I did not dispute his personal enrichment. — jamalrob

Yep and that's what I just said.

That's war talk, nothing more. It's a justification for rejecting any views from Russia that you don't like. Do you think the Russian people are oppressed and want the help from outside powers? The very idea, even among opponents of Putin, is laughable and contemptible. — jamalrob

There are all kinds of ideological hubs on the internet which demonstrate what should be pretty obvious, you're in the position to do the very same thing on this site here. If you started banning people who disagreed with you politically, penalising people for criticising you openly, what kind of effect do you think that would have? In this hypothetical case, which isn't as extensive as what occurs in Russia, how do you think people should treat the ideas espoused within the forum? Should your forum be considered the "the general opinion of philosophers" and your ideology "very popular among philosophers"?

Russia is one of the most poorly rated countries in the world when it comes to the freedom of the press, there's obviously limited political freedom as well. The question is not "what do the Russian people really want" but "should we pretend the state is totally ineffective in controlling public opinion". Should we pretend that Putin doesn't have a say in how Russians are educated, what they see on TV, what they read online?

I'm not saying this doesn't happen in the West, I think issues like the Vietnam war were made complicated by how much misinformation the US government gave its people, how do you judge public opinion of Vietnam when the US public has a generally factually incorrect understanding of the war? The Afghanistan war is not all that different. These are worthwhile criticisms, we cannot always take approval rating at face value.

The West couldn't invade Russia even if they wanted to, so that doesn't even matter. However, talking about the popularity of authoritarian leaders, Putin or anyone else should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, you did not say "this is from the perspective of the Russian people" and you might've gotten a different tone from me if you said that but you didn't. Different again if you said, "here are some positive things about Putin from the perspective of the Russian public" or whatever you now seem to be veering towards.

I don't know why you feel the need to ask these questions as I feel they are sufficiently answered already but here's a recap. You offered a characterisation of Putin in response to others characterising him as a "gangster" and said this:

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

So what's the problem here? Firstly, this is an almost entirely positive characterisation and secondly, it's really quite objectionable. Let us imagine that you rephrased this exact same statement as "well, here are some positive things about Putin" then we can solve the first part and you can say "well, here are some positive things about Stalin" or whoever else you want and I won't care.

Unless they're just questionable characterisations which brings us to part two. Imagine any other leader in the world, they're extraordinarily corrupt, they repress their own people, they control the press, they create laws granting themselves immunity from prosecution and describing this politician as "sincerely believing that they are doing what is best for their country and is dedicated to their state". The popularity of a leader in an authoritarian state cannot be treated seriously. Dissenters are punished, information is controlled, education is lopsided and it's not exceedingly rare to see popular dictators for these reasons.

Looking at Russia and Putin's direction, it seems ridiculous not to factor in Putin's aim to preserve power for himself in his actions. To see him as someone who is dedicated to the Russian state while not disputing his net worth of $70b and those are low estimates. Putin puts Putin first and "Russia" if we're talking about Putin's chess game with the West, second, and then Putin creating the type of Russia he prefers culturally and religiously, maybe the wellbeing of the Russian people factor in somewhere I don't know.

Responding to me without actually responding to me doesn't count, your "parallel" with Hitler is just an irrelevant but convenient example for you. You have not actually done much to defend your stance on Putin except "silly people" and I'm sorry but if that's the best you can do then you aren't avoiding "black-and-white thinking" but perhaps just avoiding thinking altogether? I gave you reasons backed up by facts, what have you offered? But you nonetheless ascribe my position as "being a slave to propaganda". Putin's PR campaign and Russia's propaganda machine gives exactly the same messages, word for word, that you have offered. That Putin is a strong leader who has Russia's best interests at heart. What is "Russia"? I have to assume you mean geopolitically because obviously the people of Russia are being suppressed and manipulated by the state. Geopolitically, Russia supports rogue states like Syria and Iran, Putin is insistent on acting like the superpower his country cannot afford to be and what has Russia gained in return? Prestige? Influence?

Look at the former USSR states and compare nations by those which joined NATO and those who stayed in the Russian sphere. Russia is being outdone economically by the resource lacking Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and certain types of people within Russia enjoy persecution and political imprisonment. At least stability should be something an ex-kgb officer can provide, if not through good governance then through brutality.

Where is the "grey" here? Your characterisation of Putin is merely listing the few accommodating and nice things you can say about him. I don't know your motivation but you're actually talking about virtue signalling here? Agreeing on the obvious isn't a virtue, you can say good things about Putin on a specific note but if you only have 3-4 sentences to describe him, do you think it's fit for those 3-4 lines to be singing his praises and justifying his leadership?

While Norway is one of the least population-dense countries in the world, the US is below average. Though, I am not sure to what extent these figures are due to the prevalence of uninhabitable terrain.

Do you actually think the US incarceration rate can be explained by such factors? There's a difference between being a patriot and making your country worse by ignoring obvious problems in favour of exceptionalism.

The defence spending being high is simply a fact, it's the third-highest in the world and higher than the US when calculating as a percentage of GDP. As for Russia's imperialistic ambitions, both geopolitically in terms of keeping former USSR states within Russian sphere of influence as well as in terms of actual wars, which Russia is up there with the US as one of the contemporary warmongers. Ukraine is the best example, with Russian interference in the Ukrainian democracy, their eventual invasion and annexation of Crimea, none of this is imperialistic according to you? Your justification of Putin is what is silly, do you disagree that nearly exactly the same argument you made for Putin could be made for every Fascist government of the Axis? Erdogan? Iran? the CCP? Your characterisation of him is flattering and accommodating, you didn't have to post it but you did anyway. Avoiding commentary about your opinions would have been easy, simply don't post them publicly? If you don't want a response then don't reply.

What's the difference between Putin and Erdogan? Both are corrupt, both harbour imperialistic ambitions based on past glories, both suppress their own people, both advocate traditional religious values. We're talking about billions of dollars being embezzled here, he has a net worth of at least $70 billion US which makes him the most corrupt politician in the world. The media is controlled, free speech curtailed, it's an authoritarian state as you said, how much does his popularity at home matter? He has crafted laws that grant past presidents immunity from prosecution from any crimes committed during or after office. I guess the Russian economy isn't too bad, if you're comparing them to former USSR states, certainly not the best or second-best though, despite their natural resources. Russia is spending a huge amount on their defence because Putin wants to hold onto a bygone age, trying desperately and ruthlessly to hold onto influence that Russia is clearly not going to be able to maintain. No need to refer directly to his PR campaign as a strongman and credit him with doing Russia any favours.

edit: I am actually not sure about whether Putin or his friends got any of their billions from embezzlement, I am not sure what means he used to acquire all his wealth.

Can you give some examples of the non-legal rights you are talking about?

I think most view life as inherently valuable and that's the default position and the reason for that is emotional. Besides that, people generally view killing as unpleasant. So to reverse that, there needs to be a motivation for killing that trumps the general reticence and a description or characterisation which evoke emotions that surpass the feelings of desiring to avoid conflict or hurting people. One method used to devalue the lives of a group has aimed at characterising them as a threat which must be extinguished. Alternatively, rather than a threat, characterising a group as inferior and justifying that which was otherwise convenient like slavery.

I don't think there's any objective value to life, it's pretty much the strong do what they want and we're both the dominant species on Earth as well as naturally inclined to care through things such as empathy and desires for fairness, at least enough people are like that even if many aren't.

Academics themselves often strongly disagree and rebuke each other and as it should be. We can't guarantee that academics will always have the best answers but we should allow them to be heard and have their ideas be subject to scrutiny. If the result is that some ideas are demonstrated to be weak and problematic then isn't that a kind of progress?

I don't really understand your question of whether academics have the "right" to impose their ideology onto the non-academic". Where do they have the opportunity to directly impose their ideology as academics? In the example you've given, we have a lawyer who is talking about that which can only be talked about with an understanding of the law. So, it's unsurprising if the average citizen is not able to or is uninterested in being able to understand and form opinions on what he says.

Often there is a far stronger connection between academics and politicians, we've seen that throughout history and those politicians or rulers who listen to the academics will bring their ideas into the world. Writers, directors, actors, journalists and other forms of soft power are often more influenced by academics, acting as intermediaries for their ideas, connecting them to the people.

Politicians are going to listen to specialists on matters where they themselves know nothing yet they still dismiss or ignore specialists when it suits them. The specific kind of thinker who actually has applicable advice for the average employee will sell books or give lectures but it's not an imposition but rather a commodification of their ideas.

Obviously the further we go back in time, the less of the population is even able to read or receive an education, the less likely an academic will win the minds of the common citizen. Profound thinkers do influence the world we live in but rarely by convincing someone who is uneducated and disinterested but that's to be expected.

Communism and socialism are both considered to be on the left but I think it depends on the country and candidate because there's varying transparency. I guess you're talking about the US but considering we're in the era of Trump, I think the answer is pretty clear that it is not in Trump's best interests to talk specific policy because he's clueless about that kind of stuff.

Fair enough, though it only changes my examples because the issues here aren't bypassed by being all-knowing. I assume you are really talking about things which can be known rather than are merely opinions, if I ask "is blue a prettier colour than green?" then although one may agree or disagree with that, there's no answer. So talking about only questions which an all-knowing being would theoretically have a definitive answer for really becomes a question of which topics.

Language is a problem because many words are not clearly defined - even if we know what they mean. Such as "is this batch of apples bad?" it depends firstly on what makes one apple bad and secondly on what percentage of apples need to be bad for us to describe the entire batch as bad and these questions don't have clearcut answers.

"Do dimensions exist?" can fall under similar problems, what exactly is meant by "dimensions"? I don't know much about dimensions but if we ask "do vampires exist?" then we run into the problem of having to define what a vampire is and people may not agree. Therefore even if an all-knowing being says they exist, the reason for that conclusion may not be satisfactory due to differences in opinion about what a vampire is.

It really depends on the specifics of each yes/no question and the topics which are allowed/disallowed.

This is wrong and there are just so many circumstances which make it wrong but even more fundamentally, yes/no questions are likely to be contentious due to the simplicity. For instance, you ask "do dimensions exist" but have we agreed on what constitutions a dimension? Or on what proof is required to be certain either way? In other words, both yes and no are possible or could each answer could mean entirely different things depending on how the nuances are fleshed out. Answers to even simple questions necessarily depend upon the answers of more complicated matters which aren't necessarily agreed upon.

The classic banno response.

Humanity shouldn't be judged as people are too different from each other. Really, any attempt to judge humanity will show the interests and interpretations of the intellect above anything else. Humans in the aggregate can be judged with sweeping generalisations but any one human is too complex for anyone to fully understand. Misanthropy may be emotionally satisfying but it's intellectually shallow and pointless.

Society is just a group of individuals in aggregate, I don't understand what you mean by "society is a collective mechanism". For me, morality means considering how you would like or how you think society would best function and acting in accordance with what is required for that to happen. Thus, I can do that which is not in my best interests because I am also considering the best interests of others. This is still pragmatic in doing what is best for me because when everyone does what is best for themselves and others, it is far better than everyone doing what is best for themselves in spite of others. I think we can discern this intellectually but we're also hardwired in such a way that this happens naturally to some extent.

Intellectually, I only respect this kind of morality but I'm not consistent on this because it depends on my feelings. So maybe in real life, I would take the torture because I felt sorry for the other victim and I'm fired up over the situation but I don't think I'm obligated to help the stranger.

Fair enough, but you didn't follow up with an explanation to your statements so I think we can end the conversation here.

I view morality as a social mechanism for the benefit of society based on pragmatism. Where enough choose what is best for them leads to an outcome which is bad for everyone, I see the necessity for a cultural counterforce. It is for the betterment of society that that exists, I am willing to hear why I should or shouldn't do something to that end, to the limit of what I am willing to sacrifice. When someone does something that is neither pragmatic for themselves nor pragmatic for society, I don't know what to call that but to me, that is not morality. Perhaps that person is acting in accordance with their emotions or their values but I don't see obligation there.

I don't see any obligation here for me to do that which is bad for myself but irrelevant on a broader scale. Besides that, I am much less sympathetic to issues of morality where the individual is forced to do something significant in order to not be immoral. Also, without these ideas about asking what is pragmatic in a broader social sense, I don't think someone being the same species as I entitles them to any kind of treatment from me. So even though I'm not really sure how bad my torture really is or how loud the screaming is, I think I would choose that the stranger is tortured.

I agree with your thoughts about how utilising perception and interpretation could be useful in this kind of situation. There is an aggressive approach which is a response with hostility through demeaning characterisations or a reflective approach where OP might investigate what about their roommate's actions trigger these unfortunate feelings and perhaps re-interpret these actions so that OP's reaction to them is less stressful or exhausting.

The "problem" simply has more to do with sexuality than anything else, as I said, you've chosen a poor example. I don't care to go into that topic.

A person is not their body but a person is not their mind either, they are their consciousness. If somehow my consciousness was swapped to another body with a new brain, let's say this new brain is genius and I attain their mental capabilities rather than that of my old brain, "I" would still refer to the consciousness, "I" have gained a new body and "I" have gained a new mind.

I think your example is not great, for instance, if your wife swapped bodies with a man, would you still be intimate with her? Probably not because you are probably not attracted to men and so any new look would probably be enough to challenge the relationship and if you can't be attracted to your sister's body or you don't want inbred children, that's reasonable but that's got nothing to do with the question you've asked.

Fascism means a totalitarian socialist state which validates violence and war as reasonable diplomatic measures both to their own people and to other countries. I think a good example of a fascist state today is China, which has nothing communist about them whatsoever. Ultranationalism and fascism are not interchangeable terms, nor is it even necessary to be racist, also merely silencing critics doesn't make a state fascist. I don't think fascism is very popular in the West, though socialism is becoming more popular. I think rather than fascism becoming a popular idea, it's become a popular slur, where are people claiming it is gaining popularity?

Why accept suffering where it isn't necessary? Take steps to fix the problem and if the most obvious solutions don't work then attempt to be creative.

The intellect only needs to convince themselves, to provide reason sufficient for their own belief. Meaning is always based on establishing prerequisites for assertions and then making assertions. Thus the assertions are not random or meaningless but are justified by the prerequisites being met. The complex layers of meaning are generally far too difficult for any foreign agent to untangle. Provided the intellect has convinced themselves, that's sufficient, convincing other people is an entirely different discussion. The process is absolutely influenced by emotion but I don't think it's hinged on it, the process is logic-based.

The intellect determines what matters, emotions are not an essential part of the process, only the intellect's ability to understand the concept of something "mattering". Characterisations, descriptions and categorisations are determined by the intellect, their or their species' significance or insignificance, their smallness or self-importance. Basically, the reason for our existence is whatever I believe it is and that's what meaning is. There's no atom comprising meaning that contradicts the beliefs of the intellect, the intellect can only be challenged by another intellect but effectively even that is of no consequence.

There was a reason to disband the old security forces in Iraq and do nation-building. This is no longer the case. The target country's security forces can take care of any hostile non-state actors, and anyhow, this is the same result you would get with a revolution. Are you saying revolutions are always wrong because there might be some hostile non-state actors? — Paul Edwards

I am not really suggesting any particular one-size-fits-all solution, I think we could begin to come to an agreement if you didn't want everything to go perfectly, your optimism is based on wishful thinking and that's an issue I'm taking up with you. If an Iran war is barely an inconvenience to the US or if it's a tumultuous decades-long transition, don't you think that matters? It's really important that Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam were not nearly as successful as you're making it out to be because that's probably the main reason why these wars are so infamous. If the wars were outstanding successes, easy wars for the US, the people rose up after being liberated and the transition to democracy was easy then this stigma for the wars that exists, would not be there.

It did work in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was a non-communist state like South Korea. It worked in South Korea. It worked in Panama. It worked in Grenada. It worked in Kosovo. It worked in Afghanistan. It worked in Iraq. It worked in Libya. It will work in Iran too if we can just get people to recognize reality. When Iraq has 300+ political parties instead of 1, you should be able to recognize that something changed. And if democracy indexes don't note that, don't trust them. Also, none of the 300+ parties wins 100% of the vote like Saddam did. — Paul Edwards

I think given your unwillingness to even accept the judgement of non-affiliated organisations who rate democracies and your unwavering but quite frankly unsubstantiated optimism about how easy future wars will be, that our disagreement is fairly well clarified but I don't see a way to proceed beyond that.

The Iraq war may not even deserve to be called a war of liberation, the US has made it clear many times that the war was to prevent Iraqi acquisition of WMDs. The war cost billions of dollars for the US, many lives were lost and WMDs weren't even there. The war damaged US credibility, it undermined US leadership and still today, Iraq is not far from anarchy, it is a place of instability and violence and its very existence is under threat. So when you zoom out from this issue of liberation, a high price was paid, we can't only focus on the morality of the invasion. It's just really hard to see why Westerners like Australians would support the Iraq war in my opinion, given the facts and benefit of hindsight.

If you really think your list (besides SK) is a list of US success then I just don't know what to say. The poor opinion of these wars is due to how badly they went but then you say that they were massive successes. You have this optimism for future wars despite every previous war being messy and horrible, I don't think it comes from analysis of history, it's just wishful thinking? Oh well, I think it is clear where the disagreement is and clear enough that we won't progress from here. If an Iran-US war occurs, I'll hope it goes as you say.

I expect someone who's interested in mathematics to be competent at it but I have no such feelings towards someone interested in philosophy. I'm not saying philosophy has no importance, I'm saying it has some utility but so do many things that neither you nor I am doing but we're doing philosophy, why is that? I think it's because we find philosophy interesting and fun, no? If philosophy is something one does or doesn't do based on whether it's fun or not then isn't it more of a recreational activity than something one does for practical benefits?

Of course, philosophers love to create value (through philosophy) for their efforts but that kind of thing is ubiquitous and seemingly part of human nature. If I'm good at or interested in something, the chances of my positive feelings towards that thing simply skyrocket. Of course people who like philosophy say good things about it but meanwhile when people says something we don't like is important, we're already looking for reasons of why that isn't true.

Honestly, even when I'm talking with other philosophers, I usually feel what they are saying is useless and without any practical value. Yet I'd much rather talk about that useless thing than something I find boring. All I am saying is that I think if you investigated yourself thoroughly then you would find that you are not much different from the people who aren't interested in your philosophy. You have your interests and enjoy talking about them and you have things you aren't interested in and don't like to talk about. You are not merely practising philosophy because you've realised importance and utility that others have failed to see, even if that's the explanation you'd like to give.

I think philosophy is something like 5% important and 95% entertaining/stimulating and if someone doesn't find it entertaining or stimulating then they're unlikely to be interested in it and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Philosophy is probably less important than understanding how to manage your finances or having competency with mathematics but you might not be interested in that either. At least, surely, there are things with clear merit to them that you don't do because you have other interests? Nutrition, fitness, knowledge of computers, something? Most philosophy simply isn't more useful than these things and a lot of it has no practical use at all. Even if you see the 5% important without finding it entertaining, you're not likely to be interested in talking about it. I think you'll have to settle for talking with like-minded people.

Isn't this just your way of saying that you like it when people think for themselves? Does the distinction do anything except create a value in thinking for yourself whereby you can say your beliefs are organic rather than synthetic? I think that you should prioritise how a person came to adopt a belief, whether it be of their own making or not. Evaluate the intellect's adoption of a belief and their reasons for believing. Regardless of the belief's origin, if the quality of the explanation for your having it is mediocre then the thinking behind it was mediocre too. A belief can be thought to be flawed in many ways but your classification is merely aiming for a cultural or psychological impact, is it not? What practical reason is there to make this distinction?

I feel there are two major misrepresentations of reality in your laying out of things.
1. History of Success
There are many countries which are democracies in no small part to the actions of the US but past the Korean war, really none which came about as a result of a US invasion. Calling Iraq or Afghanistan flourishing democracies is simply incorrect, I looked for a democracy index which would describe them as such but couldn't find one, they all list them as authoritarian states and whether democracy survives is really unclear.

2. Ease of US victory
How long until people put 1 and 1 together? The US has no had an easy time in occupying nations with hostile non-state actors and that's exactly what they're going to get in the African and Middle-eastern authoritarian states. Do you think Iran, the most notorious supporter of militant non-state actors, Iran, with its mountainous geography and both infamous and sizeable anti-US sentiment is going to be a cakewalk for the US?

Despite US interventionism, the world is becoming less democratic and the US is a part of that trend. Military interventionism has such a terrible track record, I don't think you can back up your optimism. For the Iraq war, I think most of the complexity comes from how difficult it has been. Much like Vietnam, I don't oppose aiming to stop the spread of authoritarian regimes like communism but it didn't stop it and instead, it just killed millions. So if someone wants to prevent a repeat of the Vietnam war, can you really say "oh, you like communism then?"? As if all the US has to do to stop communism is precisely what clearly didn't stop communism in Vietnam, military interventionism? You want to do exactly the same thing over and over again until it works?

I think such an overthrow of an Australian dictatorship would be relatively simple and painless. What made the middle-eastern wars so difficult was the networks of insurgents and non-state actors who did not rely on an identifiable central structure that could simply be attacked by the US. If a country like Australia set up a dictatorship in Canberra then the US could just swoop in and take them out and there are no militia groups, no foreign parties like Al-Queda attacking stationed troops. The Australian dictatorship would capitulate, the Australian army would cease hostilities and the war would be over very quickly.

That's why the US found it so easy to install democracies in West Germany and Japan but then found Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan a seemingly endlessly struggle. Iran would not be different, there would be a near-endless post-war guerilla offensive by non-state actors and the end result would almost certainly be worse for Iranians than what they have right now. Just like we saw in Vietnam and Iraq, decades-long wars which the US seems doomed to lose, if not just due to attrition and public opinion.

Honestly, even North Korea would be so much easier than Iran to invade, because the N. Korean army might just cease hostilities after the central government capitulates and who's going to continue the fight? All the US can do to Iran is turn an advanced economy into rubble, there's no option of an easy invasion and occupation.

I am not against hostile diplomacy with rogue nations or despots who harm their own people. Pressure should be applied to non-democratic nations to see them meeting some standards with regards to human rights and freedom. I urge against conflating the ideology of aggression towards dictators like Hussein and the Iraq invasion, the latter is more complex than that. However, let's say the US is going to declare war on Iran stating that they're tired of seeing Iranians being mistreated by their government and it's time to have a democracy there. That Iran has been destabilising the region, they're a danger to themselves and others. Why would anyone be against that given that we are for democracy and Iran truly is destabilising the region and a threat to others?

I see the alternative as being an economic and cultural approach, let the nations of the middle-east drift towards Western ideals and culture and use diplomatic and economic penalties for nations that try to block this. Let the women there see how things are in the West and let feminism happen organically throughout the country, have the people demand better governance, more freedom and so on. Very few countries are immune to this kind of approach and most of them are due to Russia or China supporting them, North Korea is an example of that. Simply invading the country and deposing the government for however well it works in theory, has not worked in practice. The West's interventionism has simply had an appalling track record over the last 100 years and people are less enthusiastic about it as a result.

It's because people are also for world peace, war should be the last resort and given how ineffectual the West has been at solving issues in the middle east with force, you have to anticipate the worst-case scenarios for a post-war Iran. We can't expect a simple transition to a strong democratic government, cease with the WMDs, "thank you America" and that's the end of it.

WMDs are an example of the line being crossed, Iran can never be allowed them and if war is the only recourse then I'm for it. However, I think that a "liberation war" is not a great option if Iraq is our example, I hope if it happens again that some lessons have been learned from Iraq, that it might be done without anywhere near the level of destabilisation that occurred there, which should be unacceptable by anyone's standards. So I am not saying that we need to always follow the cultural/economic/diplomatic approach but I think that's had a lot more success than actual invasions.

I don't think the topic would be as controversial if everyone thought that the US was invading Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people, for the purpose of their liberation. The major reason given was the WMDs which weren't actually there, that objective was flawed from the start. If the war reason given was "Hussein you're evil and we are going to depose you for the good of the Iraqi people" then I think the war would be viewed differently. The oil is probably the largest cause for scepticism, combined with the history of imperialism with the British and French.

The other issue is that even though it's been years since the Iraq war, Iraq is still a mess and with that knowledge, it's difficult to call the war a success from the standpoint of helping the Iraqi people. If Iraq was now a peaceful, solid democracy that the people supported then more people would support the invasion.

Mostly the big difference in your view and the view of many others is how well Iraq is doing right now. Between the IS, Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish militia groups, the corruption and incompetence within the Iraqi democracy and wide-scale protests, Iraq seems like a wartorn, unstable country with an ineffectual government. Based on that view, the Iraq war seems worse than if our view is that Iraq is a "vibrant democracy". The future of Iraq seems uncertain and I think even if people see the US as merely spreading democracy to Iraq and nothing else, how could they see those attempts as well-executed? It's not an easy task but I don't know if people can accept that it had to be this difficult and chaotic, not yet even knowing how things will turn out.

Of course, Iran is a menace and whatever power Iran acquires will certainly be used to be an even greater menace but Iran is not a small country. The issue isn't whether the US could easily defeat Iran but whether war against belligerent non-democracies is a sustainable strategy. What about North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and others? Will the US just invade them all?

US involvement in WW2 and the Korean war resulted in tremendous victories for world liberation, also their support in NATO has been crucial for establishing and protecting democracies. Germany, Japan, S. Korea, a handful of countries in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans would all likely not be democracies without US intervention, the threat of it or guarantees of independence. The Korean is the last major war where the US seems to clearly be on the right side, with a clear purpose that any modern Westerner should be able to get behind. That is not to say the US has only supported liberty through war and that they did nothing good past this point but it's harder to see the other wars in the same way as WW2 and the Korean war.

I can get behind the idea that the free world should not tolerate dictatorships and tyranny, even if not all the democracies are where they need to be within the West. However, the Iraq war was a mess, the plan changed several times and the US answers to establishing a democracy seem to be flawed. Countries which could easily be made into a democracy have been, the rest, there are serious obstacles to success. What country are you hoping will be the next target and what is it you'd like to see the "free world" doing?

I think the context matters but if an individual has their well-thought-out, fact-based assertions dismissed due to an emotional reason such as finding someone finding it preferable to simply continuing believing whatever is convenient, it is going to be poorly thought of from an intellectual standpoint.

I would summarise the problems eternity poses as an idea or as a framing as including making the intellect feel small, insignificant or inconsequential. Merely thinking it has this effect isn't necessarily a problem, it's when this thought becomes a common framing feature for other aspects of life. Religions deal with eternity differently but all the big ones include you in it through either an afterlife or reincarnation. Also, through God, there will always be an intelligent being in the universe, someone to remember us and what we did. Religion can give meaning to life by the implications it has for you in the afterlife.

Without that, things could be viewed as considerably bleaker, knowing that there isn't anything about your life that will be remembered after 20-60 years let alone thousands of years.

Personally, I view eternity as an intellectual concept that has real-world validity but in practice, is actually irrelevant to everyone and might as well not exist. We see others die and know life goes on but when we die, it may as well be that the universe has died with us. To me, meaning comes from me, the universe comes from me too. The universe as I know it is nothing without me and will be nothing with me after I die.

I think that the way eternity causes existential dread is flawed, a misunderstanding of what time and space look like without the intellect. With the intellect, it's a story, an epic tale of unbelievable and incomprehensible proportions that inspires wonder and awe and you are just a tiny part of it. Without the intellect, there is no story. Nothing is even heard or seen and in that sense, there really is just nothing. It is not impressive, it cannot even be impressive anymore, the concepts which we use aren't in existence there and things merely are.

However, that isn't the case if there is a God, an all-knowing intellect who sees you as a part of the universe, yet because God loves and treasures you and offers you a place by his side in the kingdom of heaven, it's okay. Even you yourself will get to see how the story unfolds as you live on for all eternity. The implications for life and death are totally different depending on what one believes.

I think "positive nihilism", which could describe my own beliefs, is not a restrictive term and simply means that one sees no inherent meaning but is for whatever reason not bothered by it.

Nihilism doesn't necessarily lead to being humbled, I think stereotypically that an individual's nihilism is not nearly as nihilistic as it could be. Take time as an example, nihilism means that time is inherently meaningless, our feelings about it are subjective, based on nature/nurture influences, as well as our choices. There is nothing inherently good or bad about my life being so short in comparison to eternity but the individual nihilist cannot shed human psychology with just thoughts. What do we feel about this? Anger at the unfairness? Are we jealous? Insecure about our relative impact? Scared of death? These feelings lack inherent meaning too but saying that doesn't help.

Mostly, existential nihilism is not a result of the logic of nihilism but the framing of nihilism, which can become the backdrop for all that we are, everything we do, everything we think, it's all meaningless. Believe this and think it often enough and it can cause anxiety, stress, depression and all that we describe as existential nihilism. Yet again, this in itself is not very nihilistic, shouldn't it be true that both meaning and meaninglessness lack inherent meaning under nihilism? Nihilism itself is an argument which uses meaning, if "proof of nihilism" doesn't mean "there is nihilism" then where does the belief of "there is nihilism" come from? Meaning is taken as fact and has repercussions for how one lives, thinks and feels.

The distinction of inherent meaning and asserted meaning is made meaningless under nihilism. Within nihilism, all meaning is asserted by the intellect, including what is inherent or asserted. There is nothing which is exempt, every argument can be waved off easily, worst-case scenario, theoretically at least, one could abandon logic and reason. Nihilism says there's no inherent meaning to that and I could reject the meaning one might think it has. In much the same way that God dictates within a religious scheme, the intellect dictates within nihilism, God's power has been taken away. Even if there were a God, his "Godness" has no inherent implications for the tyranny of the intellect, to assert or reject meaning at will. Neither time, mass or space, or even the divine, can contend with this power to dictate meaning.

Yet we are restricted, can't I only interpret whatever I wish if I am mad? I need to work within my limitations, I need to convince myself or it's pointless. The nihilist deals with two restrictions: Convincing themselves and contending with that which can not be changed. The two ways around a problem, firstly, for instance, with time, I can neither be immortal nor pretend like I'm indifferent to whether I live or die. Those are my limitations. In the end, it all comes back to human psychology, or my psychology and my Earthly circumstances.

Therefore if the issue of eternity can only be dealt with by either convincing myself of an interpretation of my mortality that allows me to accept it or by becoming immortal, then without the divine, it's got to be the first option. The second option becomes available through religion, rebirth or an eternal afterlife, it means you can take the second option of simply becoming immortal. The first option is not unachievable though, there are logically consistent and believable ways to come to grips with your mortality.

The intellect "finds" meaning through asserting meaning where neither restriction applies, patterns are the result of similarities in our nature/nurture circumstances that play a large role in what the restrictions are. Under nihilism, things can be split into meaning which the intellect dictates and meaning which the intellect is forced to accept by their intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I don't just mean that in a positive way, for instance, to deal with something about which I might be jealous, I need to deal with the cause of my jealousy, simply speaking words is not enough. Intelligence is both conscious and unconscious here and also, it can't be divorced from my biology.

I think a major issue then for belief in God as a result of pragmatism is that you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest in a way which shouldn't be able to fool you. Even if believing in God was pragmatic in that it provided you with psychological benefits of being happier or more fulfilled, you couldn't actually believe there is an eternal afterlife just because you think it'd be better if there were one and you can't become immortal either. One might be able to convince themselves of something based on a belief that the belief is pragmatic but there are rules for this, usually an element of truth is required. In this case, with an eternal afterlife, from an atheistic perspective, there's absolutely nothing to work with at all and it's pretty much hopeless.

I think that while I disagree with many of your points, this is the main issue. However, I would also say that the optimistic nihilist within these two aforementioned restrictions has an incomprehensible range of options. I think the problem of mortality can be dealt with before we need to rely on simply getting rid of it by becoming immortal. Mostly statements like "we are just mortals" need to be contended with, actually, mortals are the only source of intelligence and can only be contested by other mortals on intellectual matters. "We are only mortals" in philosophy, it's almost a nonsense thing to say when you're an atheist and with nihilism, mortal or immortal, mortal or divine, there aren't even hard and fast rules about what those things mean, certainly nothing an intellect can't rewrite.

Optimistic nihilism should work within these two restrictions, recognising that equally true or equally not untrue interpretations can be chosen between by their pragmatic benefits and aim at creating a worldview which produces positive effects. Your proposal here simply fails to work within these restrictions and probably isn't the best or easiest method by which one can view their mortality and think of it in a way which brings about desirable effects.

Fear is being sold as a commodity by the news and politicians, consumed because people enjoy being scared and enjoy the drama. Surveys I've read indicate that the average person is not afraid of death but really, of course, we're not afraid of death when it's absent. Even just an activity with a remote chance of death is enough, a bike ride down a hill going fast when you're not used to it, the fear can't be stifled by philosophy.

I beg to differ. Is there a difference or not between a short life and a long life? Don't people say that someone was fortunate to have lived to a ripe old age? Don't people say things like, "he died too young?" All these common utterances indicate a felt injustice in dying early, kicking the bucket prematurely. In other words, death occurring too early counts as a loss, vindicating my claim that death is not an equalizer - some die too young - this is unfair - and those that do die young are usually underprivileged - this is also unfair. A double whammy. — TheMadFool

What death equalised are not our opinions on life, fairness, what we want for our loved ones, ourselves or people in general. It is from the perspective of the dead that we look to find what has been equalised. There is no truth to any of it, just interpretative relevance and consequence. If thinking that death is a great equaliser helps you to live with less worries then great, if you disagree, you're not really wrong, it's just interpretation.