A (true) philosopher wouldn't resort to brinkmanship - it's out of character. — Agent Smith

I am not surprised you bracketed (true). Do many philosophers act out of character? or are many philosophers, past and present, merely characters and some even more accurately described as caricatures.

So are there any particular philosophers you would name from the classical era in particular or from the post-classical times, that you think particularly pushed a purely fear/threat/brinkmanship philosophy.
Do quotes like: Friedrich Nietzsche
"God Is Dead"
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Do you think Nietzsche should be categorised as a brinkmanship or fear-based philosopher?

What about Plato's:
"The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Is this fear-based philosophy?

I am not surprised you bracketed (true). Do many philosophers act out of character? or are many philosophers, past and present, merely characters and some even more accurately described as caricatures. — universeness

There is nothing in philosophy that could make a novice or a veteran in the subject a fanatic and you need to be one to find brinkmanship appealing.

There is nothing in philosophy that could make a novice or a veteran in the subject a fanatic and you need to be one to find brinkmanship appealing. — Agent Smith

Yet there are many philosophers that many would describe as fanatics, yes?
You ask a very good question. I think humans are very attracted to brinkmanship. That's why the freak show was so popular and many people are themselves 'thrill seekers,' or are very attracted to the label 'adrenalin junkie'.
I would say early pioneers became so, out of necessity. They moved into new territories out of need rather than a wish to put their lives on the line but there does seem to be a part of the human character that feeds from the 'wow factor,' of putting your life on the line. All or nothing philosophy?
I think many philosophers have massaged those areas of the human character to suit their own ends.

Indeed, you are right!

I broadly agree. — universeness

I thought you'd disagree with my point about Peterson.

One of his latest things to get riled up about is climate change. Saying that the error bars around a climate change projection for 50 years time are so great that we wouldn't be able to measure the positive or negative affects of anything we do right now, "so how in the world are you going to solve a problem when you can't even measure the consequence of your actions. How is that even possible".

That's one of Nigel Farage's hobby horses too (in addition to immigration).

When Jordan Peterson first started to publicly philosophise, he was more guarded, I think. I was attracted to the various human dilemmas he posed such as being a guard at Auschwitz, etc (Certainly an on the brink job for anyone with a conscience) and how he thinks he would have lived through such.
His experience in psychiatry and his knowledge of how humans think is very impressive.
Then when he started to talk about how natural and essential power hierarchies were, I started to detract from him. His over-the-top attraction to all things Dostoyevsky, then his drug episode and getting his banned treatment in Russia, then his daughters various background money making schemes using his name, then his outbursts against his twitter ban and his obvious transphobia etc. So I now think he is a narcissist and probably a little mad.
But he is also quite dangerous as he is very intelligent and has the ear of a large number of people.
He could influence the political vote of many to vote for right wing policies.
His arguments against climate change are also worrying and BS. The main evidence for climate change is the continuing extreme weather events that are happening all over the planet and worsening every year and the FACTS of how much natural forest we are losing and how much plastic pollution is in the Ocean, how many species are in danger etc.
But perhaps I could be beat with my own stick here if I keep exemplifying fear and threat, just like Jordan does. I would of course claim that I am using fear/threat/brinkmanship to encourage change for the better however. But I suppose my dissenters can claim the same.

My laziest, exasperated, response to the name Nigel Farage, is just many many multiple: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:

Indeed, you are right! — Agent Smith

But is this 'massage/manipulation/attempt to control and direct base human primal fear, not the basis of so much of what gnarls at the human condition and stifles its full potential and rate of progress?
Is this not an area that philosophers could really help everyone with? In ways that are just not happening right now, imo. Should good philosophers not start to describe the rich/wealthy/powerful few, as scared people? People who see what life can be like for some. The horrible, unjust sufferings etc and to prevent that happening to them or those that they love, they gather and gain control over as many resources as possible, withdraw to their castles, gated/secured properties and pull up their drawbridges and place their security systems/people all around themselves and live in their own little protected Oasis.
They don't, nor do they want to hear the screams of those dying of famine etc. The 15,000 children dying EVERY DAY! and if they ever do, they roll some gold coins into the collection box and that sates their conscience. :vomit:
So many get so distracted and duped by those who peddle fear and brinkmanship. The nefarious claim that we had better listen to the threats they peddle, because if we don't aspire to be exactly what they want us to be, then we will personally suffer a lot more than we suffer now.
The theistic nefarious threaten with hellish outcomes after death, so even death will not offer you the escape of oblivion. How f****** dare they!
If you don't do what they say, then not only will this life be shit but your life after will be shit, but if you do as they command then this life might be mostly shit but the next life will be glorious, you know, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! :lol:
The non-theistic rich, gangster mob, who run most, if not all, countries, suggest that they are in charge due to birthright or the historical dynastic efforts of their ancestors or due to their superior intelligence/celebrity or their recent understanding/manipulation of the human invention of money/the money trick, etc
If we try to dissent or even engage in mass revolt/revolution, due to claims of a stacked deck or an inability to act like life is still exclusively under 'law of the jungle' rules, then they will employ the tactics they have used against all humanist/socialist movements in the past. Starve it of resources, focus global plutocratic forces on that particular country/group, pick off the leaders one by one, buy off as many of their top people as possible, let some of them join the nefarious rich, make them betray each other, divide and conquer, kill it, kill it kill it, kill their attempt towards a fairer system before it grows and threatens the continued supremacy of the nefarious few or more accurately the scared nefarious few.

It is surely the responsibility of good and decent philosophy and philosophers to alley the primal fears of the human race and encourage them to believe that we do not have to continue to accept that the position of the nefarious few who control the fate of the vast majority of the rest of the human race, is unassailable.

I think climate change is one thing leftists (although not all climate change activists are on the left) are up in arms about. They are gluing themselves to trains, roads, damaging buildings, interrupting nationally broadcast speeches (including the new Prime Minister's conference speech). If the dangers of what they are preaching are true, maybe rightly so.

I have been watching the channel V-gan Booty, where the girls are going out naked, covered in their own menstrual blood, throwing paint over businesses, chaining themselves to things, screaming that people are animal abusers, and stealing animals from farms. As extreme as this is, if slaughterhouses are as bad as they say they are, rightly so.

If you keep throwing fear and threat at people and you keep role playing brinkmanship then the reaction of some will get more and more extreme. From theistic terrorism (Islamic/Christian/supremist etc) to extreme versions of civil disobedience like some of those you mention. The tories were lucky today, that it was just greenpeace protesters that managed to get so near to MissTrusst, I mean Mrs Truss. It could have been the scarier type of extremist that got so close.
There are many people who are wound very tight and its not difficult to confirm their worse fears and then convince them that an extreme response must be delivered by them NOW!!!! To save us all.
It's an old tactic, isn't it? But how many current philosophers are explaining this, every opportunity they get? I think that such is needed now, don't you?

Is this thread about Jordan Peterson specifically? He's human and part of being human is to err. It's just that his worldwide audience makes his mistakes, if acted upon, extremely dangerous. Mind you, I'm not saying his philosophy is flawed in any way. I'm not qualified enough for that task. Plus, people may simply be using Mr. Peterson as an echo chamber, just to validate what they're already convinced of. If so, Mr. Peterson is blameless for he's not giving people ideas, they're already infected with toxic memes. Am I on topic or have I gone off on a tangent? Apologies if in order.

s this thread about Jordan Peterson specifically? — Agent Smith

No, I simply used him for exemplification of the kind of philosophical fear mongering/brinkmanship I am requesting discussion/opinion on.

they're already infected with toxic memes. — Agent Smith

Do you think 'good' modern philosophers have a responsibility to protect people from such or teach them ways to defend themselves against such?

Do you think 'good' modern philosophers have a responsibility to protect people from such or teach them ways to defend themselves against such? — universeness

I don't know. Some have graciously stepped up to the plate, offered their services for free. Skeptics like the late The Amazing Randi have made significant contributions to critical thinking; atheists like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins too have made a mark in that arena. Scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson have been more reserved in their criticism of bad ideas, preferring to defend rather than attack.

Interesting names to identify. What about those I exemplified a little earlier on this page:

Friedrich Nietzsche
"God Is Dead"
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Do you think Nietzsche should be categorised as a brinkmanship or fear-based philosopher?

What about Plato's:
"The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Is this fear-based philosophy? — universeness

Opinion?

An Appeal to Fear

Ok, does:
an appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative.

in your opinion, support or detract from a claim that some statements made by Plato and Nietzsche are fear based and if so, how many fear based statements do you have to make to be labelled a fear-based philosopher or a philosopher who mainly engages in brinkmanship scenarios. Nietzsche.....yes, Plato......sometimes?

Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies?

Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies? — Agent Smith

Do you?

Do you? — universeness

We should conduct a poll.

You could start by answering the question

You could start by answering the question — universeness

We should conduct a poll.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I am interested in some details, not yes/no responses.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I am interested in some details, not yes/no responses. — universeness

Are lies, illusions (deception) dangerous?

Are lies, illusions (deception) dangerous? — Agent Smith

Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies? — Agent Smith

This seems a futile dance. It's okay if you prefer asking questions to answering them.

This seems a futile dance. It's okay if you prefer asking questions to answering them. — universeness

Sorry, but it's not your fault.

Sorry, but it's not your fault. — Agent Smith

You maintain your rather enigmatic status Mr Smith. Maybe you are an international spy who only answers direct questions put to you by @Jamal when he is debriefing you in one of the various secret underwater pods he and his minions own or have I been watching old 'our man Flint' movies again.
Perhaps your matrix disguise is just a ruse to put us of your trail and your true-life story was dramatised in:

Does the following ringtone annoy you or activate your secret programming?

I wish I were enigmatic. I'm the last person who could fit that adjective. By the way, maya is fun for some.

By the way, maya is fun for some. — Agent Smith

I had to google 'maya.'
the supernatural power wielded by gods and demons.
They have no power, as they don't exist. Can you get the ones you have experience with, to affect me?
I think your demons and gods are wimps and cowards and non-existent. I challenge your manifestations to affect me. Not through human hands or accidental happenstance of course, that would not count.
But if you could arrange a personal face to face meeting with any demonic or god manifestation you are familiar with, I would buy you a beer afterwards in appreciation, if I survive the encounter, which I will, easily, as such entities have no power, as they are only of the human imagination.

human imagination — universeness

maya — universeness

Same thing!