with reference to the fine words said by "Corvus", if one treats philosophy as a process -- personal to each human being or specific to a particular society -- and not a corpus of reading material static and eternal, then yes it is and always will be relevant. Everybody does and always will engage in philosophy in my view - and one need not have read a word of Plato or Decartes!

it's been two years since I abandoned this forum out of embarrassment for having broken the proverbial "poker face" while debating philosophy. I am back, Barbara Streisand style, and I was going to write a message of apology to "Counterpunch" and others, notwithstanding their questionable behaviour (I notice that the Mad Fool has been since banned); but it would appear you are the only one who is still active on the forum. Thank you for your thoughtful response (belated I know) which has given me quite a bit of food for thought. Perhaps I will debate this question again on the forum in a wiser and more mature way. and if I do I certainly hope you will drop in and offer your perspective :)

Bit of a glaring problem in this, but don't worry, it's quite widespread with contemporary opinion of history. The fact is life in the past was BRUTAL. Lives were (say it with me now) "nasty, brutish, and short". It is imperative to view ancient texts like the those that were used to form the Bible through this lense. You say that the content of the Bible is disturbing. Rape and murder was a mundane fact of life for most people as recently as the medieval times, perhaps even the Georgian and Victorian times at a stretch.

TL; DR ancient peoples were a lot more used to brutal acts than us pampered 21st century philosophers. The content of the Bible should therefore not be read as an early humanist attack upon religion merely on the basis that it is, to modern observers, abhorrent.

Thanks for your lack of effort! — counterpunch

Good grief, there's no need to be so bloody rude.

They're false because by far the larger part of the wealth created by western civilisation is a consequence of the scientific revolution

Technology is the means and not the ends. Please see the below:

(apologies for using Wiki but Google Books never links correctly/ has the books I want)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_British_Empire

@Jack Cummins

Descartes solved this one for me. Drugs can alter how the conscious mind behaves, therefore, there is no separation between the physical and the mental. When we die - we die. An eternal nothingness. The "eternal anaesthetic" in Larkin's words.

Or, as I prefer to call it, THE FINAL ADVENTURE. Heck, there's always a 0.000000 [...] 000 chance that we are in an alternative universe wherein the conscious mind continues to exist for an eternity ...

I will address both the narrow and broad issues in your comment.

On the narrower issue of this specific game - I think the designers, German, did not quite appreciate how colonialism is viewed in other countries - such as the USA and UK. This is possibly because the Nazi legacy of Germany far far overshadows its colonial legacy. Needless to say, such a theme would fall at the first hurdle in the UK or in the USA. So despite what is says on the box this game really glosses over some horrid history and is not "leftist" as you say.

The broader issue, I think, is the familiar argument that Western countries get too much stick for their expansionary foreign policy in the 19th century

"expansionary foreign policy", by the way, is a diplomatic phrase. The "leftists", as you name them, would prefer the term "ruthless exploitation".

We can argue until we are blue in the face about historicism and whether we should moralise about events that took place at a time when morals were entirely different to the present day.

What is incontrovertible is that the riches reaped by our ancestors -

(well, not mine - they were Polish and under the heel of the Russian Tsars for the entire 19th century. But I identify as British and thus feel subject to the proverbial "white guilt" over the British Empire)

- will echo far into the 21st century. Albeit that British colonies seem to have done better than others.

NB. notwithstanding the brutal methods employed by the British, ref: the Mau Mau, ref: second Boer war, ref: Bengal famine, ref: opium wars, ref: Amritsar, ad infinitum.

But take for example the tragic case of the Congo. Gutted, eviscerated, disembowelled by Belgium. Is it merely a coincidence that the Congo has been for many years a chronically war torn region?

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

The legacy of the 19th century is with us today. Our wealth is built upon the backs of the world's poor.

How about Lt. Aldo Raines did it in the basement with a Bowie Knife?

Had to Google that - and :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yes, that is a redesign we can all get behind

Yeah, l mean, Germany keeps all its extensive swastika-themed memorabilia in museums under lock and key. They don't leave that stuff out on the street and if they did - hell - it should be removed.

This leads me to think: would I redesign a Nazi board game? Hell no. That's one step too far :lol:

No. I think it's 3 with a hidden 2 - entertainment with a polemic agenda you seem blissfully unaware of!

In terms of (2) the specific game in question is not thematically anti-colonialism as I pointed out with the "unrest rule"- unless you think that it is pro-colonialism in the present day ... ?

Thinking more broadly: upon posting it did immediately strike me that (1), (2), (3) may have some overlap - thank you for pointing that out. A historical game I suppose can be entertaining and also polemical. I am very biased on this point because I do not like the two processes to mix.

Post scriptum: In the methodology of academic history, however, I think that the processes of (1), (2), (3) are always separate.

Thanks for the thoughts - I would refer you to my reply above to [counterpunch]

@counterpunch

A balance must be found between expansionism and humanism, between commercial goals and respect for local values, between knowledge sharing and unbridled industrialization.

I think that is just their PR. This game has gotten a lot of criticism. The PR doesn't quite match up with the "unrest" score that you have to keep low or risk losing the game. In other words, unless you crush the indigenous population you cannot win the game. Not sure if that fits "respect for local values".

However, on a broader note,

It's a mistake to impose one's modern day values on the past

This depends on what kind of history we are engaging in. There are 3 types of history:


(1) empirical. We only wish to know the bare facts, e.g. a 500 page book on battle formations at Gettysburg.

(2) polemical. We wish to use history to make an argument about how things should be in the present.

(3) entertainment. We wish have fun without regard for (1) empirical, and, (2) polemical. However, the types of fun we can have are subject to the morality of our society.

So, I think you are saying this board game is (1), but I think it is (3).

re: https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/review-freedom-underground-railroad/

for what a educational board game should be.

exactly - it's always rather clear whether a piece of art glosses over inconvenient truths. They do not need to be "in your face" but at the same time they should not be glossed over. I think Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" for example does this quite well. The misery of slavery is more the background to the story then being part of the film's message. The audience is under no illusions as to the moral character of slavery despite it not quite being the main theme of the film.

:100:

it's quite interesting how some, shall we say, "militaristic" games are not subject to the same scrutiny as "colonial" games. The deciding factor seems to be the mores of contemporary society.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking, e.g. we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes in the UK on the 5th of November even though, a long time ago, people used to be burnt alive in England because of their religious convictions. Not a perfect analogy, but I think it illustrates the point.

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and respectful responses, thanks guys :)

would you say that national identities play a much reduced role in contemporary times?

We do not need to go too far back in time to know what this would look like. Russia manged to maintain a borderline medieval society until the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. The serfs - kept uneducated, poor and subservient by the system - lived and died within walking distance of the place of their birth. According to historical records they had no compulsions about jacking it in public.

I think the '50s were just an anodyne place for later generations to direct post-modern nostalgia. Go too far back it's pre-war depression, war, post-war disruption. Go too far forward it's cultural and sexual revolution. The '50s were also a time of relative prosperity.

the universe is not the way it is now from a reliance on probability, so I’m quite comfortable striving for a more effective, efficient, sustainable and adaptable minority. — Possibility

:up:

very well summarised and I guess at this point I agree with you :up: I doubt amnesty have "tossed it" on the table for the reasons I have mentioned. I am pretty sure they are reliant on donations, etc.

I am actually one of the very few native residents (UK) in my predominately foreign neighbourhood so for me this is an interesting question.

If someone actually said this to a neigbour 'round where I live they would not survive for long :sweat:

And to be honest, although I would never resort to physicial violence, there would be colourful language said by me if I had a balls-out racist say that to my neighbours (lovely family from Pakistan). You see, although there is such a thing as a right to free speech and personal beliefs, etc. "as a community", as OP says, we should protect each other from hate like this.

Perhaps I believe this because I live in a country where racist speech receives less protection than in the United States of America.

should not be at the expense of strong leadership

I will agree with you there. I have never seen a natural consensus of opinion being an effective way of organising human beings; perhaps it is a good way to decide the restaurant my friend group is visiting tonight, or what film we're watching tonight, but not with serious matters where people have serious vested interests.

We all need a Picard in our lives to draw us together, but also a Kirk to drive us forward :wink:

that is a powerful argument. And I totally get what you're saying: I was always the nerdy guy on the sidelines not able to understand why my male collegues put so much value in getting piss drunk and playing football. It was only later in life that I learnt (more or less) how to be "a bloke" as we say in the UK. I even changed my accent and the way I spoke which pleased my working class father quite a bit.

I think each of us is conforming and non-conforming in diverse ways. In this way we are finding ways to connect or be seen, and also coping with feelings of isolation or exclusion. It is this diversity that is missing from our societal tropes, concealing opportunities for compassion and understanding.

Beautifully said, and it would be wonderful world where we could overcome biology to create an inclusive society which is what I think you are driving at.

I would just make the observation that perhaps your, and my, perspective may be skewed by that fact that, as I consciously mentioned in the OP, all of us here seem to be mostly highly nerdy, highly educated, and highly intelligent. Thus, we are in the minority.

I think the majority of people achieve social cohesion through being in a "gang" of guys or girls doing guyish and girlish things. As you say this can lead to excluding people who do not win the genetic lottery of having a traditionally "masculine" or "feminine" body.

My own experiences have been quite Darwinian and being masculine, although also a pleasant novelty, has also been an excellent survival strategy (I can hear you rolling your eyes, and yes - us men do love to come back to Darwinian theories - perhaps too much).

I guess all I have to say in response is to repeat the crux of my argument which is that if this is a scenario is rooted in reality what is the point of spending any resources if the institutions of law will not permit the result you desire? Namely, proving one way or the other whether capital punishment should be abolished?

Unless, you assume that the legal system can allow such a thing, in which case it becomes a question about politics. Can the government be embarrassed into making a change? What will embarrass it more: an exonerated living or vindicated dead? As you say the latter is a much more impactful "cause celebre" for the anti-death penalty party. I think this is obvious.

The problem is the route to vindicating an executed prisoner on death row. We could turn our resources towards this but what possible good could that do? Prisoners on death row spend an average of 10 years awaiting execution. After execution, witness evidence is even harder to obtain or rely on than prior to execution.

yes, well, I think my point is that, with either of the options you present, the resources will be spent on lawyers fees with no tangible result.

That is not a very intellectual thing for me to say but the dilemma you pose, at the end, is about the real world and hard choices made in the real world. It is not so much about abstract concepts.

I understand as a career lawyer you might be protective of the institution you are a part of and that is where you and I probably diverge - I think Western common law has become an elitist sham that is molded by the upper echelons of society and excludes ordinary people. It is a system that works, but only insofar as it will not upset its fundamental tenats that belong in the 19th century.

by "transitioning children" you mean transexual children? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Yes, conformity in that sense can have very negative effects on mental health. To be honest that is not something I considered.

I have strongly held convictions that life is tough and that people should "get tough". I realise that this is a problematic view, as you have just highlighted.

Good question. Noone in my life truly fits this description perfectly. If they have one virtue, they have one more flaw. I guess that is why we have ideals. To strive towards.

The Romans for example were very virtue orientated with their ethics. The ideal man for the pre-Augustan Romans would one day rise up to command an army and fight away the enemy, and the next day he would return to the plow. I doubt anyone took this literally.

so glad someone brought Star Trek into this. The "group think" paradigm is an interesting way to distinguish our liberal norms to those of the '50s.

To clarify, you are saying the decline of gender roles is linked with the decline of individuality?

Although I love Star Trek, and the example you used, I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Perhaps this is just reflection of my personality and outlook but every classroom, staff meeting or social event I've ever been in feels like a wild West shoot-out of people's ideas. The fastest gun wins. Hell: take this very forum. At the very least I think it shows "group think" is not ubiquitous.

I put it to you that what has changed since the '50s is more people have been empowered, given a voice and have been allowed to enter the fray. I think it's always been a competition, only now we have more players.

I appreciate that, thank you.

It is a shrewd observation you make. It brings to mind the pop psychology theory that the ideal partner is a reflection of ourselves (*shudder*). Which points to an unwillingness or inability to emphasise. Writ large it underpins sexism.

There's a bit in Terry Pratchett's fantasy novel "Reaper Man" where a lady fortune teller is trying to get past the gates of the (entirely male) Unseen University but a wizard is barring the way. He says "my good woman" a lot in that affable seemingly harmless way which really really angers the fortune teller. I can see now with your description what Pratchett was getting at.

you raise quite a subtle and interesting point. My knee-jerk reaction would-be to say that to conform, in one way or another, is a necessary part of our adolescent development, and also our adult day to day lives. To "fit-in" is part of being human (a co-operative species). However, one could argue that to conform too often or too strongly is a negative thing for all sorts of reasons and I would be very inclined to agree with you. I will brood on it :)

that's quite a well balanced view and I think is along the same lines as the point made by 180 proof. You can see my reply to her/him, but briefly: although masculinity can break down as a useful concept when we think of it a moral compass, might it not have a positive role to play in our sense of self, in the same way that women find femininity a positive attribute?

you know, I was musing earlier today about this. If the virtues of being a man can also be the virtues of being a woman, then what is the point in drawing a line between the two?

The thing is, at least in my experience, that some of my ideas about being a being a man are a reaction my experiences with women who have been my close friends, and also women who have been partners/ lovers.

To have a very strong idea of being a woman, and tying that with your identity, is not the least bit controversial or troubling for, dare I say it, the majority of women. I could give examples but I think everyone will get what I mean. Femininity is something women embrace as giving them a sense of self.

Therefore, in much the same way I have embraced the societal tropes of being a man (consciously without the toxic stuff). In that same way I find it also gives me a nice sense of self. I even like to think, to bring it back the central issue of the virtues of manhood, that my own brand of masculinity can be a force for good.

thanks for letting me know! I guess it is a little myopic to think that anyone over the age of 30 cannot be active on an online forum.

Ruyard Kipling, et al. due to my literary background, may be another place I get my notions of "noble" masculinity from. We must appreciate the impact of art. Thanks for sharing!

I am sure that you are right in saying that if it were proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that the state killed an innocent person, it would go further than proving that the state almost killed an innocent person.

However, to go back to what I was saying about the very murky and subjective concepts of law such as "guilt" and "innocence", due to current legal epistemological standards I am not sure proving the state killed an "innocent" person would be the smoking gun you make it out to be.

You really need to think hard about what "proof" means in a legal context. it is not the same as in a scientific context. The scientific context seems to be where you are coming from.

I like to think of philosophy like art: it evolves and changes with the times (or rather it should).

I disagree with OP when s/he says the central questions of philosophy remain constant. And I also think the questions he mentions are left-overs of a bygone era; it was an era void of the scientific certainty of our current times. This is why God, existence, free will were all thrown into relief.

At the moment our moral leaders (media, education system) are debating contemporary sexy issues such as democracy and climate change like headless chickens.

Those trained in analytical philosophy should get their heads out of the clouds and apply rigour to these hugely important issues.

I appreciate the intellectual approach you are taking with this problem. But I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.

To rephrase, the dilemma is whether to use finite resources to exonerate the living, or whether to use them to vindicate the dead.

The problem is that the law (former law student here) does not have the same epistemological standards as science or philosophy or other disciplines. In science for example we have very reliable indicators such biomass which we can measure in metric units. Less biomass in kilograms = less forest = less life = less biodiversity, etc.

However, this is not the case in law. Legal concepts such as "guilt" or "innocence" lack objectivity because of the myriad of factors involved. The quality of your lawyer, the integrity of the police, the impartiality of your judge, the quality of the evidence all play a part.

Therefore, there is no way to weigh the importance of the exonerated living vs the vindicated dead if "guilt" and "innocence" are not fit for purpose as reliable indicators of the right thing to do.