidence to support your position is lacking. — Isaac

You have claimed a lot of things without any ounce of evidence other than implying that I'm wrong because you are a professor. And you haven't presented strong evidence against my argument either, other than that you are a professor.

If you say "you know it's illegal to burn the Union Jack", and someones say "I'm a professor of Law and actually it isn't", it's not a normal reaction to say "you must be one of those bad professors who are sacked because they don't know what they're talking about!" — Isaac

You haven't shown any sign to know what you are talking about. Your acts do not compute with your claimed title. I did not say that you are a bad professor until after continuously just reading your claim of title as the only source behind your claims. In the case of "professor of Law", the follow up is to show that it isn't legal, not to say that "I'm a professor of Law and that might mean you need to consider yourself to be wrong". That is essentially the same as implying I'm wrong just because you are a professor. You demand valid arguments, but you do nothing of the sort yourself.

The normal reaction is to say "Oh really, I was sure it was illegal, weird...". — Isaac

Essentially just accepting what you say... because you claimed yourself to be a professor. The normal reaction would be to say: "Ok, show me". Why should I just accept what you claim? Why should your conclusions don't be examined also? Are you unable to see the problem with this?

Do you not see how odd it is to claim that something a professor says is wrong because it doesn't tally with what you think you know. — Isaac

I ask for evidence, facts, rational arguments, and elaborations on your claims and conclusions. If you don't provide it, or you provide something inconclusive or illogical, then I object and when you continuously don't elaborate further I cannot do anything other than conclude your claims to be wrong or inconclusive.

You've got no strong reason to believe me. But you didn't, and that's the fascinating bit. You went for believing me, but simultaneously still believing that you know more than I do about the subject. — Isaac

I assume that you tell the truth because if you lied about being a professor, you render everything you say irrelevant as you have absolutely zero credibility and fall back on such tactics. Assuming you telling the truth allows me to grant you the opening to try and rationally argue for your claims and conclusions with more foundational respect as an interlocutor. So far, you haven't really done that, so I could question the validity of your claim, but my assumption does not change the fact that you still need to prove yourself past just pointing out you are a professor. I think a problem here is that if you are a professor you might be biased toward the dynamic of student/professor, where the respect from students towards a professor is generally more in respect of that title and the knowledge that comes with it. But I'm not your student and therefore I have no requirement of taking your words for granted without asking for more clarification and elaboration. To imply that if I accept the idea that you are a professor, I should therefore not be able to believe I could know more than you, is basically you saying that without knowing my level of knowledge, without knowing if I have a title or not, without any knowledge whatsoever regarding it, claim that you know more than me, just because of your claimed title. You aren't correct because you are a professor, you are correct if you demonstrate your claim and conclusion to be correct. Until then, you cannot say that I shouldn't believe I know more than you, because your title does not warrant a dismissal of the possibility that I know more than you, it is just a claim with so far zero proof in practice.

Yes. I've studied how people learn and how they solve problems, particularly very young children and from what I've studied I've no reason to believe that critical thinking skills need teaching. — Isaac

That you say you have studied them is the same as saying "I'm a professor therefore I'm right." The claim that you have studied is not a valid premise. Give me the study, the paper in that case.
Or form an argument with premises that aren't "I have the knowledge, therefore" or "I'm a professor, therefore".

I've every reason to believe that critical thinking is a normal part of human mental processing which is costly and so usually suppressed in situations of scarcity. — Isaac

I see no facts, publications, or logical premises here other than "I believe", try again.

Now you could just claim I'm lying, and I've done no such study. That would at least make sense. I could present you with all the case studies and papers (although clearly not on this thread - it would be way off topic). What doesn't make any sense is you believing the first claim, but then assuming I must be one of those 'bad' professors because I'm not saying what you think is the case. — Isaac

I'm not claiming you are lying, I'm saying that you just point to an unknown study that made you believe you are right. That is not enough. You could also try and logically argue for your claim and conclusion, so far I've not seen such a valid argument.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people?
— Christoffer

Yes. Pretty much. Compared to simply removing the conditions of scarcity and allowing people to think for themselves, teaching these skill pedagogically has virtually no measurable effect. — Isaac

https://core.ac.uk/reader/110405
https://core.ac.uk/reader/158370562
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1505329112
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=289aa9bd-a8b1-4431-88e2-83f326e01fe7
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=098c015f-c58f-4dda-b1c9-c69fffd7d2dd

As you can see by this very loose search for papers on teaching critical thinking it points toward broad consensus specifically around the importance of teaching critical thinking. Interestingly enough, the paper on critical thinking in Rwanda touches upon the very thing I'm talking about, where misinformation about health causes health problems and that the importance of teaching critical thinking helps mitigate serious consequences of such misinformation.

There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

Set in the context of Russian propaganda, the disinformation acts in similar ways, setting things up for dangerous consequences for the people that blindly follow that disinformation. Therefore critical thinking needs to be taught to help new generations understand what is propaganda and what is not.

So when you say that your studies conclude that if material challenges are met, people will think for themselves and that teaching these kinds of skills have no real measurable effect, that just sounds like your study is massively flawed and even downright false in its conclusion.

You could, however, provide the study, and references and make efforts through argument to support the claims you make, so that it doesn't just sound like they're your personal opinions wrapped up in an appeal to authority fallacy. But you won't, because you conveniently pressed on the idea that you are a professor and now you cannot show the "evidence" in support of your conclusions because that would be bad for you to do so on a public forum.

However, I think it's bad for you to be on a public forum anyway based on how you actually write here. If you are a professor, it would be wise to act in that effort, with the same scrutiny and standard, even under a pseudonym.

I really like to see publications that position that formal education isn't needed, that's a very radical conclusion and would surely make splashes in the scientific community. And because it's such a radical conclusion, it really needs some strong support. Your claims of having conducted a study is not enough, that study needs to be elaborated on. Sample sizes, cultural differences, class differences, cognitive differences, and socioeconomic differences. Also comparing to formal education in nations with private schools and those with government-funded schools as well as the statistics about levels of knowledge between different societies with different educational systems.

The problem here is that you just say "you made a study", that is not enough to claim you know better.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth.
— Christoffer

People already know that. I've studied six month old babies who are aware of that. — Isaac

Here you go with the studies claim again. *sigh*

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then?
— Christoffer

I did, but I was primarily a researcher. Teaching was an annoyance. — Isaac

It was an annoyance and you have concluded that formal education isn't needed. May I suggest I see a pattern in need of research here? How your annoyance formed an opinion that informed you to create a hypothesis that you are trying to prove.

Also interesting that you say "was" for both. I guess you're not a professor anymore then. And if "was" why would you get in trouble if you showed the studies you published? You can't get fired from somewhere you annoyed yourself to quit from, right?

The method is not relevant. The material causes of those societies being that way are. — Isaac

You tend to always just see one cause of all problems, the west, the US, imperialism, material scarcity.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac


One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first.
— Christoffer

Why? Why don't they already have the critical thinking skills from their own rich cultural heritage? — Isaac

I asked you to show me an example of such critical thinking that evolved separately from all other major studies in epistemology. But you never show me that. You ask why they don't already have those skills. Maybe it is because as I've already explained about the history of critical thinking, that it might require studies over centuries by many people and that it might be western power and luck that enabled it to go from the Greeks, through the Islamic golden age, through the renaissance, enlightenment era and modernized and synthesized with other philosophies around the world, that led to what it is today, both in cognitive sciences, philosophy and education. Maybe their cultural heritage does not allow for it or have it because of either interference that destroyed its progress, like how the Mayan empire collapsed and the knowledge of astronomy far ahead of its time got lost and had to be re-discovered again in the west.

Asking "Why?" does not change the fact that you have not shown examples of the same level of developed critical thinking in any other culture. Can you please... show.... it...

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right
— Christoffer

Yeah. Right. — Isaac

Delusional point of view.

Again, you're so sure of your beliefs that you think you can just dismiss any challenges to them with "yeah, right". It is true. I've studied children who have learned everything from reading, writing and maths through to advanced computer skills, science and even basic medicine without any pedagogic teaching whatsoever. Books and time. Nothing more. Throw in access to experts when they're asked for and you have a complete education system. — Isaac

Oh, so it's all just about the teacher/student relationship here? So first off, you need them to learn to read and write, basic education, that needs a teacher otherwise they can't do much with those books now can they? Then you just leave them with those books, but still have experts? So how does this in any shape or form change the fact that teaching critical thinking, either through those books or through a teacher can have the effect that I describe? Like the Rwanda paper.

And what about the differences in learning skills between students? Not all function the same, not all can go through autodidactic methods of learning and reach the same place as others. A study with a small sample size of an even smaller number of different backgrounds of students in this topic cannot conclude such an autodidactic learning method to be conclusively better than traditional education.

Again, you have studied, but I see no research paper or actual details of such a study. Is it even published? Is it reviewed?

Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.
— Christoffer

Why not? Are all the parents authoritarian too? People are not as stupid as you paint them. — Isaac

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about people living through generation after generation of limited knowledge controlled by an authoritarian regime. If you think they are stupid you clearly don't know shit about how indoctrination and belief bias works, regardless of your "professor status".

A clear example of this is the parents of people living in Ukraine who, when called up by their crying children, don't believe them that there's a war there. I could appeal to my emotions and say that these parents are fucking idiots, but the truth is that they've lived their whole lives within the state-controlled lies and world-view, so as to function as servants of that regime whether they are aware of it or not.

It's precisely this process of generational propaganda feedback loop that I'm arguing for being broken by getting knowledge of critical thinking into areas of the world that only get their information from authoritarian sources of propaganda.

Yes, there are. Nothing about home-education requires children to stay locked in their rooms. — Isaac

Being able to go out of their room does not equal being forced to face different perspectives and ideas, to be forced into the world and train such social skills. Sure, you can put them in social spaces, but learning together with others, and collaborating on projects is a massive needed skill to learn as you grow up. Especially if you are further away from extroversion. Such things do not happen on their own, or rather, they can never achieve a sufficient level for all, so only a few will benefit and others will suffer from lacking social skills later on.

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?
— Christoffer

Yes and yes. — Isaac

Really, what about biases? Did they show a clear understanding of biases while forming such a deduction argument? Can I read more somewhere about this other than you just saying you did?

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?
— Christoffer

Yes, if given the space to do so. You assume there are such people, for a start. People who think with strong biases tend to do so because of the mental cost of thinking more critically. Those whose thinking styles make this harder have a higher cost. No amount of education can fix that. — Isaac

Education mitigates it, ignoring it or just hoping "it fixes itself" like your idea of the autodidactic educational system does nothing and can even increase the problems. This is why methods are important, especially for those that find just "figuring it out" hard and mentally taxing. Having clearer methods help those with guidance rather than just acknowledging they have a bias and then doing nothing. And I'm not assuming anything, just look at the antivaccer movement filled with strongly agreeable people and a flourishing group-think mentality. With enough effort you could easily pull them under authoritarian ideas. Ironically enough most of them have moved from vaccination conspiracies to pro-Putin conspiracies and ideas.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.
— Christoffer

According to whom? — Isaac

According to you not able to produce support for such a conclusion, only "I'm a professor who did a study that showed me it is so", without showing said study, or any details, facts, or arguments in support.

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves?
— Christoffer

No. Not once. — Isaac

So how do they rid themselves of authoritarian governments if large parts of a population fully believe propaganda and lies because that's the only exposure they have to outside information? Does education of children that teaches them other perspectives than the authoritarian lies help break that generational cycle of echo chambers?

How do you propose it get fixed? Also I seem to remember you proposing that we need to let nations like Russia "figure it out by themselves", right?

Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west
— Christoffer

No, I mention lack of interventions by the west. I'm talking about removing debt, removing pecuniary trade barriers, removing support for corrupt regimes... these are not interventions. These are the lack of intervention. — Isaac

Those are not enough. The World Bank is already working on cutting dept, and removing corrupt regimes, how do you propose that happens without military intervention? Ask them nicely? Most attempts at changing regimes have happened through sanctions, at great cost to the people, so what's the alternative? Military intervention, killing off the corruption, and attempting to push for non-corrupt elections. But what happens if the people's literacy levels are low? If education is so low that normal electoral processes don't work and the nation falls back into separatist warfare? Much of this has already happened unfortunately forcing change in that way is extremely hard. What's lacking in nations that continuously have problems, outside of the debt problem, is almost always a lack of education for the people. Getting to self-sustainability requires more people to be educated and if literacy levels are low because it's hard getting them to such education, then it logically won't work better by just hoping they learn on their own, just by having books.

You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac


Because you are a professor?
— Christoffer

Yes, exactly that. As I said above, it's quite the normal response when someone whom you even strongly suspect of being a professor in a relevant field tells you you might be wrong to assume that you might, in fact, be wrong. It is not normal to assume they must be one of the 'bad' professors because you couldn't possibly be wrong. — Isaac

It's also common for highly educated people to discover problems with professors using their title as a source of authority in discussions. The whole reason why critical thinking is an important topic for me is that it's part of my own philosophical work. And my ethical work on epistemic responsibility, that a key point is to not just accept something until tested or examined. You have claimed to be a professor, a professor with radical conclusions about education, who says that you have studies that prove your conclusions and that because of this I should bow down to it, accept that I can be wrong and that you can be right, even if you haven't demonstrated any support for any of it.

This is an abuse of your title, a way to use that title as part of an argument in order to shift the balance of power in a debate. Unfortunately, for you, I don't fall for such behaviors. That's why I keep asking for support for your claims. Until that is presented your title means nothing and your studies are irrelevant. You need to make it relevant before it can be used to support your claims and conclusions. Otherwise, it just becomes you claiming your right becauseyou say so.

Yes. I use the same tools as everybody else. It seems they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. — Isaac

Dig deeper then.

You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong.
— Christoffer

Yes. That's right. Again, it's quite normal practice (assuming you believe me) to consider the possibility that you're wrong if your conclusions are contradicted by an expert in the field. Note this is true even if you too are an expert in the field. It is not normal practice to assume there must be something wrong with them because they don't agree with you. — Isaac

You first agree that you do an appeal to authority fallacy, then still position it to be justified. As I said you might need to dig deeper.

Your contradictions are opinions with claims going against most research on the topic, meaning you have a radical claim without the support and you position that as being the contradiction against me by an expert. I assume there's something wrong with you, not because I don't agree with you, but because you haven't presented any support for anything you've said. What is it that you don't understand here? You're babbling on and on about this but you can't see the glaring problem with this? And because you used past tense when speaking about your role as a teacher and researcher,

I'm beginning to believe that you're just an unemployed professor, delusional after unfinished studies with growing radical ideas that you desperately want to be true and you try to gain your old status back in here by just saying "I've done studies, trust me I'm a professor and I have seen so much that proves me right."

You still have to show support for your claims. I don't give a fuck about your title, it is irrelevant if you can't back up your ideas with the studies you draw all your truths from.

You asked me, remember? — Isaac

Doesn't mean you are free from having to support your claims and conclusions.

Yes. Again, this is completely normal practice. — Isaac

No, it's called an appeal to authority.

It has nothing to do with 'authority' it has to do with respect for time spent studying. It's the same respect I extend to other experts with whom I strongly disagree. — Isaac

You simply don't understand that you claiming this means nothing. It's still an appeal to authority, something you as a professor should know what it means.

It would be easy to continue the discussion if you actually made efforts to support your claims. I can't respect someone who positions themselves as being "more right" than me because of their title or claim of expertise if that's the only source of support for their claims, especially when the claims are radical and in need of heavy support as they counter general consensus of the topic.

you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor
— Christoffer

I've claimed nothing of the sort. We're 173 pages in, I've not even mentioned my qualifications to this point and you asked me what they were. — Isaac

You claim yourself to be a professor and therefore I should consider myself wrong. Because you have no other support for your claims, this becomes the only support you present, and it is about using appeal to authority to gain superiority over your interlocutor.

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech". — baker

What is the level of free speech you want before you can accept the fact that you have free speech?

It also depends on which country you are in, of course, but assuming you are living in a nation that doesn't imprison or shoot you because of what you say.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters. — baker

All of that depends on how the government functions as well. Not all western nations are the same. While I agree with your argument, it's a bit simplified.

But in terms of Russia, free speech is suppressed by people in power in order to keep being in power. We're not talking about levels of resources here, but an authoritarian government limiting free speech. They didn't really value human life before this invasion either, even when things were "stable".

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference. — baker

The difference between being under a boot and not. That a western society can become authoritarian is not an argument for the west being authoritarian as well. (not speaking about the US which has too much corruption to be free of authoritarian attributes). I don't get imprisoned or killed when speaking my opinions on the street, I don't get state lies fed through the media, I can question whomever I want without getting into trouble. As long as my society isn't doing any of the opposite of that I am not in an authoritarian society.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint. — baker

Do you see the same level of engagement in these questions among non-western-standard nations? If anyone reaches zero carbon footprint, who do you think will be the first nation to do so? Norway is pretty close.

Debates and free speech enable people to push politicians for such changes. Companies are able to see the demand and act accordingly. In nations where you can't really change politicians' decisions, where corruption rules over all, and there's too much economical risk with changing anything, it won't happen fast or at all. I'm including the US in these types of nations that have a hard time changing course.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do. — baker

Do you think it's the more westernized parts of Russia's population that do?
And the majority of people in the west want this, the vocal others are a minority but still enough to hold things back. But as said, western nations have a much higher push toward sustainable energy and will get there sooner than others.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country. — baker

I live in it, so I must be dreaming then.

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care. — baker

Well, I can merely speculate since it seems we don't know how many support Putin, how many criticize him, and how many criticize him but plays along so as not to be killed or imprisoned. The increase in popularity for Putin is an example of just how hard it is to know because that popularity can both be state propaganda or just people more afraid of consequences for saying anything else.

No. It's almost exclusively imposed on them. Not only is the curriculum set at governmental level, but even if people are consulted, those consulted are adults and the education is for children. At no point are they involved in the process at all. — Isaac

And what source do you have for this cut and clear answer for every situation in every nation by every nation? And why would the children be consulted, it's the adults, parents, communities etc. that should be consulted as it's them who has the insight into their culture and community.

I'm just sating critical thinking doesn't require any specialist equipment so there's no reason to assume indigenous cultures haven't already worked it out. — Isaac

There's no reason to think that the logical tools established over the course of thousands of years, through the Greeks, the Islamic Golden age, renaissance, enlightenment, and modern scientific movement could ever just appear just because no special equipment is required. If you have any proof of analytical philosophy in this regard exists somewhere without any influence of collaborative philosophical transactions between nations, then please provide that instead of using an "it could be likely" argument as if that was somehow valid. You're grasping at straws here trying to justify why critical thinking within Western philosophy is "bad" knowledge for people in other cultures when the knowledge itself is nothing bad. It's like educating them 2 + 2 = 4 and then you say that we shouldn't do that. Why would that be a bad thing for them to know?

It's no less than the argument you gave. You've not said anything more than that X is the case. I've countered that I disagree X is the case. — Isaac

I've explained the logical reasoning behind it, you did nothing but say that you "disagree". So no, you have less of an argument, you have elaborated a thing and you require a truckload of evidence but ignore it when asked for even a fraction of it for your own conclusions.

I've said plenty more than "X" and enough to warrant more depth from you, which you never provide.

Yes. My specialism in in the social construction of beliefs. — Isaac

Interesting, that would mean you're pretty bad at your job since you believe a hell of a lot that you won't elaborate or support in any way, and you should definitely understand that knowledge, or rather beliefs passed down from parents to children is a core part of the social construction of how beliefs manifest and no way near the kind of knowledge that can help people break free from indoctrination and propaganda in a culture.

This is what fascinates me about your approach here. I've said I'm a professor of Psychology, you seem to have no problem believing that (for now, at least). Then, when I raise a point of disagreement with you, you still think you have it right and I've got it wrong, even within the field you've just happily accepted I have spent a lifetime studying. Did it not even pass by your thought processes that you might just have this wrong? That, despite the fact that it feels right, you might have to accept things aren't as they seem? — Isaac

You don't even know what I've studied. You saying you are right because you claim yourself to be a professor of psychology is a fallacy, that is not a valid support for an argument. And nothing of what you argue seems to rhyme with the actual knowledge you present yourself to be an expert in.

I don't care if you claim to be the God of knowledge, do you have a valid or reasonable argument? Do you support it logically? Those are the things that matter.

But you use your claimed title as a way to win the argument through authority. That is the same as a police officer beating an innocent down and saying, I have the right to do this because I'm a police officer and therefore I'm right. It's an appeal to authority fallacy with yourself as the authority and it's pretty annoying, especially since that behavior is one that I absolutely despise as it's an attempt at using a title as a form of proof of being right. Which is similar to authoritarian bullshit.

The evidence for there being a fact of the matter or teachable body of knowledge on the subject of critical thinking is extremely thin on the ground and I'd go as far as to say that current thinking in developmental psychology is heading in the direction of admitting that it can't be done pedagogically. What you certainly don't have is some clear unequivocal fact that critical thinking is a solid canon which can be taught through standard education. — Isaac

Philosophy, logical reasoning, deduction, induction, the practices of philosophical study in analytical form. On a more elementary level is to let students question a claim further than normally done, to examine their own claims in light of other perspectives or facts. Teach about biases and how they work. How the scientific method works, and in relation to it, how to actively try and disprove yourself as part of proving a point.

We can go on and on, but I think you know what I mean by "critical thinking". It's the foundation of study that isn't based on reciting past facts, but to examine facts through method, through thinking past biases, and reaching conclusions not rooted in pre-existing presumptions by the person examining.

Basically, it is philosophy, epistemology with a focus on examining one's own knowledge and pre-existing beliefs.

Are you telling me that nothing of this can be taught to people? That nothing of this is helpful in giving people a good foundation for figuring out actual truths instead of accepting the truths they are being told?

I think the problem is that you are referencing things like this. Which is more focused on high-level complex critical thinking. When I'm focusing on getting a basic understanding of critical thinking to people who generally have never viewed their own knowledge in light of such mental strategies.

In basic form, teaching epistemology will show students that there's more to a claim, truth, fact or argument, even done by yourself, than just accepting it as plain truth. That is key to teaching people under an authoritarian regime to start questioning what is true or not.

Again, there's little to no evidence that education (as in pedagogy) actually achieve this in the least. — Isaac

Are you saying that education does not change people from being servants of those in power to being agents of their own destiny? You can look at history for examples of how education reshape society. In older communities with a church and workers, the church was the source of information, but when general education started forming it drastically changed these communities.

So you're saying there's no change between a society with no- to low education and one with a good foundation of it?

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids.
— Christoffer

Yes, that's right. — Isaac

If there's no need for education, why don't you just quit your job then? All the parents already teach your students what they need, right?

In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems.
— Christoffer

Again, the direct evidence is thin to non-existent for this. Self- or home- education does not yield less (or more) authoritarian societies. I've studied the education methods of large numbers of hunter-gatherer tribes, as well as small networks of home-educated groups in England. none show the trends associated with indoctrinate teaching among, say, religious groups or some of the remote agriculturalist tribes. Education method is not the deciding factor in the imposition of indoctrination. It has far more to do with social structure and economic conditions. — Isaac

Your studies focused on hunter-gatherer tribes and English people learning from home. I'm talking about people in authoritarian nations with extreme levels of propaganda forming the entirety of exposure to "truth" that the people are able to get. You keep saying that education isn't needed, that people can learn from their parents. Yes, that can be true with educated parents of nations with less corruption or state-controlled information. But religious and authoritarian societies are very much existing in a lot of places in the world and that's when this type of method falls flat and becomes indoctrination through tradition. Five generations of people living inside the truth of an authoritarian regime does not learn to question anything if all their knowledge comes from parents already indoctrinated. It becomes a feedback loop for them, with no keys to break out of that loop.

Then why haven't those nations already done it? What are they natively lacking which has prevented this? — Isaac

One part can be that they don't have any teachers for this type of educational form. So those teachers need to be educated first. Second part is funding to build schools, infrastructure for running those schools, and getting students to them and home. So if nations with more wealth than they need can help establish these first steps and that's where I mean that it can be done in collaboration with the people of that culture.

I have no objection to the widespread sharing of facts. Sharing facts and 'education' are not the same thing. — Isaac

No, but facts are being taught through education and more importantly, how to interpret facts, and understand them.

Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.
— Christoffer

No it doesn't. The curricula in schools and colleges is almost 100% that of white western males. — Isaac

Of what schools?

And you don't really seem to understand what I'm saying here. Educational content is derived from up-to-date sciences and facts. As the world has become more globalized, studies more often assimilate studies from other places of the world into the studies they do. All knowledge is a synthesis of what came before, studies informing other studies, etc. And in a historical context, this is what happened with the Islamic golden age, Greeks' knowledge was scattered away and was picked up during that golden age and then their refinement of the Greeks' teachings was scattered and picked up back by the west.

And schools in Sweden have made good efforts into researching how education has been tailored by earlier "white males" and helped correct things to better neutrality in content. Just the last 30 years have made schools here unrecognizable in how they've improved neutrality.

Literacy is not the issue here. Children are perfectly capable of learning to read, write and do arithmetic entirely of their own volition without any schools at all, they need only the time and materials — Isaac

Just throw the books at them and they'll learn? Yeah, right

I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.
— Christoffer

Regardless of my opposition to formal education, let's say you're right. With no racist overtones, you'd have no reason at all to explain why they haven't already done this other than the material condition preventing them. So remove those material constraints. No further action is required. Remove the material constraints prevent people from developing their own education systems from their own cultural heritage. Nothing else need be done. Its the material constraints that matter. — Isaac

You seem to have forgotten where this started. It's your sidetrack to talk about poorer nations' educational forms and yes, the constraints are primarily material. But I was talking about nations with authoritarian governments or nations with extreme religious violence and oppression of the people.

My point was that establishing schools independent of propaganda, religious or political, guarded against the authoritarian boots, will slice through the tradition of indoctrination within those nations and enable people to see through the status quo of such regimes. Letting parents teach their own children the same thing they were taught within such nations does not generate anything other than the same servents of those regimes that those parents were taught to be.

And regarding your opposition to formal education, aren't there a lot of studies showing how important it is for kids to get out of their homes and interact with other people as well as other perspectives than their own or what they've learned at home? Part of developing a balanced perspective is to challenge it through the exposure of those perspectives against others in the world. It's a large part of development. How do you do that without some gathering of young students in a place where such interaction can happen and be encouraged rather than randomly happen on its own. Your way of thinking about formal education seems to just focus on a dislike and criticism of the "white male controlling the curriculum", but excluding everything else that formal education gives young students. Viewing the UK schools from the outside, I get how people can criticize it due to the heavy focus on tradition in the UK. But schools in Sweden are nothing like that and your opposition to these schools makes little sense compared to what you propose instead, which has major problems when examining it closer.

logical thinking methods are not some external discovery which must be taught, they are a natural part of normal human thought. — Isaac

As an example, is examining a topic with deduction reasoning part of normal human thought? Have you ever met someone who figured out such methods on their own?

And what about those who don't have a high proficiency in logical reasoning? Who tend to always gravitate towards bias or agreeableness of others' opinions without questioning anything. Do you think they will "invent" methods to help them bypass those weaknesses out of thin air?

Basic logical thinking exists, but the tendency for bias is so high that it's easily can become corruptible knowledge.

What makes you think the farmers of Senegal don't already have this knowledge? Are you saying their poor education is responsible for the food shortages, and not - for example - the fact that they were so heavily in debt to rich western institution that they had to export products to make repayments? — Isaac

I didn't talk about Senegal I talked about an example of a poor community without farming skills.

If we talk about Senegal, don't you think that there are other skills that can be taught that can help them in other ways? What would happen if literacy went up from the low levels they have now? With better literacy comes other open doors in higher education.

Without education who's gonna fix the problems? Because just blaming the dept isn't enough, the reality is more complex than just cutting that dept, and then everything is fine. There needs to be a foundation underneath that as well.

Depts need to be cut, or at least lowered to levels actually sustainable, that I agree with. But you blindly blame the west for everything.

the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice.
— Christoffer

As I've mentioned. This is far from established fact. — Isaac

No? Is ancient Greece "the west"? Is the Islamic golden age "the west"?

Where do you think western philosophy comes from? Just because it's "western" philosophy today, do you think any of modern philosophy is just purely "the west" or is it heavily influenced by the progress of philosophy through time? What about people like Schopenhauer who were heavily influenced by Eastern Philosophy, that didn't contribute to a synthesis of different perspectives that makes it hard to just say "western philosophy"?

"Western" is a trigger word for you it seems. It is just a word. Look at the content.

I think I've made it relatively clear, but if not already - critical thinking skills are endemic to humans, they don't need teaching, they are suppressed by scarcity and the removal of such scarcity is all that is required to encourage them. I should be clear here that scarcity does not only refer to economic scarcity. The details are way off topic for a thread about Ukraine. — Isaac

Sure, for hunter-gatherer societies and concentrated specific communities. Apply it to large-scale complex societies or complex interactions between different large societies. Or for when people need to change their nation because they are oppressed and they don't know how to do so.

To say that people of the population of the world today can just let "learning" happen on its own is a pure utopian delusion.

The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things
— Christoffer

There's no evidence for this at all. — Isaac

education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes. — Isaac

Didn't you argue for letting nations just be themselves and solve things themselves? Here you mention a lot of interventions by the west, even forcing away corruption, which could mean it requires violence to do so. Reduction or removal of dept is obvious, but what I meant was that reduction of corruption, fair trade trading agreements and building a functioning educational system all need educated people within these nations to make sure this happens. Otherwise, it's us going into their nation and deciding for them, which you don't want happening.

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them...
— Christoffer

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. The rest is just conjecture. — Isaac

It's basically your own argument for which I agree with. I don't say that the west are angels and innocent, I'm agreeing that the west fucked all these nations over, but neither of that helps them now and the west just cutting dept and then leaving them alone will not help anything either. Poor nations of the world today have different levels of functioning societies, many even have rather high standards of living, but still struggle. Many of the national problems they have are not all the west fault and how do they fix those without educated people who have the skills and knowledge to do it? Because these problems aren't hunter-gatherer societies, these are large societies with complex problems that self-learning skills from parents don't fix.

Classic. You'd rather develop some convoluted story about how I've managed to become a professor of Psychology yet still hold the (obviously wrong) beliefs rather than simply come to terms with the possibility you might be wrong. — Isaac

Because you are a professor? Because now you're doing that appeal to authority fallacy again. Maybe it's you who need to come to terms with the possibility of being wrong? Maybe your self-image as a professor makes you dismissive of others' perspectives.

Incidentally, this is what most of my research was actually on (the reason I engage with these threads at all), the tools people use to defend beliefs as they're challenged. — Isaac

Have you ever examined yourself and your own tools of defense? Because posts you've made in this thread do not show any kind of sign that you have a clear understanding of your own behavior.

Here, the most 'logical' thing to do (assuming you're happy with my assertion that I am, in fact, a professor of Psychology) is for you to wonder where you went wrong. — Isaac

Wrong where? You are still using your authority as a reason for me to be wrong. You haven't presented anything in an argumentative form that proves anything correct. You imply opposition to formal education without any thought of further consequences of removal of formal education, you argue that complex problems in poor nations are just the West's fault and any other problems they can figure out themselves without any education in relation to such problems. You imply a Marxist reform of Russia, ignoring everything about how Russia functions today, and you imply that people can break through indoctrination and traditions of propaganda without understanding critical thinking or through balanced knowledge gained from independent education. None of this has any real arguments behind them, but you are a professor, so therefore your authority as such a professor makes your arguments correct.

This abuse of authority on your part in this does not validate your ability to be correct, quite the opposite.

To enquire what misstep you have made in reaching a conclusion that an expert in the matter has questioned. But instead, you reach for an alternative (far less plausible) narrative to protect you from having to rethink your conclusions. — Isaac

Again, you claim yourself to be an expert, therefore I'm wrong and therefore I need to rethink my conclusions. Without a clear argument, elaborating your points and premises for your conclusions you only abuse the authority to disqualify my input before yours.

The quality of your argumentative skills has been shown to be lousy, even towards others in this thread and I'm beginning to understand that if you are a professor using your authority as a fallacy like this, then that explains a lot of why you don't listen to others. And it might be high time for you to rethink things yourself.

You'll assume I'm lying perhaps (without any cause, nor realising what immense problems that would bring me on a public forum), or I've somehow made it to this level without having a basic understanding of how people learn. Both less plausible stories than that you've just got something wrong. — Isaac

I cannot know if you are lying or not, but it doesn't matter because if you are then you are a shitty professor who uses his authority as his main source of reasoning in a debate. "Professor" doesn't mean anything really, I've seen professors getting fired for being really bad at their jobs. I've seen professors not worthy of their title. Academia is filled with bullshitters who abuse their authority, that's nothing new. It's just obvious when it's obvious.

I think you are biased to your studies, I think you don't have a clear image of further consequences for your conclusions. It happens when studies are focused on a specific thing and not further large-scale ramifications of it that other studies and meta-studies aim to do. This focus on being a professor that knows more than others can lead to a delusion of being an expert in everything. But you are not a professor of philosophy, you are not a professor of political history. So when topics range between different areas, you can only really be an expert in your narrow field of study, but you comment and argue about so many other things while still using your authority as an explanation of why I'm wrong and you are right.

I'm not really interested in discussing practical solutions. I think it's quite inane to do so on a public forum full of laymen. I'm only really interested in how you present your beliefs and how you respond when challenged. — Isaac

And now you call everyone else "laymen". I'm interested to know how a professor that's not a professor in political history and political philosophy could explain the practical implementation of Marxism into Russia better than the "laymen" around him. But isn't it also convenient to not have to explain actual practical change like that and just dream utopian dreams while telling everyone else that you don't have to explain anything since you are a professor and others should just trust you because they are laymen that don't know better?

We are not your subjects of study, we are interlocutors in a discussion where you claim intellectual superiority because you are a professor rather than through convincing rhetoric and reasoning. Maybe you should study your own behavior on this forum?

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of? — Isaac

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for. It is entirely possible to create a curriculum that is unique to the place the school is being built.

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking? — Isaac

What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4.

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases. — Isaac

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument. Your disagreement is irrelevant if you don't have any explanation showing the opposite. Bad philosophy might get you stuck into biases, we see enough of that on this forum that's for sure, but if you are educated in even basic philosophy, there are plenty of tools for thought to use when the goal is to investigate a probable truth. And for general education, basic philosophy is enough; how to structure an argument by examining beyond the pre-existing belief of the one examining.

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that. — Isaac

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking.

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals. Because that has a good track record of fixing problems for people throughout history. That is not psychology, that is conservative ideology.

And your evidence for this would be? — Isaac

Logic.

You need to build a house. You have a high intellect, but you have no knowledge of how to build a house. Would you A) Be able to use your high intelligence to figure it out? or B) Need the gathered knowledge of other people on the topic of building a house to be able to build it?

If you answer A, you might be able to go far, but when some higher knowledge becomes required, like how moisture in the ground affects the foundation and that it might require specific precautions to prevent rot, maybe even a specially built foundation because of the specific soil the house is built on, you fail. That knowledge requires facts to be learned before building the house. It is therefore impossible to effectively and properly build that house without you learning more about how to do so.

The same goes for critical thinking. If you have no knowledge of the mental traps of biases you get into when trying to figure out concepts or solutions to problems, then you will more easily fall into those traps. This isn't something that just exists in nations in need of better and less politically influenced education, but it exists everywhere. Just the last ten years have introduced higher critical thinking into the curriculum of schools in Sweden. But this is much more important for people living in nations with a high degree of extreme propaganda. Where media blatantly lies and group think traditions have taken roots.

If you have a macro problem to solve and you are highly intelligent, but you are unaware of how the mind works, you are unaware of the knowledge about how cognitive biases functions and have no knowledge of the philosophical basics required to bypass all of it through critical thinking. Do you A) Just use your high intelligence and be able to solve it? Or B) Use tested and established methods to figure out a solution uninfluenced by your cognitive biases?

What is most likely the best outcome of that? And if enough people get an education with this knowledge, don't you, logically, agree that it forms a better foundation of collective thought to fix a macro problem for that large group of people?

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms. It sharpens their intellect to be used more effectively and faster than having to invent the wheel over and over.

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities. — Isaac

I answered to this strawman you made:

people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them. — Isaac

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids. In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems. Because if the authoritarian systems work under the guise of national tradition, it creates a feedback loop that never breaks and any destructive authoritarian regime could keep doing what they're doing as there's no alternative way to break free of it by the people. North Korea is a good example of this.

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures? — Isaac

You're making the racist conjecture by dividing everything into a clear us and them where they have some magical alternative to western thinking and also that western thinking is some singular entity of idealogy and opinions, exactly the kind of simplistic viewpoints that Hans Rosling opposed the west to have. It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture. However, a good quality education also teaches about other perspectives in the world, it's part of broadening knowledge. And when it comes to critical thinking, methods of logical deduction, and induction, those are close to universal methods of math, but for structuring arguments and conceptual ideas. And what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know. Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.

The problem is that you are viewing education as indoctrination, not learning skills and knowledge. You base your argument around how the west reshapes third-world countries by establishing schools with western thinking. This is not how things are done. Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation?

The problem is that you structure your entire argument around a strawman that I argue for invading these nations with western education. And then you are unable to think past this and realize that I'm not doing that, that I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.

This blind division between "the west" and third world that you force your arguments through is much more racist in rhetoric than you try to apply to my argument. And if they have a method of critical thinking that is better, I wish to hell that we can learn from that, so if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn. I'm just going by what is known right now about logical thinking that bypasses cognitive biases. And that these are powerful tools of thought that is effectively piercing through propaganda more easily than any traditional thinking learned from parents to children within authoritarian nations filled with groupthink problems.

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump. — Isaac

And Liverpool's chemical waste dump was not a threat to the entire region of Europe or reshaped the entire topic of nuclear power safety. Stop making attempts at a point that doesn't work. Chernobyl was a significant incident that is known throughout the world.

And you also fail tremendously with that point because Liverpool is in the UK and it's probably part of common knowledge within the UK, even for a smaller incident than Chernobyl. So by that logic you would assume that people within the same Soviet Union should know about Chernobyl, especially when the iron curtain fell and things were declassified and schools started teaching about history without propaganda. Or just basic chemistry or physics in grade school teaching about radioactivity. That people from Russia don't know about Chernobyl or how radioactive material from a failed nuclear power plant works, just proves my point of how important education is. Chernobyl could have made Russia uninhabitable. It was a major event that is still a dangerous risk and that knowledge isn't taught properly in Russia, or the soldiers who were there gave an insight into just how bad education is for many in Russia.

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both. — Isaac

What leads you to automatically gravitate towards the US as the form of "westernization" I talk about? Isn't that racist towards me as a Swede to automatically assume that I have no ability to form a westernized system based on Sweden and not the US? Also based on Sweden's tradition of charity and help to nations in need that is in no way close to the US or UK's use of charity as a form of imperialistic establishment in other nations?

Because instead of asking questions first about how I think it should work, you directly assume me to be a racist western imperialist of the US standard and you then argue accordingly. You see, this is what is wrong with you and your rhetoric.

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education? — Isaac

If establishing a school in Senegal and building the curriculum, it will be a collaboration with the people of Senegal to form that education. If there are alternatives to logical and critical thinking by any thinkers in Senegal then that will be a great addition, maybe you should mention which ones you are thinking about? If I were to establish a school there, then maybe I would include Souleymane Bachir Diagne in the collaboration of building that curriculum and include teachings of Kocc Barma Fall as part of the general philosophical education. But most importantly, Senegal needs basic education since literacy is among the lowest in Africa. Here's a good example of how quality education can help the nation as a whole. If one of Kocc Barma Fall's most famous ideas was to reject foreign aid, then that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages. Such projects need people with education to establish those projects. Helping with establishing more schools and a curriculum in collaboration with the Senegal people is then a form of aid that doesn't make them dependent as servents (as Kocc Barma Fall's said), but able to reject aid and become totally independent from any kind of aid.

You see, you cannot just pick and choose a nation like that and try and make an argument that strawman my concept into some blanket solution for everywhere. The actual practice of establishing schools needs to be done in collaboration with the place it is being established in. But the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice. That it is western philosophy does not equal it being an invasion of western culture, especially not if combined with philosophies of the nation the school is established within.

You think that because I write a summary of how education on critical thinking can form greater independence for the people by them having tools of thought to critically view and reform their own destiny as they like, there's no depth to the actual practice of how to do it?

This is a failure of thinking on your part, requiring the entire plan for establishing specific nations' educational systems or helping them establish them instead of understanding the foundational concept I presented. You aren't arguing in any rational or philosophically balanced way, you are biased towards your already established picture of me as a racist imperialistic pro-western spokesman and you reshape everything you read into that narrative. But that also informs me of why you cannot understand the concept I present because you seem so much a slave to your own biases that the concept of critical thinking seems foreign to you, you already have a bias in this discussion, a bias that makes you unable to see what I write in any other shape than your pre-existing viewpoint. Which becomes very ironic because of the topic of what I write here.

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with. — Isaac

Ok, then elaborate on that disagreement because unestablished disagreement in itself is irrelevant to the discussion.

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit?
— Christoffer

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument. — Isaac

Yes - that philosophy is bullshit? For a professor at a University, you write pretty badly if you don't see the error in reference here. I guess you don't mean that because that would be fundamentally stupid.

But in terms of "the case" I've spent a lot of time presenting "that case", you presented nothing but conjecture with loaded terms like calling things racist and just disagreeing without elaboration of that disagreement. As well as strawmen, false dichotomies etc.

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom?
— Christoffer

No. — Isaac

If a high level of knowledge means knowing a lot about much, it is. Wisdom is combining pure knowledge and facts into balanced ideas.

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically.
— Christoffer

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it. — Isaac

Elaborate on the disagreement.

You don't agree that gaining knowledge through unbiased education enables an increase in the amount of knowledge you have, which through the quantity of knowledge enables more perspectives to be known and more perspectives to be viewed at the same time to form an unbiased critical view and increase wisdom about a topic?

What is it that you don't agree with? Are you unable to form an explanation for this disagreement?

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it. — Isaac

I don't, it is a part of it, but you cannot start change if people aren't educated enough to act upon the change they want. The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things and if the people handling those things are the educated people of the nation doing these changes and not outsiders, they have become independent of outside help. The most effective way, as I've been saying over and over, to help people become independent from any outsiders is to help them with education so that they can shape things themselves and not rely on outsiders to help them. Imagine a class of young adults who went through education and later higher education of water filtration science. That is far better than waiting for outsiders to come with water aid or water filtration aid. Then they have full control over fixing this problem and doing so in a way that benefits them entirely and independently, as in line with Kocc Barma Fall's will for the people not to become servents. Just as how I used the proverb you called racist.

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process. — Isaac

Once again, see there how you reshape what I write to fit your worldview or your view of others' arguments to fit how you form your counterarguments. You seem unable to discuss anything without loading everything with that kind of a gun.

The specifics of this is how the people gain knowledge to critically review state propaganda. That was the foundation of my argument that has, through your wild outbursts grown into a more general topic. So going back to that foundation, critical thinking enables ways to spot unproven truths, state lies, and propaganda more easily and easily review them critically. If you understand how to break down and deconstruct "truths" around you, you could start seeing through state propaganda and work against it. If a nation like Russia, whose government and Putin rely heavily on state propaganda for the people to be kept in place, had problems keeping the propaganda narrative intact because too many citizens see through it and show criticism against it, then a huge part of the authoritarian machinery stops working. Some experts even say that the state propaganda in Russia is the main source of power for Putin and if it fails then Putin's regime will fail with it.

My point is that the power of the government is just as good as its ability to keep the public in its place. If education enforces the same state propaganda and villages and rural areas don't even have schools, then how would people even begin to know how to deconstruct what is told to them. And if they can barely read, how could they ever gain any knowledge to help them grasp the reality they're in?

You seem to argue that my argument of educational aid is "the only solution". It's not. But it's a powerful part of giving the people the power to fight back against the government. What else can they fight with? By not agreeing with the government, it's not as easy as it seems for the government to keep itself in power. If the machinery of a nation, the lifeblood that is the people, stops supporting the government's power, then soon or later that government will collapse. None of this is "easy" it can even be bloody and it all depends on what the people want. If they feel fine with the stability of the authoritarian government, they might just hold their heads down and hope to live a decent life, or they really want a change and act towards it.

But to say that education does not have a major part in empowering the people against their government or against corruption and propaganda is just not a valid conclusion without better justification as to why it isn't.

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'? — Isaac

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them of the chance to through the course of time study these things compared to the comfort in western philosophical institutions who could spend lifetimes of time on a topic to develop and fine-tune it? Maybe geopolitical instabilities even without imperialistic interference pressed down free thinkers and unabled them to develop and fine-tune their philosophies? Just look at how the Islamic golden age lost practice after it ended and most of that knowledge went to other places in the world, but most regions over the course of hundreds of years fell back into strict religious practices. Why didn't they keep their practices of education that are so important even mentioned in the Quran as an important part of life?

So there are a lot of reasons why cultural heritage could suppress such knowledge, even if such knowledge was even a world standard many centuries ago. What the west has had is one of the longest periods of refining past knowledge, sciences, and philosophy. And even so, many of the discoveries in critical thinking is as accidental as discoveries in science. The right person at the right time reviews a specific text and forms a new idea of progressive thought. Western philosophy might just have been lucky over the thousands of years it has existed. But the most important part is that critical thinking is essentially analytical in nature and western philosophies have been for the most part analytical. If you are to review a stated truth, the analytical approach to reviewing that truth is far more effective for deconstructing it than anything else. It's the foundation for how science works.

As I've said, if there are critical thinking concepts that have been developed and work in different ways than in western philosophy, good. We could learn from that as well, just as we learned knowledge from the Islamic golden age, just as anyone learns by the experience and knowledge of others. The problem here is that you gather together everything with a "western" stamp on it and position it as an imperialistic invasion of other cultures. Not everything is like that. We could even argue that the Islamic golden age is a huge historical foundation of western philosophy and that we just picked up the torch and if that knowledge returns to Islamic nations, how can anyone determine that to be any kind of "western" invasion rather than basically Islamic tradition of education mentioned in the Quran itself?

You've divided the world so black and white in this matter that you think that western philosophy and "other philosophy" are at some odds with each other, just because we have another concept called "western imperialism" that shares the name "western" in it. That's just a childish false dichotomy.

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children? — Isaac

Why didn't people think about "0" before it was discovered as part of math? You wouldn't argue that "0" isn't a universal concept of math, do you? So why didn't people think of "0" before people used "0" in calculations?

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education?

Just read up on the history of western philosophy of logical reasoning and you will find discoveries after discoveries of how nothing was clear cut and easily "invented" in one single place as some sort of universal truth that was just obvious. A universal concept means that it is universal in its logic. Deduction and induction are universal concepts as they are logical in nature. True premises lead to a true conclusion or true premises lead to a probable conclusion. This is as logical as math, just as discovering the concept of "0". Finding an alternative to this is like finding an alternative to "0", good luck. Maybe western philosophy was just the place these concepts were discovered, maybe others discovered it too, just like many ancient cultures discovered the concept of "0" independent of others doing the same.

But when I speak of these concepts as part of education, I'm clearly speaking of them as an education for people who didn't have those concepts known to them. And with authoritarian states that suppress knowledge, it might be known to the elite, but not the common man, which becomes a source of power for the elite. So giving this knowledge to the common man will help them level the playing field against the elite and help them stand up against that elite.

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'? — Isaac

Because you disagree without elaboration and present no other alternative of practical solutions or parts of solutions? I can only conclude your point to be whatever you write it to be. If you constantly do not elaborate on anything and never present alternative solutions, then the conclusion is that you don't agree but have nothing else as an alternative solution.

You disagree that education can help the people of a nation to be able to rise up against the elite and government. And that knowledge passed down from parent to child is enough to gain enough wisdom for anything. For a university professor, that is a hell of a fucked up viewpoint in my opinion.

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'. — Isaac

I think I've presented enough examples if you cared to read other than just view everything through western imperialistic lenses.

And yes, you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia, please do, what is the Marxist solution to Russia that can help them reshape their nation to something less corrupt and more open to freedom and rights of the people. I would like you to make a case for how that would happen.

I suggested independent education for the Russian people who got the short stick of the educational inequality lottery. I don't think that needs to be elaborated much more than aid that development. Maybe even have online schools that create valid grades. Support everyone with internet free of state control to take part in such education, and computers for those who can't afford them.

I mean, none of this is that big of a deal, but it would level the playing field of the Russian population, able to access unfiltered information and be able to get an education regardless of situation, class or economy. You could bring in Starlink dishes to remote areas for example.

It doesn't take much to see how education for the ones not lucky enough to score the inequality lottery could improve the general knowledge of the entire population. And as I've argued, a better education leads to a better ability to question the status quo when the status quo is bad for the people. Because it's easier to arrive at solutions to that status quo, not just wait for the corrupt government to fix itself.

So... how would you practically see the Marxist reform? Or do you mean we should do nothing and just let them exist under Putin's boot until they automatically become a Marxist nation? that's kind of the same as not doing anything.

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production. — Isaac

How will that be done practically? I mean, Russia already has a foundation for the free market, so you need to remove that part. You also need to establish guidelines as to how different levels of competence within those worked-owned companies are being handled, so that some don't work their assess off while others don't but get the same.

I mean, the Marxist concept was about how capitalism's collapse gives birth to a Marxist society. i.e a communist society. All examples of communism we have so far were... just as you suggest here... a deliberate force of change, to speed up that collapse of capitalism and install communism directly. That didn't work out so well now did it?

So you are suggesting the same kind of Lenin approach to all of this. I would just like to know how that would really play out in reality, in your opinion? Especially when Russia already has a free market in place that needs to be shut down first.

It's fascinating that you are so opposed to my idea of installing better and more equal education free of state propaganda as part of improving people's ability to choose what they want to do in life and how they want to reshape their nation... while you yourself suggest installing communism, ignoring what is already in place that would more organically change society in a way people can be comfortable with, just because you don't like capitalism and the free market.

You essentially do the same sin you accuse others of, you don't care what they already have and just want to install what you believe is right.

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets. — Isaac

So they're not free to choose for themselves then? Maybe they choose that path because they want it? Why is it wrong to choose that path, but it's right to choose the path you suggest? Have you any evidence of such an ultimatum from the west or are you just using that as a way to suggest that your path is the right one? How about some consistency in thought here, or is it you who are racist against Ukrainians? Thinking they are unable to choose because they don't choose what you want them to choose and inventing an ultimatum that has no proof behind it you can justify why their choice is bad and your suggestion for communism is better?

What you are suggesting as a solution requires far more force than what I suggest, a force that might even go against the will of the people. How ironic this all became.

But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny... — Isaac

I said nothing of that, that's your words. This is your problem, you reshape someone's argument to fit your anti-western narrative. I said nothing of "western education". You simply cannot read someone's post without looking though your own narrative of what is being said.

But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required. — Isaac

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education? No wonder you write as you do in here since you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases. You really don't think "thoughts" can be manipulated? What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing? Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments.

they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens — Isaac

Because we have such good examples through history of this actually working? How naive are you? This is basically the "common sense" argument and it has zero validity when breaking down people's biases. "Common sense" taught down to children is extremely biased towards whatever opinion those parents have. Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works.

That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how do do it. — Isaac

And I call this bullshit because you don't understand a single thing of what I write. I have not said anything of teaching "uncivil" natives". I've been talking about the problem of education and the problem of propaganda in education, limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically. It's a universal thing and I could apply it to the US as well and their awfully unequal educational system.

You just make up shit to fit your counter-argument but it's hollow when you basically are unable to understand the actual conclusion being made.

Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have — Isaac

Chernobyl was a globally known incident that is very relevant primarily to Russia. Don't even try rationalizing your point here.

It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes. — Isaac

I'm beginning to think that you're just playing a game of mentioning "racism" as much as possible until it becomes the true narrative. Much like how propaganda works.

American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl? — Isaac

No, they don't, but I'm not talking about Americas education really, I'm talking about what is going on in Russia. I couldn't really give a fuck about American education because America is not my measuring stick for quality, it's my measuring stick for western failure. There are far better examples of "good western societies", but you really like to make everything into a Russia/American dichotomy because I think it's the only way to argue for your point of view. If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously.

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why cant a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage? — Isaac

Do you really not see how naive this point of view is? Like, forget a moment that you just push everything through the narrative of "western teachers" and all your racist twisting and turning, if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda, if you want to turn to the American perspective of education again... *sigh* ...you get propaganda as well, but as I said, I don't give a flying fuck about the Americans, I'm speaking of neutral education, facts, knowledge, as they're published as it is. "Quality" education means quality in that neutrality, otherwise it's not a quality education, because it's biased towards something non-neutral.

But as always, you cannot understand anything of this without applying your racist bullshit narrative. You cannot grasp that there's another perspective here than some American imperialism. I'm not American, I don't give a shit about that perspective and it's not the perspective I'm arguing from.

No. I disagree with you about it. — Isaac

Disagree about what? What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias?
Read it again:

Education enables active thinking about ongoing problems in the nation. Education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve. — Christoffer

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit? In that case, you are hilariously derailed in thought :rofl:

It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently. — Isaac

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge? Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom? Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth?

You lack the imagination of understanding this perspective because you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically. It's the fucking point. What you describe is to value some "common sense" ideas and ideals, uncritically, as valid perspectives of thought. Which is an absolutely apologetic view of accepting anyone's opinion as valid, even if that is purely pro-Putin propaganda or even American imperialism. Why don't you also then value the indoctrinated exceptionalistic education American schoolkids get? Or is that then bad because it's America, it's really confusing how you rationalize your argument here.

In my perspective, your perspective here is the door that opens to extremism, regardless of type. This is the way to get a biased uncritical point of view, without the ability to question it. Your naive defense of "common sense" thinking doesn't even try to rationalize past these problems.

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools". to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck. — Isaac

You really pull a blanket conclusion over all of them do you? Even those who ask for help to get good education to their nations. Even those who want to kick start their nation as a self sustaining society, but don't have the necessary education to do so. I mean, when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them.

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot?

Have you even talked to people from these poor nations? Do you have any real knowledge of what they actually want but don't have means to achieve?

You seem to not understand that "western intervention" is not just "American imperialism", but it can also be economic contributions and projects to help get them on their feet and into independence. You seem to view everything through having "America" as the "western" part of the argument. What about Sweden's contributions? We pay more of our BNP to help poor nations than most other nations do, we have a strong presence building up education in poor nations, and none of that education is some American propaganda being taught.

It's like you don't really have any insight into any of this past your American imperialistic criticism, nothing that's even close to what my perspective really is here. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say, over and over. How can anyone take you seriously if you do that?

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us. — Isaac

Not at all, your words again, not mine. It doesn't imply anything other than "education". Giving access to facts about the world, reading, writing, math, geography, history and of course methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point.

If you mean that they cannot keep their heritage while still having gained the knowledge of unbiased thinking that has been fine-tuned through philosophy and science over hundreds or even thousands of years, then you don't really understand what I mean when speaking of education.

You are speaking of propaganda. But if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas. If set ideas and traditions that keep someone stuck in a loop of destructive behaviors, sociologically or psychologically, and they want to find a way past it, such tools of thought become invaluable.

That is not fixing, it is sharing. What they do with that knowledge is up to them. But you seem to talk about education as telling them what to think, I'm talking about enabling tools for them to think for themselves, beyond cultural and human biases, methods that are universal for channeling the human intellect, regardless of cultural preferences. But you seem unable to understand this difference or you are just choosing to misinterpret it so that it fits your opinion here. But you just come off as being fundamentally unable to understand the argument I present without having to change it completely to fit your anti-racist rhetoric.

You invent conclusions I didn't make to apply some racist narrative here, it's such a low point that I cannot take you seriously.

So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin? — Isaac

A mass of people opposing a government does not need wealth to topple that government. But the mass in Russia is suppressed, by low numbers, themselves or a lack of knowledge that shows them what is true and what is propaganda, and because they don't reach "critical mass" for such a "singularity", they are more easily suppressed by authoritarian force.

Not even the wealthy dare oppose Putin. Just look at Roman Abramovich.

The lone individual, the small gatherings can't do anything. But if millions marched against Putin, he cannot just imprison or "make them disappear". And how do people gather like that? Because they all have the knowledge to see through the propaganda and the ability to organize against it. If you don't think this is a solution against the authoritarian regime Putin has, then what is a solution? Apathy?

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken... — Isaac

Do you have a reading disability or am I just not competent enough in English?

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. — Christoffer

Aren't I implying here that learning all of that enables tools for the intellect of those people? Tools that the intellect can use within those people?

Or are you just again intentionally interpreting in your own way to fit your argument?

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those thing from his or her parent? from his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things? — Isaac

Then let them. If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this. Instead of realizing that "education" is not some western imperialistic interference just because you require that for your argument to work. But can instead be a way to give people a chance to fix things themselves. You know, education does not have to be some western ideals being taught, it can be tools of knowledge that are universal. Giving people facts, giving people methods, like in math, giving people the knowledge of math isn't some western imperialistic push.

Your rhetoric of all of this being racism requires that your very specific interpretation of "education" is true, which is not the case here, so stop pushing bullshit about racism and take a single second to try and understand something outside of your biased point of view.

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case. — Isaac

I'm still waiting for a rundown of that alternative form of society, which is what I haven't seen so far.

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done; is to help the more westernized part of Russia to gain power in order to install better protection for people in terms of freedom of speech and reduce corruption in election and politics, because these people are the ones who primarily push against the state for such reforms (think, led by Navalny), then people say, NO they should not install anything "westernized" and fix things in some other way...

...what then is that "other way"?

Can you give an actual real-world solution? Practical philosophy. How can Russia get rid of the corruption, propaganda machine and state violence against its own people?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this, but so far I haven't heard a single rational solution. Maybe you confuse "solution" with "interpretation of status quo", very different things, one is a progressive proposition and the other is just opinions of interpretations.

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new? — Isaac

Pick what? I still haven't heard of an actual functioning system that can be implemented practically in this real-world event that is going on? You are dreaming up utopian solutions when I try to practically form a solution that is actually realistic. So if you cannot actually describe how this unmentioned system is supposed to be applied, then it's just fantasy, utopias in your head of reforms just "happening" without any logical casuality.

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want. The main thing here is the basic rights and anti-corruption methods. The "soil" to grow something new from as I've put it.

Now, what's your form of society that fixes the problem they have now? Please pick an alternative that is a practical reality and not just some fantasy, because what I describe is able to happen if people like Navalny get into power since there's already a foundation for that kind of society. If you have some radically different society in mind, that is not a practical reality and doesn't help anyone at all. Come back with those ideas when stability is reached and there are freedoms implemented in the country to be able to progressively change towards that.

Again...

Something seeming to to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case. — Isaac

You haven't presented any alternative, nor anything other than dismissal through misinterpretation or downright putting words in others' mouths to enable your argument to make sense.

The fundamental bottom line of your rhetoric and argument is: "You are wrong and here's how I think you are wrong by changing your argument to become wrong so that I can be right". That is a truly low point to sink to and I cannot take your arguments seriously because of it. It just becomes negative noise

So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true. — jamalrob

Or that it's hard to reference when getting aural information from experts not easily referenced. But on top of that quality issue, you can also add this from 2007, which would mean that the people right now, like soldiers in Ukraine, suffered from this very issue.

At present, Russian society is experiencing powerful and swift social segmentation which includes strong differentiation in access to higher education. It took 10 to 20 years to change the previous system, to leave behind the free higher education to which we became accustomed over the 70-year history of the USSR, and move to a higher education system which is not free. Social segmentation has increased in the post-Soviet period and inequality in education has become much more significant as early as at the pre-school level. The barriers at this stage are the same as at others: family income, geographical factors (the most vulnerable groups are residents of rural and less urbanized areas where the network of kindergartens is not sufficiently developed), health factors (barriers exist not only for the disabled, but also for those in poorer health) and the information parents are able to gather (Monitoring 2003, Seliverstova, 2005). As early as kindergarten the same question of equity emerges: what kind of education is accessible, if it is accessible at all mass or elite education, “bad” or “good” (the latter offering a greater range of services but for fees)? And if mass and “bad” are becoming synonyms, what social functions does such education perform? These questions, of course, are identical to those that appear in analyzing the situation at the level of secondary and higher education. It would seem that today’s educational inequalities in Russia will tend to grow, as the process does not contain any counteracting forces, governmental or societal. In this context, the position of the best-resourced groups in society will continue to be reinforced, while the position and opportunities of the weakest will continue to
deteriorate. Although inequality is not officially endorsed, it is gradually becoming the norm, becoming more legitimate, more institutionalized (via corruption, for instance), more rigid, more entrenched and more persistent. In the context of mass higher education, inequality is not so much inequality in obtaining a higher education as such, but inequality in obtaining a higher education of good quality, an elite or specialized higher education. Without a set of adequate compensatory counter-measures, this situation will lead to the crystallization of elite groups, the very sort of class inequality which Russia set out to escape from in the early twentieth century. Gaps in public policy have contributed to the development of inequality in access to higher education and in constitutional rights to free higher education. Having minimized all the mechanisms of governance and control, and the distribution and redistribution of revenue, the state is yet to develop policy directed towards reducing inequality. This task ought to become an essential focus of public policy.

The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic. — jamalrob

People around Putin are also afraid to speak the truth to him. Fear pushes people down, but as with that paper, the inequality in education renders a lot of people unable to get a quality education. In order to take part in questioning the government and not just learning the basics of reading and writing in order to do earn a living, it requires the exposure to other perspective, other people in education, outside views. If that is not available, it's easier to find solace in bias towards the status quo. I think the simplistic view is to just boil all of this to russophobia.

it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics. — jamalrob

I'm not talking about politics that springs out of bad education, I'm talking about education freeing the minds of people in a nation so that they can start questioning things around them. If all you learn is to always do as told, as parents tell you, other grown-ups tell you, the state media tells you, if all you get is spoon-fed truths, then that is the only reality you have. I'm using "education" in this argument as a broader term for opening doors for the mind to explore the world more critically, which is an important part of a good education. If the education fails in that quality, or you are out of luck because of inequality in education, then you might not have the ability to think critically. It's easy for any of us who's on a forum about the very act of being critical, skeptical, and interested in deconstructing different concepts to take these things for granted, but one who's never had the chance of actually exploring this way of thinking will not magically have the knowledge of such tools without reinventing the wheel of critical thinking. Just check out what the Russian soldiers are thinking, how oblivious they are to everything around them. Would that happen if they had quality education? Would they dig trenches in the Red Forest if they had basic education? Would a person who had the ability to explore concepts from all over the world be able to be easily tricked by state media? Wouldn't such a person also actively explore such perspectives further, have more insight into how to get other sources of information than what the state provides?

And if it is as you say, that a majority is well educated, informed and still support Putin, even if things like Bucha happen, then they are well informed, educated people who support genocide, and should be treated accordingly. If you think it's russophobia to argue as I do here, how do you think the conclusion becomes if we conclude that they are actually well informed and support murdering civilians? I'm giving them the benefit of doubt, that they don't have either access to truth or have never been granted the tools to be critical of the government. Because if they have a great education, have the ability of critical thinking, but still support Putin after things like Bucha, then they can actually go to hell.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. — jamalrob

So ignored everything else? Like how schools shut down in villages, which supports the concept of concentration of education to the major cities, where most of the anti-Putin critics exist and are well educated.

So, me asserting the education of rural areas outside major cities in Russia, which features a large portion of Russians, is education that is low, non-existence or in low-quality, together with how many Russian soldiers, who definitely didn't get drafted from the educated city-people, don't even know what country they are in... isn't a logical assertion of the state of education in Russia? And the propaganda-based narrative of learning history and about the outside world?

What do you call all of this then? Quality education that equally creates an educational foundation for all Russians that is focused on facts and reality? It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image.

How would you evaluate the Russian educational system? Equal, unbiased, and enabling free thought? Most people in the major cities get their balance from being able to go online and see, hear and read other perspectives than what the state provides. Part of the privilege of those people is to self educate past the basic education. And education can be really good, as long as it doesn't conflict with Russian interests. I mean, most political thinkers and philosophers that criticize Putin would be in jail now I presume.

My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then?

You have the arrogance of the lucky. — frank

Could be, I have a problem of arrogance, I know that much at least :sweat:

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while. — frank

Can be luck or can be the result of that soil, that shapes the democracy into being functional. Nothing happens overnight, a functional democracy doesn't just appear, it probably starts rough, but if the foundation (the soil) is good, it will grow into something better.

So yes, it is true that a crisis creates authoritarian autocracies, which is why it's important to get good soil and nurture time after the collapse of such an authoritarian autocracy. It requires an effort of the rebuilders to make sure that this happens, otherwise, they'll be the new crisis for which another despot emerges... just like what happened with Russia and Putin.

Are you serious? — jamalrob

Let me rephrase; a huge population in Russia has little to no quality education.

"in Russia students of 15 years of age demonstrate a level of knowledge “below average”

"Unfortunately, the destructive practice of depriving villages of school institutions continues to this day. Optimization was carried out in accordance with the plan“Changes in the sectors of the social sphere aimed at improving the efficiency of education and science until 2018”, adopted by order of the government back in 2014. In accordance with the document, it is planned to liquidate kindergartens and schools that regional authorities recognize as ineffective. In total, until 2018, 3,639 rural kindergartens and schools were closed, and some institutions of secondary vocational education, additional education, and boarding schools for orphans were also closed.

The amount offunding in the United States is ten times greater higher thanRussia.

(And the US doesn't even have a great educational system)

At present, in this indicator, our country is ten times behind China

And of course how the state controls the information teached, so that everything gets in line with Putin's propaganda narrative and does not enable free thought and speech around topics that could harm Putin's regime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-schoolchildren-media-ukraine-invasion-b2027652.html

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/05/08/how-russian-kids-are-taught-world-war-ii-a57930


And of course there's the reports of Russian soldiers who didn't even know what Ukraine is, who didn't know about Chernobyl, who didn't know much of anything outside Putin's worldview.

So, maybe not "little to no education", but I wouldn't call any of this quality. And with some Russians not even knowing what's across the border from their own nation, or that there was something called the Chernobyl incident, how do you expect them to be able to have the "thought tools" of knowledge necessary to be critical about their own nation's regime and politics? Or dream of anything other than what they've been served?

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you? I can't think of any way to interpret this question other than a rhetorical one implying you find those approaches inadequate. I can't believe you're genuinely unaware of them. — Isaac

Why would I? I live in one of the most stable socialist nations in the world while everyone else tries to copy it. And we still have a free market as well, we also have problems with capitalism as everyone else, and making us more socialist, more Marxist won't improve our nation at all, it would probably just introduce much more problems than our functioning socialism right now. The socialist utopian dreams of people in nations like the US usually are more fantasy than practical reality. Just "make a Sweden" of the nation and start building on that in that case. It looks like you keep making the argument that my "western standard" concept is something like the US? The US is rotten in terms of western culture, it's the worst version of it, a neoliberal nightmare. I'm glad I live in Sweden, and it's light years ahead of many others when it comes to a socialist western society. Use us or Norway or Finland as the measuring stick instead.

But then there's the socialist extreme left who think inventing utopias in their heads solves real problems people face right now. So far I'm all for structuring away from neoliberal market societies, but the radical socialists have dreams just as problematic. And how is that a solution to what I'm writing about?
How is that a solution to freeing the people of Russia from Putin's authoritarian boot? This is the problem I'm talking about, you have no actual real-world solution, you have a utopia in your head, a conceptual dream that won't help anyone until their basic needs are met.

You either accept a lesser bad that is able to be changed by the people, or choose a worse bad that blocks the people from being able to change. That's my point. Russia right now can't change, a westernized Russia could change. If you want a socialist change, you can only change towards that if people are free to want that.

Yes. And the counterargument takes issue with your use of 'all'. If you compare current societies, the Western ones probably experience more freedom overall than ones like Russia or China. But this is an irrelevant fact without some argument as to why we are obliged to pick from the current ones. — Isaac

Because if you want to change for the better when every one of them is bad... you pick the lesser evil. Western society is the lesser evil, we have a lot of problems, but we are free to change it, the people are free to try and change it. The other forms do not allow for such change because they silence the people when they try or they limit the knowledge that can be learned in schools in order to keep people under their control.

So when I ask you to pick a functioning real-world existing alternative to a westernized Russia as a counterpoint to me saying that a westernized Russia is the best starting point for enabling change through the people going forward. Then I want you to pick a type of society that can actually be implemented in Russia that will enable a better outcome than my example. If you can't do that, but still argue against my point, then your only outcome is to either have an alternative form that is better or argue for the status quo of Russia right now to be better. Or that you don't have a solution and just point out that a westernized Russia is bad as well, sure, that is true, but that is also pretty irrelevant when trying to find solutions to problems in the world. What other alternative can you present? That is a probable solution for Russia?

As has been pointed out before, your lack of imagination, or unwillingness to read up about alternative politics, is not an argument. It's just a poor reflection of the depth of your engagement with the issues. — Isaac

I'm asking for real-world solutions that can actually be done right now. If you want to live in fantasy land go right ahead. As I've said numerous times, there's a time and place to discuss new forms of societies, but when it comes to applied philosophy and finding actual solutions RIGHT NOW for the current situation, you cannot invent some vague socialist utopia in your head and shoot down all other solutions. That is NOT a solution. My argument was to start with a westernized Russia, that gets them to a point where they can do as we can do, where they can actually discuss things like this, where they, you know, can actually utilize that imagination to build something new.

But you are arguing like all others who dream of utopias, that we should just skip progress to that utopia. That is what destructive revolution leads to, overthrow the old and then have no fucking clue how to actually implement the utopian dream into practical reality.

I do not lack imagination, I just have a greater understanding of the concept of time and change. Political landscapes are just like geography, mountains stand strong because they change slowly. Changes that are stable and fundamental for a nation might take many generations to reach its final stable goal and when reaching them they have merely become a synthesis of more concepts than originally thought up.

But such change needs a foundation so it can change. If free speech, free and independent media, free communication, free education, free knowledge, and a great protection of the people and their voice against power is there at the foundation, it is the soil that new types of societies can grow out of. If you take that away, like in Russia, like in many nations with authoritarian regimes, you take away the soil and the growth dies, becomes dirt and static death.

Utopias mean nothing if there's no soil for them to grow out of. Dreaming of such utopias means nothing if the goal is to change the world. You start with the soil and go from there and if the fact of the world today is that this "soil" is most common in westernized nations, then so be it, that's a fact of reality right now, start there and build from there instead of trying to grow where there is no soil.

This...

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out.
— Christoffer

...is a racist trope. — Isaac

So, you mean that the fact that a large portion of Russians is educated, especially outside of the denser cities, is racist?

Is Russian soldiers not even knowing what Ukraine is or what Chernobyl is because they didn't get any education about any of it... racist?

Or is it that you just twist this thing into calling it such a trope in order to have an easier time making an argument?

As is...

However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.
— Christoffer — Isaac

So, for example, a nation under a government that is corrupt or has little means to handle poverty on their own and almost no people educated enough to be able to work to better the nation's situation, does not need to change that status quo? And helping those nations with getting children free education so that this structural problem can be bypassed in order to have a new generation that can build something better on their own... is racist?

I'm not saying Christoffer is racist, but those two positions are both common racist tropes that need to be called out as such. — Isaac

Or, you reshape them into racist tropes without caring to understand or read what I actually propose, what I actually argue for. You ignore everything else and just focus on a cherry-picked part of my entire text so that it can fit your trope narrative and be easier to argue against. This is an extremely low-quality way of engaging in the discussion and a disgusting way of labeling others with some guilt of association. It's appalling really.

Societies which are less well developed (whether governmentally or economically) suffer from a range of constraining conditions - the majority of which are created and actively maintained by the more developed nations, and it is those conditions, not a lack of intellect, which keeps them where they are. — Isaac

I never talked about lack of intellect, I talked about education. Are you unable to understand the difference between the two? Russian soldiers don't dig trenches in the Red Forest and irradiate themselves with that soil because they lack intellect, they do it because they lack education about where they are and what consequences such actions have on them and others.

It's you who reshape what I write into being some pro-imperialistic talk of lower intellects among poor people. This type of reshaping my argument just renders what you write now as total nonsense. Because you can't see the difference between education and intellect or willingly mix them together to say I write racist things.

That's disgusting rhetorical behavior that I wished the mods took notice of.

but that an education in essentially, 'how to think' is necessary implies that these country's natively lack such an ability. — Isaac

Are you unaware that you are writing on a philosophy forum? Like, you don't understand what I mean with education enabling active thinking about ongoing problems in their nations? Like, you don't get that I'm implying that education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve.

Like, when I write:

Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation. — Christoffer

I, of course, mean that they have gotten an education that gives them the tools, the knowledge to deconstruct the problems in their nation. If people get educated, they learn about different perspectives, different facts, and historical events, they are much more able to examine the problems in their own nation and have the ability to channel their intellect towards practical solutions, both as a competent workforce for building their nation and as intellectuals forming laws and other ethical solutions. Without any western intervention meddling with their progress. What I'm talking about is that knowledge is a pool of perspectives where you can test out your ideas and faster reach working conclusions. Without knowledge, without education, you will be fumbling in the dark and it doesn't matter if you have the intellect of Einstein, he wouldn't have channeled that intellect if he didn't get the education necessary to think about physics in the first place. If you get poor nations free education, you give the people the ability to more effectively think about their own life and their country and how to fix things that are broken with it.

But you interpret that as "how to think", as in "imperialistic pushing an agenda". Because you seem unable to view anything other than through that lens and it's getting tiresome.

You actively misinterpret to fit your own narrative of this discussion. When I talk about education giving people the tools for changing their own destiny, you interpret that as imperialistic intervention to make the "poor stupid people" think like capitalists. That kind of stretch and the implied racism is way over the line of acceptable.

To be clear - the relation to this thread - it is Russia's material conditions, not the intellectual capabilities of its inhabitants, which prevents change. — Isaac

But it is a fact that the Russians who want to get rid of Putin, the corruption, the war and everything are the educated, more wealthy citizens of the major cities. Most others outside in the rest of the nation does not have the same level of access to good education or they're fully under the state propaganda and has basically lived in a Plato cave of Putin's narrative.

The fact that some Russian soldiers don't even know what Ukraine is, have never heard of the Chernobyl incident or seem to have any knowledge outside of what the state told them, shows just what low education does to people. As I've said, they could have had someone with Einstein's intellect within those troops, but without education, he's drafted to be cannon fodder.

The thing that prevents change in Russia is a despot dictator who shuts down any form of public discourse, any form of will to change from any of its citizens. He shuts down every attempt at change. It has nothing to do with material conditions.

What I said was that if the uneducated, poorer citizens that are mostly outside of the major cities, who are often drafted into the military as these young soldiers in Ukraine are, would have had an education that teaches them about Ukraine, Chernobyl, that gives them the space to think critically, nurture their creativity and captured their imagination with facts about the world, they wouldn't have so easily been able to be lured into the hellhole of war for someone's ideal they don't even understand.

Bottom line is that education and intellect are two different things but you seem to be confused as to which is which or what I actually wrote about because you confused the two of those concepts together in order to call someone's writing "racist". I didn't even write "intellect" anywhere, I talked about education, about learning facts, about learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. Without those tools you have intellect and no facts or concepts to use your intellect through and therefore changing your country becomes much harder. Nowhere did I even remotely imply that poor nations have lesser intellects, that's your words, your writing, your concept in mind, not mine. So stop making that part of my argument, I talked nothing of the sort.

The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.

That solution is not brought about by making countries more capitalist. — Isaac

I'm asking for a real-world solution to an active problem that is existing right now. You are talking about anti-capitalist philosophy that I am agreeing with, but as I've said before, being an idealist in a time you need a direct solution is not possible, you need to be pragmatic. If you have a nation that is conducting war crimes in other nations after invading them as well as silencing its own people, then trying to form a new standard of global politics that bypasses capitalism is really not a solution at all.

What are the real-world actual solutions to the problems in Russia and Ukraine? I think the problem with this thread is that too many sit in their comfort and invent utopias in their heads and are unable to accept that the lesser bad is the better solution at this time. Russia becoming a westernized nation, primarily in terms of protected rights for its people and low corruption in government, might require all those bad other things with capitalism, free markets, and consumerism since much of the western standards have all of that built-in and might be inseparable in the short term.

The point I've made is that if you take all forms of societies and pit them against each other, on a large scale, the form that has the most ability to change over time is the western version, the one focusing on free speech, broad education, protected rights of the people, authorities that can review politicians and scrutinize policies etc. etc. Other forms of societies that focus more on tradition, religion, authoritarianism (dictators), and so on, generally have little ability to change since it's not built in to question the status quo.

So we can have a whole other thread of discussing the bad parts of western society, how consumerism and capitalism is ruining the world and I'm just as critical as anyone else educated on the matter. But I'm not blind to having a bias toward that critical view to the extent that I cannot see that solutions in the now and real-world today in terms of this conflict need a pragmatic perspective that enables actual solutions based on what is actually existing, not what utopian form of world past capitalism that we can think of, because that doesn't help anyone right now. Russia could go full westernized, remove Putin and corruption, have free elections, free and independent media, good education for all and be just as consumerism and capitalist as the west (which they really are anyway), and that will still be a better point of origin for future change past capitalism than how things are right now. That is my point.

The big question is : do the people of that country have a say in how that country is being run? Peace, stability, prosperity, these things are important, but how do you get there? — FreeEmotion

Through the citizens of that country pushing for those things. Apathy and low education give birth to despots and tyrants. So education is extremely important, if there's anything that people from outside a country can do as a way to influence a nation to develop these good traits by themselves, it is to push education into that nation.

A good and easy example is poor nations where people don't have any education at all and there's no real government push for state-run education that is good. While everyone in western nations run around giving money to charity to feed these nations it does very little to change their status quo. However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation.

If people don't know why a corruption-free democracy is better than the status quo, they only have the status quo to live for.

It's the old saying; Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

It's the same with politics: give a man a government and you will govern him, give a man the knowledge of government, and he will govern himself.

Let's take Sweden as an example. While there are factors that most likely are important to the state the nation is in today, like being "neutral" through two world wars and having a history of pushing for education and knowledge, like the Nobel prize. A major key element is how socialism formed and became a core feature of support for the people and how people get educated. The state funds education, even higher education, and it doesn't cost the citizen a dime to get that higher education. We even get paid for it and can take a small very low-interest loan for higher education to help us with rent and stuff if we need to live close to the university. All this makes it possible for any person of any class or economic situation to get top education if they strive for it. This in turn generates a high number of people able to participate in shaping society based on actual knowledge of the topics that need to be changed.

In recent years there's been, just like most nations in the west, an increase in right-wing extreme politics, with politicians from that part of the political spectrum getting into parliament. What is the most common thing among these politicians and the people voting for them? Low education. And that low education is purely based on the people having all that education free of charge and open to them, but their apathy led them down that path.

So education is the key here and whether people have a good relation, opportunity or apathy towards that education.

Russia has a lot of educated people and those are almost statistically everyone who opposes the war and Putin. The problem right now is that they risk everything if they speak up. But a huge population in Russia has little to no education, just like how the right-wing extremists of the west have been winning through the part of the population who has little to no education, so does Putin and his propaganda machine win on their support. Right now there are too few in Russia, even though there are millions of them, who are opposed to the war and educated enough to see what Putin is actually doing, to see things for what they are. But imagine if education could creep into a larger portion of the population? Then it's just a matter of time before there are enough people to oppose the status quo and when the state can no longer control the population, that's when coups and revolutions happen to radically change things.

If a nation is a security risk to the world or risk of doing atrocities towards its own people, we have enough examples of how interventions in terms of invasion and forcibly applying "democracy" do not work at all. Yes, some leaders are sometimes so bad that the removal of them might heal the nation or remove the direct threat, like how Hitler's death broke the camels back on the Nazi empire, but most often than not, it's an uneducated and poor mass that gives way for such authoritarian power.

In general, if you give the people free education and enough people apply for it, it will change the nation at its very core. The best way to change Russia from the outside, in a way that doesn't prevent themselves from changing on their own, is to try and "smuggle" in education that bypasses the state propaganda education. Schools or online education that is possible for anyone in Russia regardless of their geographical location. Get some Stalink dishes into the countryside so people can bypass state-controlled internet.

Give the people an open door to all that knowledge outside of their state control and over time it will change things. Putin and his authoritarian power can only survive on the people not knowing or understanding what he is doing or how the world outside actually is.

Like, reports are coming in that many of the Russian soldiers in Ukraine... don't even know what Ukraine is. And the soldiers who went to Chernobyl and dug trenches in the red forest, have no idea where they are and they didn't even know about the Chernobyl accident. This is how Putin controls them, by their low education and total obliviousness to the outside world. Imagine what would have happened if these soldiers knew about Chernobyl, knew about Ukraine, and that Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia or that there are no Nazis like Putin describes the government in Ukraine to be. The fact that so many Russian soldiers have deserted or even turned on their leaders, even killed them, shows that some of them might have realized the truth and reality of everything and turned against the lies they've been fed.

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out. And just 30 years after Soviet collapsed, that's a very short span to go from that level of state-controlled information to a very short period of openness, back into similar state-controlled information.

Smuggle education into Russia, educate the people, that's the key to changing Russia without force and with stability at its core.

've seen that story bandied around, but it's not true. Yeltsin was corrupt af, and he chose Putin as his successor so he'd have protection from prosecution.

Putin has the same problem. He can't step down unless he has a successor who's loyal and corrupt. — frank

Why is progress through time such a hard thing for people to understand? Yes, Yeltsin was corrupt, but there's a lot of shades of grey in all of this. He was corrupt, but that's totally normal for a nation who still has echos of its former regime. The only thing that matters is how it progress, does it move towards less corruption or more? Yeltsin doesn't matter, what matters is if the entire nation moves in the right direction.

As an example, just look at Ukraine. It had the same problems with corruption for a long time and it still has a lot ingrained in the day to day life (before the war). But they acted to work against that kind of corruption and they had made a lot of progress in just the last couple of years.

All it takes is one leader that might be corrupt, might be a fucking asshole or super bad at his job, but open to let the society change in the direction IT wants.

Ukraine was slowly becoming more stable, with better standards and protection of it's citizens individuality and freedom of speech, it had everything aimed right in the best direction.

This is what Putin stopped in Russia, he stopped the progression of Russia to get to that place and instead did everything in his power to consolidate power to himself.

So, you can't say that "it's not true", because you're viewing everything with black and white glasses, thinking that me saying Yeltsin was better for the progression of Russia is me saying he is a good leader and uncorrupted. He was not, he was shit, but the nation had the right course, before Putin killed all of that ambition.

from the Finnish outback — Apollodorus

I stopped reading after that, your way of discussing in this thread is just low quality through and through so don't even bother caring. I won't be interacting with some in this thread because I don't want to sink to that level.

Take capitalism and socialism: they can be combined into any form of social-democracy. In this view, the values of socialism are combined with those of capitalism as a sort of ying yang. — Olivier5

I know, I live in arguably one of the best establishments of this kind of system and it ranks us very high on indexes of life quality and freedom. Why wouldn't I argue for something like that being better than what Russia has today?

The same applies to political systems: they can mix up various elements of strong leadership vs broad representation and consultation. What is important to realize is that our values as human beings are varied, and any society must find ways to combine sometime competing values, such as freedom vs equality. So this is about a combination of philosophies, rather than committing once and for all to one political philosophy only. That is what I was highlighting when i spoke of the first generation and second generation human rights: any manner of synthesis and variation is possible. — Olivier5

Yes, but regardless of how a democracy works in practice, the key elements that make up most functioning western societies are constitutional rights for the individual citizen and the ability to be protected from people in power rather than the people in power being protected from everyone else. If that is the foundation, then there's little chance that corruption takes hold, there's a better chance of the democratic functions actually working as a system without anyone able to steer the nation towards consolidation of power to one person or one party only.

It's just that it's more common that these traits of democracies are more common within western societies and my question was if there are any other types or forms of government and systems in the world right now that have the same strong constitutional protection of the people in that nation?

So far I haven't heard anyone give an example of something better, that lose the consumeristic hellhole part of the capitalistic west while still giving constitutional protection to the people.

What is the practical and real-world solution to an authoritarian state? An actual solution society, government, and system that get rid of despots and fascism etc.?

So far, western society and its standards is the solution. I think people just think about the US when thinking about western societies, but I would say, give the Swedish system of government to everyone, it clearly functions better than most nations in the world when it comes to the freedom of the people and their rights and protections as well as care for the sick and weak and making sure that as many as possible in society are well and looked after in a positive way. Of course there are problems to deal with, but so far I think the general line of thought in here is that "the west" is just "bad". No it isn't, Sweden is a much better nation than Russia when it comes to protection and care for the people in a nation.

It would require a moron to argue against that fact. So I have no problems saying that Russia is a cesspool right now and the solution is to rid itself of despot leaders, corrupt politicians and oligarchs, removal of state propaganda media, applying constitutional rights to the people with free speech and free media as major core functions of balancing against the state, while parts of the system actively work with governing the politician's practices so that no politician tries to consolidate their power and if they do they are removed. The basic pillars of a functional democracy that through the system governs itself to never let through any authoritarian fascism. And while we have problems in "the west", especially the US, it is still better than the system of actual fascist authoritarian control. And most importantly, it enables change in society if something is bad, which authoritarian dictatorships can never do.

What you're saying suggests that Russia would be healthier today if it would have taken a more western looking route.

I understand why it seems that way, but we don't truly know because we can't see an alternate history of Russia.

It's possible that profound corruption that leaves most of the population destitute was the only way to achieve stability. — frank

It wasn't. The economy was healing when Putin entered the scene, and then he consolidated his power over the course of 20 years.

That "we don't know if it would have been healthier today" is not a counter-argument really. We know the result of the corruption and despot move of Putin to consolidate his power. It's seen right now. That a westernized version of Russia with true democracy would have been worse needs a much better argument in support for it.

I'm absolutely certain that if Putin wasn't there and did his consolidating and established the corruption that is present today, it would have been much better and enabled people like Navalny to be elected instead of him being in prison.

I'm trying to get people to present alternatives to a western version of Russia, that exists without the corruption and without the shit the population has to go through whenever they speak their minds, but I don't ever get such an alternative. So what is your actual conclusion? That "we don't know if it would have been better"? What's your inductive reasoning? What's the most probable conclusion?

How did you arrive at this dichotomy??? — baker

No, that's the one you're seeing. — baker

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole. Give me a third alternative then, where the people of Russia can be free and not face imprisonment or being killed, and where elections aren't controlled by a despot and media is independent and can criticize the government. If you have an option that is realistic that gives the people this protection, independence and freedom while not being a western society, then please provide that example, I'm waiting.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further. — baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

(By the way, this was the idea behind the US institution of the Electoral College: to make sure that some idiot wouldn't obtain a position of power simply because the majority of the people voted for him.) — baker

Representative democracy is bigger than the US. The US is one nation, you can look at far better examples of democracies if you want to find options that are better than alternative forms of government in the world (i.e other than western standards of representative democracies).

The total genius of Western democracies is that they outsourced government oppression to individual people. So that it isn't the government which oppresses people, it's Tom oppressing Dick and Harry. The government's hands are clean, but the people walk on eggshells and fear for their jobs and lives. At the same time, they are becoming more and more alike, the differences between them are superficial at best, one big mass of mindless drones. And what does it help if some politician can hold his elected position of power only for 4, 8 or, 10 years, or so, if the next one differs from him only by name? — baker

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society. Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot? A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

What you are doing is making an argument against western society in a way I would too. But when I ask you to "grant Russia" a better society as an alternative to the authoritarian nightmare they're in now under Putin's boot, I want you to give me a pragmatic answer to that, because you can sit here and dream of utopias or just say that "everything is bad", but the reality is that there's bad and there's worse. The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact. I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what? — baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

I'm saying that the situation in Russia is actually not that different from the situation in the West. — baker

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

There is no country in this world where one could "speak up against the government" without this having some negative consequences for one. — baker

Of course there are! What the fuck are you even talking about? What kind of bullshit is this?

If not imposed by the government, then imposed informally, by one's employer, one's customers, one's friends, and relatives. One can simply never speak badly about those in power without this backfiring in some way. — baker

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this. I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it. It's when people act out racist and degrading opinions that employers and others react and that comes from a moral perspective, not the kind of "boot" that I'm talking about in authoritarian systems like Russia.

Police fire tear gas as anti-Covid restrictions ‘Freedom Convoy’ enters Paris — baker

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia. Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here? Understand the grey area we're discussing? France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

And so on. We can also look up how many times the police in Western countries have used real bullets against protesters, not just rubber bullets (which can sometimes be as dangerous as real ones), water cannons, tear gas, mass arrests. (Oh, and if the West is so wonderful, then why on earth are people protesting at all?!) — baker

Doesn't matter, the fundamental structure of a democracy that is free of corruption and people able to speak their minds without getting imprisoned is still there. Many nations have a variety of quality of this system, but it is still better than in Russia.

So you either say that Russia right now is a better society than the west.
Or you accept that the westernization of Russia is preferred to fix the problems with the authoritarian boot pressing down the people.
Or you present an alternative to western culture that still gives the people freedom from that boot.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"? — baker

Free speech and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power. It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it? The government won't kill or imprison you for what you write here on this forum for instance.

Because it's not possible, it's pragmatically not possible. Because Western standards are destructive. They destroy nature, they destroy people. — baker

That's an irrelevant blanket statement that doesn't really counter-argue my point here. You have no other alternative for any kind of society that has practical evidence of being better for people and the environment. Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered. You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

Western societies have problems, of course, but blanket statements that western societies and standards are the worst things in the world while not even remotely presenting an alternative to that type of large-scale society just underlines my point. Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for. The question is if it's impossible to implement those things without everything else becoming western in standards.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people? — baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

So this was the real question: can a modern and free society avoid the ills of capitalism? Which BTW is a question not just for Russia. — Olivier5

Yes, can it be avoided? Can all the criticized traits of western society be avoided while still enabling the progressive traits most common in western society? Or is the world built upon a global system that makes it impossible to achieve those good traits without the bad?

And follow up to that question; is it better to accept the bad and be part of improving such a western standard society beyond those bad traits because the good outcome of the progressive traits is worth it?

Because as I see it, there are no real-world solutions as alternatives. You either accept the bad and get a society that is as good as it gets, based on all the indexes and research on human health and well being, with hopes of it improving beyond the bad through the freedoms it provides (western society is still more progressive and can change and adapt more easily than most other systems to this date), or you accept the conditions of the society you are in, since there's no real alternative (which my initial question was about) that gives you those good traits a western society can provide.

But all that hangs on the fact that there are no other systems that provide the same freedoms. It could be argued that people might not be well with those freedoms, but that can lead to dangerous routes to apologetic arguments for dictatorship and authoritarian systems. The only system that could function in that way would be a benevolent non-human leader that can lead forever with all people's best interests in mind. Some A.I system that we surrender to that could care for us.

We can only have so many different systems in place. Either everyone governs themselves, or everyone tries to govern the entire society, or a small group governs everyone, or people choose representatives to lead them, or someone leads everyone, or a machine or other being rules everyone. Or some combination between them. How do we give the most good for all within these systems? Breaking all of it down there are only a few options that would, over long periods of time, lead to good outcomes for everyone when applied to massive scale societies.

I think the problem is a logical one: if one defines 'western' as a society enjoying 'their rights, their freedom in society' then by definition all such societies are 'western'.

Historically, the notion of human rights 'appeared' in certain places: the US and France, during two near simultaneous revolutions. Other places back then did not have them and rejected them. Pretty much all Western European kingdoms rejected them. So the idea was not 'western' then. It was just progressive, and stronger here and weaker there by historical accident.

Then a number if things happened which led to all sorts of things including two world wars. At some point Germany, one of the most modern European society, opted (?) for Nazism, following Italy for fascism 10 years before. Again, these modern, industrialized western states did not accept human rights.

It is tempting to subsume history within geography. 'Western' is a geographic notion. But human rights are a cultural concept or practice. They appeared somewhere, as these things usually do, and then they spread elsewhere, as good ideas generally do.

Agriculture appeared historically in the Middle East (and a few other places independently, but the 'West' got it from the Middle East. Does that make agricultural European societies 'Middle-Eastern'? — Olivier5

Exactly, and this leads to another point I've been making a few pages back and it's that whenever people use "western" in a negative way as a counter-argument to people like us who want freedom for the Russian people they are essentially unable to separate between these basic rights and these globally progressive standards, and western culture of capitalism.

I mean, of course there's a way to make a society without capitalism that still has a strong foundation in freedom, freedom of speech, and so on.

However, at this time in history, which nations of the world can present an alternative political and economical form that also has these modern standards of values for invidual people? Because we can sit here and talk about some utopian nation with all of the good things that comes out of political and moral philosophy, but what nations have through time proved to be better for the the majority of its people, in the context of these things? It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins.

There's India, Senegal and other democratic states in the 'southern hemisphere'. Of course, their democratic 'form' and processes are originally western (representative democracies with parliaments). — Olivier5

And this seems to be the crux of the problem. When we see nation's who's transitioning to have better quality for their citizens, their well-being, their rights, their freedom in society etc. they tend to move towards what we define as western cultures.

So as long as we don't have a true example of a large scale society that isn't western, but gives rights, freedoms, and well-being to their citizens, there is a problem with how arguments form to question how nations move toward western standards, like how Ukraine has been doing and Russia don't want to do. I don't think any of the Russians who oppose Putin want anything but to have western standards of living, because it gives them those rights and freedoms. If there isn't a secondary alternative with the same level of quality for the citizens, then why don't we start with western standards and together improve up from there? It's not like western societies are stuck, the philosophical debates about how western societies function are always going on and is always changing things within it. There has to be a starting ground somewhere from which more can be built or rebuilt. But I've yet to hear about another, an alternative "starting ground".

I think a lot of hunter gatherer societies fit the bill. — Olivier5

Probably, but how can such societies function on a large scale, like for example Russia? Isn't such societies functioning because they are small in nature? As soon as society grows so large that systems need to exist to govern the stability of millions or billions of people, what happens then?

Is there any nation in the world that has millions of citizens with all these positive human rights and functions that still aren't western in cultural form?

Yes, but what about the question of a society in the world right now that functions as an example of being good for the people without being a western country or culture?

My question is if there are societies in the world that have strong human rights and emphasis on freedom of the people, things we often associate with western culture. But that they don't at the same time have the consumerism and capitalism that many say will "creep into" Russia if they get these rights and freedoms?

I'm trying to find the "solution" to the Russian people getting rid of the corruption, the propaganda that at the same time bans free media, killing and imprisoning of state critics, and gaining things like representatives of the people in politics and not self-proclaimed czars in absolute power.
How does that happen without Russia becoming a western society? Aren't these basics of a balanced society where people generally feel well?

Usually I would say: it's their country, their life and their responsibility, not ours. But now their midget of a fürher threatens us with nuclear holocaust every single time he has an anxiety crisis, which is often. This makes the rest of the world interested in getting rid of that insecure nuclear blackmailer. — Olivier5

Yes, a nation's act outwards internationally and the response that nation gets because of it, has nothing to do with their independence as a nation. It's like if someone murdered someone else and when getting caught, his defense is that he felt threatened and that everyone should just leave him alone because what he thinks on the inside is his own damn business... well, he just murdered another man so we couldn't give a fuck about his "internal feelings" when he's clearly dangerous, things need to be done to make sure he doesn't murder again.

But when we speak about Russia's freedom, we're talking about the freedom of its people, and in that context, the question is how we measure freedom or a society that is "better"? I'm measuring by the quality of life indexes, of societies in the world where as many as possible within those societies have basic individual and humanitarian protections so that basic human acts like having an opinion aren't shut down with violence or the ability to have a meaningful impact on the collective through politics isn't as well shut down with violence or censorship.

With basic human rights, a society becomes better and most importantly can improve. A society without a peaceful ability to change will not change peacefully.

That leads to the question if western society and culture can be detached from such basic human rights? or is a western society built upon such rights and are inseparate? Or is western culture and society not being examined with complexity in here? That saying that basic human rights aspects in western society should appear in Russia is the same as saying they need western capitalism?

How can basic human rights be put into the constitution of Russia while keeping western culture out? That is the question. What societies in the world are not western societies, but still has the same human rights as western culture takes for granted?

The question is basically, if Russia were to fix their problems of corruption, if they give their own people human rights, freedom of speech, free media, and the ability to choose their own path as a person, then what type of culture exists with all that, but at the same time isn't western in nature?

Please either be civil to each other or ignore each other. — jamalrob

That's why I asked him politely to ignore me and stop quoting me when I'm not engaged in discussing with him. I can ignore him, but he is spamming quotes by me all the time, it's extremely annoying.

The method used is immaterial, they heightened nuclear tension. — Isaac

I wrote about Russia's threats right before deliberately violating Swedish airspace carrying nuclear weapons. Because it shows just how fucking dangerous Russia acts. And I remarked with sarcasm how such acts are being compared to something, in context, not even close to the same thing and you do just that kind of comparison.

I don't want to discuss anything with you because your post quality is so low and your way of discussing is just cherry-picking whataboutism with zero engagement into an argument outside of fallacy-ridden bias-fests.

So, I don't care about what you write, it's irrelevant, you've proven your voice irrelevant to me so I'm trying to ignore you, but it's hard when you keep quoting my posts when I'm discussing with others.

write a fucking blog — Isaac

This is what I mean, get lost.