You have mistaken your metaphor, my friend.

You have mistaken your metaphor, my friend. — thewonder

But I haven't missed you other post. I've read it. I'll think on it. I need sleep. — thewonder

I was just typing as you replied.

The Copernican Revolution that needs to occur within the Left is that of a change in mindset towards revolution. The wanton experimentation in style is a symptom of the general autopoietic plight. That the variegated sets of ruling orders which comprise of Empire have set out the world in such a manner that makes just about everyone suicidal is tragic, but it is just that. Left-wing academia is as at is because of how various regimens, effectively, rule-enforcing bodies, have set out their various political programs, almost invariably via some form of implicit coercion or another, in response to the revelation as to what world exists for them now.

You mistake the symptom for the ailment. The many absurdities of post-structuralist theory or left-wing academia in general are neither born out of a lack of openness and understanding or rational philosophical rigor; they have been generated because of an incapacity to cope with the political violence that occurred, beginning in the late 1960s. Felix Guattari's Chaosmosis, which I actually like, did not arise because of that he had been deluded into believing in a philosophy that was ultimately an exercise in mania; it was engendered by what I can only think to describe as "Situationist kitsch".

I have and am leaving this forum for the time being, but this is an important point to get across. The problem with left-wing philosophers is that they're just simply neurotic. They're neurotic because they don't know how to deal with the intelligence community, which they never address, but think about in volumes. They're also neurotic, and, perhaps, mainly so, because of revolutionary fanaticism. The Left, despite its constant invocation of solidarity, is an extraordinary hostile political domain. Crusades are crusades, though, and almost every form of discourse is just no use. All that can be done is to create political alternatives of, but without the Left as such.

I do realize that you have made this thread, in part, in jest, and do get it. I just felt like informing you of what it really is that afflicts us.

I hate to see you go without an adequate reply; those two posts together are quite the thesis - beautifully written, a joy to read, and ultimately reducible to this:

.

You mistake the symptom for the ailment. — thewonder

Descartes Meditations was intellectually dishonest. He must have been terrified of what the Church did to Galileo. He gave them a conclusion consistent with de-emphasis of the material to emphasize the spiritual; and to cement subjectivity as the only certainty. His method of doubt was skeptical - not rational, he needed God to save him from solipsism, and all of subsequent philosophy is built on that obvious lie.

Nietzsche freaked them out, and they didn't know enough science to prove him wrong. Man is not an amoral monster held in check by God's laws. Morality is inside us, a sense fostered in the individual by evolution in a tribal context. But Nietzsche declared God is dead, and the subjectivists responded with absurdism, existentialism, post modernism, all of them subjectivist - and you say I mistake ailment for symptom. You with the double barrelled intellect? You're looking at the last five minuets. I'm talking about hunter gatherer tribes joining together.

There is a mad proliferation of causes - but what can one expect? It's cause and effect - the details are irrelevant to the mechanism, it's inevitable - we're wrong, and reality will not be brooked. Humankind will die out if we cannot correct our mistake. People sense it - they know the end is nigh, and they're looking for someone to blame. They can be convinced that it's capitalism, and white people, and men - because they're in charge, but it's not that simple. The left are taking advantage of the discontent - the ailment philosophers describe becomes a symptom, we post rationalise and justify, fostering the ailment, and so it goes.

All this is in error. You are not who you should have been. The Church should have embraced Galileo, science and valid knowledge of reality as the word of God. We should be our truer selves, and things should be better for the advent of technology. They are better, but also, worse in ways magnified by technology. Because the fundamental mistake is still there - the mistake subjectivism sought to cover up, and it's that philosophical ground that left wing ideology is built upon. You think you haven't gone mad? No, you're right - you haven't gone mad. It's a pre-existing condition!

Well, thank you.

I actually kind of posit that Existentialism was developed in parallel to Empiricism, and, so, don't think that you can chalk this all up to Descartes.

To quote Kierkegaard and say that "subjectivity is truth" is just not the lapse of reason which has led us here, though. That they created an ostensibly "humane" device to ritually purify France of detractors to the revolution via the political spectacle of public decapitation is how we became as we are.

That's a rather bleak note to end on, but, alas, I must be off. So long!

Galileo's epistemology in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is empiricism. It simply took until the 19th century for anyone to pluck up the courage to defy the Church again, and posit the possibility - less yet, significance of an empirical means to objective truth. Such that, if existentialism and empiricism are contemporaries - why the delay? Existentialism is cast as a concerted effort to disguise truth by splattering mad shit all about!

I have philosophical views, on a range of subjects, of my own devising. They are informed by extensive reading; written in relation to modern western philosophy since Descartes, and intended to save the world by providing for a long, prosperous, sustainable future. — counterpunch

I'm the one with something important to say. — counterpunch

Then get yourself published in a reputable journal. Your genius is wasted on a random internet forum.

This is about how a Labour Party - built to represent the working class relative to the owners of the means of production, have become media luvvies, and gone into identity politics, and cut all ties with its working class roots - leaving us completely unrepresented. — counterpunch

Can you point to some Bills they've voted for or against that show them to not be representing the working class? Have they voted for Bills that favour employers over employees? Have they voted against Bills that favour employees over employers?

I don't know why you think them speaking out in favour of protests against black-directed police brutality in America somehow means that they no longer represent the British working class. You know that the working class isn't just white people, and that equal rights and respect for black people doesn't come at the expense of the working class?

No, I can't - but it's a stupid question, because it doesn't require the opposition to endorse a policy for it to be enacted. They just need to abstain. It would be very strange indeed, for Labour to positively endorse Conservative policies - but that doesn't mean they are opposed. For example, the Northern Powerhouse amounted to the renovation of two train stations. Did Labour kick up a fuss about that? If they did, I didn't hear it. Did you?

Poor white teens in 'left behind' towns not going to uni
By Sean Coughlan

Poor white teenagers in England's former industrial towns and those living on the coast are among the least likely to go to university, warns the watchdog for fair access.

"These are the people and places that have been left behind," says Chris Millward of the Office for Students.

The watchdog has used a new measure to see which groups are likely or not to go to university.

MPs are investigating low attainment among white working class pupils.

The Office for Students has looked at overlapping factors - such as poverty, race, gender and where people live - which are indicators of whether someone is likely to go to university.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55804123

For example, the Northern Powerhouse amounted to the renovation of two train stations. Did Labour kick up a fuss about that? If they did, I didn't hear it. Did you? — counterpunch

Why would they? Is it something that opposes the interests of the working class?

No, I can't — counterpunch

Then what evidence do you have that shows them to not represent the interests of the working class?

Why would they? — Michael

Because of the BBC news story I posted. Was that not clear? Rhetorical question. There's no need to answer. You're obviously not sincere.

What are you dribbling about? Political correctness IS identity politics. You lump people into groups based on their arbitrary characteristics. What you don't do is treat people as individuals - regardless of race, gender, sexuality, nor respect their freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. — counterpunch

They're not arbitrary characteristics when those characteristics are the reason they're being treated differently. When two people aren't allowed to marry because they're the same sex, their sexuality isn't an arbitrary characteristic. When a man is offered the job over a better-qualified woman because the employer is a chauvinist, their sexes aren't an arbitrary characteristic.

The irony here is that your desire for working-class representation is also identity politics.

Because of the BBC news story I posted. Was that not clear? Rhetorical question. There's no need to answer. You're obviously not sincere. — counterpunch

The Labour party should have opposed improvements to two train stations in 2015 because a 2019 (?) study showed that poor white teens are underrepresented at university?

That makes no sense.

Right, because prior to 2015 - everything was peachy in England's "former industrial and coastal towns" - was it? Labour wouldn't know would they?

So, when the Tories promised a Northern Powerhouse and failed to deliver, why didn't Labour hold them to their promises? Why did Labour allow the Northern Powerhouse to amount to two train stations getting a coat of paint?

Because, as mentioned earlier - Labour don't give a fuck about the working class anymore.

Right, because prior to 2015 - everything was peachy in England's "former industrial and coastal towns" - was it? Labour wouldn't know would they? — counterpunch

I didn't say that. But assuming they were aware of the problem in 2015, why is that a reason to oppose Northern Powerhouse? What is the connection between improvements to transport links in the north and poor white teens being under-represented at university?

But on the issue of poor white teens being under-represented at university, Labour did pledge to abolish tuition fees which likely would have done much to provide more opportunities for poor white teens to go to university.

So, when the Tories promised a Northern Powerhouse and failed to deliver, why didn't Labour hold them to their promises? Why did Labour allow the Northern Powerhouse to amount to two train stations getting a coat of paint?

Jeremy Corbyn: Osborne's northern powerhouse plan is 'cruel deception'

Corbyn pledges £10bn for Northern Powerhouse Rail

Jeremy Corbyn has reiterated Labour’s pledge to commit at least £10bn to the proposed Northern Powerhouse Rail project.

Speaking during a day spent visiting cities along the potential route, the Labour leader said building the route would go some way to rebalancing years of under investment in northern rail infrastructure.

Criticising the ‘‘utter disregard’’ the government has for northern commuters, Corbyn met passengers as he travelled from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester, and then on to Leeds and Hull.

Labour said analysis of the latest Department of Transport figures revealed the proportion of passenger trains arriving on time in the north has dropped from 91.5% in 2010 to 87.8% now. Meanwhile, the number of trains cancelled or significantly late has jumped 50% in the same period and overcrowding has increased 25% on the 10 busiest routes in the region.

Corbyn said: “The rail chaos unleashed by the Tories on the North of England shows their utter disregard for people living in the towns and cities in the North.

“For decades northern communities have received only a fraction of the transport investment that is spent in London and the South East. Labour will put this right by building Crossrail for the North, connecting the great cities of the north of England to unlock huge untapped potential.”

assuming they were aware of the problem in 2015, why is that a reason to oppose Northern Powerhouse? — Michael

I didn't say oppose. I said - hold the Tories to their promises. I said kick up a fuss that the Northern Powerhouse amounted to two train stations getting two coats of paint. The only quote you could find was at the launch of two rival policies, by two parties grubbing for votes, and both policies ultimately amounted to nothing. It's one of the rare occasions the North has been mentioned at all - whereas, the drum beat of political correctness is a constant and deafening cacophony. If Labour worked half as hard making noise on behalf of the white working class as they do for their upside down identity politics - there wouldn't be former industrial and coastal ghost towns full of disadvantaged white kids.

The only quote you could find was at the launch of two rival policies, by two parties grubbing for votes, and both policies ultimately amounted to nothing. — counterpunch

That pledge from Corbyn was from 2018, and it didn't go anywhere because Labour didn't win the General Election.

That's something of an understatement. It wasn't just that Labour didn't win. The party was badly damaged. Traditional Labour voting areas in the North abandoned Labour en masse. How do you explain that?

Most likely their position on wanting a second Brexit referendum and Corbyn's personal unpopularity.

I'm not at all sure a second referendum was Corbyn's position on brexit. It was very unclear - I seem to recall, while his economic manifesto was decidedly left of Clause IV, and seemed designed to scare Tory Remainers back into the brexit fold. Remember that Kinnock could not get Labour elected while clinging to Clause IV - so for Corbyn to reintroduce it is inherently suspicious. My own view is that Corbyn wanted brexit - but didn't want his fingerprints on the murder weapon. He was a bogey-man - elected to the Labour leadership by a populist propaganda campaign and £2 entryism - running in parallel to the Leave propaganda campaign - beginning in 2010 with Cameron promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and UKIP appearing from nowhere, suddenly on every TV channel at once, telling Cameron something a Prime Minister with a first class degree in PPE from Oxford should have known.

All this aside, it remains that the working class majority feel abandoned by Labour because they have been abandoned by Labour. Labour are utterly in thrall to political correctness - and spend all their energies massively over-representing the interests of relatively small sections of society. The "isms."

Capitalism is necessary to a sustainable future? How do you figure that? Doesn't capitalism rely on consumerism and necessarily foster an objectification and commodification of natural resources, and unnatural resources? This seems incongruent to me and I thought I'd say so, but admittedly I'm still catching up on this thread.

but I am myself, a straight white male, with interests I refuse to put second to the interests of others just because they're black, gay, women or like to pop on a frock at weekends and call themselves Veronica! — counterpunch

Oh dear. I see why you feel people don't want to engage with you.

but I am myself, a straight white male, with interests I refuse to put second to the interests of others just because they're black, gay, women or like to pop on a frock at weekends and call themselves Veronica! — counterpunch

Oh dear. I see why you feel people don't want to engage with you. — Uglydelicious

We were discussing how political correctness discriminates against straight white males, because the left have gone a long way past their initial demand, that society not discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics, unto positive discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who is black, gay or female - being ahead of me on merit, but not just because they've got an 'ism' card to play to bias the contest - and so discriminate against me, because I'm a straight white male with no 'isms' to play on. I have every right to compete, a right to an opinion, and a right to political representation.

Capitalism is necessary to a sustainable future? How do you figure that? Doesn't capitalism rely on consumerism and necessarily foster an objectification and commodification of natural resources, and unnatural resources? This seems incongruent to me and I thought I'd say so, but admittedly I'm still catching up on this thread. — Uglydelicious

Firstly, capitalism has won the contest of economic ideologies. Communism has failed, and failed every country that ever adopted it. It creates dictatorial government, corruption, poverty, and frequently runs to genocide. It doesn't work.

Secondly, capitalism has the knowledge, skills, resources and industrial capacity to secure a high energy, prosperous and sustainable future. It will not work out any other way. We cannot have less and pay more, carbon tax this and stop that, cycle to work and eat grass - for several reasons:

a) consuming less puts people out of work - and poor people breed more.
b) raising prices and imposing taxes on energy and consumption would unequally burden the poor, in society and in the world, because poor people spend a greater proportion of their incomes on energy, food, transport etc. And, poor people breed more!
c) a pay more have less approach to sustainability presumes failure - because the idea of government imposing poverty on people to remain within some supposed environmental carrying capacity is incompatible with democracy, and inconceivable more generally.

Doesn't capitalism rely on consumerism and necessarily foster an objectification and commodification of natural resources, — Uglydelicious

Those are somewhat loaded terms. Have you read Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons? It justifies private property by describing the rationale of farmers in relation to common grazing land. Basically, each farmers natural economic motive is to exploit this freely available resource to death by adding another cow, and another cow, and another - until the resource is destroyed. Whereas, when privately owned, the resource is conserved.

As a matter of scientific fact, resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them - and this is what is meant by a high energy, prosperous and sustainable future. I propose it is in the interests of capitalism and humankind - to exploit the freely available energy in the interior of the earth, in a very, very big way. The earth is a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around. For all practical purposes - it's a limitless source of high grade clean energy, we need to tap into, to meet all our energy needs, extract carbon from the air, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle, farm fish - and there's no good reason we can't carry on very much as we are now - warm and well fed, into the long distant future.

Sounds like you're there! So why do we not agree? — counterpunch

Because maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or biased. Maybe there is no such thing as an unbiased view and all you did was find a view you could no longer upturn.

Thanks for your opinion, such as it is. You're kind of a shit stirrer, huh? — khaled

shit stirrer? I don’t mean to be. From my view you were being a prick and so I treated you in turn so maybe you would learn to stop being a prick.

As for the actual comment:
You implied in the OP that philosophy is such that if you spend enough time and work hard enough at it, everyone will come to the same conclusions as you. You talked to Isaac for a bit and found that (surprise surprise) you had not, in fact, “solved” philosophy at all, as he had spend similar amounts of effort and did not find such a solution.

The first sentence can be translated to “Maybe the position you lay out in the OP is wrong” and the second translates to “Maybe you shouldn’t conflate the universality or rightness of your views with your inability to upturn them”.

You did not contribute to the discussion between Issac and myself. Your understanding of it is flawed. You also inserted yourself into an argument between me and Tobias and gleefully attempted to aggravate the situation. Why do you do that?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/497983

You did not contribute to the discussion between Issac and myself. — counterpunch

I thought it was a lot more recent than it was. Didn’t realize I was commenting on something from weeks ago.

Your understanding of it is flawed. — counterpunch

How so? Here is what happened: In the OP you characterized a lot of positions (relativism and others) as nonsense and false. And you called those who believe in them idiots that would require you to blow smoke up their ass. Then Isaac pointed out the obvious: What makes you such an authority? What if you’re the one being the idiot?

Your replied with, effectively: “Because I worked on my philosophy really really hard so I must be right” a piss poor defense, because you then asked Isaac if he has done the same and it turns out he has and yet you two disagree. You then asked him “Then why do we disagree” and got no reply as far as I can see.

So I wanted to hammer the point home in case you didn’t get it. Maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is biased or idiotic as you pretend is the case in the OP, maybe they worked just as hard as you did and with just as much scrutiny if not more and arrived at different conclusions. Maybe your inability to upset your position should not be used as evidence that it is right.

I say this because your kind of thinking is what ends up with people putting themselves in echo chambers and refusing to ever change their mind at any cost. You think you’ve “figured it all out” and all opposition is due to people being morons or disingenuous. Tip: if EVERYONE you talk to is a moron and disingenuous maybe the problem is you not them.

You also inserted yourself into an argument between me and Tobias and gleefully attempted to aggravate the situation. — counterpunch

If you want to call “calling someone out for being a prick” “aggravating the situation” then you’re absolutely right I love aggravating situations.

Why do you do that? — counterpunch

Because as I said you were being a prick and I wanted to call you out on it. The guy got mad you were being condescending. You could have either apologized or ignored him. You instead accused him of being an over sensitive loser who is not interested in bettering his philosophy. Sneaking in the word “Sorry” in the middle of the accusation doesn’t change it to an apology.

Weren’t you asking in this thread how to communicate more effectively with us peasants so you can spread the light of your amazing and perfect worldview O wise one? Well here is advice: Don’t be a prick. Also don’t assume your opposition is being idiotic or disingenuous jut because they don’t agree with you.

I thought it was a lot more recent than it was. Didn’t realize I was commenting on something from weeks ago. — khaled

So you didn't know what you were commenting on...

"Your understanding of it is flawed."
— counterpunch

How so? Here is what happened — khaled

Yet proceed to defend your understanding of it anyway!

not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or biased. — khaled

That's true. There's also the mentally ill!

Your replied with, effectively: “Because I worked on my philosophy really really hard so I must be right” a piss poor defense, because you then asked Isaac if he has done the same and it turns out he has and yet you two disagree. You then asked him “Then why do we disagree” and got no reply as far as I can see. — khaled

Bu that isn't what I said, is it? What I actually said was:

Then why do we disagree?
Let's start with epistemology:
What can we know and how can we know it?

Issac didn't reply. That's his problem not mine. I'd have put in the work to discover where our paths diverge, and who is on the high road. If he will not, then he effectively concedes.

So I wanted to hammer the point home in case you didn’t get it. — khaled

What point?

You think you’ve “figured it all out” and all opposition is due to people being morons or disingenuous. — khaled

But that isn't what I said either. And again, you don't understand the context. I wrote the opening post in response to ill treatment on another thread by left wing ideologues - utterly in thrall to their post modernist, politically correct dogma. I maintain, there is such a thing as truth, and it matters. Which is why I said, lets start with epistemology - and Issac ran for the hills with his tail between his legs, because left wing epistemology is indefensible. I know it. Issac knows it. The only person who doesn't know it is you! And that because THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

What you might wish to concern yourself with is why you would insert your uninvited opinions into other people's business. Here, and on another thread in an argument with Tobias. You popped up out of nowhere as soon as we began trading insults, and sought to make matters worse. Why do you do that? That is your business. Why are you a shit stirrer? What does that say about you?

Yes. And who also knows that others suffering fulfills this appetite. — khaled

THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! — counterpunch

This is a public forum every post is everyone’s business. If you want to talk to one person in particular DM them, there is that feature. The fact that you’re not using it implies you want people to read and reply to you. But then you throw a hissy fit when they disagree or call you out. Are you sure you should be using a public forum?

So you didn't know what you were commenting on... — counterpunch

False. I didn’t notice how old it was. Don’t be purposely obtuse just so make a “comeback statement” like this.

Bu that isn't what I said, is it? — counterpunch

False. You said:

I don't know Issac. It's not merely a matter of distance run, but whether you are running in the right direction.
Have you actively sought to abandon your assumptions and base your arguments in solid realities, like epistemology, evolution and physics, and then see if your philosophical favourites can be sustained in those terms?
Or are you looking down the wrong end of the telescope - starting with some metaphysical concept, like being, or some moral purpose - like equality, and bending the world around it?
Do you have a tendency to think in terms of superlatives - highest, fastest, biggest, strongest? That's often a road block.
Are you unreasonably attracted to nihilistic despair? You know you can just turn your back, because nihilism supports no value that requires you accept nihilism. All these, and a thousand other things - I've had to force my way past. Have you? — counterpunch

Which amounts to: “I worked really hard on my ideas therefore they’re right”

and sought to make matters worse — counterpunch

Ah yes. Calling you out for being a prick is “making matters worse”.

You’re not worth the time I spend writing this. You think that any disagreement is due to the other side being stupid, disingenuous, or mentally ill (seriously, why go to a public forum if you’re always going to argue in bad faith). This site isn’t a circlejerk. People won’t just agree with you. Yet you can’t handle that, and just paint any sort of opposition as stupid or disingenuous so you don’t have to argue with them. Furthermore when someone calls you out for being a prick you cry about how it’s none of their business (on a PUBLIC forum).

You may have some thoughts of value but it’s not worth it for me to try to tease through your close mindedness and inability to be cordial to get at them. Good luck dude. Hope you get out of your own head one day and learn some humility.