I'd rather not argue with anyone. It's just that some people have the nerve to not agree with everything I say. If they'd just fall in line and treat every utterance like manna from heaven . . . — Terrapin Station

>:O >:O

I am equally argumentative with people I discuss philosophy with outside of the forum, but those people who have the knowledge and skills required are generally rare. Thus, I make my abode around here (where the % of such people is greater), trying to force out whatever bits of knowledge I can get out of others :P . Does it enrich my life? I would guess so.

But I do hope I'm not a Bitter Crank, we already have one around here :P

The world will never change until we stop with the stupid fantasies, and start accepting reality as it is. Acceptance is the first step to changing things. Blind rejection of reality based on false but comfortable beliefs will do nothing. Human beings are ruthless and rapacious animals by nature - it takes education and effort to change them. Unless this essential principle is recognised, we'll never be able to do anything.

This is the simple fact that progressives around the world do not get. Instead they cry about conservatives being pessimistic, etc. This isn't pessimism. This is realism. I'm optimistic about the future precisely because I'm realistic about the present. We - the human race - are not great. Enough with the hubris.

The problems of the world can never be solved by these pink cloud flying-unicorn loving people, who think there are no problems to solve in the first place. Everything is rosy and shiny around, just Trump is the problem. Give me a break >:O The world has much more serious problems. It's almost unbelievable to see how people are holding onto beliefs based on utterly no evidence, and just reject statistics, evidence, and results of studies as "irrelevant". Sureeeee - let's determine what the natural condition of man is by sitting in an armchair and dreaming up how honesty is required for communication to be possible. That's how we're going to do it. Or by dreaming up ad hominems to dismiss evidence.

That's an article presenting statistics. I'm not going to dream up what the truth is about other people - as you seem to be doing - I will look at the facts. That's what the facts reveal. Do you disagree with that? Show me proof.

That article is isn't germane or explicative of lust :s , it is in fact mind numbing. — Cavacava

Yes, the article isn't the biology lesson, I meant you should study biology, to see that the brain automatically releases certain chemicals upon certain sights - including in the case of seeing a naked woman.

The article however does illustrate that lust is so prevalent, it can be taken as the natural condition of mankind. To depart from the natural condition takes effort and education.

simple seeing a naked person is not, in itself sufficient to explain lust. — Cavacava

Right. Time for a biology lesson son.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3283433/A-majority-American-women-lust-men-despite-relationship-say-makes-want-partner-more.html

Turns out a naked person isn't even required.

About me being a Stoic. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay.

I did appreciate them once but I find it alienating from what it means to be human - like the way it deals with losing loved ones and the way it (unintentionally) undermines genuine, deeply felt human relationships. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I think Stoicism is right, and our common way of dealing with such things by wailing and crying is irrational - although indeed human.

You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

I suggest you just take a look at a history book, and repeat this with a straight face if you can. I'm sure you won't be able to. Morality won here - clearly *facepalm* :



Behold your morality:


What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare.

But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually.

The statistics are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, because they disagree with you.

Fair enough, but you are wrong. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, about what? You being a Stoic or you appreciating the Stoics? Or both?

Err, citation needed? I know for a fact I've never said that. This is the second time you've insisted I call myself a Stoic, and the second time I've rejected it. At most I was quite influenced by some of their ideas, but that was in 2015. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, my apologies then. I somehow remember you saying it, but it may have been at the old forum. Of course I can be wrong. Your comments in this thread at least though, suggest you appreciate the Stoics highly:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/4381#Post_4381

Sure, but not everyone's gonna be in on it, and the people left out will try to fuck you. Democracy in action. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course! But that holds true even in a dictatorship. If you're an absolute ruler, you think you can satisfy all your desires and ignore everyone else? Of course not. You have to ensure that those who help you rule - all the parties involved in the management of power - can satisfy their interests too, so in turn they let you remain in power, and even help you remain there, because it's in their interest.

The underlying problem isn't political system (we've had good monarchies, good democracies, etc.) but the people running them. And that's what I'm asking - how can we make the people moral given human nature. It seems instead that most people in this thread want to ignore the people and morality, and focus on political system. It's not the system, but the people that matter.

Certainly people try. But there are a lot of people involved, interested parties in and out of government, a lot of moving parts, so it's always hard to get away with too much for too long. It's a question of how much damage you can do before it comes out. — Srap Tasmaner

Or rather, it's a question of how you can help satisfy the interests of those parties, so that they can help satisfy your interests in turn (or at least let you satisfy them without trouble).

The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.

So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives?

One point I want to address: there is no drive towards being immoral. There's drives towards other things which can, concomitantly, lead to immorality - things like pleasure, fame, money, power, etc.

Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/lying-statistics/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60-people-cant-go-10-minutes-without-lying
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/70/5/979/
^^ This last study has over 1000 citations.

As for Obama, what's the great ruler doing today? Buying expensive million dollar mansions, travelling on luxury yachts with all the contacts he's made from the White House, delivering speeches for heavy fees (to take money probably for all the services he's rendered as President), and living a better life than an Emperor! No fucks given about America. It was all a sham.

Not placing expectations on people to do better leads to a race to the bottom because being a cunt to people becomes validated, so we end up living in an even shiter state of affairs where there are no moral standards and leverage is all that matters. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Nope. You've been a cunt to me, so I told you to go fuck yourself (figuratively of course).

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.

Wasn't an issue, because you didn't get what you wanted (being right). What your exercise in futility proved is precisely my point. I have some leverage over you - I don't need you to answer me. If you don't, then I'm right, by default, because I presented an issue you couldn't address. So the fact you refuse to answer me because "that's how it's done on internet forums, and I shouldn't have expectations" - that just helps me. Not you.

As for not placing expectations, what did Marcus Aurelius teach you? And you claim to be a Stoic, yet so attached to your own expectations you are.

It does us no good because politics will come to be about power and self-interest rather than public service. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, but look - it's always been like this. Look at history. So are you going to fool yourself believing an illusion that has never been real?

Now look at President Trump's control. Doesn't look very absolute, does it? That's the whole idea. Of course he has power. We just need to make sure other people do too. That's how this works. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, well said, it doesn't LOOK absolute. But is there anything that if he really wished he couldn't achieve from his position? Very few things probably. In either case, his control is larger than probably 99.99% of people on the planet.

What you're missing is that this is the whole point of democratic institutions. You can also look at them as inscribing rights of you like, but they're also practical. Assume people cannot be counted on to behave virtuously, and give all the people leverage over each other. That's the ballot, of course, but also in the structure of government.

I don't need the lecture on how the world really works. You need to recognize that the theory here is designed to address exactly your concern. Even if you start from the belief that life is a war of all against all, maybe we can do a little better. Not by wishing away venality, but by reigning it in. That's what the project of civilization is all about. We're not stuck with the state of nature. — Srap Tasmaner

Good, at least you are recognising the problem. The issue though, is that people don't have equal leverage over each other. Donald Trump has a lot more leverage over me than I do. Why? Because he controls - or can control - a large portion of the institutions of the state directly, and I can't. Because he has access to a lot more capital than I do. Etc.

Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh quit quibbling with nonsense. Look. It's simple.

You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself.

And therein lies the absurdity of your self-refuting position. That was an easy one to address. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, give yourself a pat on the back. You were very successful. You've certainly showed how right you are. Not.

Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial.

This is an internet forum, you shouldn't have such idealistic expectations. Don't you know shitposting is how internet discussions work in the real world? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.

as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. Why is it learned? Because it doesn't pop into you when you're born. You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.

Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? — Metaphysician Undercover

Certain aspects of morality are natural. Obviously not being barbaric and cruel to those around is something that comes natural. Someone who just does things for the sole purpose of hurting others is NOT behaving naturally (nor morally).

But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are you bringing biological evolution into this? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And no, I don't think we have evolved much morally, if that's what you want to say.

This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should you make that assumption knowing that most people don't behave morally?

I'm not having a go at either of you, however I do expect you to try to address the philosophical/pragmatic issues that I've brought about politics, which both of you are avoiding.

Yeah, when you stop having answers to the problems I raise, go circle jerk each other. That will certainly prove you right.

I remember you used to boast something about living a moral life above all else. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes, and I still do.

What happened to that? Apparently now it doesn't apply to politics, where arguably it matters the most. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes, living a moral life is what people SHOULD do, not what they (or at least most of them) will do, nor what you should expect them to do. What did Marcus Aurelius say? Today I will meet unjust people, deceivers, etc.

I'm not foolish enough to think people will behave morally in politics. That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. That's exactly why loyalty, for example, is necessary.

If I was a leader, I wouldn't expect people under me to behave morally. Quite the contrary. So I would set up the necessary structures around in order to prevent them from behaving immorally. How? By holding leverage over them. Part of statesmanship is being able to control those weaker and less moral than you. How else do you expect the good man to govern?! :s

I'm not saying Trump does this. All I'm saying is Trump isn't doing anything unexpected. As I said, he's just more obvious about it, than past presidents.

By the way Wayfarer, you should read this. Especially this definition below:

What defines fascism?

The combination of deep hostility towards liberal democracy with a revolutionary set of ideas to regenerate a nation or a race, with violence if deemed necessary.

My political positions don't seek to regenerate a nation or a race. Nor do they entail violence. Nor do I have a "deep hostility" towards liberal democracy. Only that I consider it flawed, just like pretty much all other political systems I know.

It's about the people, not the system - it's the people that make an era great, not its political system.

That's what you would like to see, is more like it. — Wayfarer

Nowhere have I stated that. It's just your assumption. Trump isn't my ideal President for that matter, so no, it's not precisely what I'd like to see.

But yes, Trump - precisely because he lacks diplomacy - is to be preferred over Crooked Clinton, who would've done the same and worse behind closed doors. But alas, as I said, I don't want to discuss politics with you, just political theory.

But it seems you don't want to answer or think about the questions I have asked you. Why not? These questions are essential for your position. You have to consider them if you want to seriously think about politics. What will prevent the type of behaviour that comes naturally to human beings from occurring in the political arena?

So the fact that I can say that 'there's a liar in the White House', but you cannot, is because I'm scared? — Wayfarer

Who told you I can't say it? I absolutely say there's a liar in the White House. But I'm not surprised by it like you. That's what I'd expect. It seems you think Obama wasn't a liar. Because his lies and tactics were more refined - they were "diplomatic". That's what has got you fooled - a profound misunderstanding of politics. You think some good, some bad - I think all bad.

And by the way, you're scared because you refuse to see politics for what it is. Why? Because you're scared of living in such a world, evidently.

You are actually a fascist sympathiser, or proto-fascist, or something of that ilk — Wayfarer

No, but unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, and refuse to accept things as they are. I'm just saying how things are - naturally. It's fine if you want to change things - but notice that changing things entails going against nature, and therefore it requires effort. Just like, for example, the natural tendency in terms of sexuality is towards promiscuity. That doesn't mean promiscuity is right, but to remedy it, requires to be aware that this is the natural tendency. "Be wise as serpents" as the Bible says. You have to be wise - know the truth - in order to alter and change things.

My question to you is why do you think people wouldn't behave naturally in a democracy? Or wouldn't tend towards natural behaviour? My further question is how do you plan to change this natural human behaviour? What would prevent it from happening? These are the questions you need to answer.

Without answering it, you can go from dictatorship, to plutocracy, to democracy, etc. and nothing will change, except the external ceremonies.

Well, the story is, Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room, and then said 'I expect loyalty'. — Wayfarer

Actually no, that's not the story. The story is Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room and said, I paraphrase "I hope you can let things go. I hope you can let Flynn go. He's a good guy".

The loyalty thing was said over dinner.

The world is dealing with someone in the Oval Office who is literally threatening the very institution of democracy, and you don't seem to fathom why that is a problem. — Wayfarer

The institution of democracy is a sham. Never existed. Power always played by the same rules. Trump is not as refined as Obama, and other leaders have been. He's more raw and brutal, but he's using the same tactics they've been using, just less refined (and hence more OBVIOUS).

And if this conversation were going on in Egypt or Turkey, then you or I might get a knock at the door, and never be seen again. Just lke Russia under the communists. — Wayfarer

The truth is, even in the West we may get a knock on our door and never be seen again. But that's not always necessary. Why would anyone bother if you can be cast out as a fool, a madman? Why would anyone bother if you wield no influence? If you're not a political player? Why would anyone bother if they could instead turn you to their cause? J.F.K got shot, but that's not the only form of control. Sun Tzu exemplifies actually that violence is the WORST form of control - the least likely to work. Effective control is hidden, and you don't even realise it. If it gets to the point where someone has to knock on your door and make you disappear, then things aren't working very well at all, and the people in charge are quite dumb.

The mass media becomes an element of guiding public opinion in democracies. If someone says something they shouldn't be saying, the media shuts them out - casts them as insane, lacking sensibility, lunatics.

But - that's not a problem, right? Strong leadership. — Wayfarer

Whether it's a problem or not is irrelevant. That's the cold truth of the matter.

Did you grow up in Eastern Europe? — Wayfarer

Part of the time yes. What does that have to do with anything?

The use and application of power is governed by one thing only. Leverage. Have leverage, and you can control what others will do. Politics is all about leverage. To succeed in politics, whether you're Hitler or Ghandi, you need to wield leverage over others, and prevent them from wielding leverage over you. The rules are secondary. Humans are still humans, regardless of the rules surrounding them.

The FBI is supposed to be independent. — Mongrel

Yes. So what? Does that really mean they'll be independent, because "they're supposed to"?

I can't believe you say this unironically :-! — WhiskeyWhiskers

?

Absolutely not. The president is the head of the executive branch - not Emperor. It was at least inexcusably inappropriate (and possibly obstruction of justice) for Trump to demand loyalty from the man who may be investigating him, given the fact that he has the power to fire Comey at will.

This is a perfect example of why I asked Thorongil if he thinks Trump has a good understanding of the law, the constitution, and the meaning of the presidency (I won't even go into Trumps relationship with the truth). Trump doesn't have a bloody clue. He doesn't even have the basic common sense to see the massive, blatant conflict of interest involved in his actions. 'Oh but it's all highly subjective! There are interpretations you see! Policies are all that matter! The Presidents new clothes are magnificent!' Politics melts peoples fucking brains. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, stop citing theories to me. Reality is reality. Any President out there wants to maintain his power, and prevent himself from being abused. You know how easy abuse is? What if secret serv. director comes to the President and says one day "We've received information that media group XX has compromising information about XXXX regarding you, but we've managed to stop them from releasing it. However we're not in absolute control of it, but we currently have sufficient leverage for the time being, just wanted to inform you Sir." In a couple of days will come the order too "Sir, I think doing XXX can save a lot of trouble, I'd really advise you for it"

There. It's that easy. There's nothing blatantly illegal going on there. But the President will get the message that he must obey. You really think democracy, bullshit, etc. can stop things like this? Of course loyalty matters. Stop being a kid. At least Trump is smart enough to know this. How do you think he made it in the business world? By being an idealistic kid? >:O "uh this is how things are supposed to go, uh uh"

Which is why I have decided it's better never to debate politics with you - because your politics seems basically fascistic. — Wayfarer

Okay, let's discuss political theory then, not concrete politics. Why do you think that the boss of the secret service shouldn't be loyal to the President? You are aware that secret services have access to a lot of information right? Do you think it's impossible for a secret service to dig up information on a President and then use it to keep him in the leash?

Reason is sovereign, because it is the standard that truth claims are obliged to meet, not because it is imbued with some authority on external grounds. — Wayfarer

Who decides that it's the standard that truth claims are obliged to meet? Reason? That's like playing at the Casino - the House always wins (because it sets the rules).

Doesn't know he supposed not to demand loyalty from the head of the FBI! Must have skipped that particular class. — Wayfarer

Common man, be real now. Wouldn't you have done the same? I would. When you lead a country, everyone needs to know who the boss is - loyalty is the most important trait, otherwise you can't even have a functioning team. Trump is more of a bully than Obama and does this openly, not behind closed doors, and using political manipulation techniques as Obama did. That's the only difference so far.

Of course you're not taught this stuff in class. Of course. What were you thinking? These are things you learn on the street. Of course the boss of the secret service needs to be loyal to you. Why do you think Trump is appointing an FBI boss with no previous experience in the FBI now? So he can be at ease that that guy doesn't try to cook something on him - obviously.

Real politics is different than what you imagine, and what the media is telling you.

(whom Goethe referred to as "the brightest mind of his day) — John

And whom Hegel referred to as a "penetrating genius" and Kierkegaard called, along with Socrates, "perhaps [the] most brilliant minds of all time". Hamann's greatness consist principally in:

• Understanding reason as emerging from tradition, and thus never being wholly independent of it.
• Foreshadowing the dependence of reason upon language - something that only fully comes into focus with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
• Comprehending that skepticism with regards to reason and metaphysics is as equally theistic as it is atheistic.
•Anticipating the fideism of S. Kierkegaard and breaking out of the rationalism of the Enlightenment:

Kant made reason the rule of his life and the source of his philosophy; Hamann found the source of both in his heart. While Kant dreaded enthusiasm in religion, and suspected in it superstition and fanaticism, Hamann reveled in enthusiasm; and he believed in revelation, miracles, and worship, differing also in these points from the philosopher. In some respects they complemented each other; but the repelling elements were too strong to make them fully sympathetic. The difference in their stand-points, however, makes Hamman’s views of Kant all the more interesting

More here on page 202-206.
• Located freedom in creativity and artistic expression.

I think Hamann saw skepticism and dogmatism as being the only two real alternatives for reason, anything else would be, for him, an illusory dream of reason and would turn out to be nothing more than another dogmatism in disguise. — John

The problem with reason, for Hamann, was that reason set the standards, and then installed itself as some kind of tribunal that had the authority to judge and decide on how things stand. But reason itself was the contingent product of language and tradition - reason was historical (an idea further explored by Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein). So Hamann recognised that we cannot think outside of reason - BUT the bounds of reason are determined historically, and therefore our thinking ability itself is limited - man is finite. In certain epochs certain truths are obscured - there is no perfect rationality, when something is revealed, something else becomes hidden (Heidegger) - so the march of reason (The Enlightenment) is alike the horse chasing the carrot. According to Hamann, Kant too was fooled by reason, and didn't go far enough. Hamann offered a better and stronger critique of pure reason than Kant.

Hamann's genius was in realising that even if skepticism holds, that doesn't mean we're cursed to be atheists (contra Hume). On the contrary, we are free to listen to our hearts. If the uncertainty of reason enables one to believe that there is no God, then certainly it is this same uncertainty that enables one to believe that there is a God. As Pascal had said, there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough darkness for those who don't.

Hamann, perhaps more than any other, understood Hume's distinction between true religion, and false religion. False religion is a matter of argument and reason. True religion is a matter of the heart.

"There's no necessary connection between an 'is' and an 'ought'" -- > skepticism about morality — lambda

>:O Fine, but that's not Hume's only contribution to ethics. Three main ones that come to mind:

• "Reason is only a slave to the passions".
• Virtue is a coverup for utility (virtue is what brings social utility - not that I agree with the idea, but it's Hume's contribution, esp. with regards to justice).
• Morals arising from sentiments, not reason.

The poll here asked which philosopher was most important, not which one the taker most identified with. — The Great Whatever

We don't have an exact poll, but: — Agustino

Thanks Captain Obvious :P

I saw you posted a story you wrote but unfortunately I was busy at that time, and when I returned to read it, it was gone :P Alas, next time I have to be quicker.

Let me just point out that consistency/reason/rationality requires that you judge your own belief system (and its followers) by the same standards with which you judge others. — anonymous66

What makes you think I don't? I highly respect Stoicism, and absent Christianity, I would say Stoicism is the highest point reachable by man. I just pointed out to something Stoicism lacks - a community bound by a clear set of rules. Stoicism also lacks the Christian hope. Otherwise the two are quite similar.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/07/31/russell-kirk-conservative-convert-catholic/

Anyway, the only valuable thing about Hume was prodding Kant to show that he was wrong, which he did. — Wayfarer

And what about Hamann? Hamann became a theist because of Hume.