The point was that if all Russia is guilty of is not being a proper democracy then such a crime pales into insignificance when compared to massive death and immiseration that democracies like the US have engendered. — Isaac

You are still comparing crimes to crimes when we are essentially discussing a system that might lead to war. The systematic poisoning and imprisonment of opposing voices in a country that is then using that power to invade another country that has done nothing to warrant such an invasion, is what this is about. What you seem to never understand is that you are using the "crimes of the US" as a kind of argument for downplaying the acts of Putin, for which I do not understand why you do?

By that notion (rich elite gets richer off the backs of poor workers) then every government ever is basically the same, nothing to chose between them. But regardless, you want to include the holocaust in Europe's track record? The genocide of the Native Americans in the US's? — Isaac

Why are you continuing to argue based on that fact that others do bad things? If I point at Putin's acts and what is going on right now with the conclusion that his delusional Soviet ambition is a cause of concern for the security of nations, primarily in Europe, why are you focusing on historical criminal events in the way you do? In what way does that change the fact of the current events?

What is your point? When Ukrainians start dying, what will be your point?

I didn't say 'only', I said 'led'. — Isaac

So? What's your point based on the current events?

I asked you what the alternative was to inaction. What do we do about the fact that Putin is a bad man? How are you measuring the consequences of those proposals to ensure they're not worse then things are as they stand? — Isaac

Do you know how things are within Russia? Do you know what the situation is for the people under Putin? There isn't anyone educated in the inner workings of Russia and Putin's position who would position Putin as a "reasonable man". People usually talk about past dictators in a way of "just imagine if we killed Hitler before his reign of terror". Based on all the people in prison, all people poisoned, all people silenced. Based on all intelligence about Putin, I would say that his removal from power, the removal of his closest allies would be the best, not primarily internationally, but based on what many in Russia feel as well. People think Putin is popular but he is not, he just has the power of a dictator. The only viable way is that the people of Russia get so pressured that the consequences of fighting Putin become less severe than the international consequences of his war.

What WE do about him is mainly for my country to protect our borders, strengthen the waters around Gotland. For US to pressure on an international scale, for Europe to become independent from Russian natural resources, to isolate Russia until change happens from the inside. This is what is happening right now. However, if Putin invades and occupy Ukraine, that is an act of war not seen since WWII, an act of a leader to "claim" another nation as their own. You can speak of invading nations and interests, but since when has the US taken over another nation and claimed it as their own? That form of aggression is on another level. If Putin succeeds in that and if the sanctions aren't enough to stop it, what then? If Putin feels like it, he will continue to try and revert back to the borders of old Soviet. Further pushing the borders, further pushing the aggressions just as he is doing now, because he feels there aren't any real consequences. If that happens... that means war with Nato. If that happens, that could lead to WWIII. This is not some fucking imagination or fantasy. Anyone naive enough about this are either too young or really uneducated in this matter.

What is it about this site which seems to attract people who can't tell the difference between their own opinion and what is actually the case. You've told me what you think is the case, you haven't 'explained' anything. — Isaac

So what is the case in your perspective? What is Putin's ambition? His goals? I mean, sure, the sources I draw from are military connections and a documentary filmmaker who's been working with interviewing intelligence people for over ten years about specifically Putin's actions and ambitions. So yeah, I can't "prove" anything in the way you are asking for. So, let's say you are right instead, let's say that I'm full of shit and you know what is going on right now. If I say that Putin is a lunatic who wants to restore the glory of the Soviet empire, the only thing I can really use right now as an obvious signifier is the speech he gave which directly pointed towards that specific ambition. Which, based on reactions all over the world was pretty idiotic and idiotic outbursts rarely contain strategic lies. But please, explain to me what Putin's ambitions and goals are. If the inductive conclusion I make, based on all the info I have, is that Putin has extreme ambitions of rectifying the embarrassment he felt during the fall of the Soviet state, what is your explanation for Putin's actions right now? We are analyzing the behavior, the facts and acts of Putin, if I KNEW the truth, I would have called up Nato, EU and UN by now, but knowing the truth is not the same as having an assertion that is likely based on known information. Now, provide your assertion, please. Remember how much Putin actually risks losing by invading Ukraine, then figure out what the reasons are.

You mean like Amb. Jack Matlock (US ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991) who said — Isaac

What's his modern connection to Putin's Russia? Putin wasn't even a figure head during that era.

I could not and cannot imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine, bomb its cities, etc., — Isaac

I sincerely hope not, but people have already called him stupid for his speeches during this escalation, so what does a little more "stupid" mean when he doesn't care about being called that? If he actually invades Ukraine, goes all in, that quote would age very badly. All we have is hope that he's not that stupid, but the acts the past few weeks have shown a pretty stupid side of him, so who knows?

..or have I gone and chosen the wrong expert again? I'm always doing that. — Isaac

I dunno? I seem to hear lots of experts speaking of Putin as stupid, as extremely aggressive, as careless and totally out of mind. Seems to happen on a daily basis now. Maybe you aren't really following the current events or just "save" comments made by those who you agree with, but I've yet to see an expert on Russia and Putin not being very concerned about Putin's current actions. When people like that start acting nervous, that is not good.

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter? — Isaac

We are already doing it. Unfortunately, the only real sanctions working might be the next phase. Total isolation of economic mobility. It will tank the global economy, but it might save lives. But if he invades Ukraine, well, we won't be able to do much, but Putin will show the world what lunatic he actually is. Lots of people in both Russia and Ukraine don't want a war, this is all Putin's actions. So if he does it, he can shrug off the sanctions and keep acting like it doesn't bother him, but the economy in Russia has been shit since 2014 and it will be worse going forward. If the world can heal away from the dependence of Russian natural resources, then it will leave the Russian economy in the gutter. Ukraine rebels will also most likely keep pushing the fight and the morale will get lower within the Russian troops. Right now there are reports of Russian troops at the Belarus border who constantly gets drunk and break discipline. Russia does not treat their troops in the same standard as other nations so the longer a conflict occupation of Ukraine goes on, the less capable the Russian forces will be upholding that occupation. What happens to Putin then? Who knows, I mean, everyone in their right mind and knowledge is laughing at his current cock measuring behavior so if the invasion, in short term or long, becomes an embarrassment, it will shake the foundation of his power. How long then will the people be "ok" with his rule? Why remove a leader of power when you can suffocate his leadership?

We cannot do much about this situation other than what we are already doing. However, if he invades and then continues forward, if he invades Gotland in the Baltic sea, if he tries to push onto borders of Nato, that will lead to armed counter-attacks against him. Just because we think he isn't that stupid, it doesn't mean he won't be. He's old, he might want to try and remedy his legacy in Russia as someone who brought back the Soviet glory days. Who rebuilt Russia, before he dies of old age. Do not underestimate a narcissistic and nihilistic dictator. We've done that before.

Sorry, have to been to Earth recently? Have you noticed anything about the US's ability to de-escalate? Any kind of trend? — Isaac

What does that prove? US "de-escalation" usually fails if there are interests for US within the area of de-escalation. However, Putin's actions are not some proxy war action as I've mentioned before. This is an act that calls back to WWII aggressions. It's not the same thing as proxy wars fought over oil or imperialistic reasons. De-escalation is nothing that the US alone is trying to do, everyone is doing it. What the hell do you think is going on right now in Europe? You think all of us are just waiting for what the US will do? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Funny how much I'm hearing that recently. "Yeah, the corporations are bad, big business is bad, big Pharma, the US military complex...all terrible..but not this time. This time they're doing it all out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind. This time it's different." You're like victims of domestic abuse. "This time he really wants me back, he's changed". It's disturbing. — Isaac

Are you mentally challenged? If I tell you that we are seeing movements of aggressions around the Baltic sea, if we see aggressions from Russia that based on all military strategic analysts, points to a serious risk of actual large scale war in Europe, are you seriously saying that this is like the act of "domestic abuse" based on our alliance with US within this conflict trying to push back Putin's aggressions? What the fuck are you smoking? Seriously, are you fundamentally uneducated about this topic and just babble forward your foundational opinions about US world politics while not understanding the current conflict when it's staring you in the face?

The world is not black and white as you describe it. US geopolitical interests have long been destructive and will continue to be. But the current aggression from Putin is not some fantasy and Europe and the US working together to counter these aggressions are not some fucking delusional act of a victim of domestic abuse. Seriously, what the fuck?

You did. — Isaac

Ok, fair, but I didn't say that democracy is some kind of bright beacon, it is still the ONLY system that has led nations to a more balanced life for the people with less corruption endangering that people. US isn't the only nation in the world with "democracy", so your argument of pointing out "democracy" being "bad" as well does not really matter if my argument was that Russia just plays theatre of the nation being a democracy. To imprison and kill anyone that oppose you and call yourself a democracy, that isn't being done, even in a corrupt nation as the US.

And that is my point. Russia has a dictator while people actually fall for the lie that they have elections that in any way or form is true democracy.

No. Russia has undergone massive regime changes since then, the US is still run by the same people. I'm comparing regimes because, you know, the soil they happen to stand on doesn't make so much difference. — Isaac

Really? The oligarchs got fat rich and then Putin took that wealth and gave it to his friends while most of Russia is in poverty. You only see the rich front that Putin wants you to see... Sounds an awful lot like the corrupt top 1% of the Soviet regime to me, just in new clothes. What exactly is different except the form of government on paper? It's just as corrupt as it's ever been, but maybe you fall for the propaganda more today when "communism" isn't a dirty word that can be slapped onto them.

Yes. Because "worrying about Putin" doesn't happen in a vacuum. We can't just not not do anything about Ukraine, if you want action, that action is going to be US led, so the track record of the US is fundamentally important here. Its the alternative you're advocating in "worrying about Putin". — Isaac

You think that we're not acting in Sweden right now? We're pulling large funds to increase our military, we have the island of Gotland that is a target of Russia to seize the Baltic sea area. You think US is the only one acting on this? You think no one else is affected?

It's no good pointing a finger at Putin and crying "bad man", you need to work out what the alternative to inaction is and whether anyone is actually going to be better off that way. — Isaac

The alternative for us in Europe is to be actually threatened by Russia if no action is taken. The US is an ally in this. Putin IS a bad man, his threats are out of date, his ideas are delusional misrepresentations of history.

Everything. Geopolitical conflicts don't happen in a vacuum, they don't spring out of thin air. the arms industry don't spend millions (5 million in Europe, ten times that in America) on lobbying on a whim, a vague hope that politics will just happen to turn out favouring war. — Isaac

Are you sure you have good insight into what Putin is doing and why? I've already explained the reasons for this conflict and you don't seem to get it. Listen to the experts on Russia and Putin, you are babbling about things that doesn't have anything to do with what Putin is doing. That is a problem. You have buried your head into reasons that don't compute with what Putin's ambitions actually are. He wants to rebuild the power of Soviet, that's his goal here. Figure out the consequences of those dreams.

You're advocating starting a war on the off-chance that your target might start one. And to not even see the link... Huge numbers of those children are starving because of American foreign policy. Again, to think these things are not connected. Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... you think each is just coincidentally increasing, unrelated to the others? — Isaac

I have not advocated starting a war. I couldn't give a fuck about the US, we in Europe are the ones who are threatened by Russia's actions. US is an ally that we work together with to try and deescalate the conflict. You don't seem to understand the actual conflict that is going on right now, it's not about US interests, it's about the security of Europe, which the US is an ally with. It's about not letting a lunatic like Putin push ambitions of creating a new Soviet-style regime onto this place.

But I guess that if people have been debating US foreign policies for a long time and criticized it for the horrors it created, it's easy to just scream IMPERIALISM, every time something happens in the world. And I agree, USA is really a villain internationally. This time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. I don't know where you live, but if you lived in close proximity to Russia, you would not be so blatantly dismissive of Putin's actions. The US might be a really bad player on the world state, but if you use that as an argument defending Russia and Putin at this time you are really not in the game of what is actually going on.

It is exactly the quality that treating Putin like a cartoon villain deserves. A cartoon response. — StreetlightX

I'm not. I don't think you know enough about Putin, his ambitions, the geopolitics of those ambitions and how Russia functions. I would say, it's easier to understand all of this when the proximity of this conflict is very close to home. It actually affects stuff around Europe and it's not some cartoon villain analysis of Putin. That's a ridiculous perspective.

Your having an overactive imagination doesn't seem like very good grounds for international politics. — StreetlightX

Explain to me why I should engage in such low-quality posts as this?

I wonder what it's like walking through the world thinking that it functions like an off-brand Marvel movie. Is he planning to wield the infinity glove after that? — StreetlightX

If that's not a strawman I don't know what is.

What's it like walking through the world thinking we are immune to historical destructive events? Ignorance is bliss I guess. "Might not happen" does not mean "we shouldn't act". The worst-case scenario global climate problems "might not happen" so "we shouldn't act" upon it. WWIII "might not happen, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it. Ukraine "might not" be invaded and thousands of people being killed while thousands more need to flee to other countries, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it.

Question: Do you believe Putin will stop after a successful invasion and occupation of Ukraine? If not, what do you think the next step would be? What would you think is going to happen in Europe if he continues? How do you think international relations, trade, diplomacy, energy politics and so on, will be affected if Putin does that?

I mean... he "might not", so "why bother".

Who? 'Everyone' is not an answer. Give me a non-partisan source claiming Russia is the main threat to world peace, so we've something beyond your opinion, to work with. — Isaac

Everyone is pointing out how Russia is a "security risk", it's political lingo. No one can speak in the way you require because of diplomacy. You cannot call out someone as a dictator threatening world peace and expect diplomacy further down the road. "Security risk" means that Putin threatens the security of Europe and in extention world peace.

So? In terms of actual harm the choose-your-preferred-colour-of-warmonger 'democracy' in America is way more damaging. I mean demonstrably so. How many has Putin killed? America's total stands a little over 20 million. — Isaac

You are comparing "America" to "Putin". Aren't you suppose to compare "America" to "Russia"? Then apply Soviet history and a guy named Putin who dream Soviet dreams, of reclaiming that power.

It's no good bleating about democracy when a living breathing democracy is sweeping though the world killing millions in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions. Democracy isn't going to save us here. — Isaac

Who the fuck said anything about democracy? I spoke of a lunatic named Putin who wants to reclaim Soviet power on the world stage. The war aggressions he makes have nothing to do with any notion that "democracy will save us".

I can list all the wars America has orchestrated and the measures of their destruction (though it sounds as though you might already agree, saving me the trouble), so what are you putting up against the war crimes of this 'democracy' to support the notion that veering from its political methodology is the most significant threat to peace? — Isaac

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying about Putin and Russia? Your argument is essentially: "because US is really bad, has been really bad and will probably be bad in the future... therefore we don't have to worry about Putin and Russia?" Do you understand why I think you are naive? You don't connect any dots in your premises.

What's 'naive' is assuming that the most powerful corporations and elites the world has ever seen are in any way held back by something as trivial as 'democracy'. — Isaac

Again, what are you talking about? What has this to do with the current geopolitical conflicts?

No one's saying Russia is innocent, but try speaking to the parents of the 700 children who just died from poverty whilst you were writing your post and see if they give a shit whose flag is over Donetsk and Luhansk. — Isaac

And speak to the parents of children who will die in a third world war if we don't do anything about lunatic aggressors making that scenario a possibility. Just because we're trying to fix one bad thing in the world does not mean we don't care about other bad things. The current "bad thing" about Putin and Russia is a critical one, a time-critical one, something that is progressing rapidly.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't address what is happening at the moment because of starving people elsewhere? What about the thousands of people who will be killed if Putin does a full-scale invasion? What about if he doesn't stop there? What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? THIS is why you are naive, you don't understand what is really going on.

They argue that expanding the U.S. commitment to NATO is a mistake, and that the president should instead focus on countering China and securing America’s southern border.

That doesn't help if China gets in bed with Russia. Fighting Russia is fighting China. And if relations with China get worse, their relation with Russia will strengthen and that is bad... that is really really bad. The relationship between China and US needs to be an arms-length trading act where the benefits of trade between China and US is more beneficial of both than actively blocking that trade.

China can cuddle with Putin and Russia all they want, but if the trade vitality between China and the west, especially US is strong and beneficial, then China won't fully support Russia until such a trade with the west and US collapses.

What "America first" people don't get is how international trade and relations keep the peace people take for granted. It's this globalization that has kept the world from new world wars. All it takes is either to close borders and stop interacting with other nations or let a lunatic roam free for too long.

Putin dreams Soviet dreams. Anyone who doesn't understand how dangerous that is don't know history.

According to whom? — Isaac

According to us living here in Europe, according to everyone involved with global trade, global interactions. It's very naive to pinpoint the distance to Russia as an argument that Russia isn't a major threat and even if Russia is only a direct threat towards other nations in Europe, do you really think a major escalation of war in Europe wouldn't affect the US? What the hell did you think happened in both WWI and WWII?

Ah, yes. The main threat. The nuclear weapon. The one which Russia has never used. As opposed to the one which America has used. Twice. And yet Russia is the main threat here. — Isaac

US interests in modern times are far away from what they were at the ending years of WWII. It can also be argued that because of the act of actually using the bombs, US wouldn't dare to use them again because that would put major crosshairs back on them.

And the threat doesn't come from the bomb themselves, it comes from the one wielding them. Putin is a literal lunatic, THAT is the threat. We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy. Are you seriously this naive as to what is an actual threat in modern times?

What on earth makes you think the American people give a shit about warmongers? — Isaac

Because Putin isn't just some small-time dictator or some proxy war puppet they can throw around. We can criticize the US in another thread and I agree with you that the "world police" practices of the US is horrible throughout history. But when it comes to Putin, especially in light of his attempt at rewriting history to fit his narrative, he's now acting as a Stalin-type dictator. He is a real threat to world peace, not just an isolated spot of geopolitical conflict in which the US can interact with the interests of natural resources or other reasons.

So this isn't just another proxy conflict, this is a major threat of global proportions. And just as a reminder of what the lunatic has in store if he completely loses it, tsar bomba.

*Pre-WWIII conditions occur under president Biden*

Liberals: How could Trump do this??? — StreetlightX

It's all Putins doing. The US president isn't a watchdog for WWIII. But when Trump calls Putin genius, that is a major red flag. Throw both the democrats and republicans out the window and just back up for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Putin is a major threat because he's a fucking lunatic. To have a former president and someone who might take office again, call Putin a genius is serious.

A lot of people will die and there will be a major hit to the security of the world if Putin invades Ukraine. So who can defend such a statement from Trump? How can the blatant pro-Putin and apathy of the republican party be something the US people would support? What the fuck is wrong with people?

I wonder if people now finally would realize how deeply incompetent the republicans are when Trump calls Putin "genius" and Tucker and Fox news continue to defend Putin's actions.

It should be absolutely clear how dangerous Trump and the republican apathy towards a war crisis like this is. The danger was never that Trump would hit the big red button, it would be that he would let someone like Putin create a serious security risk on a global scale and not act in time to contain it. It is becoming clear that the republican party is unable to sustain a stable political line and if any conflicts occur during Trump's next 4 years (if Trump gets re-elected), it could escalate the world into a major international conflict. If this happens, the world will view the incompetence of US, Trump and Republicans in such a serious matter that it could break Nato in half. The biggest issue is that US could be isolated, no one wants to be connected to such an unstable nation and EU might initiate a new military alliance without the US.

I don't think people realize just how incompetent Trump and the Republicans are on the world stage. It doesn't matter if you vote republican, like them or oppose them, everyone with any rational thought would agree that the republican party isn't what it used to be and it should be considered a great security risk if republicans were to ever oppose Putin in a situation like the current one. To have Trump call Putin genius, Fox news blindly criticizing Biden in a way that almost sounds like Russian propaganda and a republican party who mainly stays silent through all of this is really fucking serious.

It's a combination of both way too liberal gun laws and problematic socioeconomic politics, it's not one of the other. You increase crime through problems of poverty and lesser quality of life, as well as bad educational systems, no real working welfare, bad medical care and so on, while too liberal gun laws increase the severity of crime.

Logically there are also lots of people with good memories of Soviet russia. They're old and dying off, younger people without memories of the Soviet era don't have that kind of attatchment and just want better living conditions. They view other nations and see the potential they can have and they don't like Putin at all.

On top of that, the retaking of natural resources from the oligarchs into Putin's inner circle of KGB people have made Moscow extremely rich and the view from the outside is that Russia is a rich nation with western standards. This is so far from the truth. The money flow goes through the largest cities and the front propaganda of the nation. The real population around these areas is living in third world standards. With falling infrastructure and unable to live on their wages or pensions, especially now with inflation and the pandemic as well as how it could be if the US cut Russian banks ability to transfer internationally or with dollar currency.

So everything with Putin and Russia is just a big smokescreen. If nothing is properly done to remedy this situation, I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. As the elders die off, young people take over, the economy collapses and soldiers are killed in the Ukraine conflict.

The worst thing about this is that Putin is acting like a deranged child. If Russia collapses, he could very well just hit the big red button and send off nukes just because things didn't go his way. If people were afraid of what Trump could do, just imagine the manchild that is Putin.

The Russian economy is in the toilet and with the pandemic and rising inflation it's obvious that war becomes a way to distract the Russian people from those problems.

Putin, with his KGB roots, is an expert in disinformation. His whole power is based on a shadow play to lure the people into believing the nation is better off than it actually is. And plenty in the west look upon Putin as a strong leader and Russia as a powerful entity. This is exactly how Putin wants himself and Russia to be viewed, both internationally and nationally.

But you can only take it so far. Many in Russia are right now on the brink of poverty, barely able to make it. And what might the result of a Ukraine conflict be? If the US and the west initiate their sanctions, and if Germany is able to cut off Nordstream, then the economic collapse of Russia is probably very likely.

Putin could try and wage war all he wants to distract even further, but there will come a time when the emperors' clothes fall off and his KGB methods won't work anymore and the people will initiate a revolution. He can try disinformation, he can try and kill off his own people if they oppose him, but that can only go so far before he's publically hanged on the Red Square.

All it takes in that chaos, is another leader who gets enormous popularity within that chaos and there will be a massive shift in how Russia operates.

If Putin attacks Ukraine full-on, it could very well become the starting point for a Russian collapse and Putin's fall from power.

Of course, there's also a chance he escapes all of this unscathed. But how much shit can the Russian population take before they have enough? All leaders who make their own people suffer will eventually be taken out by the people.

what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel

This is propaganda koolaid. Nato is an alliance of defense. If Russia keeps being Russia, keeping the current borders, then Nato isn't doing anything, regardless of how many nations become members. Russia tries to blatantly change the narrative into Nato being an offensive alliance, which it isn't. Russia would never be attacked by Nato, but Russia and Putin benefit from spinning that narrative as Putin wants to expand into previous Soviet borders. So by using "the threat from Nato" as an excuse, he can (in his mind) explain to the world why he's invading Ukraine. But it's just foolish to think people outside of Russia fall for this because it's very clear what Nato stands for and Russia has nothing to worry about. Nato builds defensive lines, if Russia were to ever send missiles into Europe, that's when Nato comes into play. It's not Russia that "needs to defend the borders from Nato forcers", it's the rest of Europe that needs to defend the borders towards Russia. It's Russia that acts as the aggressor, not Nato, not Europe and not Ukraine.

Invading and occupying another country as a way to defend your own borders is not considered a defensive act in peacetimes. Russia is the aggressor, the invader, the attacker. If they invade Ukraine, THEY are breaking peace.

There is no way Russia could argue themselves into being the good guy here, whatever narrative they try to spin as propaganda.

I just think all of this is stupid. Russia has the potential to be a tremendous partner in alliance with the rest of the world. But Putin and his compadres from the old KGB are so delusional in their quest for Soviet empire ideals that they hold their own nation hostage. Killing opposing political figures and keeping Russia in a slowed economy due to their actions internationally. It's plain stupid.

Anyone can do philosophy, but a true philosopher does not jump between emotional opinions and proper philosophical scrutiny when constructing conclusions to an argument. A true philosopher knows when they're just having opinions and when they are doing a proper argument.

Most non-philosophers that shouldn't be considered philosophers don't conduct proper arguments or try any kind of evaluation of their own argument, they just present opinion pieces.

That is the difference.

Now, it's difficult to frame all philosophers within this framework since much of the proper methods are what we've arrived at in modern times. So many old and dead philosophers cannot be judged in the same light. But the question is what constitutes a philosopher and we can only conclude for today's people and at this time, the methods of philosophy are much more strict and focused than ever before and philosophers are only the ones who follow that strict method and constantly put their own argument under scrutiny.

I wonder if it's possible to manufacture a genetically modified variant that is almost non-lethal but has a transmission level hundreds of times that of Omicron?

In order to bypass human stupidity, lower slow and costly distribution and build up herd immunity fast, wouldn't a genetically modified virus be a better way towards that since it will distribute itself? It would bypass anyone who's stupid and doesn't understand how vaccines work, it would bypass slow and bureaucratic distribution chains, bypass corporate profits and be equal between poor and rich nations.

If there was a way to remove lethality and increase transmission rates, that would be a much more effective distribution towards herd immunity than any kind of vaccine. So modifying the virus towards that and intentionally setting it loose could be a very controversial but more efficient way of ending a pandemic.

I would say that the purest definition of art is:

A creation created intentionally as an expression with the intent of a receiver experiencing it.

Everything else starts to dig into how people subjectively define art. But this definition denies agents that are unaware of what they do to be artists, since a monkey drawing, a tree formed by evolution etc. shouldn't be considered "artists". We can appreciate the end result of their output, but they are unaware of that output being experienced as a form of expression and are unaware of having made it with any such intent. A computer AI that is fully self-aware and "wants" to create art in order for people to experience it, is indeed an artist. A computer algorithm AI that scans millions of pictures to form a collage animation that looks dreamlike, is not an artist.

Art has to have the intent of it being art with the focus on being experienced by another agent. Any deviance from it removes every common trait that is connected to definitions of art. If someone creates an art piece and it is not experienced by anyone, not even the artist himself, then it is not art, but how can an artist create something without experiencing it themselves? So art becomes art just by making it with the intent of someone experiencing it, in this case, the artist themselves. But even if it were possible to create art without experiencing it yourself, as soon as it is discovered, it is art, as the intention was there from the beginning.

If people start discussing what art is based on the quality of craft and such, that is not the definition of art, that is the definition of craft. And craft can be somewhat objectively judged, art can't. But as a form of definition, the question of "what is art?" is a pretty basic definition.

The more interesting question is, how does the perceiver's experience of the art define the artwork itself in relation to the artist's intention? If an accident reshapes the artwork after the artist's death, but people have forgotten that the accident happened, how would this new experience exist or be defined when neither the artist's intention nor the perceiver's experience truly correlates.

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best. — Athena

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all.

But for whatever reason they tried it other way about. — NOS4A2

I don't think they tried anything. The Talibans were in Kabul before they even had the ability to say that they might come to Kabul. So whatever they couldn't blow up or shred were left behind just to avoid the shitstorm of killed soldiers. The attack on the airport didn't help the schedule, I think that attack made them panic and just left everything. Hopefully, they left outdated manuals for the Black Hawks and planes so the Taliban crash them instead of mastering combat with them.

I'm just stunned about the number of advanced war assets they have, it's fucking crazy. Seeing them in night-vision goggles and M4s is a whole other thing than white robes and old Russian AKs fired into the air. With some modern training, the Taliban forces could be trained to be special forces that could become a real nightmare in the middle east. Fubar clusterfuck.

As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares. — frank

I'm not sure how we should categorize $85 billion of war assets that the US seems to have "left behind". They have more Blackhawk helicopters than 85% of non-US nations around the world. Imagine if Sweden got all of that, we could be much more efficient as a baltic sea blockage against Russian interests. Now, Talibans have great war assets and might be in bed with China. This entire war has been so successful... I mean, no one in the world has criticized this since Bush let his mental health problems dictate what to do with 9/11. And now, US has done it again, put weapons in the hands of terrorists. Great job! It's not really Biden's fault, this is both side's fault, it's US fault. If it weren't so tragic I would laugh my ass off at this incompetent handling of middle eastern politics the last 20 years.

I dont realy understand a hyperreality. — Prishon

Read Baudrillard or some summary of his concepts.

There are no communist nations and they never have been. The original communist ideas by Marx and Engels were primarily about the evolution of society rather than revolution. At one point they proposed to revolutionize, but that's not what's really found in their analysis. Most of it is about how the fall of capitalism happens naturally and that communism is the ideology that takes its place in order to steer clear of chaos. What Lenin and the rest did was to try and force communism into reality. By doing it through force, they break the natural progression Marx and Engels talked about.

So, any nation who's ever positioned itself as being communists did so on false grounds and it becomes as shallow as a mass murderer saying he is an altruist.

There are no communist nations. If you believe that, you're as much under their influence of propaganda as their own people. There are only dictators and the elite calling the shots while the people believe they are being cared for. Doesn't that sound exactly like, say, the world built on free-market capitalism?

There's only one global structure; the elite and people in power, by money or by blood... and the rest of the population under their boot. The rest is delusions and simulacra, a hyperreal perception of abstract realities that do not exist anywhere. Some in this world actually try to propose cities built from the ground up in accordance with communistic ideals, but they cannot be realized since everything revolves around money and the power through those means.

Calling China a communist nation is an insult to the intellect in my opinion.

I think it's time for rehab... no?

How does a copy of the original cave make them both fake? If there’s a reference to the “real” thing what makes the real cave fake? What makes the recreated cave more real, or just as real as the original? There is no feasible way that the recreated cave was an absolute stone cold carbon copy, and even if it was, if the original exists, why would someone substitute the recreation for the original? — Ignance

Haven't come around to actually read Baudrillard yet, despite him being one of the most interesting modern philosophers I know. Reason being that while people use Descartes or Plato's cave whenever they make the metaphysical thinking about "reality being a simulation", it's such an overused argument that it misses the more interesting ideas that Baudrillard brings to the table.

Even though I haven't read Simulacra and Simulation yet, the things I've read about his philosophies tell me that it's the psychology of the experience and memory of the cave that is key. Think about it this way, many appreciate 1900- house architecture, the more down-to-earth, lived-in feeling instead of modern factory-produced houses without any "soul". So a company starts building 1900-era houses, replicating everything and it becomes a huge trend, much so that a hundred years in the future, most people have forgotten that the architecture originally started 200 years ago. For them, this is architecture from the start of the millennium, they've forgotten the original and cannot see the difference between originally built houses and newer houses that essentially just copied the old architecture.

You can see his ideas all the time in society. When someone tastes wine that they think is expensive, but it's just a cheap copy. It tastes the same, it is the same to the one experiencing it.

But it goes much further. And the most interesting idea is how his philosophy applies to the world we live in now. How Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook have created a simulation of our world, but how people started blurring the lines between the real and the fake online persona to the extent that it's basically a simulacrum, a hyperreal society. How do you know that your friend is, in your mind, is not just a blurred sum of your real experience with him/her and the added fake reality of his/her online persona? Where does the online persona begin and end, and where does the real physical self exist in this regard?

Essentially, we already live inside this fake cave. Our experience of the world is so influenced by the simulation of fiction blended with the simulacra of news, commercials, and propaganda, that we cannot really see where the fake sense of reality ends and reality begins. Just look at how media and social media produce people who seem to be so detached from everything that we are stunned by their alien words and behaviors. Qanon is a perfect example of this, an extreme and totally bonkers conspiracy ideology that is based on its peoples' hyperreal experience. They are unable to distinguish between the real and the simulation. They accept crazy bloggers' depiction of reality as the real world to the extent that they don't understand the difference anymore. The attack on the Capitolium was a prime example of how far into this hyperreal they actually are. And the sentences many of them get now are a shock to them; a sort of awakening where they don't understand what is happening, much like Neo waking up in the tank in The Matrix. Not really seeing the real world, but seeing the border more clearly and how traumatic that is.

Now, Baudrillard criticized The Matrix for not really understanding his ideas, but I think that was a bit premature since the rest of that film trilogy did in fact use a lot of his ideas to the fullest. They were filled with the ideas of symbols and archetypes as simulacra and they took the concept of hyperreal and used it on top of the story structure of the movie itself. People with surface-level philosophy knowledge were speculating if the "real world" in the movies were just another simulation, but they didn't realize that even though the real world wasn't a simulation, it was a hyperreal event. Everything that the second two movies were about was the manufactured simulacra of fighting against the machines. It's like if the future wars of the Terminator movies were instead carefully manufactured by the machines to keep humans thinking they were free but inside a prison of their own mental concept of resistance. This type of hyperreal situation let us believe that Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and the rest were actually fighting for freedom when it's just a rehash of a thing that has been happening over and over again. This is what Neo is then breaking by literally being blinded, but seeing the line drawn. He is then able to navigate towards a solution that breaks the hyperreal fake war. And maybe here the criticism by Baudrillard makes more sense, since his point is that we are unable to see the border clearly, however, for the Wachowski's to pinpoint the philosophy, they had to show it clearly.

This type of hyper-real war is also closer to reality than many think. Much of the wars going on today is merely proxy-wars where the soldiers think they fight for survival or something noble or God or whatever, but in reality, it's just superpowers playing them against each other to acquire geographical resources and strategical positions.

Wherever we turn today, we have hyperreal things all around us. Even knowing things are hyperreal, it's very hard to break through the boundary. I can understand the hyperreal situation of social media vs reality, but I cannot break free of it. I don't know where, in my experience and mind, my friends' online persona and their real physical persona start and end. They influence each other and blurs together. It's easy to just say that the person standing in front of me physically is the real friend, but that doesn't help my experience and feelings towards this person. Everything they are online influences my "real" experience. So how much of this relationship is based on their persona online and how much is based on their persona in real life? It's impossible to answer, and that is the point of the hyperreal.

Whats the cocktail effect? — Prishon

A phrase for when unseen and unintentional side-effects occur due to the combination and sum of many different separate things.

Why not just make it tax-funded like in Sweden? I pay like 20 euros every time I go to the doctor and every time I need something from some hospital. But if it goes over 100 euros we all get a free pass for the remainder of the year. Essentially, everything is paid through taxes, but to keep people from not overcrowding hospitals with irrelevant issues, the minimal fee keeps things going even better while addressing that problem.

All in all, my stance is that any basic needs of the people should be issued by the government. Food, shelter, medical care, education, security, and public transportation should be provided by the government through taxes. If you study the domino effect of this then the general well-being of society as a whole goes through the roof. Everyone has the chance to bounce back from bad times in their lives. Not even Sweden has enough of what I'm talking about. We still have a lot of problems with helping people with mental health problems and we have a problem with criminals and young people shooting each other up and creating unrest. All of that is due to the inabilities to plan integration properly. But all in all, I'm quite happy with how Sweden handles the well-being of the people. It's one of the reasons it's high on that list. We have minimal differences between the different Nordic countries in this regard and Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all rank high for being so geographically close to each other.

But I think more could be included in what the state covers. The cocktail effect makes it close to impossible for large groups to fall into a vicious circle that's impossible to recover from. Of course, the general attitude of the people towards each other is also important, but when money isn't a problem to help someone in need, it gets a hell of a lot easier.

Just think of how many plots in US television and films start out with the main problem being that the main character can't pay for medical bills. It's like no one even questions the stupidity of such a system.

It all looked kind of reddish purple. — frank

Ok, making it easier for those who won't read all data.

• Norway
• Switzerland
• Australia
• Ireland
• Germany
• Iceland
• Sweden
• Hong Kong
• Singapore
• The Netherlands

So, looking at the commonalities between these nations should give hints as to what the role of the state is and what the relation between the people and state should be.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

Here's a way to at least get some evidence for a conclusion. Look at the nations of the world that scores the highest on well-being and happiness. If we want to establish what the state should provide and what not to provide, the voice of the people should be the deciding factor. You could argue that we must first answer the question of purpose, meaning, we must decide what the purpose of a nation and its people is. If it's a nation conducting large-scale warfare for survival, then the needs and wants change drastically. But if we are asking the question for a nation in peacetime where the aim and goal are for the people to live life in a good condition for themselves and with as little pain and suffering as possible. In essence, if the people are happy and feel like their needs and their wants get realized, that is key to answer the question.

So looking at the nations that score the highest on this list, you can deduce what key features these societies have in order to reach this high level of satisfaction among their citizens.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-countries-to-live-in

As a matter of fact I had already decided that I'm done with this ridiculous fencing match of a discussion. You think I m the worst academic you've ever come across well I happen to think likewise that you're the worst blogger I've ever come across. I have never from all my students or colleagues in my 16 years of teaching literature and philosophy been attacked for my views in so virulent a manner . — Ross Campbell

Maybe you are just used to being looked up to by your students and the power of the teacher not having to deal with actual valid criticism. Maybe because you never really done something like arguing against other people than students who are new to philosophy makes you unable to conduct proper philosophical arguments for a conclusion or opinion you make.

The fact that you are teaching philosophy is not valid support for the inadequate arguments you are making. And I have no interest in arguing further if the other side is just writing opinions and never get involved with actual discourse.

You can express your opinion, sure - but if you want us to agree with you, to not dismiss them as unfair comments, then I’m afraid you’ll need to back them up with more than rhetoric. — Possibility

Exactly this. Enough has been provided in opposition to the original opinion and the request is for better support to that opinion.

Right. Ok then . Give me examples of hard evidence that Nietszche provides to BACK UP his ideas, not just clever aphorisms, or mythical narratives, like Zarathustra, concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count. — Ross Campbell

Or you should just pick up his books, go through and spot premises and conclusions for each segment, analyze through historical context, and find higher understanding than shallow interpretations of cherry-picked quotes. I've done enough job for you to show the meaning in that section on chastity alone to show that you have done a very shallow job of that quote you chose. The example is right in there, in my explanation.

It should be obvious to you how to decode philosophical texts like these, especially Nietzsche since he's pretty much one of the first philosophers you learn about. So with your degree in philosophy and your 11 years of teaching, it should be no problem for you to do this.

concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. — Ross Campbell

This is not philosophy, or at least it is philosophy in an entirely scientific research form, which is not what philosophy has to be. It can be observational and analytical of those observations. That doesn't mean it's not logical, it can be purely logical in its inductive form when the deciphered premises and conclusions form an argument.

Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count. — Ross Campbell

I'm starting to see that you are just poetically illiterate. You are blind to the text in front of you and you don't understand it. I have provided so much information to you on this subject and you just ask for more without any argument yourself or anything other than your opinion.

I'm done with this, you are simply the worst academic philosopher I've ever encountered and I feel sad for the students under you. As long as you aren't bullshitting about your experience in order to look more educated than you actually are. Because you clearly have no idea how to read philosophical prose and you have no insight into Nietzsche based on how shallow you interpret your example quote alone.

I have been studying philosophy since I was 16 and my Degree from university is in Philosophy. I've been teaching it in schools part time for 11 years. Now Im not trying to be a know all and much of my knowledge of Nietszche is from secondary sources. — Ross Campbell

With all due respect, the way you conduct a philosophical discussion here does not reflect this type of foundational knowledge. You don't consolidate Nietzsche's writing into argument form and you don't pit that against why Buddhism is better, and you don't really explain your criticism against Nietzsche past cherry-picked quotes out of context based on a fallacy of extreme in order to paint it in a negative light. It might work on uneducated people with no sense of historical context, but if you want to make a point you have to actually do a proper argument.

If all people ever do is post opinions it only goes two ways: either a brawl of opinions leading nowhere, or people posting opinions and no one really reading them since why would anyone care to just read opinions and not have a discussion? Proper arguments are there to actually drive the discussion forward.

I still think he's a profound thinker. I'm not comparing him unfavorably with Buddhism . — Ross Campbell

You are. You take quotes out of context and provide no argument in the matter. I also picked a quote by the actual Buddha himself which has the same kind of misogynic viewpoint as any other male figure throughout history, because it is impossible to view historical figures outside of the historical context they lived in. Doing that is trying to deify them into some superhuman form with a morality and stoic balance that transcends time and space. To only view historical people and thinkers as "valid" if they were morally perfect and had a viewpoint that was disconnected from the world around them at the time of their life is impossible because there are no such people, even proved by the Buddha quote.

This kind of historical cancel culture behavior is downright anti-intellectual. The key is not to find thinkers that were perfect, the key to understanding what these thinkers were actually talking about is to understand the times they lived in and even use that as a tool to decipher the meaning behind their writing. What did Nietzsche really mean by the chastity segment?

It is written through Zarathustra as a character that breaks down chastity in the eye of Christianity. He talks with poetry about how Christianity made sexuality a "moral sin" and how that kind of viewpoint and detachment from love creates beasts of man. The actual quote you cherry-picked comes from this segment:

I love the forest. It is bad to live in cities: there, there are too many of the lustful.

Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?

And just look at these men: their eye saith it--they know nothing better on earth than to lie with a woman.

Filth is at the bottom of their souls; and alas! if their filth hath still spirit in it!

Would that ye were perfect--at least as animals! But to animals belongeth innocence.

Do I counsel you to slay your instincts? I counsel you to innocence in your instincts.

Do I counsel you to chastity? Chastity is a virtue with some, but with many almost a vice.

These are continent, to be sure: but doggish lust looketh enviously out of all that they do.

Even into the heights of their virtue and into their cold spirit doth this creature follow them, with its discord.

And how nicely can doggish lust beg for a piece of spirit, when a piece of flesh is denied it!

Ye love tragedies and all that breaketh the heart? But I am distrustful of your doggish lust.

Ye have too cruel eyes, and ye look wantonly towards the sufferers. Hath not your lust just disguised itself and taken the name of fellow-suffering?

And also this parable give I unto you: Not a few who meant to cast out their devil, went thereby into the swine themselves.

To whom chastity is difficult, it is to be dissuaded: lest it become the road to hell--to filth and lust of soul.

Do I speak of filthy things? That is not the worst thing for me to do.

Not when the truth is filthy, but when it is shallow, doth the discerning one go unwillingly into its waters.

Verily, there are chaste ones from their very nature; they are gentler of heart, and laugh better and oftener than you.

They laugh also at chastity, and ask: "What is chastity?

Is chastity not folly? But the folly came unto us, and not we unto it.

We offered that guest harbour and heart: now it dwelleth with us--let it stay as long as it will!"--

Thus spake Zarathustra.

So what does the quote really mean in the context of chastity? Isn't it a description on how Christianity formed a notion that it is better to be a murderous person than to feel sexual lust? That when you stigmatize sexuality and lust to be a form of sin while speaking of killing and murder almost as a lesser sin, it robs man of sexuality as a form of love. That those choosing chastity shouldn't be forced to it, but that they themselves choose it for as long as they feel it is good for them.

He speaks of how Christianity suppressed sexuality down to a sin worse than murder and how the form of chastity they conduct within the church only pushed the beast behavior further by suppressing people's urges. He speaks of a balance where choosing your own chastity, but not be bound to it, makes you a balanced person capable of not giving in to be beast of lust nor the suppression of irrational religious belief.

How is this in any way the same as a literal interpretation of the cherry-picked quote you chose? This is why I think that for someone who points out having a degree in philosophy, but not knowing how to read and decipher Nietzsche, it is irrelevant how many years you've been involved with philosophy and I'm a bit concerned that you actually teach philosophy. Is such a literal interpretation of a cherry-picked quote from Nietzsche's writing something you teach your students? Because that is pretty far from philosophy.

Look I think the discussion has digressed completely away from my original post about a week ago where I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity which are fundamental ancient virtues of Buddhism. — Ross Campbell

The interpretation of the very text you took the quote from argues against your conclusion here. The quote from Buddha also argues against it by actually being misogynic. The only thing you have left is your opinion. Nietzsche didn't hate love, compassion, and kindness, he was only concerned of getting rid of Christian values without having a balanced viewpoint taking place in the moral vacuum after it's gone. Only the ones who can't read past a literal interpretation and are poetically blind reach such conclusions. It's the most common notion of Nietzsche from people who actually never really read his texts with a philosophical mind or who understood the actual conclusions he made.

If anything I can agree with, it's that the way of writing philosophy in poetic prose makes it harder for the majority of people to grasp the actual conclusions and arguments he makes. But such criticism has been made by philosophers throughout the 20th century as well. This hard-to-interpret way of writing clouds people's ability to understand into believing the conclusions to be something else than what he actually wrote. But then again, his writing wouldn't have been so widespread if it were not in prose form and poetic.

But for philosophers today, it should be no problem deciphering it. You read it while underlining premises and conclusions, you decipher the poetry into a proper philosophical argument and then read the text again. Then it becomes clearer what he meant.

Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. — Ross Campbell

No, you are not. The only fact here is that you don't understand the very quotes you are picking out. And you ignore Buddha's own remark about women. So what "facts" are you talking about?

And it seems on this blog that SOME people have taken umbrage at that remark. Im not a Buddhist evangelist. It's not fair to label me as such. I just think that these above virtues in my opinion, which HAPPEN TO BE part of Buddhist philosophy are good ones. — Ross Campbell

Virtues in of themselves are nothing but hollow words. They mean nothing in applied philosophy. You can take any virtue and deform it through subjectivity into an immoral act. The "love" of the nation to battle against enemies as an SS soldier in a concentration camp, to find "compassion" towards the fellow german not of Jewish heritage, the "kindness" towards the neighbor by keeping the race clean. It's "carpe diem" t-shirt philosophy that can be twisted into the darkest corners of humanity. Whenever you dive deep into ethics, empty virtues have a hard time surviving practical reality. What Nietzsche speaks about is the process of dismantling religious constructs of living without falling into the nihilism of nothing being left. He describes the process of leaving the church behind and how to live without it, to be a balanced person.

To point out virtues in Buddhism without including the complexities of morality it becomes a shallow virtue signaling. Nietzsche did the hard work of digging deep past such virtues, into the core of humanity rather than religion. Anyone finding Nietzsche proposing nihilism and hate for virtues does not understand Nietzsche. If anything, he hated empty virtues, the kind of virtue signaling or being a slave to empty virtues used as power over the people. You can find a number of cases in Buddhist groups where the leaders used virtues as a means of power.

If something is easily corrupted as a means of power, it is not a powerful moral tool. Virtues in of themselves are nothing but empty air.

As I said before I think Nietszches critique of Christianity as a slave morality has a grain of truth. But I disagree with his attack on the virtues of love , etc. He somehow seems to think that these virtues encourage the weak and a slave morality. — Ross Campbell

He says the opposite. He speaks greatly of love while he attacks the church and Christianity of making sexuality into a form of sin that in turn creates beasts of men giving in to a destructive form of lust. He attacks the virtues of Christianity to be empty of substance, something that confuses people by going against their psychology. He positions that each and every man needs to think for themselves, to understand beyond empty virtues, and find balance in self-control. That he hates "love" or "kindness" is just an amateur interpretation of his texts.

I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. — Ross Campbell

Of course, but as I mentioned, opinions don't mean anything in philosophy if you can't back it up by actual arguments. What is your interpretation of the quote you cherry-picked? How does that pit against Buddhist virtues? etc. I don't care about your opinions, I want your philosophically constructed conclusion in this matter. Why would I care about your opinion? It doesn't further philosophy, it doesn't add to the discussion about Nietzsche, it's just noise in the billions of people expressing their opinions every day, who the fuck cares? Want to be a relevant voice in philosophy... then do philosophy instead of just expressing opinions that have no substance without a proper argument underneath.

I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. — Ross Campbell

You're on a philosophy forum. Yes, you do. Why are you even in here expressing opinions if all you back them up with is that you are entitled to your opinion? Why would anyone care about your opinions if they have no relevant substance behind them?

This is the illusion of entitled people today. That everyone's opinion matters. No, most people's opinions are just irrelevant noise. The only opinions that matter are those who actually do the work of making proper arguments for them. Anything else is totally irrelevant. People express opinions every day, alone, online, on the street, during family dinners.

As a person who cares to build knowledge and wisdom, digging through opinions of the masses first needs to dismiss all the irrelevant ones, the ones who "feel entitled to opinions" but have nothing more than that. Those are irrelevant to wisdom, they are the noise of the people that can only be practically used as a form of mass statistics of opinions, but not opinions as facts. The wise should dismiss them all and focus on the ones who care to explain themselves, the ones interested in backing up their opinion, the ones who use self-scrutiny to clean up their viewpoints.

Anyone who backs up their opinion with "I'm entitled to my opinion" has nothing of worth to say until they back that opinion up with a substance of worth. In my mind, you are not entitled to an opinion if you cannot back it up. Until then, you are entitled to move your mouth, form words in a text, but I don't value someone's opinion before it has substance past the subjective ego of the speaker.

And if Christian and Buddhist or Islamic extremists have abused certain ideas or beliefs for power that's a reflection on those evil individuals , it's nothing to do with the virtues themselves. — Ross Campbell

The way you use "evil" and "virtues" like this just shows how lacking in moral knowledge you have. The nature of "good and evil" is the common man's idea of moral, but in philosophy, it's almost a joke and essentially a black and white fallacy. And the misuse of the ideas doesn't have to be extreme in order to be destructive, just as Nietzsche described in his text on chastity. It can be that the structural form of virtues and sins creates a psychology within people that become destructive on a large scale. The way sexuality was detached from love created beasts of lust that was a widespread problem, not something a few "extremists" did. All these tie into structural problems we have in today's society. The idea that some people are just "evil" is a sloppy observation of society that ignores the actual machine that creates them. And the virtues, ideas, sins, and vices that they misuse are only able to be misused through their simplicity in face of the complexity of life and society. This is why you sound like an evangelist. You speak of these virtues as good without explaining why, you speak of criticism of these ideas as bad and that people who misusing these as being evil, and you position yourself to be entitled to these opinions without anything else to back them up.

It's all shallow speak, no substance, no insight, the evangelical speech of the entitled ego. Why should we care?

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers on this blog just because I took a quote from Nietzsche and described it as a rather outlandish remark. Nietszche was not living in the middle ages when people used to have such highly superstitious, dogmatic, misogynistic ideas. He was living during the 19th century in a modern , industrialized country. — Ross Campbell

You took a quote out of context of the entire text, provided no insight into understanding the meaning of that text, and used it as a means to criticize him in favor of Buddhism by pointing out how his ideas are negative compared to the positive of Buddhism, without providing any real philosophical argument that was asked for. You are on a philosophy forum, act like it, or you are just a Buddhist evangelist, which isn't allowed on this forum. Here, you need to argue with much more "quality" than in other forms of discussion. If you provide a thesis, you need to back that up with a proper argument, or we can just conclude you are wrong because you haven't provided any proper argument to the contrary.

Nietzsche was living in an era that was still treating women as second-class citizens. They didn't even have the right to vote and the suffragettes hadn't even truly begun their activism. You don't seem to have much insight into how the 19th century was really like. Finding a feminist guy or some white dude speaking up for the black population was extremely rare if not almost impossible to find. I don't really know where you get the notion that the 19th century was "modern" in the sense we use it today. Just because the enlightenment pushed critical thinking to dismiss the church as part of the state and academic philosophy started to push knowledge forward, doesn't mean they went into moral enlightenment that shifted the world overnight into what we see today. And we still to this day have structural problems with inequality both for women and people with other ethnicities than being white. We're not even close to pure equality yet and you think people were educated about these things over 120 years ago? That's just a ridicoulus conclusion that has no valid premises.

And you still haven't addressed the quote I provided. How does that fit into your argument about Nietzsche vs Buddhism?

The 'chance of spreading one's genes', I would have thought would be more about making love than war. — Amity

It's basically what the conflicts within groups of primates are about. The dominant ape conquers over the weak and gets the girl. But since humans in civilizations aren't just thinking about food and sex, but unable to ignore such instinctual drives, it forms into other needs and wants. Some seek it in art, others in war.

Global resources such as oil are still available to plunder...
The economic resources involved in war efforts are astronomical.
The profit gained is what some see as the 'good of war'. — Amity

Resources like oil are going out of fashion, technology is much more interesting to governments today. There's still money in oil, but everyone knows they can't keep up the charade for long when floods and other environmental disasters keep getting worse, so they know they need a backup plan for their wealth and power.

But no one goes to war over resources. Why do that when you have proxy wars? Feed weapons into the hands of some minor forces and militias and pit them against other superpowers' little toy soldiers. It's basically the game Russia and US has played since far into the previous cold war.

I'm not saying the craving for resources is gone, it's just that no one but the crazy dictator will go to a world war in the name of it. Resources are gained by diplomacy or smart surgical strikes that are hard to blame the superpower for. "Giving weapons to these people wasn't supposed to make them terrorists, it's not our fault they became Al-Qaida."

The cold war era was an identity crisis for most superpowers. Eventually it led to the collapse of the soviet union and a massive decline in the popularity of war in US. Instead of doing another Vietnam, US took part in the Gulf war with much more emphasis on claiming oil than fighting communists. And they did it with more focus on technology as a means to fight the war than brute force numbers. The next big conflict was the post 9/11 Iraq war. This was based on a delusional president who tricked US into why they were there. But underneath it was all about oil, they wanted an excuse to setup moneymakers in the middle east so they used the anger of the US population after the 9/11 attacks.

Today, however, 20 years later, it's almost impossible to trick the people in the same way. Information flows much more freely. Conflicts have changed into information wars and cyber warfare. Why send troops when you can take out a nuclear power plant with a virus? A couple of years back there was an attack on a nuclear power plant in Iran. Made by an unknown virus that shut down many of the cooling rods. This virus was deemed created by a government and not something someone could just cook up in their basement. Everyone knows this was most likely a strike test by the US military. And it was successful.

The next big conflict will be so sudden and strange that people won't know what has happened before it's over. Surgical strikes are preferable over a nuclear blast. The superpower that finds a way to just flip a button and eradicate the enemies and leave a vacuum for the attacker to take power in, will be the way of war going forward.

Firstly I disagree that Nietzsche's comment should be only viewed in the context of his society. John Stuart mill another 19th century thinker who lived during the same patriarchal victorian society as Nietszche had a far more enlightened view of women, attacking his society for the oppression of women. Nietszche in company with Aristotle and Schopenhauer however seemed to have thought women were inferior. — Ross Campbell

You cannot argue against the fact that almost every thinker since Socrates was a person of the times they lived. Just because Stuart Mill criticized society in that way doesn't render the ideas of other thinkers irrelevant because they don't fit the mold of a modern person. It's absolutely an intellectual downfall to demand such a thing. As I was saying, you may have ideas today that in a hundred years will be considered unwanted. This kind if historic cancel culture is fucking stupid. Especially when you don't even fully understand the quote you chose but rather attributed your own judgment to the interpretation instead of reading it with philosophical eyes. Women had their revolution at the start of the 20th century... the start. It was only during the consequent hundred years that they gained equality and even today we have so many structural problems with inequality that is a direct result of how deep such cultural opinions about women were before the 20th century. The number of people who didn't agree with the general idea about women before modern times was an extremely small amount and they were usually culturally shunned if they spoke too openly about it. We haven't seen equality on a global scale as we have today at any time in history, so judging philosophers for their cultural opinions during their lifetime and historic era is just plain stupid. You would have to dismiss the majority of philosophers throughout history. If you cannot accept that people throughout history can both be individually bad and still have valid, logical, and good philosophical ideas to contribute, then I don't think philosophy is something for you. If that is the filter you cannot see past, you are unable to actually conduct philosophy because you would dismiss the majority of philosophical ideas throughout history based on it.

Secondly in relation to your point about extremists and Buddhism here's a quote from Wikipedia
In Buddhism, one should not harm other sentient beings. ... Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat." These elements are used to indicate Buddhism is PACIFISTIC. — Ross Campbell

You mean that there hasn't been any discrimination of women within Buddhist history because a wiki article points out that Buddhism is focused on pacifism. Are you for real? It's like reading the bible and point out that Christianity is also about pacifism, turn the other cheek, and so on, "and that's why there were no religious wars in the name of Christianity". Seriously. Go and look into the actual history of Buddhism. Check out papers like this https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/3516 or maybe this https://qz.com/india/586192/theres-a-misogynist-aspect-of-buddhism-that-nobody-talks-about/ this https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=75673 and so on...

Using a wiki text about what Buddhism is supposed to be might be the laziest effort available and it's blatantly obvious that you just want to whitewash Buddhism's historic sexism but condemn it in other historical figures that you don't want to agree with. This is a pure bias and an extremely non-philosophical way of addressing the actual ideas. It's just basic cancel culture on a historical scale.

Here's an example of a quote that is eerily similar to the ones you criticize other historical philosophical thinkers for:

“Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the voices that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the caresses that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.”

Buddhism has been around for thousands of years and has stood the test of time as a philosophy that today 500 million people find brings them peace and happiness. Stoicism is another ancient philosophy of timeless wisdom which is experiencing somewhat of a revival . I don't agree with every precept of Buddhism, such as asceticism and it's religious beliefs. I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

And there are many religious extremists who keep thousands of years old ideas alive that are destructive to many people. Time is not any evidence for something being "good", it's just time. There's been a lot of things that's been kept alive for thousands of years that are not good for people, so your conclusions are a fallacy.

And neither Nietzsche nor Marx has "gone out of fashion". Just as any other philosophers, through philosophy, they don't go out of fashion, their ideas are blended together with the modern zeitgeist and contemporary thinkers and expanded upon. As a matter of fact, since the witch hunt for communists and the stupidity of pseudo-scholars trying to take a dump on Marx over the 20th century, his philosophical ideas are starting to gain attraction in the midst of awakening to how the pure free-market capitalism isn't all shiny and happy rainbow as the rightwing liberal policies have indoctrinated the herd to believe. So thinking Marx is "out of fashion" is not really seeing which direction political philosophy is moving for the general public. People have less trust in the BS capitalist ideals of wall street and billionaires and are starting to wake up from the sleep that keeps them suppressed.

I'm not sure what the foundation is for your conclusions, but thinking Marx and Nietzsche is "going out of fashion" is not only wrong, it's unsupported in society.

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. — Ross Campbell

So you prove that you actually don't understand what you are criticizing. You just take things out of context in order to prove he's an asshole who hates life.

I'd like to know what women would think about it. — Ross Campbell

It's not about women, try again.

As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway. — Ross Campbell

He didn't have a great experience with love, but that's not what the page you quote from is about.

There's absolutely nothing pseudo about selecting a quote from a famous figure. Journalists, academics etc do it all the time. — Ross Campbell

Ehm... yes, it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit to just quote something out of context and try to analyze it without that context. Journalists aren't really people I hold high up on the intellectual scale. There are very few journalists today that actually think on a higher level than the algorithms that are about to take over their jobs.

Perhaps Nietzsche should have been more careful about the some of the outlandish statements that he made. It takes away from some of his other very intriguing and thought provoking ideas. — Ross Campbell

Or maybe he wrote in a way that is both how people back then culturally wrote, while people reading his texts are required to actually think while reading it and not take things out of context. Maybe he wrote for a higher intellectual reader and not the cancel culture mentality of today. Maybe a hundred years from now, even your own ideas about society is so outdated that people call you out for the same judgement you have of Nietzsche? Most people today who judge others in society based on the ideas you judge Nietzsche for might be guilty of ideas that in a hundred years will be considered on the same level as racism, sexism etc. It's not really viable to judge a person of his time based on the current zeitgeist, that's an intellectual short circuit. Look at the time he lived in, acknowledge how that time was and deconstruct what he meant out of it. If you start judging them on the times they lived in but based on modern cancel culture mentality, you really need to bring out the cancel book, because 98% of people before the modern era were racist, sexist, and all sorts of modern-day trash.

It's impossible to engage in historical thinking and philosophy with that kind of thinking. Do you even know how women have been treated in Buddhist regions of the world? If you are criticizing Nietzsche for being harsh on women, maybe look into the very religion you so wholeheartedly praise.

War is the result of an error of humanity. We have already moved past the biological reason to have conflict within the same species. The biological factor is that of fighting for the best genes to mate. Through our evolving intelligence, that drive has been put onto the idea of power. Instead of just going by the instinct of fighting for the chance of spreading one's genes, we've conjured up other reasons driven by those instincts as the core drive.

In the end, the politics involved in pushing for war usually comes from people who have primal minds, stuck in instincts because they are weak-minded. Like a catholic priest who can't stop touching his dick. People who are well-balanced and understand how to balance the ego and the collective rarely go to war, but instead collaborate, build and find solutions that last and are constructive.

Today though, most major powers of war mostly have a strong military as a necessary protection, but no one really wants to go to a major war (world war size), because it's draining resources and there are no resources left in the nations to conquer. War has become so destructive that it's not a viable solution to anyone except the stupid and crazy leaders (who are usually invaded early and executed before they can even try to do anything stupid).

The better way today is to use corporations and establish yourself in other nations. This is what China is doing. They establish a lot of power through corporations and economies outside their nation in order to control through that. Most major politicians know that corporations have more power in free-market capitalism than they would ever have as a political party. So they play the charade of democracy to the stupid sheep herd people who don't realize this and then they establish power through corporations powers overseas.

The second cold war that we live in today is so cold and silent that hell froze over.

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”

Now explain what kind of validity is in the above statement. It sounds like something you could hear from some street corner guru. — Ross Campbell

How is that in any way an argument for your opinion being correct? Did you deconstruct the entire page where this quote comes from? Like how you actually read philosophical books? Or did you just search for the quotes that sound the most outlandish out of context.

Please provide a proper philosophical argument that pit your opinion against Nietzche's ideas, I have no time for this pseudo stuff.