Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. — Agustino

I'm saying that the "should" here is implicit by the very act of your exercising such an ability in the first place. You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle.

In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values. — Agustino

Why not?

This needs to be argued. — Agustino

In brief, cosmopolitanism is a logical consequence of the fact that we possess natural rights but also the necessary condition for said rights to be expressed and to flourish. A woman in Somalia has exactly the same right to life, liberty, etc as any one else in the world. Citing her culture, religion, or other invented institution as a means by which to deny her these rights is therefore unjustified. Moreover, those who do possess the free exercise of their rights have themselves the right to protect those in whom they are being denied.

What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks! — Agustino

To stick with American foreign policy, if we go back to WWII, we find that those on the right, including Republican congressmen and presidential candidates, were largely against intervening in Europe, whereas FDR and his administration were largely for doing so prior to Pearl Harbor. Truman, another Democrat, then intervened on behalf of Korea shortly thereafter. Later, Democratic President Kennedy initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the US intervention in Vietnam. (Unlike in WWII or Korea, these latter two decisions proved disastrous, of course.) Clinton, rather belatedly, intervened in Bosnia to stop the war and genocide there. And finally, in the case of Iraq, despite a purportedly conservative president initiating the war, we can see that the old right wing establishment, including figures like Pat Buchanan and Henry Kissinger, were opposed to it and that Democrats in Congress were essential in approving it. Bush also had the backing of a Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in the UK.

So based on this brief history, it seems to me that the left has largely been responsible for and favorable of strong military intervention in the world, and the right has largely tried to remain isolationist, which is indeed an inherently conservative position to take. It is somewhat surprising how swiftly and drastically this has changed in recent years, whereby the right is now strongly in favor of military intervention and the left now espouses a conservative isolationist policy.

I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. — Agustino

This may be true, and is actually a succinct statement of pessimism of a kind, but this is no excuse not to try to educate people, morally or otherwise. A free and open society in fact demands it. By the way, Proudhon may have popularized the term "anarchy" but he was certainly no anarchist in the sense of wanting to eliminate the state. Especially later in life, he saw its necessity, and I agree with him and presumably you that a state is necessary.

Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing. — Agustino

The latter can only do so and be respected for it if they have the freedom to do so in the first place and the masses are enlightened enough to recognize and respect their moral and intellectual accomplishments. Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people.

I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it. — Agustino

I'm not massively familiar with Proudhon, but from what I do know and have read of him, he seems to be slightly misunderstood. His ideas on property are not in fact all that dissimilar to antecedent classical liberal theories on the same, and as I said above, he is not technically an anarchist. I also don't think the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages, not at all. However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. That's the key point. I really do appreciate the rightist critiques of the Enlightenment, democracy, the notion of progress, etc. de Maistre in particular has quite hilarious, witty, and cogent take downs of the silly optimism contained in much liberal and leftist thinking. Yet his and his ilk's defense of the kind of Pre-Revolutionary aristocratic, autocratic, and theocratic ways of governance do not represent a better alternative.

So I'm still not at all sure why you think I'm a rightist.

This has been a long thread, so perhaps I have missed it, but how exactly are you defining who is a "leftist" and "rightist?" I loathe these discussions, as I said before, precisely because I find these categories woefully inadequate and rarely defined by the people who use them. Nevertheless, I would probably categorize myself, in the very broadest sense, as a classical liberal in the vein of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson. Though I diverge economically from classical liberalism towards some form of socialism or mutualism (like Proudhon's idea). Foreign policy wise, I'm very close to the neoconservatives, but said movement was basically formed by a bunch of former Trotskyists.

So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not?

HItchens was mostly just dumb. Gallaway really wiped him out in his debate with him over Iraq. — Landru Guide Us

I just want to point out that Agustino referenced Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens. Peter was against the war in Iraq and to my knowledge has never debated that human turd Galloway. It was Christopher who debated him and supported the Iraq war, rightly in my opinion.

It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree. — Agustino

I included everyone in my statement, i.e. those who do and those who do not condemn other ways of life. My point, once again, is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live.

But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries... — Agustino

Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms.

I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them. — Agustino

Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes.

I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them. — Agustino

Now, see, this is interesting, and not at all the impression you gave in the OP, which implied a very conservative isolationism. I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position.

The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. — Agustino

Yes, and they are often right to do so.

towards anything else, absolutely intolerant — Agustino

I'm intolerant of intolerance and offended by offense taking. No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity.

Who am I to condemn, for example the Islamic way of life and go tell them that their women should have a choice to wear the burkha etc etc? — Agustino

You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so.

It's their fundamental right to decide what rules are to be obeyed on their lands, and what rules are not. — Agustino

No it's not. First of all, it's not "their" lands. The notion of property only has meaning with respect to the fruits of human labor. All borders, boundaries, etc are utterly contrived. Second, the belief that they have a "fundamental right" to certain pieces of land and the enforcement of certain laws is the wellspring of nationalism, racism, and sectarianism of all kinds. The only way to ensure peace is a thorough going cosmopolitanism, of the kind Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."

true toleration means not interfering with these. — Agustino

BS. I will not tolerate men in Afghanistan throwing battery acid on the faces of young girls simply because they held hands with the wrong person at the wrong time of day. I will not tolerate IS throwing gay people off of buildings. I will not tolerate genital mutilation of any kind. The list can go on and on. Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? Ergo, your position results in an indirect apology for the most contemptible practices imaginable.

In fact, the world is beautiful precisely because there is diversity and there are many different customs, religions, and cultures. — Agustino

True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice.

All that is required, I think, are a set of international values, along the following lines: "My land, my rules. Your land, your rules. I will not interfere with you unless you do something that is threatening or damaging to me" — Agustino

Then you will appease and tolerate the grossest violations of justice, decency, and morality conceivable. Cower behind such a base and egotistical cultural relativism all you like, but I for one will take a stand against the enemies of civilization. You are, once again, protected to say what you like because far braver people than me have taken just such a stand.

As an addendum, I have no particular interest in left/right politics, as I find most political labels meaningless, but also sometimes quite dangerous, for they engender lazy thinking, complacency, and radical adherence to party lines and ideologies. I think for myself and decide my views on a case by case basis.

I don't see the motives behind fascism as the same as the motives behind militant Islam, nor do I see the ideological aspects as the same. — Moliere

Fair enough. I won't belabor the point. But at least you will know some of the reasons why I use the term, if you see me use it in the future.

Care to explain more? I don't see how this is the case, though I could certainly be wrong. — Moliere

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West.

I'd say here is where we disagree the most, then. Governing the world isn't the goal. The apocalypse is. — Moliere

The two amount to the same thing, since we can be fairly certain that an apocalypse won't happen as described in Islamic eschatology.

I might also simply say that I have no vested interest in establishing with certainty the identity between Islamism and fascism. I merely wish to assert that the term "Islamofascism" is not some flippant, utterly inaccurate conjoining of two ideologies. They have enough similarities, as I see it, that using the term is permissible. The only way to object to its use would be to claim that fascism is an inherently 20th century European phenomenon, which I don't find that it is.

Feudal France also rejected democracy. The parallel is in passing, though -- the reasoning why they reject democracy makes a difference, and is not merely splitting hairs. — Moliere

The parallel I wish to advance on this point about anti-democracy is but one pillar on which to base the claim that Islamism is fascistic in orientation.

I would say that this is just human nature more than ideology. — Moliere

I would agree with you, but "more than" does not mean it doesn't form a part of said ideology.

Except their version of history has no basis. It was pure mythology. I'd say there's a difference between anachronism and myth. — Moliere

Ah, but the Islamist's view of history is equally mythological, and especially IS's view of history.

But this is not the case with militant Islam. The state is a tool. No fascist worth there salt would look at the state as a mere tool to something greater. — Moliere

To this I must say a thousand times no. The state is the summum bonum and indeed the raison d'etre for the Islamist, militant or not. This is what IS and countless other Islamists are toiling to create right now. Not until they have created a state governing the whole world according to Shariah Law will they be satisfied.

ilitant Islam doesn't reject democracy as the problem, though -- Militant Islam as practiced by IS is based in an older world idea which predates the wide acceptance of democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, does. — Moliere

This is to split hairs, it seems to me. They both reject democracy, ergo they have this in common.

Militant Islam does not emphasize violence for its own sake. It practices jihad, but that has a purpose greater than the violence itself. — Moliere

Fascism too has a goal beyond merely glorying in violence, but I think the point is that much of the violence is gratuitous; it's often done with genuine pleasure and deliberateness, whether it's necessary to achieve said goal or not.

Militant Islam is medieval Sunni society attempting to be reborn in the world today. That is a kind of throwback, but not to a mythologized past as much as to a past that had existed prior to centuries of Islamic interpretation and growth (in number, spiritually, and in time). So it is a kind of anachronism, but it's not the same sort of historical myth that Fascism builds. — Moliere

It seems pretty similar to me. The Nazis, for example, were trying to return to a Pagan Germanic world which existed before the advent of Christianity.

The biggest difference, I think, are the views on the state. Militant Islam wants to establish a Caliphate, but this is theological significance. The state, or empire, is a tool, rather than "an organic entity" which can and must be purified for its own sake. Fascism establishes the state as its religion, where imperial theologies establish states for the sake of God. — Moliere

I see you making my own point for me here. Yes, the state and religion are one in the case of European fascism and Islamofascism. To speak of the state or its religion in fascism is to speak of the same thing, and it is indeed sought for its own sake.

But individuals have retained the right to own guns long after the US had an official military. — Marchesk

Yes, and wrongly. Read the second amendment and see if you can interpret it in any other way without twisting the meaning of the words beyond recognition. If the framers wanted to bestow the right to bear arms to individual Americans, then I don't see the necessity of including the clause about a well regulated militia at the beginning. Its inclusion is therefore significant. Keep in mind also that the militia spoken about effectively became the National Guard. Those belonging to it most definitely have the right to bear arms, as does the military. But the aforementioned decision is the first time the Supreme Court has ever said that individual Americans have the right to bear arms. That means that prior to it, it has never explicitly confirmed or denied whether the second amendment implies this, despite the fact that individual Americans have owned guns (again, wrongly, I would say).

What do Saudi Arabia and several other countries in the Middle East have besides oil? — Bitter Crank

Lots of barbaric extremists who greatly contribute to our species being screwed, far more so than the earth changing a few degrees in my opinion.

Okay, let's see, then:

Fascism rejects democracy - So does Islamism.

Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake - Militant Islamism most certainly does this.

Fascism is anti-individualist - Islamism is anti-individualist too; it wants everyone to belong to a worldwide ummah and to be under Shariah Law.

Fascism doesn't really have much to do with economics - Neither does Islamism; Islamic caliphates of the past simply collected taxes and left maintenance of the economy to local governors; IS today is an "economy" based on theft, much like the Third Reich.

So I think the debate needs to acknowledge the fact that, as far as Americans are concerned, high rates of murder and other kinds of death by gunshot, is simply a consequence of 'lviing in a free society'. 'Being free' means having plentiful access to the means to kill, and any attempt to curtail access to those means constitutes an 'infringement on freedom'. So face up to it. Freedom means, many people will continue to die - mothers, fathers, brothers, someone's dad, someone's son. Maybe they should all be given special recognition as having laid down their life for the rights of Americans to bear arms - because I think they are far more likely to get that, than any real protection from the possibiility of being shot. — Wayfarer

No, this is not freedom, and it's not even condoned by the constitution. The absolutely astounding interpretation of the second amendment by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled for the first time that individuals possess the right to bear arms in self-defense, is an egregious and laughably absurd decision.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only in the context of a well regulated militia. It does NOT guarantee the right for any individual to bear any arms they want. This means that five out of four judges on the Supreme Court possess zero reading comprehension and are likely shills for the corporate gun lobby. So before you start damning American culture as if you speak for it and all Americans, you must know that the American constitution and very many Americans do not agree with current gun policy in this country.

About Trump? I agree he's not a fascist, technically speaking, though he has made fascist sounding remarks from time to time.

But fascism is reaction against communism and the problems, real or imagined, in the democratic system of the early 20th Century — ssu

I already knew the history you described before this quote, while this quote seems to be your definition of fascism. In that case, I would merely point out that Islamism is squarely against both communism and democracy as well, so you've made a distinction without a difference.

Islamism is the term for a purely fascist enterprise, hence they are interchangeable, as I see it. I know nothing about whether Bush coined it. I don't care about him, except insofar as I think he was right on principle regarding Iraq and the dangers of Islamofascism.

The reason is that it's simply dead. — ssu

Islamic fascism is alive and well.

But I can expect that, at least if we take individual cases. Sure, any completely random person off the street is not going to be able to discuss philosophy as a university professor will be able to. But I'm thinking of someone who reads philosophy and literature on their own time, while working a non-academic job. In my opinion, there is no reason at all that such a person would be any less good at discussing philosophy than a professor. There are many professors who are quite frankly ignorant morons, who make one wonder how on earth they ever jumped their way through all the academic hoops to eventually become professors. Nor do these people represent some microscopic exception.

Not to sound crass, but I wonder what you do that enables you to post so much. Perhaps more of your free time could be spent reading philosophy rather than posting about it here. They're both valuable and interesting, but the former vastly more so than the latter (at least for me).

True, I was speaking in generalities (and partially of myself).

A secular monastery is precisely what I greatly lament doesn't exist in this day and age. If only they did, then I should be the first to sign up!

People like Brassier are already fossilized dinosaurs, and because they can't see past their own noses, they imagine the asteroid hasn't actually hit them. As you point out, several asteroids have already hit academia, and especially the humanities. It may still represent the lesser of two evils (being a professor as opposed to being a menial laborer of some kind is always going to be more amenable to contemplative persons) but it doesn't negate the fact that it's still an evil. The corporatization of higher education is nigh complete, and humanities departments have felt the full brunt of it. There are scores of enormously intelligent people who would make fine professors and professional scholars who simply do not make it through the system, through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, those who do tend to develop an elitist mentality like Brassier's. What he probably doesn't realize is that he has merely played the lottery and won. Nor does he seem to understand that being educated is not measured by having three meaningless letters next to one's name. What would he do if his present institution fired him due to budget cuts and he couldn't find work after that? I suspect he might whistle a different tune.

Universities are old institutions. They were built painfully and slowly. It shouldn't be expected that other fora for the same caliber of discussion could just pop up overnight for no reason. — The Great Whatever

What makes you assume that universities do have a higher caliber of discussion? The pomposity and vanity is certainly of a higher caliber, but this is to describe sophistry of the worst kind, not philosophy. "Professional philosophy" is almost an oxymoron, for in reality it amounts to little more than a good old boys club of spineless, egomaniacal careerists. They feel the pressing need to live well, support families, and idle away their time on the public purse. They do not feel any pressing need to be wise. Huge amounts of wasted paper and bandwidth are used each year to publish literature that no one but this same clique ever reads. If you count writing in tortuous academic prose, with the occasional bit of symbolic logic thrown in every once and while to show off, as "high caliber" philosophical writing, then I'm afraid I don't see it. More academics ought to heed the Spartan maxim that he who knows how to speak knows also the right time for speaking. They ought not produce more chaff to be blown away almost as soon as it is written. Instead, write only if one has something important to say. As Christopher Hitchens once said, everyone has a book in them, but perhaps in most cases that's where it ought to stay.

To me, the quality of philosophical writing in general, whether on the internet or from the academy, is piss poor at present, for I have found nothing of any real enduring value published among so called contemporary philosophers. The charge both analytic and continental philosophers accuse each other of, that of being morbidly useless and hopelessly obscure windbags, is true of them both. And seeing as these two camps pretty well exhaust the category of "professional philosophy" today, the whole discipline is not worth anyone's time. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the ideal of the university system, and realize there is a need to codify and organize serious scholarship on various topics, but it is the furthest it's ever been to reaching this ideal right now, especially in philosophy.

That quote is exactly the kind of thing some arrogant, pointy-headed tenure track professor would say. He ran the lottery and somehow got into the academic establishment, probably thanks to nepotism, and now has the family jewels heavy enough to trash anyone outside of his little bubble, including his own apparent admirers.

Philosophy ought not to be done outside of the academy? Tell that to Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, and a host of other vastly more important thinkers than the paper thin light weight and peddler in obscurantism known as Ray Brassier - all of whom never operated within the academy or indeed even repudiated it. It's a shame such a smug, backstabbing plebeian has the gall to fancy himself the judge of what is worthy philosophy.

I know. Was I wrong to expect an argument or two as to why you hold such a position? :-}

Hmm, I don't know if I follow. C'est la vie.

The problem with the notion of 'purposeless will' is that it seems somewhat self-contradictory. If striving is not manifesting any overarching purpose then it just consists in something like 'reactively directed energy vectors'. and the word 'will' in this context seems inappropriate. — John

The will by its very nature does have a goal: satisfaction, the end of willing. However, because the will in-itself lies outside of the forms of knowledge, it unwittingly feeds on itself in order to accomplish this end. In doing so, it objectifies itself, which in turn allows for knowledge of itself. So the will can only be said to have a purpose in retrospection, not originally.

Does Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will have any explanatory power over anything that isn't already covered by evolutionary biology? Occam's Razor seems to apply here. — darthbarracuda

I don't see the relevance of this, unless you're simply assuming that scientific materialism is true, which would be begging the question.

You and I and everyone else here are alive and unless we have the guts to kill ourselves we might as well make the most of it and mitigate as much suffering as we can. Viva la vida.

The unexamined life is a literal waste of time, kicking the can down the road, hopscotching from one desire to the next while suffering the aches and pains and burdens of existence. To examine life, understand the dilemma of it, and actually know what kind of circus it actually is, and still consciously decide to keep living (i.e. living authetically; not-committing-suicide-every-day is a choice, not the null position), is rebellious and enough to fill a man's heart. Anybody can live...but it takes a certain kind of person to live absurdly, and that is worth some merit. — darthbarracuda

No offense, but I don't see any arguments here. You've merely restated your original claim in more words. Correct me if I missed something.

I don't see the value of hypothesizing the existence of a metaphysical Will. — darthbarracuda

I don't care about the value of it either. I care about whether it's true or not.

It was meant as a joke. — darthbarracuda

I know. I had an exclamation mark.

Why not? — darthbarracuda

Hey, man, you asserted the affirmative first.

Meaning, for example, Schopenhauer's "Will"; the personification of striving, suffering, boredom, etc. — darthbarracuda

That doesn't amount to saying suffering is the structure of reality. Suffering is a result of the will.

But suffering itself is not an intrinsic part of the universe. The cosmos isn't strung together by suffering. — darthbarracuda

The universe, in terms of stars, gas clouds, gravitation, etc exhibits the lower grades of the will's objectification. The higher the objectification of the will, the more the will suffers. Hence, human beings suffer the most, whereas a rock suffers very little if at all. So Schopenhauer would agree with you that suffering is not a distinct feature of much of the universe, at least in terms of its degree, but it is still an intrinsic part of reality, since all reality is merely the manifestation of the will.

It was meant to show that Schopenhauer wouldn't be able to write his philosophy without having all that extra time and money. If you are struggling to survive, you don't have time to think about boredom or angst. These are problems that arise due to decadence. — darthbarracuda

No, not necessarily. I think it's quite clear that boredom and angst are present in all sentient organisms. Perhaps you want to argue in terms of the degree they are present, but to reject their presence outside of those living in affluence is absurd.

My dog. LOL. — darthbarracuda

I would legitimately love to meet this dog who never feels boredom or anxiety. It would be a rare specimen for scientific study!

Aye, but until then, viva la vida. — darthbarracuda

Why?

I realize that I am not a "self". I am an organism but I never was an never will have a concrete ego. For many people this will cause great angst, and in the past this has caused me great angst. — darthbarracuda

I assume you're speaking of the illusoriness of the empirical ego, in which case, I fail to see how realizing this could cause angst. Are you and Ligotti disappointed there's no such thing as an immortal soul? If so, that is nothing more than petulance and egoism, not angst. Hence, you affirm and expand your ego by realizing that it doesn't exist, which is most ironic.

The recognition of suffering as a fact of life is a bold but true statement by the pessimist. However, it often gets blown out of proportion a bit. Romanticized, so to speak. Suffering becomes the structure of reality, instead of a part of reality. — darthbarracuda

What would it mean to say that suffering is the structure of reality? I'm afraid that doesn't make any conceptual sense to me. It is viewed by most pessimists as an intrinsic feature of reality, a necessary result due to the nature of reality, which might then be given as a shorthand such as the first noble truth in Buddhism.

Schopenhauer, one of the greatest pessimistic philosophers, wouldn't have been able to live his extravagant, aristocratic life without the laborious work of the common man. — darthbarracuda

This is ad hominem attack, though I very much doubt Schopenhauer would disagree with you on this point. In fact, I think he makes it himself when speaking of civilization and genius.

The facts of life do not have to cause angst. The only reason they would do so is because one has not let go of past expectations or values. — darthbarracuda

One could say that this is to romanticize reality far more than the pessimist does. Life does not have to cause angst? Find me a sentient organism where this is the case.

my view on life is that it is mostly an itch and a bit underwhelming, although I do admit this seems to change sometimes depending on the day of the week. — darthbarracuda

A bourgeois sentiment, this. Life will catch up to you, rest assured.

It is. Agnosticism and atheism are perfectly compatible.

I used to see myself as an atheist but have thrown that away because I feel it relies on a kind of faith that it criticizes theism for holding. — darthbarracuda

You would still be a weak atheist, though. What you seem to be objecting to is strong atheism.

Excellent summaries on this page. I would only add that Schopenhauer does not use the term "noumenon" in his writings and criticizes Kant for doing so.

Well, I don't take orders from you, and wasn't actually planning on posting anymore in this thread, but if you keep replying to me, then you are just exacerbating the very thing you accuse me of having done.

If you are religious then the bible says that the animals are for your use, eat em up. If you are not religious then there is no sin to commit, eat em up. — Sir2u

What an absurd false dichotomy. Perhaps you are trolling, though.

Can an interesting topic ever be used up?

I thought I might hold out before making a decision, but I've effectively decided to move here. The other forum is rather dead and the threads uninteresting, which I feel had been true for a while as well. Now that the best posters have moved here, there's no reason to go back.

And while I don't like the slightly truncated spatial dimensions of this new forum, it certainly functions vastly more smoothly than the old one. We also seem to be on the second page of a Google search for "The Philosophy Forum," so this forum can only grow.

Ba dum tss