The prevalent religion, in my view, is -- in particular -- capitalism and, behind this, nihilism. — Xtrix

Wow! I would never imagine tandem like this one. Don't you think it could be contradictory? Capitalism has as a main goal to pursue wealth, so at least has a goal in their own existence. But nihilism is literally the opposite.
How can capitalism help me out if I am nihilistic and I am suffering about my own existence?

Isn't religious nihilism an oxymoron?

The problem with group identity is that it requires an other for the group identity to have meaning. In order to accept everyone you have to give up yourself, in other words, which is funny because we eventually give up our-selves anyway, in the end.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

Genuinely, X. Money and status. If I could right now, I would buy an enormous tract of land and begin building the largest commons ever witnessed in the history of mankind, way out in New Hampshire, or Appalachia, or Colorodo, or something. A community founded on the principle of the primacy of thehuman consciousness, as off grid as we could make it. But, as it stands, I lack funds, and I lack the people willing to take an oath to that principle. I fear there is no hope for a truly strong circle anymore, given our political climate. I fear we are headed towards a catastrophe, and the Ukraine situation is making that feeling all the more poignant. But, that may just be me moving beyond my rational mode, and into my more emotional one that sometimes takes hold like it does with everyone.

How can capitalism help me out if I am nihilistic and I am suffering about my own existence? — javi2541997

Don't open this can of worms with him, he'll explode your head with a textbook of messages, hehah!

Don't open this can of worms with him, he'll explode your head with a textbook of messages, hehah! — Garrett Travers

Wow! I should carry my armor then!

Wow! I should carry my armor then! — javi2541997

It's gonna be a bloodbath. A friendly one, of course.

Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery. — Xtrix

I don’t agree with this. I think that they carefully calculate the consequences of their actions.

Capitalism has as a main goal to pursue wealth, so at least has a goal in their own existence. But nihilism is literally the opposite. — javi2541997

It’s a matter of definition— the main thesis in this thread is about obstacles to joining together with others. Do you have experiences relevant to this? That’s what I’m interested in hearing, if any…

The problem with group identity is that it requires an other for the group identity to have meaning. In order to accept everyone you have to give up yourself, in other words, which is funny because we eventually give up our-selves anyway, in the end. — praxis

I don’t think you have to give yourself up, but I think you’re right in this case that there exists an “other”— namely, those in power.

Money and status. If I could right now, I would buy an enormous tract of land and begin building the largest commons ever witnessed in the history of mankind, way out in New Hampshire, or Appalachia, or Colorodo, or something. A community founded on the principle of the primacy of thehuman consciousness, as off grid as we could make it. But, as it stands, I lack funds, and I lack the people willing to take an oath to that principle. — Garrett Travers

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.

Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery.
— Xtrix

I don’t agree with this. I think that they carefully calculate the consequences of their actions. — Average

I do too. They’re still stupid decisions. Stupid is a childish word, of course. Irrational is better.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions.

the main thesis in this thread is about obstacles to joining together with others. Do you have experiences relevant to this? — Xtrix

Yea. You.

If I want to join some obstacles to others, they need to be logical. We can have a few different points of view but this doesn't imply we can get an achievement together, I can be agree in this aspect. Nevertheless, I think it is quite complex to join theories which are so opposed to each other.
Nihilism seems to br connected to all of those who suffers from existence. It is hard for them to have a main goal. But capitalism or socialism have a common goal which is the commitment of govern an economy or state

Yea. You. — frank

Me? What does that mean?

I see what you mean now. Yes, if people have no goals and don’t care about anything, it’s impossible to join together towards an end. Those in power certainly have a goal— to maintain their status and to increase their power. Perhaps they have visions of an ideal society, or an interest in space (Bezos).

I think while the majority is divided and isolated, the ruling minorities are very much in solidarity.

Me? What does that mean? — Xtrix

:grin:

(2) That at the heart of these decisions is bad philosophy, or bad religion. The prevalent religion, in my view, is -- in particular -- capitalism and, behind this, nihilism. — Xtrix

That can't be right. Human beings have been making dumb decisions for millennia, certainly well before 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' were glints in our minds' eyes. The only difference between 'then' and 'now' is that we now possess superior means of destruction such that the consequences of our bad decisions have become horrifically magnified. If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. 'Nihilism' and 'capitalism' are nothing more than modern, highly intellectualized expressions of latent structures rooted within the constitution of the human being. If we want to change the world, we must first change ourselves.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions. — Xtrix

What metric or criterion are you using to measure rationality?

If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. — Theorem

What do you have in mind when you mention human nature? I’m not trying to score intellectual points, I’m just curious.

I think while the majority is divided and isolated, the ruling minorities are very much in solidarity. — Xtrix

What reason is there to suspect that this might be the case?

My own reservations towards solidarity is that a “common interest” isn’t a sufficient substitute for individual interests. Rather, it attempts to put one interest above all others. It doesn’t take into account pluralism or dissent and often forbids it. Perhaps worse, it assumes human beings should find affinity with those who they would never find affinity with under any other circumstance, so long as they hold the same interest in their heart. Harvey Weinstein participated in the Woman’s March, for instance, in an act of “solidarity” with the other participants.

The fact remains: one can practice amicable relations and work with others without any solidarity.

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities. — Xtrix

Yes. I'm glad to see us finally find some agreement, bud.

What do you have in mind when you mention human nature? I’m not trying to score intellectual points, I’m just curious. — Average

First, I want to acknowledge that term 'human nature' is loaded and doesn't pick out just one conceptual framework or level of analysis. With that caveat in mind, I'll say that I am thinking about in terms of the biological constraints on human thought, feeling and behavior. These constraints, when combined with various environmental factors, seem to produce something akin to 'attractors' toward which human behavior tends. Another (slightly different) way of looking at it is in terms of so-called human 'universals'. This might include things like fear of loud noises, formation of binary conceptual distinctions, division of labor by gender, engagement in moral hypocrisy and much more besides.

I thought you might have something like what Machiavelli had in mind. He said:

For this can be said of men in general: that they are ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites and dissemblers, avoiders of dangers, greedy for gain; and while you benefit them, they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their life, their children, when need is far away, but when you actually become needy, they turn away.

Well, I'd say there's some truth in Machiavelli's assessments. Certainly, there are many people living in the world who fit that description most of the time, and I do think that the so-called 'dark triad' is a genuine expression of human nature, though certainly not a complete expression of it.

I think what he said is at least part of the reason “solidarity” is not only difficult but is also sometimes undesirable.

I think what he said is at least part of the reason “solidarity” is not only difficult but is also sometimes undesirable. — Average

Agreed. It's not always desirable. Solidarity is simply organization of human resources around a common goal or ideal. If the goal is evil, then solidarity becomes a means to achieving evil ends. See the Nazis.

Furthermore, (and also to your point) solidarity is difficult to achieve because it's difficult to get people to agree on ideals and goals. Getting a small number of people organized around trivial goals (like when to eat dinner) is difficult enough. Trying to get large numbers of them organized around unimaginably ambitious goals (like overthrowing the present world-order) is exponentially more difficult. It usually requires copious amounts of manipulation and control (e.g. propaganda, violence, etc.).

If the goal is evil, then solidarity becomes a means to achieving evil ends. See the Nazis. — Theorem

What metric or criterion do you use to detect evil? I’m just curious. I personally think that words like evil can be used by people to refer to whatever they happen to dislike for whatever reasons they find convenient at the moment.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

I don't know anyone who wants to form a political group, union or strong social circle (what is that, by the way?) The sorts of people who do tend to be monomaniacs and cranks, from what I have seen. You mention apathy as a barrier - I generally think a bigger problem is bewilderment - not knowing what needs to change or how to articulate problems/solutions to being with.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed.

That can't be right. Human beings have been making dumb decisions for millennia, certainly well before 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' were glints in our minds' eyes. — Theorem

True, but I'm talking about today. At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. But as you mention, this is a very different time, and the problems we face are no longer localized. This is the era of multinational corporations and governments with nuclear weapons. Is nihilism really behind it all? I think so, yes. Acting as if all that matters in life is the accumulation of "stuff" to me qualifies as nihilism.

If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. 'Nihilism' and 'capitalism' are nothing more than modern, highly intellectualized expressions of latent structures rooted within the constitution of the human being. If we want to change the world, we must first change ourselves. — Theorem

We should change ourselves. But there are many structures to a human being. I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions.
— Xtrix

What metric or criterion are you using to measure rationality? — Average

Simplified: acting in a way that is counter to your goals. In this case, making choices that, while they may increase short-term profits, increase the likelihood of catastrophe or, in the case of nuclear war (and even climate change) -- annihilation.

One could argue that perhaps death, suffering, destruction, and extinction is the goal of some people -- and thus these decisions are rational. But I make the assumption that this isn't the case -- i.e., that most people aren't psychotic. That includes corporate and political leaders.

What reason is there to suspect that this might be the case? — Average

Look at the financial sector, for example. Look also to the coordinated effort of business in the 1970s, the elaborate Koch network, lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable, etc.

But even in my own experiences -- you see wealthy people "having each others' backs" all the time. They have the resources and the connections to do so. Legal help. Financial help. Getting into good schools, where one meets other wealthy people, and so on.

It's not to say people within this class don't disagree -- it's that their privileged status, and the desire to keep this status, trumps these disagreements.

“common interest” isn’t a sufficient substitute for individual interests. Rather, it attempts to put one interest above all others. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't. It just means a number of individuals share an interest/goal, and come together to achieve that goal. Especially when it cannot be achieved alone -- which is common.

It doesn’t take into account pluralism or dissent and often forbids it. — NOS4A2

What "it"? Solidarity? This is meaningless. You're talking about something else.

The fact remains: one can practice amicable relations and work with others without any solidarity. — NOS4A2

No you can't.

I don't know anyone who wants to form a political group, union or strong social circle — Tom Storm

I don't know of many either. I've heard a lot of interest in a union, in jobs I've worked. And I think almost everyone I know wants strong social supports -- family, friends, whatever. A group of people they trust and can rely on. All pretty common. Not many people want to form a political group.

I generally think a bigger problem is bewilderment - not knowing what needs to change or how to articulate problems/solutions to being with. — Tom Storm

That's why I started this thread here. But as I mention there, I think the real issue is collective action, coming together -- not so much ignorance of the problems. But that's arguable.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle?
— Xtrix

Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed. — baker

Sounds like defeatism. But so be it.

That's why I started this thread here. But as I mention there, I think the real issue is collective action, coming together -- not so much ignorance of the problems. But that's arguable. — Xtrix

Probably accurate. But could we reignite the many groups which already exist in these spaces? Have they been so corrupted that they are not salvageable? We have unions here in Australia that could work well again. Lethargy seems to be a key problem. Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do.

It seems to me that a key problem for change is the view that the bad guys have already won and the situation is hopeless. That worldview seems to me to be one of capitalism's greatest protective factors.