Must be some sort of issue with cognitive dysfunction as it relates to emotion... — 3017amen

Emotion would certainly seem to be a factor. You can tell from the way they tend to become agitated and turn irate the moment you challenge their preconceived ideas. And it isn't just @180 Proof

I appreciate this site for what it is now, but I am aware that at some point, I may feel attacked to the extent where I feel a need to withdraw from it, in order to retain a sense of personal integrity and right to retain my own ideas, as a free human being. — Jack Cummins

Sounds like a sensible proposition.

I'm guessing they're leaving this thread because Banno &co are mocking the idea that there is funding from left wing organisations, making it all seem silly. — bert1

To be quite honest, the impression I got soon after joining was that this forum does have a left-wing bias, just from the way I was attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory. I thought that was rather strange on a philosophy forum. And it does list marxists.org under "Other sites we like".

There doesn't seem to be much political balance there. I could be wrong, though. Or maybe these days philosophy in general does come with a leftist slant ....

Hmm, so maybe the understanding/context of what field/perspective is a consideration within the questions/problems we try to solve. — Tiberiusmoon

Well, perspective does matter if it impacts on what beliefs we accept or reject IMO

I don't blame @Hanover to be honest. You do tend to employ oracular pronouncements that you subsequently seem to retract without apparently retracting them - or without knowing what you're actually asserting.

In any case, the OP does seem slanted to me.

As long as we're not funded by Hummus, I don't care. Hate that stuff. — Baden

Or couscous for that matter. I've always felt it's a waste of time.

Despite what I said, I think that it is right to question any site we are logging onto and writing on. We need to question what we are getting involved in rather than doing everything blindly. — Jack Cummins

I tend to agree with that. But if the site owners don't want to tell us there isn't much we can do.

If we press them they can always give us false information if for whatever reason they think it's unsafe to disclose who they are.

The people who built and maintain this website need to be able to feel safe. That is my opinion. — TaySan

I was just asking because I noticed there is no info anywhere and I thought someone here might know. But it isn't a big deal to me.

@jamalrob's the boss. We're sponsored by the users who donate. The software is provided by PlushForums which is based in London. — Michael

OK. I suppose that's better than nothing. Thanks.

Yeah, all the billions we're making of this site are being funneled to Hamas. — Benkei

I don't think anyone mentioned "billions" or "Hamas". Not me in any case. All I'm saying is when you subscribe to something, you'd normally like to have a fair idea of who you are dealing with.

Besides, I think as a matter of courtesy, online forums ought to provide some info about location, ownership, etc. to members. I'm not talking about bank details. Just to say, "we are based in Oxford, England", we're sponsored by "so and so" or whatever, and that's it.

You can find info on reddit and many other forums but not on this one.

I just think that you're kind of waxing conspiratorial so as to create an overarching narrative of the extraordinary influence of the Fabians, motivated by your opposition to them within the Labour Party. — thewonder

Not at all. You accused me (unfairly in my opinion) of "waxing fairly apophenic, here, so as to create a coherent depiction of what borderlines on conspiracy".

Quite apart from the fact that there is nothing wrong with presenting a coherent argument (unless you would prefer me to be incoherent like yourself), I think you should give me a chance to show that I am talking about facts, not "conspiracy theory", don't you?

You have already admitted that the Rockefellers "clearly had an extraordinary influence".

Do you stand by your own statement, or are you retracting it?

If you stand by it, it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. You are saying that the Rockefellers "had extraordinary influence" yet in the same breath you're denying that they had extraordinary influence.

If they did have extraordinary influence, how exactly did they exert that influence?

And, to go back to my question, How did the Rockefellers run their international banking and oil empire?

Are you refusing to answer this simple question for fear that the answer might show that the Rockefellers had more power and influence than you are prepared to admit?

The Nazis were full of resentment against so-called enemies and full of self-pity and emphasised blind obedience and conformity to their Fuhrer. — Ross Campbell

Yes. But that's exactly what the Stalinists did with Stalin long before Hitler and Maoists with Mao Zedong after him. And you can see the same attitudes in religious movements like militant Islam.

Makes you wonder if a person's observation or thinking can be hindered by not having a greater perspective, which can lead to a false positive. — Tiberiusmoon

True. But we can't escape the fact that there is a big difference between the way we experience things psychologically and the way they are seen or analyzed scientifically.

To take another example. Physics tells us that matter consists of minute energy particles or fields. Medicine tells us that the human body consists of muscles, bones, blood, fat, mucus, and similar substances.

Yet, psychologically, this is not how we experience a human being. Our psychological experience makes us see intelligence, goodness, beauty and other things that may cause us to go so far as to fall in love with a person.

The scientific, philosophical or analytical perspective tends to take a secondary place if it registers at all.

don't think you can choose your beliefs any more than you can choose who you love. — Tom Storm

The word "love" suggests an emotional approach to the issue. When emotions are involved, matters may get more complicated. But even then, we may fall out of love with someone overnight when we discover something in them that we find reprehensible or repulsive.

If the Earth is in fact round, then the assertion "The Earth is Flat" cannot be referring to the non-existent fact that the Earth is flat. And so at most "The Earth is Flat" refers to the possibility that the Earth is flat. But how can beliefs refer to possibilities? — sime

Good point.

But I think there is an additional problem in this particular case. The Earth is "round" from a scientific or learned perspective. But in everyday life our experience is that the Earth is flat.

If the Earth is flat for all ordinary, practical purposes, then believing that it is flat can't be entirely "false".

we like our privacy. — Benkei

Everybody does. But, for example, if people want to subscribe to something, they would like to know a bit more about it. I don't think it should be a secret.

Maybe "BELIES" in the discussion title should be changed to "BELIEFS"?

Basically open and closed minded individuals — Tiberiusmoon

I'm not sure if "close minded" is the right word. Maybe just "unreflective"? I think most people are like that in many different ways. When we're busy living our lives we don't always have the time or energy to reflect on our beliefs.

Even people with an "open minded" predisposition may find themselves in the same situation.

But, fundamentally, I believe that we do have the ability to change our beliefs at will, once we have discovered a good reason for doing so. For example, we change our opinion of other people all the time when we discover new facts about them.

In your view is there a connection between atheism and mass murder or are mass murderers more likely to be atheists. Or both. Or is there another factor behind this? — Tom Storm

That's a good question.

I suppose it would be arguable that religion aims to convert people and save them from ignorance and sin, not to murder them.

By contrast, atheism when combined with extremist political views, would more readily lend itself to the murder of political opponents.

Whether atheism would of itself lead to mass murder is debatable. However, given that atheism is often accompanied by extremist political views, this may render it more prone to commit destructive actions such as mass murder.

Maybe we should start a discussion to explore this a bit further.

I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist. — bert1

Very interesting. If true, then that would make it a left-wing enterprise, wouldn't it? And how come there is no info on it anywhere?

I often encounter philosophers and thinkers discussing beliefs, as if they are products of our choosings. Some even blame people for having irrational or false beliefs. But how much of control do we even have over our beliefs? — Curious Layman

Personally, I think you would need to divide believers into two categories: (1) those who unconsciously absorb beliefs from the surrounding society, without ever reflecting on them, and (2) those who examine their own beliefs after which they decide to either keep them or exchange them for alternative beliefs or sets of beliefs.

Humans possessing will power, they are quite capable of exerting control over what they do or do not believe.

I'm not saying that the Rockefellers didn't have an extraordinary amount of wealth and influence — thewonder

OK, so how did they run their international banking and oil empire? Why is it so difficult to answer a simple question?

While white privilege exists, and racially conscious policies are sometimes justified ... — ToothyMaw

Just out of curiosity, how would you define "critical race studies", "white privilege", "racial equality" and similar concepts because it looks like they tend to be interpreted differently by different people?

The Secret Service Bureau was created in 1909. — thewonder

Exactly, 1909. MI6 was just a name later used for convenience. The organization was the same from inception in 1909.

The Secret Service Bureau created in 1909 was established by the Admiralty and the War Office to spy on the Germans. So it was Military Intelligence from the start.

Anyway, you haven't answered my question, "How do you run an international banking and oil empire without having anything to do with anything???"

Using a magic wand or something?

MI6 and MI5 were both created during the Second World War, — thewonder

Sorry, but that is a lie, isn't it? Unless you mean the "Second World War" on some other planet.

MI6 was created in 1909 See Secret Intelligence Service - Wikipedia

Are you sure you are an Anarchist and not something else?

I think that you're waxing fairly apophenic, here, so as to create a coherent depiction of what borderlines on conspiracy.

Am I really?

In 1973 the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was the first American bank to open offices in Moscow after which they started to expand their operations in Russia and China.

In the same year, David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission (I don't think I need to tell you what that is) and visited China after which he praised the Chinese Revolution for producing “more efficient and dedicated administration” and fostering “high morale and community purpose”.

“From a China Traveler”, New York Times, Aug. 10 1973

Through their close collaborator and US government adviser Henry Kissinger, the Rockefellers launched their program of rapprochement between the West and the Communist Bloc.

In 1976 the Rockefellers set up the UN Independent Commission on International Development Issues headed by Willy Brandt, president of the Fabian Society-founded Socialist International.

And you are saying the Rockefellers "don't have too much to do" with the Soviet Union or the Fabians or the CIA or anything?

So, what exactly do you reckon they were doing all day long? Twiddling their thumbs maybe?

How do you run an international banking and oil empire without having anything to do with anything???

I don't think that the Rockefeller's have too much to do with the Soviet Union or even the CIA. Nelson Rockefeller actually led The United States President's Commission on CIA Activities within the United States, which published Project MKUltra. — thewonder

That's a shot in the dark, isn't it? From your comments I thought you were an expert on the CIA.

In 1940 the British intelligence agency MI6 (Military Intelligence Section 6) set up an American station, the British Security Coordination (BSC) headquartered at the New York Rockefeller Center and headed by William Stephenson.

In 1941 Stephenson set up the Office of Coordination of Information (COI) with his collaborator William Donovan as its head. In 1942, COI became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and this was reorganized after the war as the CIA.

The CIA was directly linked with the Rockefeller-controlled CFR through its first director Allen Dulles who together with his brother John Foster Dulles were Rockefeller representatives at the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell.

In 1943, David Rockefeller himself became a member of the US Joint Intelligence Collection Agency (JICA). The Rockefellers controlled US foreign and economic policy as well the newly established US intelligence agencies.

British Security Co-ordination – Wikipedia

You can also try MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations by Stephen Dorril.

How would you package your view? — frank

Very briefly, I see Phaedo as a combination of philosophical discussion as would take place during a symposium and a drama or play. It encourages analytical and critical thinking and points to a higher plane of experience that may be reached by way of reason but that can only be fully "lived" or "realized" in mystical experience. Concepts like soul, immortality, rebirth, forms/ideas etc. all point in the same metaphysical direction but together with moral concepts like virtues and justice have a practical application in the attempt to build a better society.

Here is Reagan’s national security decision directive (NSDD-75) that put an end to technological and financial assistance to the Soviet Union and terminated the Soviet experiment that had been going on since 1917 with US cash and technology.

NSDD-75 Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

I see consciousness as primarily self-awareness.

Of course individual consciousness may be aware of other consciousnesses, or the Collective Consciousness may be aware of itself and of the individual consciousnesses within itself.

But self-awareness remains the defining feature of consciousness at all times on the background of which awareness of other things arises and subsides.

And to be clear, Socrates is talking about myths and those involved in the cults of mystical rites. Some here are advocating that we pay attention to them but ignore what Socrates says about them. If they are to be looked at, it should be from this perspective if looking at them is intended to shed light on the dialogue — Fooloso4

You keep saying "to be clear", but it isn't at all clear what you are on about.

Nobody says we should ignore what Socrates says about myths. But then nor should we ignore the other things he says regarding soul, immortality, and rebirth.

Either the dialogues are intended to stimulate thought or they are not. If they are, we can't ignore the fact that myths may have some truth in them and just dismiss them out of hand. The dialogues merely demand that we don't accept tradition unthinkingly, not that we become nihilists, atheists or communists.

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

Come on, EricH. How can we be philosophers if we are too afraid to get out of bed in the morning?

As they say, where there is a will there is a way. We can't give up before we've at least tried.

By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules but that, as history will attest to, is an utter falsehood - — TheMadFool

The fact that there aren't any rules doesn't mean that no rules can be established now or in the future. Or that we can't discuss the possibility.

In his first presidential press conference, Reagan stunned official Washington by denouncing the Soviet leadership as still dedicated to “world revolution and a one-world Socialist-Communist state.”

Based on intelligence reports and his life-long study, Reagan concluded that Soviet communism was cracking and ready to crumble. In May 1982 he went public with his assessment of the Soviets’ systemic weakness. Speaking at his alma mater, Eureka College, he declared that the Soviet empire was “faltering because rigid centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement.”

He boldly predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy … will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives that:

• Committed the U.S. to “neutralizing” Soviet control over Eastern Europe and authorized covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region.
• Adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources –financial credits, high technology and natural gas – essential to Soviet economic survival. Author-economist Roger Robinson said the directive was tantamount to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”
• Determined that, rather than coexist with the Soviet system, the U.S. would seek to change it fundamentally.

The language, drafted by Harvard historian Richard Pipes, was unequivocal: America intended to “roll back” Soviet influence at every opportunity.

It was Reagan's Strategic Triad - financial credits, high technology, and gas - that finished them off. The Soviets knew they were finished and just gave up. So much for Marx's economic genius

How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War | The Heritage Foundation

99% of Americans still don't know that the Soviet Union was propped up by US credit and technology (and backed by people like the Rockefeller Group) and that it collapsed when Reagan pulled the plug on that.

Just to be clear - what is the basis for the "rightfulness" of these claims? Is it solely based on the ability to demonstrate to have inhabited the land before the other claimants? — EricH

I would say that would be a big part of it. As I said, if we are serious about finding a just solution, then historical events leading to the current situation can't be ignored.

I kind of doubt that Fabianism is terribly popular within the Central Intelligence Agency. — thewonder

If that is your doubt, then maybe you should look at the historical evidence. The CIA was founded by the Rockefeller Group and its Anglo-American allies. The same people that founded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and at the same time funded the Fabians' London School of Economics (LSE) and other projects.

David Rockefeller studied at the Fabians' LSE and wrote a senior thesis on Fabianism. Read Rockefeller's Memoirs.

If you are interested in knowing the truth then you can't just state things, you need to look at the historical facts.

The Rockefellers and allies provided financial and technical assistance to the Soviet Union through financial institutions like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, and Manufacturers Hanover and organizations like the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC).

This went all the way back to Lenin's time when the Soviets were mass manufacturing cars and trucks under licence from Ford.

The whole Soviet system was totally dependent on US technology and credit unbeknownst to the American public.

The Soviet Union collapsed the minute Reagan found out and stopped that.

Jewish people vs Palestinians - who has the rightful claim to the land? Beats me. Perhaps no one.

Northern Ireland - should it be united with Ireland or stay part of Britain? Does anyone have the moral high ground here?

Kurds - are they entitled to their own country or should they forever be split out amongst Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - I don't have the time/energy to understand all the details, but it is an ongoing tragedy. — EricH

Well, if we decide from the start that it's an intractable issue, then nothing can be done. But if we are serious about finding an answer in these and similar cases, we need to look at the historical events on which basis we may say that:

Jews have the rightful claim to (most) of Israel.

The Irish have the rightful claim to Ireland.

The Kurds have the rightful claim to Kurdish territories.

The Armenians have the rightful claim to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Obviously, these are just general and preliminary suggestions. They would need to be worked out in detail on the facts of each particular case.

We call it reality when multiple different perspectives demonstrate it as real or and an observation free of bias, much like the story of "the blind men and an elephant". — Tiberiusmoon

I agree. However, reality is generally regarded as "real".

I think it is also important to define what is meant by "illusion". Is it an ens imaginarium, a chimaera or something else?

This story in particular has inspired generations to pursue philosophy. And, as Nietzsche nicely sums it up, Christianity becomes Platonism for the people. — Fooloso4

And everything that Nietzsche said is true, of course. How could it possibly be otherwise?

But I think you have failed to show that the dialogues are "comedy" or that Plotinus, Proclus and other Platonists are inconsistent with Plato.

Apollodorus, what do you think is the basis of either legal or moral rights? — ssu

As I said, justice.

I could be wrong but I think @EricH was talking about the moral perspective of land ownership.

So, there is an implied distinction between what is morally rightful ownership and what is legally legitimate ownership.

This is why I gave the example of the British policy of native paramountcy in East Africa that was intended to settle the problems arising from Europeans and Indians encroaching on ancestral land belonging to native Africans.

The British were running East Africa under a League of Nations mandate.

The crux of the argument was that "a policy which leaves the native population no future except as workers on European estates cannot be reconciled with the principle of trusteeship". Therefore, the principle of native paramountcy was proposed as a solution.

See "Memorandum on Native Affairs in the East African Protectorates" and other papers.

Interestingly, Indians and Europeans supported the doctrine, even if for no other reason than that the interests of the rival group would not receive primary consideration by the British.

It seems to me that there are parallels between current situations e.g. in the Middle East and elsewhere, and British East Africa.