Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.

Yes, but that’s not how it’s used, Michael. Re. White privilege.

surely we need more reason rather than less of it in these chaotic times. — Jack Cummins

So you think it’s lack of reason that’s behind the whole violent, tangled up, troubled world? Just keep piling on more reason, eventually it’ll work. Is it working?

quote="Kenosha Kid;487732"]You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.[/quote]

What point? Make it clear and I’ll address it.

Is this it?

So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. — Kenosha Kid

Well stop trying to read “ the subtle underlying message” because there isn’t one.

Just because we like philosophy and just because some people have the intellect to drive down into questions then present a rational theory about what they think doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily the best way of addressing problems. It may well be, but for one, not everyone possesses this ability to this degree. Many cannot keep a number of ideas in their head at the same time. That doesn’t mean they’re stupid, it means it doesn’t come naturally to them. So it’s interesting, if I’m right,that this is not a universal ability. As I said, it seems to me we already had an understanding of morality before philosophy began taking it apart to see what it “really” was. Philosophy is a tool, it’s not the answer. In fact evolutionary wise it may be that it’s not a very good tool, it may be the wrong tool for us.

How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true? — Kenosha Kid

So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation?

If you really think philosophy is such a waste of time why do you keep writing posts? — Jack Cummins

That is not the subject of the post.

Those who are rimming Jagger might well say so. — Kenosha Kid

And so it goes.

Your accusing philosophers of coming up with dangerous ideas, ideas that can lead and have led to disasters of epic proportions. — TheMadFool

This isn’t in my post. It’s not even the subject.

This is:

“Which makes me wonder if it’s possible that philosophy has nothing to do with life or how ones mind operates. Like I said, it’s as if philosophy is attached to the mind inorganically, that it’s completely alien to what we are.
Is it a useless development like wings on a frog? It throws up more questions than answers and creates doubt about all possibilities. Is it an aberration that holds respect and meaning because of its attachment to the mind, the intellect being superior to all other things, like emotion or intuition? Which, of course, would be the position of the intellect.”

. Of course the success of globalism is a lie.
— Brett
Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that. — ssu

Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc.

So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. — Kenosha Kid

No I’m not saying that either.

Wait - you think taxation is capitalist?

And conversely, you think "globalism" isn't capitalist? — StreetlightX

No I’m not saying any of those things.

We tend to think of our own moral intuitions as being universal and objective. But can you prove that they aren't a product of your own culture? — Garth

That wasn’t really the point I was trying to make. The list of philosophers was in reference to their intellectual abilities, their deep questioning, and yet they couldn’t resolve their personal issues with that intellect. So my thoughts had turned to the idea that philosophy is not really relevant or helpful to our lives.

Do you use just one branch of philosophy for all these situations? Because I can’t imagine myself going into a room full of executives and thinking “Hmmm I might need to use some of that Nietzschen will to power in this room.” and then meeting a girl and applying the same thing.

The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation. No Capitalism, no taxes, no public spending.

As for the idea that capitalism has 'lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty' - no, people have been lifted out of poverty in spite of capitalism, not because of it: — StreetlightX

On what basis do you say that?

a product of the same process. — Hippyhead

What is that?

That’s fine, but how do you apply them throughout the day with issues bugging you at the time?

You’re dealing with dead wood here. Very odd the lack of interest. Almost denial.

I’m not sure of your meaning.

It kind of depends on what issue is bugging you at a certain point in time. — Olivier5

Okay, but can you give me an example of philosophy in action!

The good ones help you go through the day. — Olivier5

In your experience which ones have helped you through the day?

I find it difficult to think of things specific that philosophy might have had a major part in creating. It might help in disentangling difficult issues but it doesn’t actually give an answer that one can act on, confident that it is the answer. It doesn’t help in deciding how many soldiers it’s worth sacrificing for a cause, or how many civilian deaths are acceptable, or if euthanising is ethical, or abortion, or if God is real, or if all men are equal.

The whole subject about philosophy has not been about creating morality but understanding it. If philosophy has addressed morality then morality already existed. Nor has philosophy, as far as I can see, actually nailed down anything substantially true about morality. I know I can read a book on morality and the writer will lead me through their rational argument until I reach their conclusion, but in the end it’s their conclusion which will differ from others.

Someone could refer to the American Constitution as a philosophical driven argument but isn’t it more the case that it’s based on a sense of morality, cultural to be sure, that was already present in the minds of the men who wrote it and that, as a consequence, determined right from wrong. And once again we have this dichotomy of men stating that all men are equal while at the same time owning slaves. Not to mention that many historical acts that may have been philosophically driven or influenced are later repealed or ditched because they were considered flawed. That might, again, be due to variance of social norms over time, which then suggests that philosophy is not universal. If it’s cultural then fine, but what use is it if it can’t be applied universally?

Kant’s ideas about phenomena and noumena are very interesting, but in what way can people apply them to knowledge and their life?
Philosophy never created anything, it just shone a light on things. But once seen it became impossible to define.

I was thinking about Zen Buddhism and koans.
“What is the sound of one hand clapping?”
Your intellect will not solve this puzzle, your philosophy is not up to it.

Though I do see, for instance, how a law may be drawn up, based on a set of morals , that addresses the guilt or innocence of an act. When it’s then decided just how the law should be applied, how it addresses nuances and other subtleties then that would be philosophy in action. But this is reasoning and argument, which logic, a field of philosophy, studies. So they do not appear to be the same thing.

Brett ...the Lord bless and keep them. — Banno

Yes.

If so then more proactivity from the mods.

How far would you have to be away from the action to not be included as a death? 100m, 200, 500? Where’s the line?

At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the protests and the siege and in the immediate aftermath.

I think it worth remembering, for the sake of accuracy, that only two people died because of the riots. A heart attack may have been brought on by being there, but to say there were five deaths is being a bit disengenuous.

So I'm not seeing why you'd call it the perfect question. — Manuel

But regardless your question wins. "What is the perfect question", if it has an answer, will lead us to the perfect question which by definition will lead us to the best future for ourselves and the world. Good job! — khaled

diluted 2nd hand experience of reality over the real thing" — Garth

Is this a quote from @Hippyhead?

Edit: oh yeah, I see. You should include the poster’s name if you quote them.

Sorry, I should have read more carefully. But yes, I agree with you - to a degree.

I’m confused by that post and what it’s referring to.

OP: I think the question you are trying to frame assumes that the questions we may find most interesting, must have, by necessity, moral consequences. — Manuel

No that’s not the question I trying to frame. It’s not a matter of questions we may find interesting.

As an example, you might think that we could have a better future if we all understood each other better. Consequently you might think the answer to the question might be language: how it works and how it doesn’t, etc. Through language we gain a better understanding of each other and consequently better laws, education, etc. come about and so contribute to a better future.

Reality itself is a mental construct. — Garth

That may be so but it’s the one we live in.

I think you’ve drifted away from the question of the OP.

“If, as an experiment, we were able to choose one question from a philosophical point of view (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, existence, values and language), questions like what is moral, why are we here, is there a higher power, is all life equal, and so on, and then having asked the right question, secured the answer, the truth, and made the decision to live by that choice and we then secured a better future for ourselves and the world, what should the question be?

It’s not a matter of @TheMadFool proving that the wise man is a better choice for the diagnosis of cancer than an oncologist. It’s the idea of you, or anyone interested, in having a go at naming, from a philosophical perspective, what you believe, if it could be instigated or came into being, would contribute to a better future.

My thoughts were either a higher power or that an objective morality existed. TheMadFool came up with wisdom. He thought, and I was persuaded by his posts, that from wisdom would come morality. That wisdom would come first. He wasn’t talking about a wise man. I think you may have introduced that to the discussion but it’s not really salient. It’s not that there’s just one person that’s wise, it’s that wisdom is everywhere and so all thoughts and decisions based on wisdom would contribute towards a better future.

I haven’t read all your posts so I don’t know if you came up with your own answer. But I’d be interested to hear what you might think.

I agree with you here. It’s their business, they choose. At least we know exactly where they stand.

If your theory is generally correct, then we might explore why no one wants to be a mod, or at least act like a mod. — Hippyhead

The mods are always present but they never make their presence felt.

Edit: Baden is the administrator. He was very good once.

just don't be a twat basically. — Judaka

Can’t be that hard, surely.

I was wondering about the situation with mods. I’m sympathetic to their situation. But Baden and StreetlightX aren’t doing anything, neither is Michael, or even Hanover. Not that it’s my intention to lump them together. Actually no one seems to be doing anything.

Don’t forget to reference your quotes.

It’s a very difficult medium to use. Your comments can easily be misread and then replies add to the difficulty. But if anyone is really interested then they can persevere. Generally I like to explore a subject and see where it goes. I like to inject a bit of imagination into it as well. I don’t even need agreement, I just need participation.

Thanks. I may get cancelled at any time.