Something the Philosophical Community Needs To Discuss As We Approach Global Conflict Once More

Deleted User

My friends, enemies, detractors, combatants, intellectual brothers, and fellow Conscious Humans,

We are, once again, on the brink of something terrible. The kind of brink that potentially means a great deal over the course of the next little while. A great deal like what we've never faced before if certain key events take place for which there will be no undoing once done. I think it's time we discuss the future of humanity as intellectual brethren within a world gone mad, even as enemies of views, and especially even. It's time to have the first convention of philosophers of the century in this year, 2022.

I know we all have opinions, deeply held, coherently established, correspondently reliant, religiously adored, and wistfully hoped for in achievement. And I know that almost none of us see eye to eye on the amazing philosophical concepts produced by thinking men and women of our beloved and majestic world for time immemorial; products of this great tradition of our kind, and for which I will forever love this species. But, the time has come that our duty as philosophers of the world, and holders of the ONLY salvation it has, this one tradition, this one Philosophy, to set aside the banter we enjoy and love, and spread to the world with a fervency beyond the reckoning of what the forces of evil know is possible, and is only possible through our kind; something humanity requires, that only we and those like us, have the ability to offer, lest the hour grow too late to give it. I'm talking about a Philosophical Principle that, if you truly search your minds and your hearts, and assess what is at stake in the unfolding of current events - remember the Somme, the Bulge, Treblinka, Hiroshima - you will not be able to dismiss, as it could mean the end of philosophy, and the reign of darkness and murder for years, perhaps even millennia, as in times past. This principle is one we can return to, if we are triumphant against the evil that faces human existence right now, to debate in full-force and as acrimoniously as you wish; and I will be honored and glad to join you, those who have spoken to me know this as characteristic of me already, even having been here only a short time. It has now come the time, the time is now upon us, we the thinking and living, that we must bring to those within our purview, and as far as that purview extends, the principle that reads thus:

The Inviolability of the Human Consciousness as the Sole Source and Indespensible Generator of All Ethical Conceptual Framework in the Known Universe.

It will not matter if you are a Christian, Jew, or Gentile.
It will not matter if you are Sunni, or Shia
It will not matter if you are Hindu, Sikhi
It will not matter if you are Atheist.
It will not matter if you are Socialist.
It will not matter if you are Capitalist.
It will not matter if you are Subjectivist.
It will not matter if you are Objectivist.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Laozi, Siddhartha, or Sun Tzu.
It will not matter if you are Republican.
It will not matter if you are Democrat.
It will not matter if you are Libertarian.
It will not matter if you are young and full of energy.
It will not matter if you are old and weary.
It will not matter if you are angry.
It will not matter if you are grieved.
It will not matter if you are at peace.
It will not matter who, or what, or why, or when, or where you are,
This principle can guide each of those philosophies as a base ethical metric with ease.

The only thing that matters, is that we love our own species enough to regard it as not-subject-for-destruction, enslavement, compulsion, manipulation, abuse, assault, rape, or any other violation that negates the Human Consciousness. That this one principle, upon which philosophy is now dependent, must hold its footing in the world, must stand strong against threat, must hold its line against that which would advance it.

I would invite you all to join me in doing what I do not believe philosophy has seen for sometime. I invite you to join with me to spread this message to the world in a love so unshakeable, so immovable, so implacable, and so forceful that it sends tremblings into the hearts of those you meet. That the people you spread this to detect the sound and fury of the philosophical might that has moved Humankind across the trenches of the Eastern Front to shake the hands of their enemies. Heard like the Thu'um of human Will that rang out down the himmelstrasse of Treblinka when a bald, naked, 15 year-old girl laughed maniacly in the faces of Nazi scum as they murdered her. Heard like the breathtaking beauty of a Slovensky orchestral symphony played in the key of "We rally round the family, with a pocket full of shells." Felt like a kiss on the cheek of the Grand Inquisitor from Jesus himself. Felt like it feels when someone you love just heard the news that their cancer has been cured. Recognized like it is when you look into the eyes of a newborn for the first time between the two of you, and you see that which is before you, but for which no explanation can be provided that can describe the truth of what you're seeing. I invite you to look back into those eyes and see the consciousness that you know you would kill to protect from being violated, and join me in recognizing that very same thing in the eyes looking back at you in the mirror, and across from you in conversation. The same Human Consciousness of Shakespeare, Slovensky, Darwin, Newton, Marx, Locke, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hugo, You, Me, and Everyone.

My friends, I'm asking you to join me in the explosive expression of philosophy every chance that you get, with every person you can, in whatever capacity open to you, in as much love for the human race as you can muster. We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. But, on the other side of that tunnel, there must remain a love for life, and for the humans who live it, and the will to defend it from violation if the need arises within our purview. I'm calling this preliminary convention to establish that specific paradigm, and to discuss with you all what should be done about properly spreading it, if for no other reason than for its survival in case of cataclysm. This may be the only place in the world something of this nature is occuring, but I don't care. If it can't start here, then I am on my own to spread myself. I don't see any reason why such would have to be the case, but I suppose I will know by the responses of this community.

So, what say you, Philosophers? Will you join me in this?

-G

Tom Storm

So, what say you, Philosophers? Will you join me in this? — Garrett Travers

I should claim an exemption from this as I do not count myself a philosopher.

But I'd like to understand better what you are saying. The tone of the OP is grandiose and messianic. You ok? Can you summarize your idea in less apocalyptic language in a few dot points? I understand from this you want to set out key philosophic principles to help save the world from a coming crisis?

Deleted User

You ok? — Tom Storm

Hehah! Yes, I'm fine. Don't think it was messianic, I hate those.

Can you summarize your idea in less apocalyptic language in a few dot points? — Tom Storm

Sure, things aren't looking so good. With the world organized the way it is, and in such an unethical manner, the current events could be a cataclycsm of pretty great significance. Not saying it will, but just in case, it is best to see of the philosophical mind people of the world can at least begin the process of coalescing around the idea that humans are not subject for violation, so that if things go south, the philosophical tradition may have a better chance at producing societies that are ethical, in a manner greater than what we were able to expect after 1000 years of Christian horror.

I understand from this you want to set out key philosophic principles to help save the world from a coming crisis? — Tom Storm

No, I want to set out to lay a solid foundation for what comes after the potential crisis on the horizon, so that future generations do not make our mistakes. The only way to do that, is to create societies predicated on the primacy of individual human consciousness. And I want see how many people I can start getting on board with this, and how many people reject it, which will give me a clearer idea of what we're actually dealing with here, ethically. As societies will never be predicated on such, if such is not valued, spread, and laid out in coherent terms that correspond to reality. That's the basic gist.

Tom Storm

↪Garrett Travers

Thanks for clarifying. Glad you are ok.

is to create societies predicated on the primacy of individual human consciousness. — Garrett Travers

What are you thinking here?

Deleted User

is to create societies predicated on the primacy of individual human consciousness. — Garrett Travers

I'm thinking along the lines of Epicurus, as from what I can tell, Epicurean societies are the most peaceful, happy, non-violent, societies I can find example of. A good way to imagine them are to compare them to modern-day Amish and Hutterite societies, which are direct adaptations of Epicurean societies that were usurped by the Christians after Constantine.

Have a look: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm

Of course, I'm not saying exactly identical or anything, but built on the basic idea that humans as individual entities are non-violable entities as a predicate for existing as a society itself.

universeness

I fully support what I perceive as the overarching intent of your OP which sounds to me like a clarion call towards a very old (way before the Christianity fable was conceived ) socialist tenet. "People (now it would be 'of the world',) UNITE!"

Anyone who makes any effort in this direction is to me, part of the solution. But sure, yes, we all need to do more.

I don't however think this matches with your ideal of the Epicural commune, which to me matches a comment (copied below) that you made in another thread:

" the inviolability of the human, in the mind of the average person, no such thing will ever be possible, and our only hope will be to split into communities."

This does not match your clarion call for everyone to unite against madmen like Putin. Division into ever smaller communities (Epicurian or otherwise) would allow a F***wit like Putin to easily take over the planet.

United we stand, divided we fall This has been true since we came out of the wild.

Deleted User

This does not match your clarion call for everyone to unite against madmen like Putin. Division into ever smaller communities (Epicurian or otherwise) would allow a F***wit like Putin to easily take over the planet. — universeness

If the current system of violation remains standing, this is what I mean. And yes, that's what seems to be the case. But, if we all can at least hold this standard, find some way to spread it like wildfire, the world could become an Epicurean Garden, and may been had not the been destroyed.

United we stand, divided we fall This has been true since we came out of the wild. — universeness

Yes. But, there can never be unity without the recognition of this one basic principle from whence all others come. Any system predicated on any violation of the source of ethics, is predicated on the violation of ethics itself, and is thereby upheld by the ethics of its oppressed individuals. And I see no alternative, but would ask of the philosophers of the world to consider spreading this message, while I compile it in formality and in literature. Maybe even write themselves on the subject.

bert1

I rather like Garrett.

Unfortunately I'm vaguely hoping we accidentally wipe ourselves out in some way that I can survive and father the next inbred human plague of cannibals and necrophiliacs. That's still a kind of love. Sorry Garrett.

BC

We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. — Garrett Travers

Which knife edge of precocity are you most concerned about? Nuclear annihilation? Conventional world war? Global overheating? The Black Plague (or its equivalent)? Severe world-wide depression? Social collapse? Civil war?

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock shows 100 seconds before midnight. We are at 412 ppm of CO2, up 11% since 2000. Depression and social collapse are always just around the corner. Maybe Americans will get a second civil war -- Stephen Marche, The Coming Civil War, Dispatches from America's Future, thinks we are on the way.

So many problems, so little time. Or, altogether too much time. Don't know.

I wish there was a Grand Solution we could all get behind, but if wishes were gold bullion, we would all be rich.

BC

human plague of cannibals — bert1

My theory is that as soon as the electricity grid goes down, the batteries fail, and they've used up all the drugs and booze, they will turn to cannibalism. Of course they will. No internet, no social media, no streaming services, no phones, no same-day delivery! The people will be so angry, upset, and frustrated there will be no sufficient relief other than grabbing some live bodies and throwing them onto the barbecue. Necrophilia before or after dinner?

So Putin could crash our systems and Voila!

Deleted User

I rather like Garrett.

Unfortunately I'm vaguely hoping we accidentally wipe ourselves out in some way that I can survive and father the next inbred human plague of cannibals and necrophiliacs. That's still a kind of love. Sorry Garrett. — bert1

Hah! No worries. In the end, ethics is individual pursuit. I know there's no saving anything. I just wished more people valued what they really are. It's weird to know that we have the power for it all to be okay, and just nobody, will just do it. Not you, of course, I wouldn't know. I mean them, out there. I guess if I must walk the himmelstrasse myself for ethics, then I'll do it if it means I'm the only god damn one, and this will all have had meaning just for me. Because I fucking made it happen. Dig? Join me if you ever wish.

Thanks for taking a look, dude. It at least needed to be considered.

Deleted User

Which knife edge of precocity are you most concerned about? Nuclear annihilation? Conventional world war? Global overheating? The Black Plague (or its equivalent)? Severe world-wide depression? Social collapse? Civil war? — Bitter Crank

A little bit of all of it, really. There's something sick about all of this that we've all been detecting for sometime, blaming on things that are convenient. Logically, there are too many things to point to to say "see, knifes edge!!?" Systems don't operate like that. Nobody ever thought that a couple of bullets would ignite WWI, or democratically electing a German chancellor would ignite WWII, and every war they both caused there after. But, there's a bad moon rising, my friend, whatever it is. And I just want everyone to consider exactly what is at the rooot of it all. I've got it listed above in the lack of that principle in the world.

I wish there was a Grand Solution we could all get behind, but if wishes were gold bullion, we would all be rich. — Bitter Crank

I'm with you there, brother. Thanks for having a look, nonetheless. Put some thought to what kind of society would be constituted by that principle being embodied.

Deleted User

My theory is that as soon as the electricity grid goes down, the batteries fail, and they've used up all the drugs and booze, they will turn to cannibalism. Of course they will. No internet, no social media, no streaming services, no phones, no same-day delivery! The people will be so angry, upset, and frustrated there will be no sufficient relief other than grabbing some live bodies and throwing them onto the barbecue. Necrophilia before or after dinner?

So Putin could crash our systems and Voila! — Bitter Crank

Keep your eyes on China.

bert1

Garrett, I'm sympathetic. It is indeed weird that we have the power, collectively, to fix everything, and to order the world in a sensible way. There are some unfortunate facts that make it difficult. Narcissists and psychopaths, who are clever and have lots of energy and ambition really can fuck it up for everyone, before everyone notices. Then there are systemic faults, like first past the post democratic systems which end up in voters not voting for who they want, but voting against who they don't want. Also the lack of a world government that can legislate and enforce ecological policy globally simultaneously. I like the EU as a project. Moving in the right direction. Gradual democratic Union of different states. UK took itself out because of Rupert Murdoch gaining undue influence in the UK.

Photios

↪Garrett Travers

If we could rid the world of capitalism we would achieve 90% of what you are asking for, IMHO.

Deleted User

If we could rid the world of capitalism we would achieve 90% of what you are asking for, IMHO. — Photios

lol, there's no such thing. Never has been. Everything I'm talking about, and everything you could identify as an issue that you're talking about is caused by states and Dirigisme. Not Capitalism, and not Socialism. Also, to "get rid of Capitalism," in the sense that you're talking about, would be to directly violate the human consciousness. I'd go rethink your position.

Deleted User

democratic systems — bert1

Democratic systems that are systems defined by monopolized use of force, are precisely at fault for almost everything we're talking about. Russia's currently proving as much.

systemic faults — bert1

Systemic faults are found in systems that violate the primary principle listed above. No exceptions.

enforce ecological policy — bert1

Which policies would states be willing to enforce, when it's the businesses they protect that are causing the ecological damage? Also, enforce? You mean, literally force human beings to do something? What is it you wish to force them to do, specifically?

I like the EU as a project. Moving in the right direction. Gradual democratic Union of different states. UK took itself out because of Rupert Murdoch gaining undue influence in the UK. — bert1

Oh, buddy. You've got a lot to learn. You just identified the institutionalized source to every problem you wish to see fixed.... I don't fault you, though. Almost nobody seems to understand this.

Photios

↪Garrett Travers

Nothing to rethink, brother. Socialism is our only hope. We must unite.

Deleted User

Nothing to rethink, brother. Socialism is our only hope. We must unite. — Photios

Did you miss the part where everytime somebody attempts socialism from a state administrative level, millions of people get slaughtered? Maybe you should be informed of the person who founded socialism, actually founded it, and produced hundreds of thousands of communes over 500 years? Do you know who I'm talking about? The guy that was plagiarised to produce the socialism and communism as you're describing? If you really want to unite, you're gonna need to know that info, and to also understand that no such thing is possible from the state level. I can't take you seriously, intellectually speaking, unless you can explore these topics.

Book273

↪Garrett Travers

In truth, I must decline. What we are facing is nothing short of the regular run-of-the-mill human response. Entitlement and power electing to destroy those who oppose it, or are perceived to oppose it. We have recently seen it in Canada, as our Prime minister (now mostly referred to as "that Mother-fucker") enacted the emergency measures act and had his cronies violently subdue a peaceful protest (see video with mounted RCMP trampling a senior with a walker, police beating a reporter with batons after pepper spraying her, and police beating a youth with their rifle butts) Exceptionally embarrassing, and enraging, for Canadians to bear witness to. After which, bank accounts of regular citizens that donated to this peaceful protest had their financial accounts frozen by the government, for "donating to domestic terrorism". The only violence committed during this protest was by the the government against it's own citizens. Nothing to be proud of there, not for any of us in Canada. Yet a shining example of what an entitled ass in power is willing to do to not have his authority questioned. Again, offensively human, and repeatedly seen throughout history.

Russia invades the Ukraine. Unfortunate, but predictable. Certainly not the first such invasion, and not the last. Philosophers will not solve this. Mass extinction...might, but we won't be there to see it.

Deleted User

In truth, I must decline. What we are facing is nothing short of the regular run-of-the-mill human response. Entitlement and power electing to destroy those who oppose it, or are perceived to oppose it. We have recently seen it in Canada, as our Prime minister (now mostly referred to as "that Mother-fucker") enacted the emergency measures act and had his cronies violently subdue a peaceful protest (see video with mounted RCMP trampling a senior with a walker, police beating a reporter with batons after pepper spraying her, and police beating a youth with their rifle butts) Exceptionally embarrassing, and enraging, for Canadians to bear witness to. After which, bank accounts of regular citizens that donated to this peaceful protest had their financial accounts frozen by the government, for "donating to domestic terrorism". The only violence committed during this protest was by the the government against it's own citizens. Nothing to be proud of there, not for any of us in Canada. Yet a shining example of what an entitled ass in power is willing to do to not have his authority questioned. Again, offensively human, and repeatedly seen throughout history.

Russia invades the Ukraine. Unfortunate, but predictable. Certainly not the first such invasion, and not the last. Philosophers will not solve this. Mass extinction...might, but we won't be there to see it. — Book273

A completely fair assessment, my friend. However, a couple things. The only people the stand outside the purview of the paradigm I am suggesting, are those who violate the human consciousness itself, that would be your Mother-Fucker Tyrant Bitch Mommy's Boy Trudeu, and the rest of the Dirigists of the world who predicate their existence on such violations. They have not had the right to operate next to free men since the dawn of time, and for some reason people just can't mobilize around freedom of human consciousness and leave right there, the only place it belongs. As it happens, by the by, it is specifically philosophers who have established what small semblance of this standard that is recognized between all of us. However, if you feel you must decline, so be it. However, without this standard being applied both to oneself, as well as other people aren't violators of it, I'm afraid an ethical life is not possible.

universeness

Socialism is our only hope. We must unite. — Photios

In my opinion, these are the best, correct, and most hopeful words on this thread.

Deleted User

In my opinion, these are the best, correct, and most hopeful words on this thread. — universeness

Got any historical examples of non-violatory socialism? You understand socialism is murderous when not predicated on the above stated primary principle required for human unity, right?

universeness

Got any historical examples of non-violatory socialism? — Garrett Travers

Every global national health service in existence.
Every welfare state system in existence.
Every free education system in existence.
Every revolt against slavery and oppression, including ones before Epicurus and the Greeks.
Every fight against the divine right of Kings.
The entire trade union movement.
Democracy
Freedom of speech and freedom of protest.
Almost every significant document relating to human rights/bill of rights/Magna Carta etc
I think your understanding of socialism is quite limited.

Deleted User

Every global national health service in existence. — universeness

Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.

Every welfare state system in existence. — universeness

Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.

Every free education system in existence — universeness

Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.

Every revolt against slavery and oppression, including ones before Epicurus and the Greeks. — universeness

That's not socialism. Socialism is : a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In other words, every nation on Earth, if you replace community with state, as you would clearly have me do.

Every fight against the divine right of Kings. — universeness

Not socialism. Rebellion is rebellion.

The entire trade union movement. — universeness

Not socialism. Unions are an example of free trade of private property, which is Capitalistic. When not partnered with the state.

Democracy — universeness

If you want to see the fate of democracy, turn your eyes to the East.

Freedom of speech and freedom of protest. — universeness

Those are recognitions of the ownership of the contents of one's mind and body, not the collective or state ownership of the means of production. The two aren't compatible. To violate my sole authority and sovreignty of my body, is to violate the property I accrue with it, or violate my freedom to not participate in your experiment. No state-socialist system in history, in other words.

Almost every significant document relating to human rights/bill of rights/Magna Carta etc — universeness

Show me where, in the Bill of Rights, you see: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And fuck the Magna Carta... ??

I think your understanding of socialism is quite limited. — universeness

And I think you've never heard it in your entire life. You don't anything about it from even a basic level. Everything below the list you provided of services that are paid for by theft of labor (slavery), all have nothing to do with Socialism.

universeness

Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day. — Garrett Travers

What utter nonsense! So in your head, a benevolent, national health service, free to all at the point of delivery was created by abusing a group of humans you pull out the air and call 'individual laborers' and the abuse of this group enabled a murderous government to create this benevolent medical care for all its participants. This is the logic you offer??

I hold most of the rest of your response above in a similar vein.

And fuck the Magna Carta... ?? — Garrett Travers

Ok, if you want to, even though your American constitution was strongly influenced by it along with the declaration of Arbroath. Anyway, I am not too interested in your choice of what you want to F***.

And I think you've never heard it in your entire life. You don't anything about it from even a basic level. — Garrett Travers

Blah blah blah! Just white noise and more utter nonsense!

Deleted User

What utter nonsense! So in your head, a benevolent, national health service, free to all at the point of delivery was created by abusing a group of humans you pull out the air and call 'individual laborers' and the abuse of this group enabled a murderous government to create this benevolent medical care for all its participants. This is the logic you offer?? — universeness

If a governments which murder people every day steal money from laborers to fund programs, that's not benevolent. I didn't pull anything out of the air except your head. This is exactly the logic I offer you. Your governments are evil, and always have been.

I hold most of the rest of your response above in a similar vein. — universeness

Which is to say, you can't argue with it.

Ok, if you want to, even though your American constitution was strongly influenced by it along with the declaration of Arbroath. Anyway, I am not too interested in your choice of what you want to F***. — universeness

I don't really care, because the government has never fully abided by it. That's because governments are predicated on force, and nothing else.

universeness

If a governments which murder people every day steal money from laborers to fund programs, that's not benevolent. I didn't pull anything out of the air except your head. This is exactly the logic I offer you. Your governments are evil, and always have been — Garrett Travers

Most governments dont murder those they represent and most governments don't 'steal' money from people. Most capitalists do but very few socialists do.
Paying national insurance through your wages is fair as long as currency is the main means of exchange. An NHS (like in the UK) is benevolent, to say otherwise is nonsense unless you think making profit from human ailment (like the US system) is ethical.

Which is to say, you can't argue with it. — Garrett Travers

I am arguing with it I am suggesting it was nonsense. I have just given you some further reasons above.

I don't really care, because the government has never fully abided by it. That's because governments are predicated on force, and nothing else. — Garrett Travers

Then work towards making future governments better and demand that their authority comes from the democratic consent of the majority of those they represent. Demand they fully abide by the content of humanist constitutions (if you don't like the label socialist, then let's use the label humanist). Demand change not by unhelpfully calling all politics and politicians evil but by demanding better politics and better politicians. Instead of trying to break the human race into tiny cooperatives which you claim will be able to live in harmony with each other based on the Epicurean commune model and such as your written guidelines on ethics, encourage all humans to unite as one species on one planet. No nations, no races (except the human race), no currencies. This has much more chance of success compared to your enormous collection of tiny cooperatives.

You keep complaining about governmental force Garret but you also state that you will protect your envisaged communities through the use of force if need be. Governments justify their use of force. Individuals justify their use of force. At the level of force, you offer nothing new!

On an earlier point,
I like Epicurus and Democritus as I have already stated. I accept Epicurus as a socialist but certainly not the first one or as the creator of such.

Was there no one in ancient China, the Mayan culture, the ancient Egyptians, all the early Mesopotamian civilisations who behaved like or could have been called socialists?
All these civilisations existed before the Greeks.
No socialists among them, is this your claim?

From wikipedia, Thales was around 650 BCE. But it also has stuff on ancient Egyptian philosophers such as:

"Ptahhotep. He served as vizier to the pharaoh in the late 25th, early 24th century BC. Ptahhotep is known for his comprehensive work on ethical behavior and moral philosophy, called The Maxims of Ptahhotep."

Wikipedia goes on to say:

"Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.

Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."

I am not claiming that this wikipedia article is evidence for socialism before Epicurus. I simply offer it as evidence of political thinking way before Epicurus and suggest that it is very likely that many such thinkers could have been called socialists or humanist (I don't see much difference between the two labels). Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is a central tenet of socialism but so is 'politics of, for and by the people,' 'basic human right to food, water, shelter, education, medical care and employment,'
None of these should be based on ability to pay or who your parents were or your ethnicity or creed.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need. These are only some of the basic socialist tenets.

No socialism earlier than Epicurus? No, I think there was socialism going back to the Cro-Magnums.
We need good politics and we need true socialism. We need to unite not divide.
I want Scottish Independence from England but mainly as a means of politically rejoining Europe.
One human species on one (pale blue dot) planet (at the moment).
Keep writing your stuff about ethics, it may help, but unless you change your political viewpoint, I suggest, with respect, that you stay out of politics.

Deleted User

Most capitalists do but very few socialists do. — universeness

This is so disrespectful it's not even to be reckoned with. Millions of bodies on the state-socialist roster in the past century alone and you can dare say something like this with seriousness. It's deplorable. What have these people done to your mind. Have you forgotten Soviet Russia? The Khmer Rouge? The Ba'ath Party? What the hell, dude.

Most governments dont murder those they represent — universeness

Yes they do, and always have. This is ahistorical in every conceivable manner.

I am arguing with it I am suggesting it was nonsense. I have just given you some further reasons above. — universeness

These aren't reasons, they're feelings that are completely fabricated.

Then work towards making future governments better and demand that their authority comes from the democratic consent of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

Why would I trust a democratic consensus to make decisions about my life? Democracy has only ever led to Hitler being elected, Kim Il Sung being elected, Putin being elected, I could go on all day. Democracy is only sustainable as a system of productive orientation, not lethal monopoly.

Demand they fully abide by the content of humanist constitutions (if you don't like the label socialist, then let's use the label humanist) — universeness

I don't mind socialist. I mind forced socialism. Which means anti-capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are compatible as free systems. Dirigisme destroys every concept thereof regarding both, and that is what you support.

Demand change not by unhelpfully calling all politics and politicians evil but by demanding better politics and better politicians. Instead of trying to break the human race into tiny cooperatives which you claim will be able to live in harmony with each other based on the Epicurean commune model and such as your written guidelines on ethics, encourage all humans to unite as one species on one planet. No nations, no races (except the human race), no currencies. This has much more chance of success compared to your enormous collection of tiny cooperatives. — universeness

There is no evidence of such a thing. These communities existed in peace for a 500 years before a state slaughtered them. And then continued slaughtering people, just like states have always done and will forever do, for the next thousand years, and the trend continues this very day. You have no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Zero. You are fabricating your entire opinion.

You keep complaining about governmental force Garret but you also state that you will protect your envisaged communities through the use of force if need be. Governments justify their use of force. Individuals justify their use of force. At the level of force, you offer nothing new! — universeness

We don't need anything new, at what you offer is just as old. I propose no institutional monopolies on force of any kind. Protection from violation, is not institutionalized monopoly on violation.

I like Epicurus and Democritus as I have already stated. I accept Epicurus as a socialist but certainly not the first one or as the creator of such. — universeness

The first and only successful model to this day, yes.

I am not claiming that this wikipedia article is evidence for socialism before Epicurus. I simply offer it as evidence of political thinking way before Epicurus and suggest that it is very likely that many such thinkers could have been called socialists or humanist (I don't see much difference between the two labels). — universeness

Political thinking is pre-Babylonian. Irrelevant. And no, it isn't much different at all. The only thing that matters is the acceptance of the human consciousness as inviolable, everything else comes after. Any system that is not founded on that principle, or creates room for itself to violate it, will suffer the same sadistic fate as every state before it, be it humanist, or empire.

Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is a central tenet of socialism but so is 'politics of, for and by the people,' 'basic human right to food, water, shelter, education, medical care and employment,' — universeness

All failed ideas, and control of the means of production is anti-socialist. It is a perversion of Epicurean communism, and it violates the basic principle of the pursuit of individual pleasure and happiness upon which Epicurean communism was founded. And such is exactly why we have millions of bodies to show in this century for socialism, specifically.

None of these should be based on ability to pay or who your parents were or your ethnicity or creed. — universeness

Should is not a factor in what is. I don't agree with forcing things on people, but it will never be my duty to fix their problems. Just as when I was homeless for a year and eight months, I had to learn the true value of labor and property to earn my way out by my values.

From each according to their ability to each according to their need. — universeness

No. From each according to his volition, to each according to his exchange of value. Marx's maxim is utterly violatory. No right will you ever have to determine for my consciousness what it will or will not do, and any desire to do so is an exercise in tyranny on your behalf. Luckily, if you spend ten minutes studying Epicurus, you'll see that Marx plagiarised, and perverted this concept with introduction of force to it. But, you'll actually need to read where he stole it from.

No socialism earlier than Epicurus? No, I think there was socialism going back to the Cro-Magnums. — universeness

...... No. We had agrarian societies of food gathering wanderers. Epicureanism is a formalized way of life, with guidelines, principles, and values.

We need to unite not divide. — universeness

I agree. But, we can't do that while people believe in the use of force to tyrannize people into submission for the achievement of their own values. It cannot, and will not ever happen in that manner.

I want Scottish Independence from England but mainly as a means of politically rejoining Europe.
One human species on one (pale blue dot) planet (at the moment).
Keep writing your stuff about ethics, it may help, but unless you change your political viewpoint, I suggest, with respect, that you stay out of politics. — universeness

I plan to. I'm not completely duped by political sophists. You'll see in time. I guess Russia isn't enough of an example for you right now. But, you'll get it in time. Don't worry, ethics will remain with me, alive, even if I'm the only one willing to break from their desire for power over their fellow humans.

universeness

This is so disrespectful it's not even to be reckoned with. — Garrett Travers

Yeah, the rarely seen honorable capitalist, as rare as a white rhino. A millionaire or billionaire that earned their wealth by completely fair means. Stock exchanges, which produce nothing but control the price of all goods and services. Capitalism is base and vile I don't disrespect it, I loathe it.
Do you approve of such characters from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch or influential families that were built on monies made from criminality, such as the bootlegging Kennedy's or fraudsters such as Trump?

Millions of bodies on the state-socialist roster in the past century alone and you can dare say something like this with seriousness. It's deplorable. What have these people done to your mind. Have you forgotten Soviet Russia? The Khmer Rouge? The Ba'ath Party? — Garrett Travers

Putin is an unelected totalitarian dictator and a theist, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot were also totalitarian dictators. As is Kim jung un, as was Stalin. Hitler was a fascist obsessed with the theosophic occult. He believed in the supernatural and his soldgers swore allegiance to god and Adolf Hitler and on the list goes. You ascribe the deaths they caused to socialism? Utter nonsense!

These aren't reasons, they're feelings that are completely fabricated — Garrett Travers

Again, right back at you. Panto chat is boring. You conflate and you come to wrong conclusions. You cant see a difference between totalitarianism and socialism. Using a label does not mean you are such. Is a pedo priest a Christian because they use the label? is a King divine because he demands you accept the label? I have already told you that one must demonstrate socialism if you use the label. If you don't then you are not socialist. None of the vile killer groups you mention are socialist.

Capitalist governments, historical monarchies, totalitarian regimes, autocracies, religious authorities, aristocratic regimes etc. These kill those they rule, socialism/humanist is benevolent.

I don't mind socialist. I mind forced socialism. — Garrett Travers

If by forced socialism you mean one-party rule or totalitarianism then we agree. Socialism is by the democratic consent of the majority or else it is not socialism! There can never be forced socialism as a realpolitik. It can only be forced on very small minority to ensure the well-being of a majority. Yes, it is anti-capitalist but it's not anti-entrepreneur. It's anti-greed, anti-millionaire and billionaire but small private business is fine. I favour global socialism. I will work within street, village, town, city, state, national and international socialism, meantime.

The rest of what you typed is just your own opinions based on your own interpretations of your own readings and musings, nothing more. You have no powerful evidence for your political viewpoint at all.

I plan to — Garrett Travers

Good, I hope you are successful with your musings and writings on ethics.

I'm not completely duped by political sophists. You'll see in time. I guess Russia isn't enough of an example for you right now. But, you'll get it in time. Don't worry, ethics will remain with me, alive, even if I'm the only one willing to break from their desire for power over their fellow humans. — Garrett Travers

As I said before, blah blah blah, white noise, I am sure like most people, including me, it sounds good when you read such words back to yourself. As Rabbie Burns said:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"

universeness

sorry for the ridiculous spelling of 'soldiers.' Dunno what happened there? :rofl:

Something the Philosophical Community Needs To Discuss As We Approach Global Conflict Once More

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions