Why are you replying to me? :s

Make up your mind, Agustino. Can there be no strings attached donations or not? You keep flip-flopping. — Michael

No. But they didn't make a donation.

Then the Russians providing Trump Jr. with compromising material on an opponent wasn't "no strings attached", and so entails indebtedness, refuting your attempt justification. — Michael

Why? Maybe they just hated Clinton, without wanting to control Trump?

The "why" isn't relevant. The law forbids it. As I said, a no strings attached donation is illegal under that statute. — Michael

Yes, but why is it illegal? Because we all know that there is no such thing as a "no strings attached" donation.

The "why" isn't relevant. The law forbids it. As I said, a no strings attached donation is illegal under that statute. — Michael

No the why is ABSOLUTELY not irrelevant. The why is the reason the law exists in the first place.

It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. — Michael

Why?

Doesn't say anything like this in the statute. — Michael

Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.

Nor by the way is the information used for deception.

The law says "make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" which expressly states that this "other thing of value" isn't money. — Michael

Yes, but the other thing of value is something that can be used to blackmail or request favors from the candidate. Nobody would consider information to be of this nature.

I can collude with the other Baden to unfairly moderate your posts. — Michael

Yes, and that's illegal in-so-far as this forum is concerned, in that it's not a moral & righteous activity. But I do see your point.

Doesn't have to be illegal. — Michael

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

The key part I believe is "other thing of value", which may include compromising material on an opponent. — Michael

I doubt it. The law seems to be focused on financial contributions which could make the candidate in question indebted to the foreign national, hence compromising national interests. But this isn't the case with the said information. For all you know, the foreign national in this case could simply hate the other candidate, so he passes on the information. It doesn't suggest that the candidate that receives the information is in any way indebted to them.

That's true, but self-awareness is also presupposed in doing evil. So, once one crosses the threshold to self-awareness; if one uses that self-awareness for evil purposes, the path to good is all the harder; which means that one would have been better not to cross that threshold. — John

You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s

I think we can do things innocently which if done with some kind of knowledge, even if not done intentionally or consciously, and hence done in that sense ignorantly, would be called somewhat "evil". — John

Right. Well to me innocence represents that state in which one is not capable to do evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the Fall, they were not capable of evil before eating of the Tree. That's why the Serpent had to deceive them, and pressure them to eat of the Tree, they wouldn't think of doing that themselves.

If the act is done with full self-consciousness and awareness of the harm to the other, though, then it becomes, not merely somewhat, but more fully, evil. So, I think there is a spectrum, a range, from good to evil; with no human act being absolutely good or absolutely evil. A similar spectrum operates from innocence, through ignorance, to awareness and knowledge. the more we are aware, the more we know, the more accountable we become. — John

I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life.

The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O I don't know what planet you're living on man, but if I was Trump, and ANYONE - even Kim Jong Un - called me saying they have compromising information on my adversary, I would meet with them to get that information. What's so bad about that? Of course I would!

You don't even know what collusion means - it's hidden collaboration for an ILLEGAL purpose. There's nothing illegal in receiving compromising information about the other candidate while I'm running for office. I suggest you drop hugging that pony so tightly, you might see the world aright.

Also, receiving information, or meeting with someone isn't the same as a collaboration. A collaboration entails that I also give them something.

Worthwhile thoughts, but I don't think you specifically said that in the referenced context. — Noble Dust

If I think about my life, I think I'm too hard and too disciplined. I'm doing very well in many areas of life at the moment because of all the discipline and work, but sometimes I do feel the absence of joy (although there's also times when I feel very joyful). Unlike many other people, I'm someone who has fought for a long time to be disciplined. And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have it any other way, but then discipline is not sufficient for joy (although I would argue that it is necessary). — Agustino

What are your secrets/??? — Noble Dust

Don't eat crap! >:O It's difficult to stipulate "how" I do it, especially now, as I actually don't have to "try" to resist any urges, as I just don't have them anymore. But you have to eliminate bad foods one by one. Say you won't drink anymore coke. So don't drink that (I never drink coke for example), but keep the rest of the junk you eat. Then when you get over that, remove something else, and so on.

>:O While I can absolutely identify with this...maybe our type should do a better job of learning to identify with the basic level of humanity? — Noble Dust

Okay, how do you propose we do that without getting bored, and feeling unfulfilled? :P

Right, I've seen this trend with you. In the best, softest way (or wait; maybe I should say it in the most violent way with you???), I think this is absolutely a problem of yours. You have a Jesus Christ Complex.

Mind you, I see it in you because I also see it in me. Try to be level-headed about this... — Noble Dust

I don't understand why you're tip-toeing around what you're trying to say >:O You can speak straight.

It's interesting what you say, but what use is putting those labels on ourselves? Oh, he has generalised anxiety disorder - oh I have a messiah complex - oh etc. It's just a label, it prevents us from seeing the person underneath the label - it makes everyone so labeled identical, and they're not.

I wouldn't say I have a Messiah complex - but I do like being the underdog and beating the odds. Not so much about "saving" others (although it can ALSO be about that), but more about being able to beat the odds - ie do something difficult.

Oh another reason why I experience lack of joy may also be because I always view myself as the underdog, who is always contrarian and has to prove himself right even against overwhelming odds - so the anxiety that that breeds can sometimes get to me. As in I can feel that something is hopeless, that it will never work out, but I will still go forth with it, even though I feel that anxiety and hopelessness. I've learned to bulldozer over such emotions over time, I wasn't always capable to do this.

You've acknowledged that your focus on discipline and hard work has led to a lack of "joy" in life. — Noble Dust

This would be a very misleading statement. I said I sometimes experience lack of joy, but I wouldn't give up discipline and hard work for other things, because they do ensure me with a few things which, while not sufficient for happiness, are necessary (or if they're not necessary, they give you a self-esteem boost). For example money, free time, fitness, continuous learning, learning new skills, etc. It's one thing to look in the mirror and be like "Who's that fatty?!" and another to look in the mirror and feel strong and capable inside your body. It's one thing to be worried that you may get sick or ill because of the crap you're eating, compared to feeling proud that you're on a healthy diet!

As for why I sometimes experience lack of joy, I'd guess it's that I don't have sufficient people around who share my personality, so most people I know are either business partners, acquaintances (such as from school, neighbours, etc.), or relatives, and I pretty much don't enjoy spending my time with any of them.

What is "your whole being"? Why does contribution require this? — Noble Dust

Your whole being means to do it with your whole energy. Really do it. Don't kid yourself about doing it. Don't put in half effort. Give it your everything. As for why contribution requires this - well because contribution is very very difficult. If it was easy, everyone would do it. But most people don't, at least not in a big way.

What do you base this view off of? — Noble Dust

On my own experience of other people :P

your own work as being above the work of those hedonists who don't work hard enough? — Noble Dust

I don't think my "own work" is above their work, it's just MORE work.

This is where I simply cant agree with Plato — Beebert

Why?

Sure. But the next life is unimportant right now. Only Now is important. Nothing else. — Beebert

Hmmm... now is as important as then. I don't see why you prioritise now over everything else.

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age." — Beebert

>:O >:O Funnily enough this is very very Platonic :P

"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing
from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell." — Beebert

This is more controversial. BUT! "Progression" is only a temporal matter belonging to this world, and this life.

Body and soul are one. There is no seperation as in Plato. — Beebert

I don't think Plato makes this kind of ontological separation :P But rather he distinguishes there are different parts of oneself, which includes the body and its appetites. To satisfy the entire person means that there is harmony between these parts. To bring this into N.'s language, we ourselves are formed of multiple and contradictory "wills-to-power" - so we have to bring those wills to power in harmony, otherwise we're conflicted people, and we don't even have a self as Kierkegaard would say. This is effectively what Plato is saying - he identifies three different faculties of the soul/body and he investigates how they can be brought in harmony. His conclusion is that this only happens when the rational faculty rules over the others. But this rational faculty includes much more than what we consider reason today. It also includes intuition - for example. This is absolutely essential - Dostoyevsky's and N's critique of reason isn't a critique of Plato's reason, it's a critique of scientific reason. Intuition plays a fundamental role in Plato - it is through intuition that one has access to anamnesis - remembrance. That's why Plato thought that only those who have the mystical vision of Agathon can be philosopher kings.

Are you kidding me regarding Plato's view of the physical? — Beebert

No, why do you think I am? In the Republic Plato is quite clear that flourishing requires harmony between all of the souls elements, and this can only be achieved via reason becoming the ruling faculty. This isn't a denial of the body, but rather placing the body in its proper place so that it can attain its own fulfilment.

Would you Btw call Socrates superior as a human being to Plato or the other around? — Beebert

We don't know much about Socrates except through Plato, so to me Plato and Socrates are one.

What real advantage is self-awareness if it leads one to use it for evil ends? — John

Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good.

since self-deception is possible only insofar as one is (consciously, at least) unaware that one is deceiving oneself, no? — John

I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something.

You are not driving towards a conclusion that there is no valid distinction between innocence and ignorance, are you? — John

Yes I am, hurry press on the breaks!! >:O

No, actually I wouldn't make such a distinction. Innocence is not even thinking or having the impulse to do something evil - so that's more than just being self-aware, since when you're self-aware you just know what is going on, but you're not innocent if you have vile intentions going on that you either have to suppress or manage, etc.

Plato wasnt infallible. — Beebert

Sure. Nietzsche wasn't infallible either :P

His worshiping of distinctions between what is and what becomes but really isnt is in a way a prejudice — Beebert

But this distinction seems to me to be absolutely vital. When we're looking for the Truth, are we looking for something that is today so and so, and tomorrow different? Or are we looking for something permanent and unchanging? When we're looking for morality, are we looking for something that is right or wrong only today, or something that is right or wrong any time?

Just because I can imagine a straight line doesnt mean there must be one. — Beebert

I don't think Plato thought there must be one.

He is one of those philosophers whose hatred of the body and the physical I cant stand. — Beebert

lol - I have quite the opposite impression. The Greeks, including Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were lovers of the body. Sure, Plato did say that the realm of the senses is inferior, with regards to knowledge, compared to the realm of ideas. But Plato's conception of virtue as harmony of the tripartite soul necessitates that the body be satisfied too. And Symposium does treat about the gradation of love, from the spiritual to the physical.

Nor can I stand what seems to be an underlying death wish. — Beebert

I don't follow.

Even in his quest for truth and virtue one can smell something hidden... A mask(referring to our discussion in the other thread). — Beebert

But his quest was deeper than this - it was the quest for the Agathon - the Form of the Good. Plato was a lover of Good.

What do you mean by "better off"? — John

The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one.

One is innocent and the other guilty. Which is, of course, not to claim that all self-deception is innocent. ;) — John

Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? :P

There's a difference between being a fool who has, or at least feels and believes (even if delusively) that he or she has good intentions, and a devious one who lies cynically and exploitatively merely to serve their own ends and/or advantage.

So, there is a vast difference between the lover who says I will love you forever, and then finds that they had been under the illusions of a romantic dream that did not work out as they expected, and the person who says cunningly "I love you" in order to deceive another into allowing themselves to be exploited. — John

Is the one who has deceived not only the other person but also themselves not infinitely worse off than the one who has merely deceived the other? ;)

I made an ironic joke. Of course it is. But I am not sure Plato was aware in depth about all the hidden motives behind why he wrote what he wrote — Beebert

Which dialogues of Plato have you read?

No, for him pleasure was in his fantasy world of ideas and virtue — Beebert

But that's a very facile & superficial reading of Plato...

I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:) — Erik

There are quite a few actually, but support for me is not very vocal let's say.

Two people typically say they will love each other until death with the genuine intention to follow it through, I'd imagine, but eventually new circumstances in the relationship change their level of commitment. — Erik

It's good that you added the "I'd imagine" bit :P

That's possible in some cases (e.g. a marriage entered into by one party strictly to get the other's money) but I'm not so cynical to think it characterizes most relationships. — Erik

But I do think it does characterise most relationships. Most relationships are formed on the basis of mutual advantage, or enlightened egoism, and not on the basis of love. They stay together because, for example, they'd feel lonely otherwise. Or they stay together because they need to satisfy their sexual desires and lust. Or they stay together because they're seen better socially speaking if they have a partner. And so forth.

If you remove one of those reasons, they end up divorcing. Why do you think divorce rate is at 50%? How could divorce rate be at 50% if they genuinely loved on another?

I do see and appreciate how you find these myriad things--many cultural rather than overtly political--to be related to the topic at hand. I'll give you that. — Erik

Thank you! I do appreciate your posts too!

I am not sure I would go as far as Nietzsche even though I find his ideas very interesting. It is hard to answer "why". What do you mean by "why"? — Beebert

What does the statement "life is will to power" mean, and how do we know it's true? Why do you think it's true? What reasons do you have to believe it?

People in general have a tendency to define others by what they have done in the past and thereby prevent people from not being defined by their mistakes. Which is horrible. — Beebert

Hmmm

No you didnt. But historically and very much today in America, the most disgusting country I know of when it comes to religiousity and spirituality, these threats have been popular. America's religion is almost always a typical example of Will to power as the primary driving force. — Beebert

I very much doubt that. There's many nice American Christians (and non-Christians too) out there.

I would call that a very accurate way of putting it. The gods of Sweden are social medias like instagram and facebook, and also training in gym. — Beebert

Ahh I see - so mindless entertainment basically :P

I was probably an exceptionally naive kid.

It also didn't help that I grew up in a very blue-collar household with parents who were both high school dropouts. There were no lively conversations about politics, philosophy, culture, and other sorts of things I imagine more educated and affluent families converse about around the dinner table. — Erik

I think it's mostly about the culture that surrounds you. As I said, for me, nobody believed the state propaganda, but they pretended they do. And everyone knew this. So that culture is already subversive - this attitude was probably implanted in people by the viciousness of the secret police. So quite to the contrary of producing obedience, they produced disobedience. The US seems to have adopted the Brave New World model instead of the Big Brother one though. Give them mindless entertainment while we do the real business ;) .

I found some interesting things in ssu's post, for instance, and would like to think them through. — Erik

To me, it sounds like ssu was saying it's okay to lie, so long as we pretend we're after the truth ;) ;) ;)

I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan. — Erik

Ah absolutely they did. I come from a communist country so I know they did. But here, the difference was that everyone knew but pretended they didn't know they were lying.

It came as a great shock and sadness to me that reality (objective truth?) didn't square with this image that had been projected upon me, and, as evidenced by this thread, I'm still struggling to come to grips with that radical disconnect between truth and appearance. — Erik

That's strange. For me since childhood the propaganda was never believable. I never believed it, but I was always disappointed we have built such a crooked world.

Look people are crying about post-truth, but tell me something. When two lovers say to each other "I will love you forever" and then they break up after 1 year, is that not post-truth? But what do people say - "eh, that's love". We have built an amazingly hypocritical society where liars don't even perceive themselves as liars anymore, because we're taught that it's normal and expected to lie.

Look at all the politicians up in arms about Russia's meddling in US domestic politics, including many who've supported our continued involvement in shaping the internal affairs of other nations. Were we living in a 'post-truth' world while engaging in clandestine (or overt) efforts to destabilize and influence the internal politics of other nations in favor of our perceived interests? — Erik

>:) Say one thing and do another, isn't that what we expect of one another?

What I was taught was that we fought a war of independence against tyranny and for freedom, justice, democracy, and other inspiring things. And further, that these values continue to guide our actions around the globe. — Erik

>:O

But yes, this has been my point as well. Trump unmasks all the hypocrites. All those who cry about Trump being post-truth, and destroying truth, etc. - they are the hypocrites, for they think prior to Trump things were different. But Trump is just dropping the mask - he is the student who fully understood what they were teaching all along.

So now they want to destroy Trump - but only because destroying Trump is a way of putting the mask back on and pretending everything is good - a way of deceiving themselves again.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by. — Erik

Sure. Neither is it the trait that most people who have ever stepped foot on Earth have lived by.

Here we have another reason why I love Nietzsche — Beebert

As if Plato didn't say pleasure isn't the highest good thousands of years before Nietzsche :P

It depends in how one views will to power I think. If you ask Nietzsche he would say yes. Because life in itself IS will to power. But it is a concept with a meaning, and words are just masks or mirrors of something beyond the words. — Beebert

Why is life will to power?

Because similar condemnations in different situations happen. — Beebert

Can you offer an example of what you mean?

Yes. But I dont find threats of eternal punishment to be the best strategy. — Beebert

Sure, but I made no mention of threats of punishment there, did I?

But there is no spiritual depth, and the cultural depth is low IMO. Sweden is different from France or England and even Germany in many ways IMO. In some ways better, in many ways worse. One thing that defines Sweden IMO is that it is relatively safe. And people generally have it comfortable and "better" materially than most countries. — Beebert

So then Sweden is affected by an unconscious despair because of the absence of spiritual depth would you say? People live materialistically, unaware of their spiritual wants.

footnotes to Plato? >:)

If I were Mozart of some sort or gifted in some other regards and had something to contribute to society, then I would put more hesitation on the thought of killing myself. — Question

Maybe you do have something to contribute to society, but you'll never know it unless you try it with your whole being. Contributing something to society isn't easy. Mozart had to work very hard for it. Most of the people are too lazy to work as hard as it takes though - so they prefer to have an easier life and be enlightened hedonists.

No not necessarily, if my memory serves me correctly he wrote it before losing faith but I might be wrong about that. — Beebert

Indeed he did.

Nietzsche was definitely NOT am atheist in the pathetic sense in which Dawkins is an atheist. — Beebert

I agree. But he was still someone who misunderstood the highest spiritual realities.

Nietzsche wasn't a materialist, nor was he without sense of the religious, myterious and sacred in life. — Beebert

Sure, I agree, I never said otherwise.

Yes and I see huge problems here to harmonize that with Christianity and its gastly doctrine of eternal punishment in a lake of fire. Is that Free will? Rather sounds like making fun of the whole concept to me. But I might be without understanding here. — Beebert

I've already explained that sinners, through their sins, choose the lake of fire willingly.

And remember what he said in the beginning of Genealogy of Morals where he Said that the insightful man doesn't know himself because he hasn't searched himself. — Beebert

Yeah it was something about us being like bees bringing back honey to our intellectual hives or something >:O >:O

Except that you say Nietzsche didnt know himself, while I say he knew so deeply and profoundly all these things about himself and the power of unconcious instincts within man that he analyzed deeper than no one before him(except maybe Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky was a tiny bit more biased though) — Beebert

N. is someone who searched but never found in my opinion and understanding of him.

It was horrible to read the example of the 14 year old girl. Condemning like that is the worst thing I know. — Beebert

Why would you say it's the worst thing, especially since I presume you must not encounter it very often in Sweden?

In Sweden sex is not tabu as it was before and people too often idolize it here, at least Young People, both male and female. Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. — Beebert

So then condemnation of lust would be productive in Sweden. When the pendulum swings too far one way, you have to swing further in the opposite direction to balance it.

Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. Both Christianity and Nietzsche is rejected here, and the hedonists are the number. Sweden's perhaps most famous philosopher today is Torbjörn Tännsjö. He is a typical utilitarist, who IMO stands for onecof the most pathetic philosophy possible. He is very superficial. Nietzsche would have critizised Swedish culture harshly, that is for sure. Everything is very mediocre. — Beebert

It's very funny, because I've never been to Sweden - though I've been to your neighbour Finland before - but we often hear how "happy" Swedish people and the rest of the Nordic countries are. It's disappointing to hear that Sweden is just another Western country in terms of morality.

Funny that you mention the orthodox forum, I wondered if perhaps you had seen me there. I am not a very popular member there because of many of my provocative posts etc. I think. Some appreciate me, most seem to want me gone. — Beebert

>:O Yes, you're not very popular it seems, but it's not because of your views in my opinion, but rather that you end up arguing with the wrong people.