You are VERY preoccupied by totalitarianism. Why is that? — Tom Storm

I'm not "VERY preoccupied" at all. I believe in democracy and freedom and that's why I'm against totalitarianism. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Huh? Sounds like I missed an exciting debate on here about totalitarianism. — Tom Storm

My question was "And what makes us so defensive when discussing opposite views?"

You're saying "some prefer Nazism to Communism" and "Communism kills people is the most obnoxious cliché".

However, all totalitarian systems kill people, don't they? Therefore, all should be opposed equally. If Communism is a totalitarian system similar to Nazism, why is condemning Communism a "cliché"? It's just a question.

As it is, many do not believe in God, or any supernatural power. Humanity, in many ways, stands before a godless abyss, struggling to know what to do next, in order to survive... — Jack Cummins

God doesn't have to be a person. In Platonism, and to some extent in Christianity, God is the (impersonal) principle of truth, goodness, beauty, order and justice. When we stop believing in something higher than ourselves we end up with slogans like "love your sweat" (and possibly other substances starting with "s") which is where our raw, animal instincts come into play (we don't love anything more than wallowing in them) and we divide our lives between the gym and the rally and become pawns on the chessboard of political and commercial interests while imagining that we're "empowered" and that we "rule the world". Psychological manipulation is very easy for those who are experts at it and when you have nothing higher to believe in than your own sweat and righteous anger, you can fall pray to it before you even know it.

That was exactly why I started this topic, because I was looking at the thread on Democracy vs Socialism and I could see that people find it extremely difficult to be objective and instead of having a rational and civilized discussion, it ends in mud-slinging and name-calling. And if this is happening on a "philosophy forum" what can we expect from other forums?

Reminded of what specifically? That some prefer Nazism to Communism based on that childish nugget? Or that Communism kills people? Surely this is the most obnoxious cliché people reach for when discussing this subject and is rarely not reached for by some 'incisive' thinker.... — Tom Storm

I agree that people shouldn't engage in trading insults. However, we can't keep going on and on about "Nazism" when in fact it no longer exists as a political force whereas communism is still very much alive and kicking if you look at China and other totalitarian regimes.

Why is it so hard to admit that communism isn't any better? Why can't we just reject all forms of totalitarianism? Where exactly is the problem? And what is the explanation, psychological or whatever?

If this was a top discussion board I guess then it would be different, but PF is backwater. — ssu

Yes, but would it be less left-wing? That is the question.

I accept the possibility, but I don't think too much about it. — Wayfarer

Neither do I, don't get me wrong. I was just saying that philosophy ought to be able to come up with something a bit better that just quasi-religious belief.

At the end of the day, either reincarnation is real or it isn’t. If it is, then it necessarily involves memory, remembrance and recollection.

The reason we don’t normally remember past lives is probably because it would interfere with our normal, everyday life. People having different intellectual capacities, it seems reasonable to assume that those at the lower end of the spectrum might be overwhelmed by memories from past lives whereas those with a more developed intellect would handle it without major difficulties.

In the Indian (Buddhist and Hindu) traditions there are numerous references to precisely this ability to remember past lives among those with a more evolved intelligence and this seems to be an ability that can be acquired, or reawakened, through specific forms of mental training.

For example, the Abhidharmakosa of Vasubandhu (4th-5th century CE) says that those wishing to develop their power of recollection of past lives should start by taking hold of the thought that has just passed and then of that immediately before it, and so gradually proceed back through the successive states of their present existence to the very moment of their conception and beyond (VII 123).

Obviously, this requires training and it would happen in the context of meditation or contemplation, when the body is completely motionless and there is a maximum of mental clarity and focus. But the texts mention many who can actually remember their past lives as a result of the above technique (or of spiritual development in general) and there is no reason to assume that this is just empty talk in all cases.

See also Visuddhimagga

Normally, when we’ve misplaced something, we often find it useful to mentally trace back our actions until we remember where we last placed it. What is different (and interesting) in the above-mentioned technique is that not actions but thoughts are used to stimulate and awaken memory.

Memory is equally important in Greek philosophy even though for slightly different reasons. Platonists believe that learning is a process of remembrance and we find a similar stance in Platonic-influenced Christian thinkers like Augustine of Hippo.

So, it would seem that attention to “the present moment”, useful though it may be in itself, may also be the gate to the past and, possibly, to the future. Instances of people with “paranormal abilities” aren’t entirely unheard-of.

There may be other ways to “justify” belief in reincarnation. For example, if God is just as is generally admitted, then it stands to reason that he might give us a second chance and not judge us after just one life. In discussions with Christians and Muslims I’ve found that they are often prepared to accept reincarnation on these grounds.

As @baker said, there are also ethical considerations.

Wow, I really like your observation! Our raw, animal instincts will always be part of us and this is what makes education for self-control and understanding what self-control and obeying the law has to do with liberty so important. I have a big problem with Christianity denying we have evolved from animals because that leads to education for technology without education for citizenship, and supernatural notions, instead of understanding human nature. I think many bad decisions follow rejecting the science of evolution. — Athena

I see what you mean, but we mustn't be too harsh on Christianity. The Church banned animal sacrifices and blood sports. Besides, it could have been worse, just think of Islamic State or Communist Russia. Science has advantages and disadvantages and without the support of a more traditional faith society turns to all kinds of weird cults invented by fraudsters and commercial interests.

I really doubt that. — ssu

Well, the cyber activities of the Chinese Communist Party division called "United Front Work Department" are well known. Ask the CIA and MI6. But I don't need to tell you.

I imagine that many are happy that the party system can be so divisive because they benefit from its divisiveness. — praxis

That's a perfectly reasonable imagination you've got there. I for one couldn't dispute that even if I tried. As I said before, it looks like the division started with the liberals and then it extended its grip on society with the democrats, the socialists and the communists. Then we got Islamic State and now China. Where will it all end?

The Provisional IRA, even if with quite different political ideologies from the "old" Irish Republican Army, still has roots in the IRA of the Irish war of Independence, the organization that then basically morphed into the current Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Irish Defence Forces, even if the "Provos" had little to do with the Irish Defence Forces. — ssu

I think we also need to consider the close links between the Irish nationalist movement and the London Fabian Society and its front the Labour Party. Fabian leaders Sidney and Beatrice Webb went to Ireland to preach Fabian Socialism back in 1892 and the whole movement was soon infiltrated by the Fabians and their more radical allies. The Fabians, incidentally, were also close to other revolutionary groups in Russia and elsewhere through the Socialist International and other socialist organizations. Nehru and Gandhi were also members.

It's good to be in the small coalition of power in an autocracy but the people always do better in a democracy, I understand. — praxis

I agree. But as we’ve seen from the thread Democracy v Socialism (that actually inspired this one), “democracy” seems to be a nebulous concept. Was the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) a democracy? Even the US Democratic Party is seen by some as not entirely democratic due to the Marxist factions within it.

And were people fundamentally unhappy before the introduction of political parties?

Something that people should be reminded when their views of Marxism-Leninism become too rosy, I should add. — ssu

Those rosy views must have acquired a rather deep red hue by now. But you better be careful how you talk about Marxism-Leninism these days or else you'll be heading for that reeducation camp in Xinjiang before you even know it. After posting one or two threads on Marxism my spam folder is now full of messages in Mandarin with pics of a dead bat in them. And I've been given to understand in no uncertain terms that I'll be next on the list.

Even what you claims to criticize is anecdotal — gikehef947

How is it "anecdotal"? The inconsistency of concepts like "the withering away of the state" is all over the Internet and in hundreds of articles and books as well as in the original texts:

“Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear”

The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin, Marxists Internet Archive

Withering away of the state, Wikipedia Article

Original German text in Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Vol. 20, p. 262:

“An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen. Der Staat wird nicht »abgeschafft«, er stirbt ab.

English translation in Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), Vol. 23, p. 268:

“State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away”

A state that assumes an administrative function can't "wither away"

@boetius has already admitted it. You can't deny or suppress facts and tell people that "they don't know anything" when even those who do know admit it. But it's entirely up to you, I'm not forcing you.

Personally, I do tend to accept reincarnation as many Platonists and even non-Platonists do. Obviously, I can't say it's a "fact" as I don't remember experiencing it. However, I believe that it's a very strong theoretical possibility and, as you say, there may be scientific evidence to support this.

Here's one (my) way of looking at it.

If someone asks you (or you're asking yourself) about reincarnation, you might answer "I don't know". But that answer doesn't take you anywhere as ignorance isn't really a basis for knowledge.

In contrast, if you were to answer "I don't remember", this might take us a small step forward.

For example, we could take "I don't remember" to really mean "I remember not existing before" which tends to change the situation. We now have a subject/agent who remembers and "not existing before" may refer to the current incarnation, which actually makes sense: you can't remember not existing at all as there would be no "you" to remember, but you can remember existing as something or somebody other than what you are now however vague that memory may be.

This would be comparable to waking up from deep sleep and saying "I don't remember a thing". But what you are actually saying is that you remember being in a state of deep sleep where your consciousness was not aware of the normal experiences of everyday life - not that your consciousness was nonexistent.

I don't understand your question.
What is there to philosophise about? — Gary Enfield

Hi there. It wasn't "philosophizing" I was talking about. I meant more something like "justification" in the sense of what would amount to "proof" from a philosophical or reason-based perspective as opposed to a religious or faith-based one.

We never simply , blindly internalize ideas
from the culture. We are not vacuum cleaners , we are interpreters. We make use of the informational resources of our culture , and that limits us , but we can only select from those resources what is consonant with our own system of understanding — Joshs

But some aspects of culture are internalized "blindly" without our being aware of it.

And people do speak of things like "national character" and "psychological/personality traits". Are they just in our imagination? Even children and young animals may be observed to be placid, boisterous, domineering or aggressive almost from the start. Where do these "traits" ultimately come from and how do they influence our view of the world and the way we interact with it?

Birth order, proneness to anger , shyness, extroversion can be studied in any culture, but have no direct bearing on the content of one’s outlook. and thus of one’s politics. If you want to know why someone believes a certain way, you’re better off asking them than assuming f secret traits. They will most likely be able to tell you. — Joshs

But people may choose to hide the reasons behind their views, depending on the culture. Brits might be less open that Americans, and Scandinavians might not even talk to you. Or, they may simply not know those reasons. Views are often inculcated through upbringing and education. Once they've become part of the system, of the psychological makeup, it may be difficult for somebody to consciously isolate, identify, and analyze them in any meaningful way. And what if subconscious memories from previous lives, or genetic factors, play a role?

that's the accurate word, an aberration — Alexandros

In the old days behavioral aberrations were judged in terms of ethics. Nowadays political correctness tends to provide the standard of reference in determining what does or does not constitute aberration. As society and culture become more and more politicized, clear distinctions between what is ethically right or wrong, or good and evil, become blurred.

On the other hand, Jim Crow laws, for example, didn't seem to ease the tensions in race relations very well. Perhaps those Southern Democrats weren't up to date on the latest political psychology journals. — praxis

Quite possibly. What I had in mind was diversity of political or cultural views. Diversity seems to be incompatible with unity. There was less disunity and conflict before the introduction of political parties.

The relative stability of this system , rather than ‘traits’, makes us resistant to coercion and conditioning from outside forces, but it is not a frozen template. — Joshs

Well, "traits" is perhaps not the most useful term to use in this context. But how is this system built, supported and maintained, and what role do "traits" play in any of this? Do "traits" exist or not and if yes how do they relate to this system of anticipations?

Conservatives and liberals interact online all the time in the U.S. on comment sections and blogs, but studies have show that rather than causing them to come closer to the other’s point of view, it simply reinforces their differences. — Joshs

That was exactly one of the points I was making. Being confronted with opposite views does tend to make you more aware of your own and reinforce them when you start defending them. And it seems that psychology, innate or acquired, does play a role in it.

Besides, in a society that aims to enforce diversity, the tensions that arise between groups holding different views tend to be more and more accentuated.

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add?
We suppress our dark side too fit into society. I believe good takes work. — Caleb Mercado

Well, animals seem to get along just fine. Some "less evolved" cultures where materialism is not as pronounced as in "more evolved" ones seem to be doing OK too.

So, I'm not sure we "tilt towards evil" naturally. Maybe it tends to happen in certain environments and circumstances more than in others.

But in general, we want good for ourselves and in most cases we feel good when we do good for others. Evil seems to be an aberration that society needs to suppress in order to protect itself.

Your little personality traits theory isn't psychology. — frank

And presumably you're the new C G Jung?

Just read Marx — Maw

I have. I can't find consistent definitions for any of the Marxist/Marxian concepts I've mentioned here and on the other thread. And it looks like nobody else can either. Believe me, I've asked university professors.

By the way, Capital is about economic theories, it doesn't say anything about the system Marx wanted to replace capitalism with. So, basically, nobody knows what Marx's revolutionary movement was trying to achieve.

In any case, it doesn't look like Marxism is a philosophy. Whatever it is, it isn't even logically consistent. Strange that it should take idiots like Kolakowski and others to notice that.

The main thing is that real results are achieved. I agree with you there. — spirit-salamander

And bearing the practical aspect in mind, perhaps we should also look into what ought to be the objective of philosophy in relation to society. Unless this has already been addressed here.

There is nothing wrong with poetry but it must have practical application. If "mathematical methodology" helps validate philosophical tenets or make them more accessible to other philosophers or to the general public, then it's even better. In any case, like Plato said, philosophy and ethics should guide politics and other aspects of life IMO

As I said before, I'm not a professional writer or debater. If anyone has any suggestions how the OP could be rephrased to make it more intelligible and perhaps less "controversial" I'd be more than happy to consider it.

Meantime, here are some sources if you're interested.

Marx lived for many years on money borrowed from others – I. Berlin, Karl Marx; S. Avineri, Karl Marx: Philosophy and Revolution

As shown by his private correspondence, Marx used even his middle-class associates (Freiligrath, Lassalle, Kugelmann, Engels and others) for financial as well as political ends. - Marx, K., Letter to Engels, 10 Dec. 1859, MECW, vol. 40, p. 547

By their own admission, Marx and Engels found value in the workers’ organisations they joined only to the extent that they could control and use them for their own purposes. - Berlin p 247

Marx chose philosophy as the instrument through which to change the world according to his own ideas, declaring that the purpose of philosophy was to change the world – Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

Marx was involved in funding arms for an uprising in Belgium – Jenny Marx in Jenny Marx oder die Suche nach dem Aufrechten Gang, p 57-8; F. Wheen, Karl Marx, p. 126-7

Marx advocated a coup to overthrow the government in Germany and seize power - Kolakowski p. 437; E. Bernstein, The Preconditions of Socialism, p. 152; Marx, Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League, May 1850

During their time as journalists, Marx and Engels learned how to use veiled, ambiguous and suggestive or misleading language to evade the political press censorship of the German state.

They used the same type of language to increase the appeal of their policies among existing or prospective followers - Adamiack

Marx and Engels used concepts and theories that were ambiguous, inconsistent or just nonsense – L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism

Marx was described along the lines of “liar and intriguer” by Karl Heinzen, Bakunin and others - Berlin

According to witnesses like Gustav Techow, chief of the general staff of the Palatinate Revolutionary Army whom Marx wanted to win over to his socialist movement, Marx’s intention was to drive the aristocracy from government and seize power for himself with the help of radicalized elements of the working class – Wheen p. 240

My summary of the above (and other data): You can't possibly spend years developing a political philosophy only to leave open all the central concepts related to its aim and purpose. Marx and Engels' "political philosophy" or ideology is logically inconsistent and ambiguous because it is meant to appeal to imagination and emotion without revealing the true intentions of its authors.

Maybe this would be a good point to bring up how Marx saw society as structured by means of production. — Valentinus

Yes. This will definitely account for the inconsistencies in Marxist concepts like "the withering away of the state". Or maybe not.

That the majority is convinced of something does not determine the truth of that something. — gikehef947

That's exactly what I'm saying. That the majority is convinced of Marxist theory being sound does not determine the soundness of it.

That is rubbish. If you throw out psychology you throw out all of social science. — Caleb Mercado

Correct. Unfortunately, as can be seen here, the left uses "psychology" and "science" to demonize the right but they scream blue murder the minute the same methods are applied to themselves.

In the end there's a golden rule: understand the limitations of your methodology. — ssu

It wasn't my methodology. It was a line of inquiry suggested by Psychology Today and other publications. If it turns out to be wrong, so be it. I don't care. As I said, you carry on, don't let me interrupt your conversation.

That sounds cool. Just don't tell @frank, he tends to get upset a bit too easily. Have a great remainder of the day.

Extrapolating your "reasoning": "What is the purpose of life if we don't even know what the objective is?" — gikehef947

That is some extrapolation, I must say. There are thousands of reasons why life has a purpose for most people. Having fun is one of them. Life just is, it doesn't need a purpose unless you're manic depressive or something. Revolution is something else. You must know what you're risking your life for. Marx failed to convince the masses, therefore his system, whatever we choose to call it, failed.

Perhaps sharks are attracted to ice cream lovers for some as yet inexplicable reason. We just don't know. Someone needs to do a study. — praxis

Maybe they smell sweeter due to the ice cream's sugar content that reminds sharks (at least the more clever among them) of blood? So you are a cat person after all. Unless you prefer rabbits.

For clarities sake you need to do a better job distinguishing what is your suggestion or position, and when you are citing someone else's opinion (and maybe source it), — Maw

Well, critics of Marx don't always phrase it that way. I only did it to clarify my own position. But historians do point out for example that Marx used the organizations he joined for his own agendas. See the works on Karl Marx by Isaiah Berlin, Francis Wheen, and others.

And you can see from his private letters (available online) that he was using people for financial purposes.

Marx may have formulated a methodology but it doesn't amount to philosophy. Even pro-Marxist sources like Wikipedia don't call Marxism "philosophy". The Wikipedia article says Marxism "is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development".

If it isn't a philosophy, then what is it and what was its true purpose?

Philosopher and historian of ideas Leszek Kołakowski has pointed out that "Marx's theory is incomplete or ambiguous" in many places, with some statements being "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means" and others just "nonsense".

The same or similar arguments are made by Adamiack, Bender, R G Wesson, David W Lovell, Walicki and many others. It isn't "me". I was just trying to collate as many points of what looks to me as valid critique and condense them into a few brief observations.

If it turns out I'm wrong, so be it. I don't care. But we haven't got there yet.

You must have spent a lot of time making that drawing and you have my respect and admiration for your effort. However, I doubt very much that anyone would ever think of linking shark attacks and ice cream sales. Did my comment upset you? Or are you a cat person?

But someone might make a nonsense investigation and come to the conclusion that if you have a rabbit as a pet, you likely vote X. — ssu

However, if that someone has the statistics to back up his conclusion then his investigation can hardly be dismissed as "nonsense". It's all a matter of evidence, nobody cares about spurious conclusions. But you do sound a bit like a rabbit person, for sure.

It is not one way or the other. Influence flows in both directions. — Fooloso4

It may well do. What matters is which direction is the main one and where the original source lies.

Another example of why political psychology is bad. — Maw

That was just a suggestion and it wasn't even mine. It isn't my fault that people don't read critiques of Marx or his theories by reputable historians and other scholars.

The main question to be answered in the first place is whether Marxism is a philosophy. The evidence suggests that it isn't in which case we need to establish what exactly it is - or what it was at the time of Marx and what he really believed was its purpose.