I'm going to sleep. I have no idea what we're even arguing over.

Some interesting topic worthy questions from this discussion:

How to spot a pretentious philosopher?
When does worshiping a philosopher turn into pretentiousness?
How do you illustrate that someone is being pretentious if he or she worships a philosopher?
Does worshiping a philosopher necessarily mean that one is being pretentious, if so how?
When do you know your being pretentious?

And so on...

How to spot a pretentious philosopher? — Posty McPostface

They know what you don't know.

When does worshiping a philosopher turn into pretentiousness? — Posty McPostface

When the worship begins.

How do you illustrate that someone is being pretentious if he or she worships a philosopher? — Posty McPostface

In any number of ways, but any number of ways won't drive the point home until she's ready.

Does worshiping a philosopher necessarily mean that one is being pretentious, if so how? — Posty McPostface

No, it just means one is badly mislead.

When do you know your being pretentious? — Posty McPostface

When you fake out on your own morals.

Thanks for your replies, and insights.
I have read a good proportion of witty's
Philosophy and, as many people might agree, his views on language, weren't very revealing of his religious views, - we do not even know if he really believed philosophy could be theological anymore. from what I could understand, his take on language and meaning in philosophical investigations can be said to be a form of therapy, in his words , it is addressed as a relief procedure for people/including himself who seemed to suffering from some sort from of "mental cramp". This was heroic of him, I mean, we all know how often we tend to shift from belief to disbelief, one stance on existence to another, one mental state to another ,so on and so forth. he was being pretty self critical of himself, indifferent to all those great philosopher-s before him, reduced philosophy to language analysis. What was more heroic, was that he wished to make people revise their perspectives, like for example, his nominalist perspective could help with the elimination of ontologies, which he would have called teleological fallacies , "The world is everything, that is the case", opinions aren't facts , meaning is use etc. These types of descriptions (if you have read the entire philosophical investigations) may in some cases said to be divine interpretations as they are logically sound and rare, judging everything - as universals.

Thanks, mystery mod!

You are welcome! *Smiles*

That was Thrasymachus's doing. :)

Given that you probably had something to also do with @anti social sociopath, who sent me an ambiguous video "to share with my family", I think I've overstayed my stay here, along with with the above poster hiding as a moderator...

Thank you for making this place uncomfortable to further post in.

What? I moved this to help you. And I had nothing to do with anti social sociopath except to ban him/her for bothering you.

Why you would think any of that is beyond me. I thought this draft discussion a useful place to move off-topic posts and you seemed happy with that. I'll PM you anyhow.

@I'm no longer 'here' is not a moderator by the way and apparently misunderstood your comment as applying to him/her. There is no conspiracy. That I know of...

If anyone has TimeLines email please let me know at her permission. I don't feel very safe here anymore. Must be a personal problem... Anyway, thanks folks.

Yeah, I think my health has taken a downturn. I need to focus on myself more. Until further notice take care. I'll just lurk from a safe distance.

Unenlightened told me your an OK dude. I need to chill, hate emotions and all that, haha.

Alright, cool. Hope you feel better later.

Moral Injury within Drone Warriors
"Before the drone personnel at Creech make their way home, some drop by the Airman Ministry Center, a low-slung beige building equipped with a foosball table, some massage chairs and several rooms where pilots and sensor operators can talk with clergy. A chaplain named Zachary told me that what most burdened the airmen he spoke to was not PTSD; it was inner conflicts that weighed on the conscience. He mentioned one pilot he met with, who asked, “I’m just curious: What is Jesus going to say to me about all the killing I’ve done?” Despite their distance from the battlefield, drone operators’ constant exposure to “gut-wrenching” things they watched on-screen — sometimes resulting directly from their own split-second decisions, or conversely, from their inability to act — could cause them to lose their spiritual bearings and heighten their risk of sustaining a very different kind of battle scar: what some psychologists, as well as Zachary, have described as a “moral injury.”

Good Lord, I am so glad that my son attending a university that offers a degree in the field of drones, has resisted my encouragement to look into the program. What horrors these Drone Warriors envision sound equal to those in actual combat.

You are over analysing it.

The following conversation has been moved from: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3516/nietzsches-thus-spoke-zarathustra

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate. — frank

At the time of the Civil War, Europe had long abandoned slavery and found it morally unacceptable. Lincoln's "emancipation" of the slaves was a political gesture, freeing only those slaves under the jurisdiction of the states in rebellion. If you look at the document, you will see that all the slaves within the northern states or in territories under control of the North were to remain slaves. The reason for that is that Lincoln lacked the power to decree anything over states not in rebellion as such would require an act of Congress (Lincoln submitted he had power under the Wars Power Clause to decree the property of the rebel states contraband (i.e. their slaves) and then to free them). The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to end any hopes that the Confederacy would be permitted to negotiate peace with the help of Great Britain or France, the two world powers that would never negotiate with a state that promoted slavery. Prior to the EP, Lincoln was careful not to portray the war as one over slavery. The EP changed that and formally made the war one over slavery and it was done specifically to remove Great Britain's and France's involvement in the war.

The point of this is that the it was not a tiny minority that wanted to end slavery. It was the entire world minus the South and some small pockets among border states. Slavery did not end with the EP. It was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, and that required a supermajority (not a tiny lunatic minority) of the states for passage.

The end of slavery did not end governmental institutionalized racism. That took almost 100 more years to happen. It was not envisioned at that moment in time that blacks would be treated in society just like white people. It was only envisioned that slavery would end.

However Trump's and Brexit's revitalization of Nazi type ideology would seem to suggest that currently social evolution is ebbing in the opposite direction, for the moment at least. — Marcus de Brun

The not so subtle distinction between Trump and Brexit is that in neither instance was there the systematic murder of a race of people. Comparing the two isn't clarifying hyperbole, but offensive ignorance, drowning whatever point you could possibly be intending to make. Trump isn't like Hitler. America is not like Nazi Germany. England is not like Nazi Germany. Obvious statements really, but for some reason you feel the need to disagree.

Some of what you wrote is true. Some of it is wrong. Some of it is your opinion. I'm not sure what any of it has to do with the flow of the topic?

Nothing you say is of substance here. You just say I'm right in some places and wrong in others and that you don't think what I said flows with the discussion. Yours is a pretty meaningless post.

Here's what you said:

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate. — frank

My point was (1) Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves. He declared the slaves free in the areas where he had no jurisdiction. I also pointed out that it was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. (2) Lincoln's view to end slavery was not part of a lunatic fringe. It was mainstream and supported by a supermajority even in the US (thus the passage of the 13th Amendment) (3) Lincoln did not want to give blacks the full rights of citizenship, and in fact there remained Jim Crow laws some 100 years thereafter. (4) The reasons behind Lincoln's decision to present the EP is well documented and we need not resort to speculation. He presented it to end European meddling in the war and he specifically waited until an opportune time (specifically when the army of the Potomac was able to defend the capital following the battle of Antietam).

This strikes me as directly responsive to all the points in your post and your subsequent post strikes me as inability to respond.

I just didn't know you wanted to continue on so far off topic.

The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to end any hopes that the Confederacy would be permitted to negotiate peace with the help of Great Britain or France, the two world powers that would never negotiate with a state that promoted slavery. — Hanover

What? The British gave aid to the Confederacy. They were fully aware that the point of the Confederacy was to become an independent slave nation, and they would have barreled over the Atlantic playing Rule Britannia to preside over a ceremony to permanently divide their former colonies, EP or not.

What we know is that Lincoln had a conversation with Charles Sumner prior to issuing it. Sumner told Lincoln that if the war ended and slavery continued, future generations would be doomed to revisit the same struggle. The EP was issued on the assumption that it would undermine the South's ability to wage war.

The point of this is that the it was not a tiny minority that wanted to end slavery. It was the entire world minus the South and some small pockets among border states. — Hanover

Brazil didn’t end slavery until 1888. The Ottoman Empire: around 1871, but slavery continued there until the early 20th Century. The Russians abolished slavery in 1861. Britain: 1834. Guess when Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery?

The particular challenge of Americans was the prospect of becoming a multi-racial society post freedom. Anti-Slavery was prominent in the North, but they advocated sending the freed slaves to Haiti or Africa.

They most certainly did not advocate freeing the slaves prior to locating the money to deport them.

Historians tell us those funds did not exist. This is why Anti-Slavery was prone to apathy and just wanting to maintain the status quo. We see what they were really thinking when all the experienced politicians around Lincoln advised him to give a speech offering a constitutional amendment permanently protecting slavery in the South in order to avoid war.

American abolitionists (3-5% of the white American population) did advocate freeing the slaves ASAP and offering citizenship and suffrage.

There were other things you said that were wrong. Stop makin' shit up.

(3) Lincoln did not want to give blacks the full rights of citizenship, and in fact there remained Jim Crow laws some 100 years thereafter — Hanover

He struggled vigorously to achieve black citizenship. He used war power to start the process in the south since northerners initially rejected the idea.

Jim Crow was a result of an event that started in the 1890s. How do you live in Atlanta and you don't know what happened? You're oblivious to the history of your own home.

Now I get why you're so nonchalant about the Nazi side of the Republican party. You don't know what happened in the Southeast. You don't realize that fascism was actually invented here: right under your feet.

What? The British gave aid to the Confederacy. They were fully aware that the point of the Confederacy was to become an independent slave nation, and they would have barreled over the Atlantic playing Rule Britannia to preside over a ceremony to permanently divide their former colonies, EP or not. — frank

England could not intervene in the war once the EP was issued because by potraying the war as about slavery and not protecting the union, England could not support the South.

"When the Civil War became about slavery -- not just union -- Great Britain could not morally recognize the South or intervene in the war. To do so would be diplomatically hypocritical." www.thoughtco.com/emancipation-proclamation-was-also-foreign-policy-3310345

It's basic stuff: https://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues/wait-abe-lincoln-wait-free-slaves/

The delay of issuing the EP until after Antietam was to assure it was on the heels of a victory (however slight) and it assured lack of negotiation with England and France as diplomatic rules forbade negotiating with those states incapable of consistently protecting their borders. Very basic stuff. But keep arguing. Whatever. Look it up.

We see what they were really thinking when all the experienced politicians around Lincoln advised him to give a speech offering a constitutional amendment permanently protecting slavery in the South in order to avoid war. — frank

Secession occured after Lincoln's election but before his inaugaration. When was he going to argue for an Amendment? After the South seceded? My understanding is that he was fighting for an Amendment prior to the war's end, but I don't follow what you're saying here.

It's basic stuff — Hanover

Hanover. Read your own link. It lays out speculations about his reasoning. As I initially said: that's all we have. He wasn't a writer. It was his decision alone, and he didn't tell what he was thinking. Could it have had something to do with Britain? Maybe. We know he would have framed it as being about the war effort because otherwise it would have been unconstitutional. What I was focusing on was that the vast majority of American citizens could not imagine a multi-racial society prior to the war. Word was that it would be disastrous to try it. He forged ahead anyway.

Secession occured after Lincoln's election but before his inaugaration. When was he going to argue for an Amendment? After the South seceded? My understanding is that he was fighting for an Amendment prior to the war's end, but I don't follow what you're saying here. — Hanover

So again, this is showing that you have never read a history of the Civil War. WTF?

What I'm more interested in now is your failure to understand the history of Jim Crow. Standing governments being run out of town. Thugs being hired to terrorize both blacks and whites in order to reverse all the progress blacks had made and make it impossible for them to vote. You need to get a clue.

So, I'm going to use one of my old topics that seem to have some merit given my recent self-exile from starting topics, which deep down I just love doing.

Anyway, it's a topic that originated in this thread,

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5506/what-is-your-gripe-with-psychologypsychiatry-ask-the-clinical-psychologist

I asked Anaxagoras the following question, which I think is a topic worthy:

Given your experience with the whole industry of antidepressants and the obsession with magical, fast acting, immediate relief inherent biases out of the way, when do you think as a psychologist will the American system start treating (or catch up with places like Cambodia) where mental health as a social issue? — Wallows

So, this idea originally got bestowed upon me from watching a BigThink video about the psychologist explaining the fact that people go about treating depression as a social issue in other countries. The example provided was of a Cambodian farmer stepping on a land mine and losing his ability to farm. Following this, he developed a generic case of depression due to losing his livelihood and ability to function. The doctors listened to his problems and instead of prescribing him an antidepressant, took a more pragmatic approach and bought him a dairy cow. His depression abated and he was able soon to start a dairy farm with his impediment.

Now, taking this concept of psychiatry and psychology as treating problems and not symptoms, how far can we take this idea and implement it in places like the US? That is, to treat an issue as a social problem that an individual has?

Not sure how to proceed with formulating this view; but, that's the template. Any ideas thoughts and criticisms welcome.