It looks to me though, judging from the behaviour of the Israeli administration that the lives of the Population of Gaza are expendable. — Punshhh

War sucks. It’s not done like this anymore- a gentleman’s war with little population involved:


But then again, the movie brought up the colonial settlers and Native Americans that were going to suffer from consequences of war, so even then…



But unfortunately, pure terrorist governments don’t want to fight like this because they’d lose. Raping, kidnapping, and beheading people as a policy of “resistance” will have consequences for the territory they do govern, as long as they hide within that population. It indeed sucks all around.

Can all religious faiths and practices be classed as superstition? — Corvus

Absolutely, the way I was using was like practical magic that affects the world, but the broader category of yes.

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

This is a bit of hyperbole. Certainly, Gazans are at greater risk of collateral damage from the war against Hamas. You asked a question and I gave an answer.

At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop? — Punshhh

My guess is returning hostages is a good place to start. As long as the asymmetry is that the bigger army wants their people back, they will be able to use their capabilities in their pursuit.

Is there other means? Is the question. I personally would have liked to see moderates come together and work it out prior to this situation. The perpetual cycle of violence and entrenched hatreds disallowed this. However, since we are discussing the now and not could haves, the bigger army is simply willing to use it to get what it wants. Thus, it was a dumb idea to think that this kind of provocation, that is still ongoing with the hostages, would have worked favorably. That’s common sense. Only way it makes sense was to think it would cause a regional war against Israel. That was a blunder if that was the thought process. It would be nice if Israel had actual overtures for peaceful solutions the last 20 years. That way when Hamas inevitably tries to screw things up, Israel could say they were the ones constantly working towards a peaceful solution, and this is what they got in return. But Bibi never thinks in terms of “world sympathy”. It’s arrogance. The usual response is, “they’ll hate us no matter what we do, so world sympathy doesn’t matter anyways” adding to the cynicism of his approach.

At this point, I’d be advocating for the return of hostages as a start, post haste to end the siege.

People criticize Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing for tolerating bad decisions on the Palestinian side. Don't provoke conflicts with more powerful neighbors. They should have made overtures for peace, actual education, and infrastructure, instead of building tunnels, taking hostages, radicalizing the population, and using the population as cannon fodder for martyrdom. It's fckn crazy. You can't blame all your problems on the other side. But damn, if leftists don't love to help perpetuate and disinform that narrative. Blaming Western oppression for everything is a joke. These so-called countries are all Western fictions to begin with. To then say that if it weren't for X American thing, they would be better is belied by the fact that these are countries made by the West in the first place. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon exist because of the West, let alone so-called Western "interference." Arbitrarily drawing the lines of where Western influence starts and ends is a bit like the arbitrary lines of the fictitious Middle Eastern countries. These Western-created "nations" went to shit, but it's not as simple as "because of the West," unless you want to blame WW1 and the Ottoman Empire's defeat as well. It's the culture of not live and let live. Start looking there for the root cause.

Yeah, this has it right:

What was the Mandate System of the League of Nations? The Mandate System was devised by the League of Nations after WWI as a method to maintain peace and promote self-determination in territories formerly governed by the Ottoman and German Empires. In reality, the Mandate System was an internationally sanctioned form of colonialism that granted control over much of Africa, the Middle East, and the South Pacific to European powers. — Mandate System

Oh, the West didn't allow their own "Mandates" (a fckn imperialistic construction "bestowed on the Middle East like a giant cookie cutter anyways), "flourish"? IT'S ALL THE WEST. THERE IS NO NON-WEST. The argument that the West "interfered" with their own created notions of "self-determinations" is a farce.

As long as you win the victimization debate, you can dupe others into believing your narrative. "Western interference" is a joke because the whole Middle fckn East is made out of Western interference. How about, don't govern by oppression and terrorism; that's a good way to start. But yeah, you can blame Netanyahu all you like for whatever cultural ills you want. It's the leftist playbook propped up. Why are there no threads on Syria and all the other dysfunctional countries then? Haiti? Venezuela?

This is all propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if people use this to promote their propaganda skills to disseminate stuff elsewhere, paid for by leftist propaganda orgs.

A good example is the rituals of Christian worship. A lot of the ritual (like saying "The Lord be with you / and also with you) has no "magical value". The words of institution in the Eucharist (for Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans...) do have a "magical value". Chanting the psalm for the day is a ritual -- not a magical act. Same for kneeling during prayer. Baptism is a magical act. Confession, on the other hand, is ritual and therapy at the same time. Exchanging the sign of peace with other members of the congregation has no magical value. It's just a nice ritual. — BC

Yes, very useful examples and analysis. However, I would only add that it should be explained how the magical act confers some positive or negative thing, or at least how it effects reality. So in the case of Christianity, it is a positive act because it is initiating one in the Way of Christ, or whatnot. However, some sects may only see it as symbolically cleansing one, and if not done, would have no real bones about it, as it confers nothing in any (material or spiritual) reality.

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away. — BC

Yes.. I think many people (maybe most) have some form of non-functional behavior related to magical thinking. At least, it's not as uncommon as we might think.. That will take empirical data of course to confirm.

If one has OCD, I would suspect that new compulsions will be manufactured out of superstitious ideas -- like the lucky red shirt MUST be worn under various circumstances or something bad will happen.

The sometimes screwy things that go on in our brains (superstition, religious fervor, unreasonable fearfulness or confidence, hallucinations, etc.) could very well be connected -- I just don't know how. The brain is just so damned complicated. — BC

Yes, I am just wondering if OCD is more degree in an already exploitable trait. The brain has hijacked itself to fully commit to this predisposition for magical-thinking. As you say, someone who has the "plain old" magical-thinking tendency of normal humans, mildly believes in a connection of irrational thought. However, an OCD afflicted person has a rule-governed component that has hijacked this and maliciously exploits it by overemphasizing its efficacy on how it really effects reality.

It is more sophisticated, there may be less amount of it on the whole, but I think it's part of our nature. — Manuel

I think we can readily split sociological forms of superstitious behavior from psychological superstitious/magical thinking behavior. I think, going to my point in my little debate with @Leontiskos not every ritual is a superstitious one. I think it has to be a component of "magical thinking". That is to say, there has to be a component of "Is this going to change reality in some way". One of the things that have changed over time, is that previously we might wholeheartedly just go along with the magical-thinking. Now, it can become a kind of neurosis (not technically, but analogously). That is to say, we might know X behavior is "irrational" but we still believe its effects on reality.

That might come down to a difference in grammar, whether one wants to accept a bivalent logic and realism, or some alternative logic and antirealism.

Idealism hangs on in the form of antirealsim.

But it seems that Astrophel has not seen that he is advocating antirealism. — Banno

:up: Yeah, antirealism is probably the preferred nomenclature. Idealism has some baggage. Either way, just based on the OP it seems this is heading in the notion that "What is true" is always tied to some observer. But I will let @Astrophel answer if that is what he might have been implying.

I was just trying to provide a retort I can see, but that might have took a lot circling. I wanted to simply bring it up to the surface now, in case it was heading there anyways.

A statement's being true is a different thing to its being believed. — Banno

I think the OP might argue, we are having a field day with language here. Statements are made and discerned by agents with beliefs and a point of view. Statements are like dividing by 0 or something like that. It is simply an impossible thing to extricate as if "facts" exist independent of observers. Thus it goes back to idealism versus realism debate, as usually the case.

From here, all we have is appeal to [blank] (usually incredulity). And thus philosophy ends and emotions begin. And being apes, it's some form of verbal poop throwing.

I literally just explained why that's false.

Superstition is a kind of religious excess, and that is why a secular age struggles to wield the word with any degree of accuracy. If we want to know whether X is part of the human psyche, we first need to figure out what in the world we mean by X. — Leontiskos

I think what I defined and 1a seem pretty compatible. If you rather it be "superstitious behaviors", that's fine. "Superstition" encompasses a lot of things, and words can have family resemblances. I am talking about the kind whereby we try to control the world through ritual, belief, and behavior. I don't necessarily mean it in the "All irrational belief in various forces and causes", though this is a genre of that. — schopenhauer1

Chill

I literally just explained why that's false. — Leontiskos

I believe I addressed what concern you had of my original definition in my last post.

I'm not sure you're grasping how bad your definition is. According to your definition someone is superstitious if they get a haircut, or buy their girlfriend flowers, or exercise, because they are engaging in behavior meant to "make things go well or stay well."

"Superstition" is largely a pejorative word without a great deal of content, and this is why folks tend to have a hard time defining it. The definition process here is rather important. — Leontiskos

I see, well, I think I have defined it in a way that would preclude how you are generalizing its usage.

As a follow up...and a sort of thought experiment...

What do you think of "psycho-somatic" disorders? This starts getting tricky because the delusions can be subtle.

So let's say that every time you touched a light switch before bed, you had to think of a particular thing in your mind- a white wall, otherwise your left nostril will get stuffy and you will not be able to sleep for the rest of the night. Let us say, you thought of a green wall or a blue gorilla eating pancakes under an umbrella in the arctic instead. You have to start again and flick the light switch on and then turn it off again.. But you realize, that you have to do it in sets of four, such that each time, you have to do it four times, and if you miss the 4th time, you have to start gain. Anyways, if you don't do it right, you actually feel your nose stuffy for the rest of the night. You aren't "fearing" a future event or something bad happening, something bad is happening. If someone says to you, "That's silly magical thinking", you can say, no I feel the stuffy nose right now as we speak. This is proven through your own introspection. In fact, the next day, you do the light switch ritual correctly, thinking of a white wall in sets of 4, and you get it right this time. And unlike the previous day, you actually feel your nose is not stuffy anymore. Voila! You are now back to normal and can have a good night sleep breathing normally and not fixating on a stuffy nose.

Well, is the ritual not, in all pragmatic senses of the word, causing the stuffy nose to go away and come back?

Superstition is hard to define, but I think we all know that this is not the definition of superstition. Someone who has thought patterns and behaviors intended to make things go or stay well is a human being, not a superstitious human being. — Leontiskos

I think what I defined and 1a seem pretty compatible. If you rather it be "superstitious behaviors", that's fine. "Superstition" encompasses a lot of things, and words can have family resemblances. I am talking about the kind whereby we try to control the world through ritual, belief, and behavior. I don't necessarily mean it in the "All irrational belief in various forces and causes", though this is a genre of that.

Superstitions are not the same as compulsions. The compulsion to count things isn't superstitious -- it's just slightly crazy. The lucky red shirt isn't crazy -- it's just slightly stupid. — BC

I'm wondering though if there is a connection between the two. Perhaps the compulsion is a maladaptive form of the superstitious tendency in humans. I think there is something to the fact that as you say:

Still, compulsions and superstitions can provide the sense of having control over the world, which tends to be important to us, given that we do not have control over a lot of things. — BC

Yes, certainly there is "brain chemical imbalance" involved in the obsessive-compulsive, but can this imbalance be a matter of degree of already innate tendencies to irrationally try to control our environment, and "magical thinking" in general? Religion is the sociological coming together of psychological motivations to control things. OCD can be diagnosed very young, for example. This is not something you need to have many years of enculturation to have. Also, magical thinking occurs in many people without OCD. The compulsions are perhaps not there, but the impetus to control the environment through altered behavior and ritual patterns is.

Easy sleep — 180 Proof

Unless you have insomnia :snicker:.

But then, this belies the very point that one even should be in a place where they should be overcoming. One is simply descriptive. Every day is a sort of overcoming of death, if nothing else. But to force others to conform to this system of overcoming- the problem of initiating (this whole system OF) harms on others, is the one at hand.

Someone ELSE deemed it, that this is "good" (and God said "it was good"). People want to be gods in their decisions that others should even BE overcoming.

But more likely, people don't think that grandiosely. Rather, if they are benevolent (and not just capricious or cruel), they are thinking of some positive outcomes, usually selfish vision of future familial X. If it is for someone else's "sake" (the future person born), it might be simply thinking of the good things that might occur. The negatives get downplayed. At worst, it is used as an excuse as it is seen as necessary for the good. Even if we were to say that is a true statement, "That good comes from struggle", that belies the question of whether one should force others to endure the struggle. That will always recenter the question, and not let the issue at hand slip away.

It can, but equating them as the same would obviously be a fallacy of equivocation. — Vaskane

That doesn't make sense and you are just arguing to argue now. Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Because I already said why that can be said about anything, and it can, so what specifically do you have other than hyperbole and ad hominem?

Except that's literally the argument here. — Vaskane

Dude, saying "Well they did it get over" can be inserted against any claim against an ethical rule. Someone murders someone or steals.. "Well get over it" is not an answer to whether it was ethical to murder or steal. You don't get that?

If you want the end of the human race, by all means, put your money where your mouth is and lead by example. — Vaskane

So this is just an ad hominem. Why even try?

It's about "whaa my parents had no right to give birth to me." Well, they did, get over it. — Vaskane

That can be said about literally any moral topic- not well-thought out or philosophical. Very internet trolling though, so not surprised on an internet forum...

And they drone on and on about how shitty life is, fact is they're just cowards who actually can't embrace nothing, once they've already tasted life. They want life to end AFTER theirs runs to completion. Like a Last Man. Pathetically dissonant. — Vaskane

Fear of death/dying is not cowardly, nor again, has it to do with antinatalism. Think of better arguments.

My argument against antinatalists -- you're still here, so you think Life is worth living. The end. Just a bunch a weak individuals who don't want to hold themselves accountable for their life sucking. — Vaskane

Antinatalism is not promortalism. It's a strawman. Antinatalism is about not creating new life, not about whether, once born, it is moral or "worth it" to continue.

But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.

My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities. — ENOAH

Good explanation of how the constructed Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) rides on top of the body responses (presumably, rather than instinctual responses and more localized (non-constructed "Self") problem-solving of other animals).

A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything. — ENOAH

:up:

Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.

What do you think? — ENOAH

Sartre was reminding us that our Mode of Being is different than other animals. Our default seems to be to "buy into" the fantasy of the Fiction being somehow "fixed". Rather, the Fictions act similar to Zapffe's "anchoring mechanisms". That is to say, we make arbitrary "rules" and "reasons" for why we (must) do things, but beyond basic response to physical pains (reflexes), there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. It is this chasm of reasons for anything that we fill with "inauthentic" reasons, usually already provided by some cultural construct (ethical/virtue or self-help-like heuristic formula passed down through an individual or collective "wisdom").

All this being said, I would respond to @Gnomon that his response doesn't really get at the issues that Ligotti lays out. We are self-reflective (the Fiction if you will, but one that knows it creates them and deliberates through the Constructed artifice). This leads to an exile from the rest of nature in that we are not "aware-ing" in the present like other animals, but always must live with the fact that we do otherwise. He does end up sounding "inauthentic" when he uses anchoring "reasons" for why we must be most "authentic" in this or that setting (tribal, group), or that we have some mission in our use of reasoning to figure out best outcomes for ourselves.

Human beings are unique in their ability to engage in thinking and reflection, which allows them to shape their own identities and find meaning in their lives." — Gnomon

@ENOAH was pretty right on with his summary here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882856
. Do you have a response @ENOAH?

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter. — ENOAH

Something no doubt Schopenhauer would have agreed with :smile:. I find it interesting, the evidence of our longing for some sort of calmness that seems pervasive (even if being actively denied.. or being in denial):

• The longing for the tranquility of sleep.
• The restive state of a meditative state.
• The "being there" presence of being fully immersed in an activity (flow state).
• Trying to simply be "present" when it is so difficult most of the time.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words.

A bad (negatively feeling) experience =/= badness overall. It's kind of the whole point of resiliency and growth: you fight through temporary displeasure to become a stronger person. You seemed to gloss over the argument I was making to nitpick a mostly semantic issue. Plus, it's kind of ironic that you seem to dismiss discussion right after ridiculing someone else for the same thing. — QuixoticAgnostic

So there are a lot of points to make, that it is hard for me to distill it in a concise way. However, I'll try from the perspective of deontology...

So deontologically, if one believes that others should not be used as means to an ends, it would be wrong to put others in a situation whereby they have to be put in harms way in order to "grow". Thus, knowingly putting someone in harms way so that they can grow, when that situation could have been avoided, is still wrong, even if they "grow" from it.

Of course, there are mitigating factors for this. If someone is already in a situation where it is judged they will be harmed if you do not take care to mitigate the harm in some way with a less harm, then this is permissible. For example, it is better to give children shots to immunize them against disease. It is better to put children in some form of education so they an survive well in society etc. However, that is only due to the fact that the children were put in that situation in the first place. It is a different question whether they should even be put in the situation for which one must mitigate greater harms with possibly lesser negative experiences/harms/suffering.

See this thread for more detail as it is almost exactly to do with this discussion of purposefully putting people in harms way for "growth":
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified

Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense — AmadeusD

I must begrudgingly comment that you make a good point here.

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.


So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction. — ENOAH

Excellent distillation of the point I think Ligotti is making! Thank you for sharing.

As possibly an illustration of your summary here, I can think of "knowing" the cause of some pain, and simply being in pain. So perhaps another animal is not aware of something that could actually improve its situation. However, humans have the burden of deducing what it is that might improve his situation. Now the responsibility is to act one way or the other and determine if that indeed has improved the situation. This becomes quite burdensome as discursive thought, deliberative action, and the responsibility of choosing and acting becomes the prime MO humans become operative in the world. And for your first part here, you explain well how we GOT to this situation:

1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.

2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.

3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.

4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us. — ENOAH

And thus we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" as you say. Natural drives versus Signifiers and the interconnection of Signifiers interacting to create a sort of emergent Human Consciousness with its grammar/logic/reason = fantasy, or artifice, which though makes for outcomes similar to animals (survival) is very starkly different in the artifice behind it, than other animals, their drives, and more localized reasoning abilities to problem-solving or learning.

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of?

The only way, which is also a complete impossibility. There isn't a chance in the world that Jews want to give up Israel as they know it in exchange for that. Out of all the possible ways to end the conflict, this suggestion seems NICE but also near the bottom of the "likely to happen" list. If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked. — flannel jesus

The cultures and what they want are too far apart. How would the governance even work? Also those kind of confederations need to be mutually beneficial. Israel's parliament, at least in terms of its own governance, excepting Netanyahu's extremism in terms of the judiciary, has been working quite well for them. Why would one shift radically to a new form of government that would take power away from their own current polity's ability to vote in who they want? Rather, the two state solution would be the only way someone who already has a well-functioning government would would prefer it one would think, and for good reason. If they were in a position of utter weakness, perhaps this would have worked where they were just wanting any power sharing they could get.

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more." — Tzeentch

So was the Netherlands, technically, but they projected real power across the globe. Israel is just trying to keep itself existing, not even an imperial global empire.

Just a cursory history from ChatGPT of the Netherlands:

Eighty Years' War (1568-1648):
The Eighty Years' War, fought for religious and political autonomy against the Spanish Empire, was a significant period of violence leading to the establishment of the independent Dutch Republic.

Dutch East India Company (VOC) and Colonial Violence:
Dutch colonial expansion, notably through the VOC, resulted in violence against local populations in regions such as the Dutch East Indies.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648):
The Thirty Years' War, a complex conflict involving multiple European powers, had significant implications for the Dutch Republic. The war contributed to the economic and political rise of the Dutch Republic as it gained formal recognition at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1795-1815):
The French occupation during this period led to political changes in the Netherlands and included instances of violence.

World War II Occupation (1940-1945):
The Nazi occupation resulted in widespread violence and suffering, with the Dutch resistance engaging in acts of sabotage.

Decolonization and Indonesian War of Independence (1945-1949):
The Netherlands faced violence during the decolonization process, particularly in Indonesia, where the Dutch attempted to retain control.

Modern Terrorism and Political Violence:
In recent decades, the Netherlands has experienced instances of terrorism, such as the 2004 assassination of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, highlighting contemporary challenges.

Each of these historical events has shaped the trajectory of the Netherlands, contributing to its development, identity, and global influence. — ChatGPT

The Netherlands, along with many European actors, created the modern world. What does self-determination mean really? At the end of the day, it is when people let go of past grievances. Nazi Germany didn't let go and were resentful until completely dismantled, for example. For the Netherlands, it was after almost a century of bloody conflicts. I don't want it to be carried out thus.

It would be best if people's went on with their lives, and allowed others to do the same without resort to religious or personal blood feuds, that is true. Peace must prevail more than hate. Surely, Hamas does not represent anywhere close to non-hate. Netanyahu is not good for peace either, though I am by no means equivocating the two. Simply that, even if Hamas wasn't the looming threat, he is independently a self-serving and divisive leader that won't lead to peace. Hamas does need to be dismantled, and the Israelis need to find a new leadership. However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians.. It does need to happen, but that is a concerted internal effort of self-purging of the hate cycle and moving forward from holding onto past grudges as one's sole identity. Certainly, that is perpetuated with the current violence, but it was there that led to this round of violence. At some point, someone has to cut it at its psychological roots and make the hard decisions to not stay on current ways of thinking and current policy.

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf. — Tzeentch

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint.

And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. — Tzeentch

:up:

As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all. — Tzeentch

My Star Trek, sci-fi United States of the World part of me would be cool with that. However, in reality people's identities are important to them, and the old school 19th century view of "a nation for a state" or rather "a state for a nation", is still very strong in some regions. I get that though. If your group's identity has historically been erased throughout history, you will go at great lengths to preserve a part of the world to keep that identity. The Dutch enjoy their region, the English and Scottish enjoy theirs. Jews want to have a roughly "Jewish" state, and Arabs want to have Arab states, I don't begrudge them.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. There are huge cultural, historical, and political differences in how these two people want to be governed and live their lives. On top of this, a Jewish state was meant to be one place where the Jews can feasibly defend themselves if ever there was a Holocaust type situation. Arguably this causes smaller variations of violence in the region, but clearly they are willing to take that damage to keep the greater part of it alive.

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place and it's still ongoing with Ukraine. Israel is no different, but it gets a lot of air time because of various echoes of the Holocaust, the role that Israel as a territory plays in Western history, and the fact that there is a low level enmity between Islamist regimes, terrorist organizations, and para-militaries, and the Western world.

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused? — Tzeentch

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities.

Would your response be, "At least Israel did the right thing"? If so, do you think that is what the Israelis will be saying in that scenario, that "at least" they did the right thing? Their heads are purely for security of their state.

I think we can agree the rightwing (Likud, settler movement, etc.) is inappropriate politically for long term stability and good faith agreement for developing a Palestinian state. But the moderate stance for keeping the West Bank has always been security, and that is a tougher position to argue against because the Israelis would be gambling that Palestinians would indeed follow the rules and not try to take over the whole thing.. Which is very much what a majority of Palestinians would like. "Right of return" has always been the polite way to say it, but that could be done militarily or simply walk right in.

Now, I can of course devise various scenarios whereby both sides follow a multilateral set of procedures in various milestones, etc. And indeed, that would take an international coalition of watchdogs constantly on the ground. Israel would have to give up sovergnty and Palestinians would have to be allowed to be controlled also by foreign entities, something both sides may not agree with. Perhaps with Arab neighbors that would help.

Palestine as a cause is really a cause from 1964 on. After the Arab states and Iran (artificially created by England and France), had failed in the military campaigns by 1973 (and throughout the 80s in Lebanon and Syria), they essentially gave up caring much about Palestinians other than they were a good way to rally their own people against a common enemy. It could be argued that if these states had won early on, they would have simply annexed various parts of Palestine into "greater" Syria/Jordan/Egypt, etc. Anyways, my point is that these Arab states have long ago given that prospect up, and it is in their interest to have a stable Middle East now that they have basically given up the narrative that Israel is the great enemy. Only Iran and its allies are keeping that alive.

I have said that value, meaning, purpose is only to be found in the volitions, cognitions and judgements of beings. The value of life as assessed by human beings, and arguably not other animals, may be either positive or negative, depending on the human being doing the assessing, so it seems obvious that there is no intrinsic, universally negative or positive value to life. — Janus

Yeah, that is not what I or Ligotti was claiming in the sense of "meaninglessness". So that is a moot argument.

If you have something to say in response to the passage you quoted, then say it. Vague references to some previous answer you purport to have given are next to useless. If you want to bring in past discussions, then at least bother to cite particular statements. — Janus

Your response (amongst other quotes) is anticipated:

Whether or not one agrees that there is a
“brotherhood of suffering between everything alive,” we can all agree
that human beings are the only organisms that can have such a
conception of existence, or any conception period. That we can conceive
of the phenomenon of suffering, our own as well as that of other
organisms, is a property unique to us as a dangerously conscious species.
We know there is suffering, and we do take action against it, which
includes downplaying it by “artificially limiting the content of
consciousness.” Between taking action against and downplaying
suffering, mainly the latter, most of us do not worry that it has overly
sullied our existence.
As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual
or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give
precedence to suffering will be left behind. [ pace @Ciceronianus et al comments :) )
28
They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must
believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that
there is a “brotherhood of suffering between everything alive” would
disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good
life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a
conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one
marker, we advance to the next—as if we were playing a board game we
think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you
are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a
biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot
live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with
the undead and the human puppet.

Take away: just stay away from mass transit. — BC

Dang, another setback for mass transit.

The value or meaning or purpose life has for living beings is diverse just as are the living beings. Trying to dismiss (your version of) what I said as "surface-y" seems a rather desperate tactic. — Janus

How so? You said there is no intrinsic value. That is missing the point, that it is only beings that perceive value, and human beings that are self-aware they are perceiving value. And that is what matters, not what the universe is devoid of beings who have value. If that was the case, we wouldn't need to talk about anything. We just wouldn't "be".

Sure, some minority of people, not animals I would think, may feel something like this. It may be driven by brain chemistry, or it may be on account of trauma, or something else; but whatever its origin might be, it is a subjective emotional state, not a universal truth. Life involves suffering, but it also involves joy, and the proportions of each will vary from living being to living being: seeking to absolutize the characterization of life as suffering is a fool's errand. — Janus

We have discussed this before, and I believe I have answered you before regarding this.

I would agree that life has no intrinsic positive value, but I also think it is nonsensical to claim that it has negative intrinsic value. — Janus

I think this seems reasonable in a very surface-y kind of way.. Like someone something would say to a person caught up in their own solipsistic view of the world. But, "the world" "existence" "the universe" is never simply devoid of the person perceiving it. You can say that, truly, metaphysically, "the universe" is devoid of value. That would be misapplying the target of the value. The value is squarely on the being-in-the-world. It is rather about not the universe devoid of being, but the universe with a being that can feel, comprehend, and in the case of the human, self-reflect. Thus, value is part-and-parcel of the human condition, and cannot be cleaved from it. Thus, I see this argument as irrelevant to the human (or animal) being (in the world).

Some argue that if life has no overarching purpose that it follows that it has a negative intrinsic value, but I think it is arguable that having no overarching purpose is a positive thing, in that it allows us to be free to create our own purposes, rather than submitting to an imposed purpose or else suffer punishment, karmic consequences and so on. — Janus

I don't view "no purpose" as positive or negative either on its face. Rather, it is suffering that is paramount to the pessimist. Suffering can show itself in peculiar ways to the human animal. When doing something tedious, or in prolonged bouts of melancholy, one might see an immense worthlessness to it all. This is a kind of acute epiphany that usually doesn't last long. If you say that this is just emotional chimera, I would say that it again doesn't matter, it is part of the human animal's ability to perceive itself. Thus, the mechanisms come back into play to "right the course". And this seems to be very similar to Zapffe's idea of anchoring (one of the mechanisms):

Of course, even so-called overarching purposes are culturally imposed, since they are matters of faith, not something which could be obvious to any unbiased or free minded individual. — Janus

Indeed, what better way to be motivated than some external, culturally derived and tested way?

A pupil is a good thing. It isn't "running away from the truth of how much light is in the room," to have your pupil constrict, just like the release of endorphins isn't some sort of "illusion-making to hide the real levels of pain in the body." The "real level of pain," is determined, in part, by the endorphins.

They are all part of the same whole. There is no "true level" of human misery and suffering that we can discover by "cutting through illusion." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd like to say this is only partially analogous, but as all analogies, they can't fit completely. It is analogous in a way, as they are culturally-learned mechanisms that the individual must learn to not explore too much the existential anxiety/deeper existential issues that humans have the ability to apprehend. Unlike the analogy though, there are those who can get beyond the mechanisms, and even for "normal folk" that at certain times in their lives, can do this (before sewing that back up). The eye or endorphins don't work in this more fluid way that our psyche's can, so the analogy leads to a deceiving characterization of the case laid out by Zapffe regarding our psychological defense mechanisms.

That is to say, we evolved this ability, but then have to retreat. It isn't quite the same as an instinct or a reflex (like the pupil), but rather, crafted cultural ways we have been able to cope. That does make a difference. It is part-and-parcel, of a fully deliberative being. We are beings that can have existential dread, suicide, non-procreation, etc. We can evaluate our life as a whole, not just in the moment. If it is most similar to another concept, it would be Camus' idea of "bad faith", I would say.

I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal. — 180 Proof

How?

I'm still finding the OP and attempts to justify it totally nonsensical. I'm really trying here... — AmadeusD

A momentously unnecessary post then.

A. What makes certain things in conciousness "artificial?" What could this even mean? It seems like conciousness must include an ability to focus on some things and not others for it to be consciousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, he's not saying consciousness is artificial. Rather, he is saying we have various defense mechanisms to disallow a certain level of angst and inertia. As Ligotti put it:

As adumbrated above, Zapffe arrived at two central determinations
regarding humanity’s “biological predicament.” The first was that
consciousness had overreached the point of being a sufferable property
of our species, and to minimize this problem we must minimize our
consciousness. From the many and various ways this may be done [schop1 note: acknowledgement this is simply a model, not exhaustive],
Zapffe chose to hone in on four principal strategies.
31
(1) ISOLATION. So that we may live without going into a free-fall of
trepidation, we isolate the dire facts of being alive by relegating them to a
remote compartment of our minds. They are the lunatic family members in the
attic whose existence we deny in a conspiracy of silence.
(2) ANCHORING. To stabilize our lives in the tempestuous waters of chaos,
we conspire to anchor them in metaphysical and institutional “verities”—God,
Morality, Natural Law, Country, Family—that inebriate us with a sense of
being official, authentic, and safe in our beds.
(3) DISTRACTION. To keep our minds unreflective of a world of horrors,
we distract them with a world of trifling or momentous trash. The most operant
method for furthering the conspiracy, it is in continuous employ and demands
only that people keep their eyes on the ball—or their television sets,
their government’s foreign policy, their science projects, their careers, their
place in society or the universe, etc.
(4) SUBLIMATION. That we might annul a paralyzing stage fright at what
may happen to even the soundest bodies and minds, we sublimate our fears by
making an open display of them. In the Zapffean sense, sublimation is the
rarest technique utilized for conspiring against the human race. Putting into
play both deviousness and skill, this is what thinkers and artistic types do when
they recycle the most demoralizing and unnerving aspects of life as works in
which the worst fortunes of humanity are presented in a stylized and removed
manner as entertainment. In so many words, these thinkers and artistic types
confect products that provide an escape from our suffering by a bogus
simulation of it—a tragic drama or philosophical woolgathering, for instance.
Zapffe uses “The Last Messiah” to showcase how a literary-philosophical
composition cannot perturb its creator or anyone else with the severity of trueto-life horrors but only provide a pale representation of these horrors, just as a
King Lear’s weep-
32
ing for his dead daughter Cordelia cannot rend its audience with the throes of
the real thing.
By watchful practice of the above connivances, we may keep ourselves
from scrutinizing too assiduously the startling and dreadful mishaps that
may befall us. These must come as a surprise, for if we expected them
then the conspiracy could not work its magic. Naturally, conspiracy
theories seldom pique the curiosity of “right-minded” individuals and are
met with disbelief and denial when they do. Best to immunize your
consciousness from any thoughts that are startling and dreadful so that
we can all go on conspiring to survive and reproduce as paradoxical
beings—puppets that can walk and talk all by themselves. At worst keep
your startling and dreadful thoughts to yourself. Hearken well: “None of
us wants to hear spoken the exact anxieties we keep locked up inside
ourselves. Smother that urge to go spreading news of your pain and
nightmares around town. Bury your dead but don’t leave a trace. And be
sure to get on with things.[ schop1 note: This is Ligotti playing the optimistic interlocutor again.. to be read with heavy dose of cynicism of course ] — Ligotti- CATHR

So these "connivances" Ligotti, characterizes as "conspiracies" (something humans learn presumably), psychological conceits we must internalize in order we make sure we "get on with things". We couldn't get on with things if we self-reflected on the situation too much.

B. If human conciousness is such that most people who have it enjoy it, then doesn't that just show that it isn't actually that bad? The charge of "artificial" exclusion of some elements of conciousness doesn't really make sense. I don't get how focusing on what one finds relevant can ever be defined as somehow artificial or alien to consciousness.

This would seem to imply that pessimism of Zapffe's variety is defective conciousness, not that all human conciousness is defective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No rather, he is claiming that various negative feelings that go along with having a human (self-reflective) consciousness, are kept "at bay" by these mechanisms.

Look again at the mechanisms. "How is it that we are NOT doing these things?", is the more appropriate question. Going hand-in-hand with this, is what I said here:

Modern man has made it about as you said "sucking the marrow out of life" by accumulating (and projecting) being at the peak of something (well, when everyone isn't as you say "distracting themselves with social media"). That is to say, if you notice, everyone wants to project the same intense experiences... TRAVEL (the more exotic the better, so better have some obscure African/Asian/South American destination there too), OUTDOORS (better show pictures at X landmark and showed you really struggled to get there in an arduous hike), EVENTS (concerts, political rallies, whatever), EXTREME stuff (fast X.. cars, trains, planes, rides, adventure stuff), or simply playing games (electronic or analog) markers like this. I can try to tie this in to the commodification of human experience, but I am not really trying to do that. Rather, I am just showcasing the struggle for humans to come up with modern ways to inject meaning. Thus, sporting, games, hobbies, travel, and various experiences become the default for modern man to hang their hat on. But, as you said, it doesn't make a difference. As I stated this represents:

and then at the top is supposedly "self-actualization", which I gather to be "peak experiences". One is being true to one's values (Nietzschean-esque).. I imagine the world-travelling, hobbyist, sports-enthusiast, mountain-climbing, civic duty participating, citizen, supposedly reveling in the balance between skill, challenge, preference, and aptitude.. The perfect balancer of personal interests and social interests.. Flow states are had readily and easily. One is able to express one's talents, etc.
— schopenhauer1

They are all doing what Zapffe explained (ignoring, isolating, anchoring, and sublimating). — schopenhauer1

Edit: Look where I bolded Ligotti (commenting on Zapffe), as that addresses your objection, more-or-less.