Not that this really matters much at this point, but I sent out over 200 "sort of invites" to PF members informing them of this, as I called it then "a safety boat"... uhh... in the event that PF sank. (my inner Cassandra is bitching at me right now, but I told her to shut it)

Indeed my reward for this effort was being put "under review" on PF. This entailed not being able to post anything without a long waiting period to have my posts (perhaps) posted, little or no access to my messages and the killer was this... having my "sponsor status" revoked. Ironic, as I believe I was one of the largest sponsors ever. What really griped my liver was that not even banned members had their "sponsor status" revoked. (my feeling was basically "fuck you very much!")

Anyway...

Information regarding this alternative has indeed been sent to many PF members.

Granted it has been a long time since I have been there (I never looked back) and I think I might have been alone in this effort to inform others about this alternative.

This site is a bit slower in terms of posts, but volume is no guarantee of overall quality.

As for me...

I'm simply waiting for the USA elections to end and a few other loose ends in the world to tie-up, before I plan to become more active in philosophy. I'm not too sure if I care to even return to philosophy, as the theoretical leaves me a bit cold. Currently I have far more practical applications to bother with the rhetoric of the theoretical.

Until then (whenever that happens to be) this is a non-sequitur for you darthbarracuda:



Meow!

GREG

I sort of agree with you, but only in parts.

The off topic bit about Navy Seals... well I was recruited back in the day (age 21), as I on the smaller side, 174cm/62kg. Bulk is not always an advantage. I was faster, had better endurance, a far great strength to weight ratio and managed to break a record that stood for 9 years on the military obstacle course in my first attempt without any training for it. I placed a bet with my military friends that I'd could beat them; thus I had the opportunity and the subsequent offer.

In short, be careful about hasty assumptions...

... now back to the issue.

Nobody should care that much, and we shouldn't try to put a label on everyone. — darthbarracuda

It's not that we should not care that much or not place a label on such things. Indeed if the person is at all of interest or of we at all care about them, such an aspect of their person may well be worth knowing and identification of such an aspect is key in understanding them.

The issue is not the placing of a label. The real issue has to do with all the connotations attributed or (falsely) associated with such a label.

Humans are more than their sex or gender or job or haircut.

One might well be better served as to not view others in such narrow understanding founded upon a few cherry picked characteristics one notices about another person or is perhaps only open to take notice of; thus it is the connotation that leads to the problem and not really the label itself.

Why not take it further than say "I'm a human being"?

That is a label of distinction from other primates; thus a set of connotations could possibly arise. This might lead one to simply believe that by being another primate a whole host of character traits MUST be in play. Same goes for human beings, that this label, if the connotations are thrust upon it, suddenly tells us more about the human being than just the indication of distinction for another primate according to biological categorization.

Gender is not something we need to ignore. Gender is something that we should take note of as a small part of a complete person. The label is fine, but the connotations might not be fine.

Here's a non-sequitur sequitur regarding such short-sighted snobbery:



Meow!

GREG

This is open-ended, but my take on it, first: — David

I rather agree here with unenlightened... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

I am suspicious that a large number of people who have thought about it enough (particularly the kinds of people that participate on forums like this one) arrive at a philosophical undoubtable that nothing matters and then go on to build philosophies which find ways around that, despite the fact that they know deep inside that really nothing matters, and they are just in a sort of denial because that kind of a view of the world is entirely unacceptable to us from an emotional standpoint. — David

WOW!

... and that's just one sentence.

Anyway...

Questions are as followed:

1) How much is "enough" and how do you know when it's"enough"?
2) Why are you assuming that such people who meet this criteria of "enoughness" haunt this Forum?
3) Why do you feel there must be "ways around" rather than just taking it as it happen to be?
4) What's really wrong or bad about knowing "deep inside that nothing really matters"?
5) In what context do you mean that nothing really matters?
6) Why should this at all be unacceptable?

I mean, these kinds of work-arounds (in my experience) are conjured up, with the goal of finding work-around. Then the thinkers conceive models of things that they (I should say we) claim matter, ultimately desirable end-goals, and they distract us for the rest of our lives because humans are pretty robotic and we can care immensely about the tasks we participate in, so we can stop thinking about the fact that nothing matters because we mark the issue solved by whatever "point of life" we come up with and seal the question off, occasionally failing and getting into an existential depression, but generally being able to go on with life. — David

How's this?

What if one has no "ultimately desirable goals"?

What is so "good" about making or asserting anything as "ultimate" (I assume here) for all time and space experiences one could possibly have?

Why must there even be an "ultimate desirable goal"?

If I'm not mistaken, we have an experience of life where we are spatially mobile, but we are locked in a temporal direction... the arrow of time... in that time moves forward and we simply cannot rewind. This leads to an accumlation of experiences and information. That subsequently leads to an adaptation/refinement of intentions, purposes, agendas, goals, meanings, understandings and desires. This sort of relativity of experience leads to a lack of ultimate assertions taking hold.

In short...

... the meaning of life as a fixed point of ultimate status is replaced by a meaning of life as a relative point of adaptive process.

"Pointlessness allows a great freedom to actual live rather than just be alive; to experience rather than just fulfill; to investigate rather than just to be told to know; to adapt rather than just stagnate" - MoS

I fail to see where this is a denial, but rather an embrace of there being no ultimates or fixed points in desires (or purposes, meanings, agendas, intentions, goals or understandings).

The notions of a value of fixed and ultimate status does not match up well with the relativity of accumulation/adaptation; thus I'd suggest that the notions of value that are fixed and of ultimate status are indeed errors. Any notions of value that are relative and open to the adaptive process of accumulation of experience/information are not in error, but in investigation.

In addition to this, I'd be a bit careful about making generalizations such as, "because humans are pretty robotic" or "the world is entirely unacceptable to us from an emotional standpoint".

I'm not too sure what you mean by "pretty robotic", but it has a ring of superiority to it and reducing everyone to emotions... the same shared emotions... is a bit hasty at best.

Emotionally speaking I find ultimates or fixed points in meanings to be rather totalitarian. I'm quite emotionally happy about the relativity and the pointlessness of it all. IT grants me the opportunity to assert and attribute meaning; thus leads me to have the option of how to make a life that is meaningful rather than being dictated how I'm supposed to live and supposed to understand and supposed to have lived.

This pointlessness sheds me of any existential crisis.

Meow!

GREG

Perhaps a bit off the topic or maybe prior to the topic, I simply chalk it up to the Dunning–Kruger effect when it comes to understanding Trump supporters as well as Donald Trump himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The song from NOFX... "The Idiots Have Taken Over", applies just as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqLVeP7iHA

Either or... I sort of think that the election has fought upon the foundation of negative evidence against a candidate rather than positive evidence as to why someone should support a candidate.

I still keep thinking the mantra in our society is "where is the lie which means I've been lied to", which serves as a means to an end of playing the blame game; thus feeling self-justified about one's self and out sourcing all problems, as all problems are attributed to the supposed lie one is searching for to justify that one has been lied to and so on...

As for ridicule...

... it's allowed only if what is presented is ridiculous.

The question is now, just how much of this election has not been ridiculous?

Meow!

GREG

What is the implicit message that society is trying to convey about life? — schopenhauer1

I doubt that this is "the implicit message", but in some cases perhaps an implicit message":

Where's the lie which means I've been lied to?

Meow!

GREG

(as per frickin' usual, I stole that from a song that I misheard the lyric... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWwBkA0GqaY )

So I take it none of these "great sources of information" were being sold by an underpaid and overqualified Eastern European Philosophy Professor or were they just busy serving tea and crisps in the Greater London area at a reasonable rate? ;)

Kind of explains it all for me and seems rather clear of a "arguement" that Mr. Steward Lee presents.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23yv5y_stewart-lee-on-immigration-paul-nuttall-and-ukip_fun

Meow!

GREG

EDIT: (just in case...)



Така че аз го нито един от тези "велики източници на информация " да вземе са били продадени от ниско и свръх-квалифицирани от Източна Европа професор по философия или са те просто зает сервиране на чай и чипс в района на Голям Лондон в разумен размер ?

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson — Wosret

Makes me wonder what the Feminist definition of "Pat Robertson" woud be?

Meow!

GREG

My take...

... whatever!

I just book a vacation to London. (amazing how cheap the vacations have become in the past few days - and suspect they'll be really cheap in the near future) Not too sure if I'll have the opportunity to see someone grap an old Bulldog and put his false teeth back into his maul while trying to make it growl, but it would sort of be entertaining... I suppose.

Let's see what happens.

Good luck with estabilshing new trade agreements, stabilizing a currency, establishing security via fear and distrust, as well as having all the paperwork for visas in the event someone wishes to leave that rock.

I just ask myself how many cans of baked beans I really need, but anyway...

... I suspect that Scotland might well be making an appeal to enter the EU within the next 10 - 12 years, but let's wait and see.

Until then... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nM4wE3ef9s

Tschüss! ;)

Meow!

GREG

Well...

... Alan Greenspan?

“Before I met Ayn Rand, I was a logical positivist, and accordingly, I didn’t believe in absolutes, moral or otherwise. If I couldn’t prove a proposition with facts and figures, it was without merit.”

All that I feel I really need to say.

Meow!

GREG

Well...

... I'm not in the UK or in the USA. I'm in Europe.

All I can say is that the EU has cut the UK a deal that no other member nation in the EU has, so honestly I'm a bit fed up with the constant bitching. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf

-------------------------------------------------


Chapter 3 – wider protections
and opt-outs

3.1 The agreement reached at the February European Council creates a new
settlement for the UK in the EU. It builds on a number of wider protections and optouts
that the UK had already secured and which are established in the EU Treaties and
in domestic legislation. This gives the UK a special status in the EU unmatched by any
other EU Member State or third country arrangement.
Safeguards in Europe
• The euro: the UK is under no obligation to join the euro.
• Schengen: the UK has the right to maintain its own border controls, and to stay
outside the Schengen border-free area, without preventing the British people from
moving freely within the EU.
• Justice and Home Affairs: the UK can choose whether or not we participate in
new EU Justice and Home Affairs measures. This means we can participate in vital
aspects of co-operation against cross-border crime without putting our unique
justice systems at risk.
3.2 Our new settlement builds on these opt-outs with even stronger protections for the
UK’s position in the future:
• the UK’s sovereignty will be permanently protected from the threat of becoming part
of an ever closer union;
• the UK Parliament will have the power to work together with its counterparts in
Europe to block EU legislation;
• transparent and stable arrangements will be in place to secure the UK’s economic
position outside the Eurozone; and
• we have secured a commitment to important changes which will help protect the
UK from the threat of crime being committed by individuals moving around the EU,
tackle the abuse of freedom of movement, and limit access to our welfare system for
nationals from other EU countries.
3.3 Being at the table in the EU has also allowed us to secure safeguards in legislation to
help protect the interests of the UK. For example, in negotiations concerning Working Time,
the UK was able to ensure that there is an opt-out for individual workers from the maximum
48 hour working week.
38 The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union
3.4 When new countries are admitted to the EU in future, the UK will insist that our controls
on free movement cannot be lifted until their economies have converged much more closely
with existing Member States’, using indicators such as their GDP per capita, employment rate
and distribution of wealth. And we would seek to reimpose these controls if there is either a
serious disturbance in our labour market or adverse social or public policy impacts in the UK
as a result of migration from this new Member State. Any enlargement requires unanimity of
the existing Members and, in the UK, an Act of Parliament, so the UK can ensure that these
requirements are respected in any discussion of enlargement of the EU.
Safeguards at home
3.5 At home, we have built into UK law some strong protections against sovereignty
moving to the EU. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 requires a referendum on
our membership of the EU; the Government will propose that this should be held on 23
June 2016. And the European Union Act 2011 ensures that no further area of power or
competence can be transferred to the EU or national veto given up without the express
approval of our Parliament and the consent of the British people in a fresh referendum.
3.6 In particular, a further referendum would be needed to approve:
• amending the EU Treaties to transfer power from the UK to the EU;
• replacing the EU Treaties;
• removing any existing UK powers to veto EU action;
• a UK decision to take part in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; and
• a UK decision to join the euro.
3.7 In short, the European Union Act 2011 puts power in the hands of the UK Parliament
and the British people. Unanimity is required at the EU level to change the Treaties, the UK
Parliament must agree to the change, and the British people would need to approve it in a
referendum – a triple democratic lock over any future steps towards integration with the EU.

---------------------------------------------

Honestly, my take is that the EU brings and gives more to the UK than the UK gives or brings to the EU. A part of me feels like saying "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out".

Meow!

GREG

Seriously, I have no clue what the hell feminism is supposed to be these days. — darthbarracuda

According to my wife, it is what women in her generation attempted to advocate as to gain an even playing field and that girls under that age of 25 have tossed aside in their attempts of become fashion models.

Meow!

GREG

True, the NRA is a major contributor to the reelection campaigns of Senators and Representatives. But they are only one of many. It takes a lot of money to get into office, get a reasonably good committee assignment in Congress, and get reelected. — Bitter Crank

Indeed...

... here's a bit of info about Austria and election.

Each political party in the Parliament is allowed a maximum of €7million for their election campaigns. That is, €7million for ALL campaigns combined - local to national elections, every post to be filled and whatnot.

If you come with a new party, you cannot just come to the table with €7million of private funds to run a campaign. Indeed the limitations are very restrictive, as well as the procedure you have to go through to make sure the political party is indeed in line with the Austrian consititution. (a "Tea Party" would be considered unconstitutional as they wish to establish a law of god which would violate both separation of church and state as well as not providing religious freedom which can only be guaranteed by a secular state)

Here's something rather odd...

... about 65% of the money for election campaigns comes from tax euro and only 35% maximum comes from private or lobby comtributions. There are no anonymous contributions or foreign contributions allowed. No fund are allowed to be directed to a particular candidate or politician. Private contributions are sent to the party central and the distributions is very carefull watched.

In short... it is impossible to buy a vote in Parliament. The few times this has occurred there has been jail time involved. In short... what the NRA does would be illegal in Austria.

Now if the gun lobby in Austria (there is one) can manage to talk a politician into voting otherwise, then that is allowed, but is cannot be done with a bag of cash or other items of monerary value attached.

The US isn't exceptional, and neither is Austria, Switzerland, or any other State you might like to compare it with. People are pretty much equally corruptible, venal, and violent OR ethical, virtuous, and peaceable, everywhere. The modern history of Europe will show you that. — Bitter Crank

Well, that might be the case when taken into a broad perspective, but we are not speaking of a broad perspective here, but rather are addressing how elected officials vote on specific policies.

As I mentioned above, we have rules here that the USA obviously does not have or simply does not enforce.

Elections cannot be simply bought and neither can votes via such a practice as the NRA employs. Such a practice is illegal.

Modern Europe has it's problems, but the problem in question is not one of them. This is indeed the advantage of a social democracy, which is the government structure of modern Europe.

Is there a difference... certainly!

Well, it's shocking for a number of reasons, and if it isn't, then it should be. Otherwise the status quo will be strengthened, since perceived normalcy leads to inaction. But I get your point: unfortunately, it is to be expected to an extent. Nonetheless, for a country that is so vocal against terrorism, it just shows you where their real priorities lie. — Sapientia

The reason why I am not shocked is the same lack of shock I have over much of the USA business practices, because they function upon the lines of Objectivism.

Some things that caught my eye in "Atlas Shrugged":

- A great businessman is marked by his ability to sneer at the idea of public safety.

- Bad people get their way through democracy; good people get their way through violence.

- The government has never invented anything or done any good for anyone.

- Any and all natural resources are limitless.

- Crime doesn't exist, including in areas of extreme poverty.

- All that matters in life is how good you are at making money.

The USA is run by and large by these objectivist principles. Input more than not dictates output, so why should I be surprised?



Meow!

GREG

Reviewers, and MOS, think Means is similar to Flannery O'Connor. — Bitter Crank

What part of "Flannery O'Connor wannabe" are you pissed off about? It wasn't mean as a complement for this Means guy.

Gee whiz! I'm not stating that he's anywhere near the level of Flannery.

All I had to go by was one short section of this guys work. I really didn't care to look into Means too much more as it seemed not worth the effort. It read to me like a "I wish I was like Flannery" construct. Sorry to put a bee in your bonnet there BC.

Personally what I read was for my taste crap, but others might find that crap somehow fertile.

Meow!

GREG

"The US Senate has rejected plans to tighten gun controls, including the rejection of sales to people on terrorism watch lists."
— BBC News

This is shocking. — Sapientia

Why is this shocking?

Doesn't the NRA, as they have always done... like any "good lobbist" has done, simply buy the votes of the Senate for their own interests?

This looks a bit sensational (probably biased), but maybe it should be sensational (as it is probably all biased)? https://medium.com/@CAPAction/here-is-how-much-money-the-senators-who-voted-against-gun-reform-received-from-the-nra-63607c42093b#.mdwc4krqs

Nothing shocks me about "My United States of Whatever"...

Meow!

GREG

"The declivity where he sat to rest was part of a railroad bed blasted out of the hard shale and lime deposits cut by the Hudson River, which was just down the hill, out of sight, hidden by forestation, backyards, homes. (does he mean the railroad bed or does he mean the Hudson River is just down the hill???) The wind eased through the weeds, pressing on both sides of the track, (again, is it the weeds that press againt the track or the wind???) died, (both the wind and weeds can die and why the redundant comma after the died and before the and???) and then came up again hinting of seaweed (again, it could hint of either weeds ot wind... cryptic at best) - the sea miles away opening up into the great harbor of New York, the sea urged by the moon's gravity up the Hudson, that deep yielding estuary, and arriving as a hint of salt in the air, against his face, vised between his knees." (why is this section not a new sentence, as it is a new line of thought?)

Is this good writing? (you mean... "is this written well"?)

It nearly triggered my dyslexia after one sentence.

For me, it reads like a Flannery O'Connor wannabe who isn't quite clear about what creates ambiguities in grammar.

It reminds me of a statement I once read from a social services case report made by a lady applying for welfare.

"I'm 29, jobless, broke, homeless and I have 4 kids. How did that happen?"

My reply:

If she doesn't know how she had 4 kids, perhaps she could be best helped if someone was to tell her about the "birds and the bees".

Meow!

GREG

Take your pick...













... I'm simply ready for 5 months of the great bullshit show in the history of mankind.

I've never been so happy that I left America than today. I just hope America has the good taste to leave me alone.

Meow!

GREG

After the November election, things in Gloccamorra — Bitter Crank

I hope things are fine. I have a trip to the USA planned for December. I cannot do it earlier or later.

I have to travel to a very conservative hot bed of Bible thumpers and those who wish to show their Christian love by throwing acid in the faces of transexuals. Also, it is an NRA hot spot where indeed there are more firearms in the county than there are people living there... oh, and they have very short tempers. http://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=United+States

Indeed I feel if Trump is elected there should be a travel advisory warning to anyone from Europe planning to visit the USA similar to those travel advisory warning issued for countries like Syria or Somalia.

(always ahead of his time Bowie!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7APmRkatEU

Meow!

GREG

Bernie vs. Trump debate would have been something to see. Except being indicted, nothing could have been worse for Hillary. But Trump perhaps understood that the whole thing could backfire on him, so why take chances? He can flip flop as much as he wants. — ssu

Well... it would be only interesting to rubberneckers and those who like to watch horrific accidents on the highway.

Truth is, I feel that this was a great underhanded play by the Republican party. No matter how well or poorly Trump would appears in a debate with Sanders, it would not work out well for Clinton... the one who is in all probability the Democratic candidate. If Bernie looks great, boo Hillary. If Trump (somehow) looks great... well... let's rule this one out from the get go shall we. The man has no platform (other than building a huge wall where those dirty Mexicans tunnel into America... fuckin' brilliant!) and never really answers any questions. He somehow starts a sentence and then jibber jabbers on about something that really has next to nothing to do with the questions, lists off a few incomplete thoughts (if they can be called thoughts) and finally just says more or less... "we'll get that done". He sort of takes advantage of the American tendency to only listen to the beginning and endings of statements; thus gets away with saying nothing. Brilliant!

As for the suggestion of the debate:

Basically it is a way for the Republicans to mess with the Democratic nomination and possibly hijack it. As for a populist move... Kudos to the Republicans.

Indeed Sanders made some sort of suggestion about a year ago that such a debate would be a good idea, but what I find queer about it all is the timing. WHY NOW! When Trump is the candidate and when it looks in all probability that Hillary will be the other candidate.

Sorry for my questioning motives and looking for underhanded agendas, but this is American Politics and not an Ethics Debate Club. For me... timing of when and how things are presented say much more than what is actually being said.

Meow!

GREG

Trump is either lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. I'm sure of it. — Bitter Crank

I'm fairly sure it is both.

Atleast he has presented an honest face... that is the honest face of racism, sexism and jingoism, which seems to be the ugly underneath of much of the USA, as well as other parts of the world.

Meow!

GREG

So, lactating males are as useful as tits on a boar after all. — Bitter Crank

Meow!

GREG

Sorry, I've been gone for a bit, but have had the unfortunate ability to keep up with this national embarassment in the USA called the presidential primaries.

All I can say for sure is that I am so happy to have left the USA some 23 years ago.

Seeing now just how much hatred, racism, violence/justifications for violence, misogynistic & homophobic stupidity the general public has within itself, I feel that I really never wish to return to that place ever again. Austria is certainly not perfect, but there are simply far too many screwed up people in the USA with too many weapons and far too little common sense or understanding of reason or logic or patience.

Sorry to sound this way, but I have really become not only disappointed in the people of the USA, but I have really found myself very embarrassed by their current actions.

Indeed this is simply my opinion and it is not really expressed in terms of philosophy, but to be fair there has really been next to nothing regarding this issue of election that has had much to do with philosophical thinking.

I'll now go back into hiding.

Meow!

GREG

was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? — Question

What I find amazing is how many people do not know the difference between Socialism and Social Democracy.

Here's a useful link: https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/

Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?
One is about collective ownership of the means of production;
the other about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.
One is restrictive;
the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).
One is dogmatic;
the other scientific.
One is emotional;
the other reflective.
One is destructive;
the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
– One aims to establish happiness for all;

– the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.

The first regards the State as a society “sui generis,” of a unique essence, the product of a right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences;
the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State;
the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
– The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions;

– the second teaches that repression alone turns political evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm;
the second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
One wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
the other wishes that there should be no more proletariats.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody;
the second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody;
the other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: Do as the government wishes;
the second says: Do as you wish yourself.
The former threatens with despotism;
the latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State;
the latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world;
the other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war;
the other believes only in works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate;
the other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions;
the other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail;
the other will succeed.
One desires equality; the other seeks equity.
– The first by lowering heads that are too high;

– the other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke;
the other will secure equity in complete liberty.
One is intolerant;
the other tolerant.
One frightens;
the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.
The first wishes to support everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to support one’s self.
One says:
– The land to the State

– The mine to the State

– The tool to the State

– The product to the State

The other says:
– The land to the cultivator.

– The mine to the miner.

– The tool to the laborer.

– The product to the producer.

One is the infancy of Socialism;
the other is its manhood.
One is already the past;
the other is the future.
One will give way to the other…


Meow!

GREG

Generalized label: I despise lables

Form of government: representative social democracy (NOT SOCIALISM)

Form of economy: a bit too complicated for just a quick reply

Abortion: allowed with minor restriction

Gay marriage: either allow gay marriage or ban all marriage

Death penalty: no

Euthanasia: highly restricted, but allowed

Campaign finance: no lobbies or personal contributions, each party is allowed a base amount that they are not allowed to exceed for each candidate (ALSO!!! Election day is either a National Holiday or must occur on the Weekend)

Surveillance: limited, but contextually allowed... again, this is complicated

Health care: universal (Austrian Model is a good one) where private insurances cover addition medical procedures deemed not necessary, but possible helpful (such as massage therapy or some chiropractic procedures not supported by empirical evidence)

Immigration: Indeed processing and clarification need to be in place. This is far too complicated to answer in just a few moments

Education: non-elitist, nearly free of costs, private schools and private institutes are allowed, but run solely on their own profits and receive no government funding whatsoever.

Environmental policy: Green

Gun policy: Strong limitation upon what weapons are legal, strict controls and reviews of who owns a weapon, re-write the 2nd amendment (far far too out of date, as I feel they were addressing muskets where every abled body man was part of the military)

Drug policy: stronger controls over "over the counter" medication. Personally the argument that tobacco is less dangerous than marijuana leads me to the conclusion that we need to make tobacco illegal.

Foreign policy: more ethical and less political/economic... global community

I wrote this in less than 10 minutes as I have to fix dinner. I could probably do a bit better and be more exact, but to be honest... this is politics. I hate politics.

Meow!

GREG

Ban ammunition — Michael

Meow!

GREG

That's the Galacian Flag.



http://mw.micronation.org/wiki/Galacian_Flag

Meow!

GREG

... and this one for 'most confusing' flag:




(is it me or does it look like the ship sank and lodged itself under an island inhabited by a giant sheep?)

Meow!

GREG

This is my vote for the most 'eye-watering' flag:



Meow!

GREG

How about "agnatalism"?

It could possibly imply that one is undecided or simply doesn't care about the debate of natalism v. anti-natalism.

Meow!

GREG

I'll go with this one today:

Aldous Huxley — 'Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities.'

Somehow your video reminds me of this:



I'll get back to you later. I have tickets to the Dr. Who Special tonight + an extra special bits and pieces not aired on TV.

http://cdn3.blinkboxmedia.com/i/tvseries/000/002/489/pbhyxzeb/v=316/w=215;h=306;rm=Crop;q=85/image.jpg

I'm very happy and get to play dress up. YIPPIE!!!

Meow!

GREG

Beyond the answer of Americans being citizens/long term residents of the United State of America and Europeans as citizens/long term residents of countries that are located in Europe all I can say is that anything else would simply be a contextual generalization of characteristics, behaviour and very loose knit beliefs that (seem to be) are shared by those living in either the USA or withing the boraders of Europe.

I really cannot find any concrete definitions that would fit to 320+ million people living in America or the 733+ million people living in Europe other than this general one of being citizens/long term residents of either the USA or of Europe.

Meow!

GREG

I definitely like ↪Mayor of Simpleton's answer, that there is no "one way" to do philosophy, there is just "a" way of doing philosophy (like the distinctions between analytic, continental, pragmatic, and quietist philosophy). — darthbarracuda

That sort of makes me have concern for you...

... I'm not used to many people finding my quips to be of any use, so pardon my uneasy feelings.

Knowing you taste in music, perhaps here's a 'way' if you will?



If nothing else, it's a good tune.

Meow!

GREG

What is the purpose of philosophy? — darthbarracuda

I'll just do one question at a time... to many to deal with at once.

I'm not too sure if this is a question or really an implication(which I am far more inclided to think it is).

(here I go again...)

If you had asked "what is a purpose of philosophy", I could feel OK about answering that, but you asked "what is the purpose of philosophy" and I really cannot answer this without damning myself to a position of idealism.

The use of a definite article (the) rather than a indefinite article (a) plays a major role in what the 'question' entails. By the use of a definite article you have made an appeal for an absolute or ultimate purpose, leaving no room for there being an absense of an absolute or ultmate purpose.

One thing I will make note of, sort of getting ahead of myself, is that if something is relative it does not imply or indicate that it is also irrelevant and useless. I can indeed state a good number of purposes that philosophy can be intended to fulfill, but all of these examples are relative to a specific context... change that context and the purpose my well not stand, but that does not mean the purpose of the other context while it is relative to that context is irrelevant and useless.

In short... I contest that this 'question' "what is the purpose of philosophy" is far less a question that it is a loaded statement that is wearing a question's clothing.

Meow!

GREG

I think I would consider myself an agnostic with regards to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator of the cosmos. I used to see myself as an atheist but have thrown that away because I feel it relies on a kind of faith that it criticizes theism for holding. — darthbarracuda

I'm not too sold that the 'kind of faith' used in the rejection of Theism is the same as the faith employed by Theism. ***

I'd like to hear why it is you believe that these expressions of 'faith' are the same (if indeed they are expressions of faith).

Meow!

GREG


*** - I'm making a bit of a reference to Paul Tillich's distinction between what is and is not faith as found in his book Dynamics of Faith... as in faith as found in Theism is itself NOT an act of knowledge, whereas 'faith' found within science or theoretical inquiry as being an act of knowledge.

I sort of couple this with a notion of different world views, put forth by 'psychotick' (in the old PF days) in a much simpler manner where the two worldviews differ in that the Theistic model is a 'top down' approach to viewing reality (as in starting with the answer first, then finding the questions; thus tuning the variables to fit those questions born of the central answer assumed from the git go) and the non-Theistic model is a 'bottom up' approach to viewing reality (as in starting with the variables leading to questions searching for an answer or refinements of understanding leading toward increased clarity).

Personally, I find it spooky when actual smart people agree with me. My first response to that is 'what the fuck did they do wrong'.

Meow!

GREG

May 24th...

... same as Queen Victoria, Bob Dylan, Alfred Molina, Patti LaBelle, Jim Broadbent and (murderer) Steve Grogan.

Meow!

GREG

How do you deal with the fact that very smart people disagree with you? — darthbarracuda

I'll just deal with this question, as I feel I have a great deal of experience that is probably useless in this matter.

My method of dealing with this is usually taking a review of the given. The given that I am working from as well as the given that the others are working from in fielding a dialog. More than not, I have found that this is a place where misunderstanding and disagreements begin.

I try to make a habit of investigating the given and making more a critical analysis of this foundation., as (for the most part) logic employed by such people (and I try myself most of the time to do so as well) is not too poorly applied. Quite often the statements are clear and the arguments are valid, but the given might well be the issue that causes disagreement.

Also, it might well (and is very often the case) that these smart people simply are far more familiar with the topic at hand and I need to take care that my rantings and ravings are indeed held in proportion to my knowledge of a point of discussion. You might have noticed that many of my quips come with a disclaimer that I really doubt my ability to assist or that they might well be 'unqualfied'. This is not out of false humility or in hope that others treat me with 'kid gloves', but more that I really have a very limited knowledge in the manner; thus I need to make it clear from the git go that I am certainly not an authority.

This was one of my favorite comments on old PF (I'm not implying that it applies to you, but I feel I must often apply it to myself):

"You are taking your sense of wonder, combining it with your inability to conceive of certain things, and demanding from everyone else that they remain as ignorant. That's not good." - Kwalish Kid

Indeed good ol' KK was banned, but that does not negate the gem that this statement happens to be and the honest wisdom in holds.

Anyway...

... that's about all I have on the topic and is the usual I have no idea if this is of any help or has contributed something to the muddle. IF so, great and if not... sorry for taking up your time.

Meow!

GREG

Herbert Marcuse coined the phrase "repressive tolerance", which is what you are probably thinking of, MOS. — Bitter Crank

Well... it's spooks me to see that someone of credibility has addressed this topic. It makes me feel less alone in my madness. Thanks!

Meow!

GREG

Now, now, you're just being silly. I hope. — Bitter Crank

Given the context in which we live in, probably, but philosophically not really. Non-contextual idealism is a cancer of the ego.

Idealism isn't the same thing as fanaticism.*** Fanatics have an odor of mania and possession about them (smells like burning electric insulation), whereas idealists reference a standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at: tolerance and freedom, the liberal ideals. Idealism smells like lily of the valley. — Bitter Crank

True it isn't the same, but it is the foundation upon which fanaticism is born; thus I tread lightly in granting idealism such a postitive status.

As for it smelling like a lily of the valley... I'd say more like a rose:



To every idealist I feel the lyrics apply:

I know you'd like to think your shit don't stink
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like poo-poo-oo
Yeah, roses really smell like poo-poo-oo

(sorry, I just cannot resist YouTube)

Realism, on the other hand, is neither fanaticism or idealism. Is there such a thing as being "too realistic"? No. Real is real. Reality doesn't get more real. (It can get less real, however, as when someone exclaims in exasperation, "Unreal!") — Bitter Crank

That I can agree with...

Ideals (Christ-like love, abolition, anti-war/peace, universal suffrage, organic farming, direct democracy, elimination of poverty...) become the subject of fanaticism when some narrow aspect of the ideal becomes the object of a very narrow focus. Christ-like love can be perverted into a life-denying obsession of self-denial which is no benefit to anyone. Political ideals about the rights and obligations of the people can be perverted into the "get government off our backs" obsession which boils down to 'no government except when I want something from it'. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, but to be fair we can spin ideals to be either positive (good) or negative (bad). If we try a bit harder we can even re-spin these attributions of postive and negative to be the polar opposite given a different context. The problem is when one wishes to ignore that spin of a pet value notions can be re-spun to a very different direction; thus changing the value attribution to the ppint it could be the polar opposite of the original notion, is not really a view consistant with realism.

Idealism is, I think, an essential leaven in societies which do (and must) run mostly on realism. Yes, idealists like Henry David Thoreau (check out his essay, Civil Disobedience) can be a nuisance. Massachusetts threw him in jail for not paying his taxes (Emerson paid them for him). His refusal wasn't libertarian tax avoidance, it was on behalf of either abolition of slavery or opposition to the Mexican American War (sorry, can't remember which. Probably the MA war...). — Bitter Crank

I think it was a poll tax that's fund went to the MA war...

We really need idealists to challenge the status quo. (Leaven, as you know, changes a brick into a loaf.) Change-agents need their ideals, which we might not like. One of the most-loathed groups working for black civil rights in the south during the 1940s and 50s was the Communist Party, USA. They were on the side of the angels in their efforts. That was before they were effectively neutralized, along with much of the left by ruthless Republican realists like J. Edgar Hoover, et al. — Bitter Crank

I could have stated that first sentence her to be "we need idealists to challenge the other idealists sitting in the seat of power"... a sort of tit for tat?

Well... when the revolution is over and the rebel wins, doesn't the rebel become the establishment?

I sort of think the leaven was a brick loaf all of the time...

... then again, we have not much other option as this utopia of relativism I have is simply a philosophical notion, that (unfortunately) cannot ever be tested until all abandon ideals as fixed points in value outside of special case context.

***[ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (as an adjective): from French fanatique or Latin fanaticus ‘of a temple, inspired by a god,’ from fanum ‘temple.’ The adjective originally described behavior or speech that might result from possession by a god or demon, hence the earliest sense of the noun ‘a religious maniac’ (mid 17th cent).] [1 the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, esp. unrealistically: the idealism of youth. Compare with realism... a standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at: tolerance and freedom, the liberal ideals. — Bitter Crank

I always find this to the major league bullshit.

There is not standard of measure for perfection, as perfection in the face of accumulation/adaptation is a myth for the sake of totalitarian control.

I do not endorse tolerance.

Toleration is a horrid ideal. It is a lie for the sake of saving face and faking peace. It is the effort to deny real thoughts and intentions for the sake of social pressures. It requires no effort to understand or dialog leading to any understanding. Tolerence is simply silent hatred with a smiling face that has a unspoken limit to it's patience. When that unspoken limit is reached and the tolorator is not long able to be silently patience, more than not, a spontanious explosion of seemingly irrational yet calculated conflict occurs. Toleration is not a road to peace, but rather the prelude to war. In no way do I ever advocate tolerance, but rather dialog and communication that leads to understanding and possible an accord, but an accord is not necessary.

I'll remain with my anti-idealist ideals as best I can.

Meow!

GREG

Indeed that is the case, but I often wonder why it is considered to be such a good and nobel notion.

I still view democracy as a process and not an ideal leading to any idealistic ideas that functions as fixed points in value notions.

Truth is, I find that the nobel people who have died for what we've considered to be ideals are often those who oppose idealists that place limitation of ideals upon the freedoms of these nobel people and thus they wish to protect...

... it gets all muddled up with freedom of ideals against freedom from ideals and the dying for ideals for the sake of living for freedom of ideals and ...

... it gets messy.

Personally I find that the term ideals is a loaded term. On one side we are speaking of nobel concepts of freedom and such, but on the other side we are speaking of limiting absolutes placed upon freedoms by a totalitarian dictator of sorts. Unfortuantely the razors edge is everywhere when speaking of ideals.

This applies to justice or beauty or whatever value attribution one wishes to put forth into motion. For the life of me, I greatly question any absolute polarities of value in any of these ideals. As I see it, ideals have meaning within a very specific context, but are themselves limited to that constraint of that concept and are still subject to adaptation due to accumulation of information/experience like it or not. When such ideals expand beyond the bounds of their limited context, they run the risk of becoming a totalitarian concept when failing to take into realization the relativity of the nature of values and the accumulation of information/experiences;thus negate the adaptive refinement that ideals are subject to... so ideals when applied in an absolute/universal manner are arguments that collapse upon the weight of their own arguments... unless the one proposing the ideals insists upon suspending accumulation/adaptation... I just cannot figure how one is supposed to stop accumulation/adaptation, as one simply cannot stop the arrow of time placing a hault to information/experiences, unless they wish to demand and command a surrender of the mind by those upon whom they impose their ideals... no matter how nobel they might appear to be.

Personally I feel that all arguments for the establishment of ideals is simply appeals to special case that is subsequently misapplied upon cases that simply do not apply, but are forced to comply.

Please understand that I do indeed have my ideals (principles) and I do field value notions upon these (my) ideals, but I try my best not to have the never to suggest that my ideals are indeed the absolute standard of measure with which all others must form their world perspectives. All I can do is try, as often I really fail at this effort.

Maybe I fear too soon, but that seem to be far better than reacting too late. Ideals that seem to be nobel can quickly garner a special status of being beyond criticism and off the table for critical debate. Religion had this self-granted grace for a long time and in many ways still has this self-justified self-acquired liberty. Personally I find that movements such as Occupy Wall Street or Anti-Globalization or Global Warming tend toward this special status of criticism is off the table... in short it's a bandwagon.



(Where would I be without a silly sequitur non-sequitur YouTube music video?)

Funny thing is it is very diffucult to form a bandwagon for relativism, as the bandwagon is indeed the comfortable ride for ideals to be pimped as absolute ad populum musts or the given. I seem to make a habit of questioning the given, as I tend to take nothing for granted

Indeed idealism may lead the way in the fight against various other idealistic notions... but funny thing is if they dropped the idealism we'd have very little to fight about in the first place. Afterall, the idealist who fights for freedom is fighting the other idealist who constraints that freedom.

Then again, this would require all sides to drop the idealism at the same time and maintain this drop, so I suppose that's not gonna happen anytime soon, so I'm left with my 'anti-Idealsitic Ideals'... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

I sort of wish we'd adopt a position of relativist accumulation/adaptation 'oh... that's different... cool... collect' rather than the ideal of absolute/universals 'oh shit... that's different... that's wrong... kill'., but that's a wish.

Anyway...

... what was the OP writing about?

Maybe I should stop ranting and get back to the OP... the jet lag is killing.

Meow!

GREG

As my lately adopted mense on issues of mental health, I pay close attention to what you say. — Mongrel

That sort of makes me feel, well... hell... I don't even pay close attention to what I say... that kind of freaked me out. That must be a good thing.... I hope.

But I wasn't saying that truth is empirical or intuitive. It's the way things are, whether we observe it or intuit it. The truth may be beyond our grasp. What this means, though, is that truth is the way things are.... that which actually is. — Mongrel

I get ya...

... I sort of thin that truth, that is truth is all possible context, is beyond our grasp, as there is always some sort of context or information that we don't have to take into consideration, as well as the influx of new context and information after the fact of fielding a notion of truth that will in some way or another influence that notion and make adaptations/revisions in that notion... my silly idea that there are no fixed points in value attributon, except for stubborness.... perhaps it says more about the (relative) state of our being than the (relative/absolute) state of what is truth itself happens to be in?

Let me know if that makes any sense. (I'm not too sure it did.)

Banno would sniff at non-propositional truth.

But he's not on this forum, so we can proceed without his council. — Mongrel

Indeed...

... Banno has a way of reducing my statements of racing thoughts into a short sound bite. A master of brevity... a talent I wish I could employ as well, but I fear will never be mine.

Meow!

GREG