I had the strangest experience in an Art museum one time. This was playing in one of the exhibits, and I thought, "Is this Bob Geldof!?"

I liken school shootings to be a result of extreme alienation. It's like getting way too into Black Metal or something. Has anyone seen the film that Gus Van Sant did about Columbine called Elephant? He does really well to portray that such incidents only really ask questions. There are only things that we glean as to why tragedies like that occur. All of the interpretation of such events is speculation.

Formatting, drat! (It's good enough now.) This was a paper that I've just finished and wanted to share. I am also opening this forum to a general discussion on Hamlet, Existentialism, or both. I've decided to return here for the interim in between taking classes.

Thanks, Wallows. 'Til whenever!

I figured as such. I was just kidding.

I don't see why that would take a lot of education, but, I do like the point that you make.

I wouldn't argue that such Christian notions have resulted in anything negative. I also wouldn't necessarily argue that such Christian notions realistically had too much sway, either. What's wrong with "following your heart"? Shouldn't a person seek fulfillment to their desires?

Sure thing, Franklin.

I started off reading Tolstoy, and, later after coming through most of the Left came back around to Anarcho-Pacifism. Richard B. Gregg has a good chapter on the effectiveness of nonviolence in The Power of Nonviolence titled "Moral Jiu-Jitsu". He states most of the advantages of nonviolence there. I don't know how right he is, but, I think that he was on to something.

I'll see you later.

I've discovered from this that I should probably play as an Elf Ranger or a Half-Elf Bard. I'm probably more of a Bard in real life, but, think that playing as a Ranger would make more sense unless there are more players.

Since I'm more of a Bard, and, I did just look this up, I'm going with rapier and lute. I can wear a cloak of some sort.

I am sort of a solitary guy, though. I might be better off as a Ranger. Who knows?

I'd probably be a Human Ranger or a Half-Elf Bard. I don't think that I'm much of a Druid. I would kind of like to be a Wizard, though.

I would concur, but, I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist, so, take that how you will. I was asking if you just saw that as the current state of affairs or the state of affairs in general. You don't seem to think that it is the case that Ethical Egoism just simply describes how things are. I don't think that it is either, but, do wonder about such things. I honestly haven't parcelled out an Ethics to offer as an alternative.

Can such circumstances be altered?

The anti-Totalitarian logic admittedly just goes into overdrive, but, how can you trust a Determinist? When the question goes unanswered, why ascribe to such a position? It seems like a trustworthy person could only have come to such conclusions through some sort of pessimism unless they invoke the divine. The qualified arguments are the only ones that are really occuring. Everything else is just speculation. A person would, perhaps, be best off without any preconceptions whatsoever, but, how is that possible? No person's experience of the world is devoid of the concept of freedom. I do admit that I do assume too much in regards to the Determinist standpoint, but, I do think that a person does have a reason to skeptical of it.

Delimiting potentialities does not disqualify free potential itself.

I do think what can be known of free will at this given point in time is that it is self-evident. You do experience the world as if you do have "free will". Without any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to act accordingly. The concept concerns a basic aspect of Being. It is relevant to a lot of discussions and not a mere particularity.

Like I said, I was being a bit too harsh. I just think that the consensus amongst Mind-Body philosophers is a bit off. This is probably just resultant of a lack of introspection.

I would probably side with Erasmus, but, give a certain degree of credibility to Spinoza in spite of that I think that something like the cogito ergo sum is sufficient evidence. I honestly don't have too much of an argument to set forth in favor of free will. I'm just really skeptical of deterministic worldviews. Such a position lends too much in the way in favor of advancing an ideology. I was basically accusing those parties of not acting in good faith so that I could reinforce what I think is a minority position within the free will/determinism debate. I would contend that such strategic axioms are reasonable, but, that people should not believe in them too directly. I do think that it is the case that the majority deterministic stance relies too much upon "Scientism". They're probably not quite as ideological as the old Left, though. Like I said, I was just kind of in the mood to level a polemic. Anyone can take that however they feel like doing so.

The concept of free will has been present for long enough to be considered as an eternity. It is good and its refutation has negative consequences. That it is good may not bear any relation to whether or not it exists, but, its refutation does have negative consequences. It would be irresponsible to suggest that free will does not exist without considering what that may entail. The potential ramifications of Determinism do not prove for it to be false, but, they do exist. The idea is qualified. There is no way to see it otherwise.

I honestly just felt like writing a polemic and doubt that the so-called "Determinists" are really that bad. The experience that I have of the world is realistically the only sufficient evidence that I have for the existence of free will, but, I would state that it is sufficient. I honestly don't really care to argue this all that much. Whether or not people actually do have free will is totally uknowable. My inclinations are that you should act as if you do have free will because it is better to believe that people do. There's a ton of Physics and Neuroscience to learn if anyone really cares to tackle this problem. It's kind of out of my field.

To my understanding, human beings have been proven to be somewhat naturally alturistic. Humans, at the very least, have the capacity for alturism. To me, there seems to be no reason to neglect a basic facet of the human condition whilst deciding upon how to act.

The rejection of free will through causality is basically Analytic Philosophy's equivalent to the crypto-Behaviorist, Neo-Structuralist, pseudo-Althusserian fetishization of "material conditions" levelled by the Old Left. They have just simply replaced the appeal to "Marxism" with "Science". People experience the world as if they do have free will. It's existence is thusly self-evident. Determinism is the last Judeo-Christian complex that has yet to be fully abandoned. Such sophist cult precepts belong to an era where Reason served as an antithesis to the alleged will of God.

I think that a lot of the rejection of the concept of free will stems from that others just want to indoctrinate people into whatever ideology that they seek to set forth. There is no real evidence of the rejection of free will at this point. I feel like quantum indeterminacy suffices to suggest that whether or not we have free will is, at the very least, just simply unknowable. People experience the world as if they do have free will and so philosophies should be set out as if they do have it. The lack of the potential for agency has devestating consequences for Philosophy. I'm of a quasi-simultaneous 'soft' determinist/free will position. There is a causal chain of effects that can be seen as comprising everything, but, causality is somewhat indeterminate. Everything is just the happening of whatever. The happening of it is indeterminate. The holes in Physics are where a philosophy of free will can flourish. I honestly don't know the Physics to adequately set forth such a position, but, would suggest that those who have have done so under a number of assumptions. The general consensus of mind-body thinkers seems to be of a more deterministic position which I would argue is based too much in science that bears no relation to how the mind goes about doing whatever it does. Consciousness is embodied and everything is connected as energy. Where there is indeterminacy, there is room for free thought.

Because no one can really know and everyone can agree that people do experience the world as if they do have free will, I would suggest that the experience of free will should be accepted as a given. I don't have too much of an argument to set forth aside from that, but, do believe that I do have what people would generally consider to be free will and think that it is rather unlikely that any person should convince me otherwise.

I'm just going to go for the one book. How much time does anyone really need to spend on this?

I think that I'm looking for Murray Rothbard. Has anyone read Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature or know of any good rebuttals to it? Has anyone read Rothbard? Is there a reason to also The Ethics of Liberty or will I get enough of the gist of his theory with Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature?

Chaotic Good Human Druid/Bard (3rd/2nd Level)

When I played D&D, I think that I played as a Chaotic Good Half-Elf Wizard.

My results don't suprise me too much, though.

I think that he means to highlight the absurdity of suicide. The torment that a person has suffered has already subsided by the time that they decide to do so. You don't actually end any suffering as you have already been through whatever it is that drives a person to commit suicide in the first place. It seems to be a bleak and somewhat capricious dismissal of that a person should commit suicide from a pessimistic perspective. It's funny. He is coping with his worldview through a somewhat odd, but, ultimately positive black humor.

I like this quote. Thanks for introducing me to this author.

I would recommend just also drinking High Life in the glass bottle, but, you could be prone to buy 12 of them. I think that Red Stripe and Fat Tire are pretty good. Just get a six pack if you're drinking by yourself. You might really want to save those two or three beers for later. Dogfish head 60 minute is really better than the 90 minute, but, I'm not much of an IPA guy. You've gotta get the IPA from the craft brewery on draft. There's no real reason to drink IPAs otherwise. You really don't need the extra 2-3%.

Pilsner Urquell is pretty good, but, I can't see throwing down for it on the reg. If you really want to drink good beer, you'll have to go to a place that serves them on tap. I think that I remember having an Einbecker that I really liked. It might have been the Pilsner. The brewery had another beer that I really liked, but, can't remember the name of. I actually kind of like Chimay Bleue if you feel like dropping 9-10 dollars on a beer and aren't around an independent brewery.

Craft brews can be fun to try as well. You honestly really do only want to get two of them unless you're out with friends.

I've just begun to ramble and apologize for this. Anyone can respond to whatever.

You can drink White Russians and Moscow Mules on occasion. You probably don't want to buy bourbon and should just wait to throw down for some decent scotch. I just take a shot of Jameson to celebrate. You just don't really need to drink hard liquor. You do probably want to quit smoking, but, who knows when that will happen. I smoke Marlboro Reds in the soft pack because I tend to smoke less of them. I would just buy expensive cigarettes. There is no reason to buy Pall Malls. That's how you end up smoking two packs a day instead of one. Pulling the filter off of a Pall Mall is not like smoking a Lucky Strike. Smoking a Lucky Strike is like smoking a Lucky Strike. I still don't see why they don't sell Lucky Strike filters in the States. I would probably smoke those if they offered them here. The blue pack of the Turkish 555's are probably the best cigarettes that you will find. Good luck finding the right ones, though. I think that you can only get them in Turkey. If you smoke in the bar, you should try to go outside for a cigarette when you smoke one. It really does help to cut down on chain smoking and keeps the bar less filled with smoke. Being cognisant of others while smoking actually really helps to cut down on it. I'd like to smoke 10 a day instead of 15 or so, but, who knows when I will get to that point. I'll probably cut back once I get a car and start walking again. Activities also help to cut back. If you already don't smoke, don't pick it up. Do turn down the cigarette at the party. Smoking the cigarette at the party is how everyone starts smoking. You might get away with smoking a Djarum Black, but, it's pointless to now that they banned the cloves. It's really not the same.

Sorry to triple post, again. I just think that this is good advice.

I honestly think that people don't really care to do as many illegal drugs as they believes themselves to. You only want to shoot heroin once. You would prefer to smoke opium with a little bit of hash, and, so, should wait until you find yourself in the situation in order to do so. You don't care to drink vodka, and, would prefer to drink gin and tonics when you go out. You should drink Miller High Life in the glass bottle at the bar if you drink cheap beer. It's a better drunk than anything else. The Spaten will have been there for too long. You only want to get high once a week or so. You'd prefer to drink tea to coffee, but, no one ever makes the switch. You don't really need to put pot in your tea. It just makes you suspect that there is dope in the pot. You only want to do ecstasy a couple of times when you're younger. You should just do it at the few raves and make sure to chew gum and drink water. The social ecology of coke users is what makes the substance so problematic. The culture of cocaine is just terrible and no person wants to be a part of it. You also only want to do coke a couple of times. You should just wait until it's around and someone else wants to share. If you're going to buy coke, you should only buy good cocaine. There is no reason to do poor cocaine. It just makes people irritable. You should prepare if you're going to use LSD. I would do it in a field and be sure to have the whole day. You only care to do that a couple of times. The same goes for mushrooms. Meth is just unpleasant. Meth is just what you don't want in your ecstasy. There is no reason to do meth. By your late mid-20s you will have become bored with drugs. You will only want to drink craft beer and smoke pot on occasion by then. Four beers is really enough beers. Smoking pot once a week is all that any person really cares to do. As tempting as they might be, you probably don't really care to venture into pills or experimental drugs unless you know someone who is really like Alexander Shulgin. It is unlikely that any person does. As feeble as it may sound, there really is nothing that feels better than a real runner's high. The purpose of doing drugs is to better experience the world. You really don't need them. If you do want to do them then you should keep that in mind. I feel like if everyone considers all of these things than there would be no real issue with doing drugs at all. Narcotics ought to be legalized and people ought to use them responsibly. Having sense about a substance does not need to make doing it boring. People should take drugs for the experience and to have fun. There is no reason to do them otherwise.

It is immoral as it is not in keeping with accepted standards of social behavior. I don't think that it is unethical, though. A person's own depravity can only become unethical when it has an effect on others. There is nothing wrong with doing illegal drugs. There is only something that can be wrong with what people do because they use illegal drugs. Erowid ought to be more sincere, and, the drug community should consider that people should be more responsible with illicit substances. There is nothing inherently wrong with having "vices", there is only that having them hazards that a person may be more inclined to do wrong. People really shouldn't let themselves go by the way of narcotics. Doing them is fine, however. Everyone ought to be able to injest whatever they so please.

Christ signifies the point of mediation between humanity and the divine. Within a Judeo-Christian framework, Jesus would be a maniestation of the divine, but, not equivalent to the sum total of what comprises divinity. It is often stressed that Jesus was a man. According to the theology, God made himself man to mediate with humanity. Jesus was mortal, and, therefore human. He ascends to the empyrean after death. The metaphor, I think, shows how a mortal man is capable of mediating the situations of historical events. Christ becomes resurrected by that everyone learns to be capable of such things. You might find for it to a bit strange to engage someone in a conversation about this who takes their influence from Zizek and Endnotes, but, I have been thinking about this lately.

I mean, you could always take six classes 'from' Martin Heidegger and one 'from' Sartre, but, why should you do that when there is another option?

I had a theory concerning Philosophy a while ago that people should teach from particular philosophers rather than schools of thought. For instnace, rather than study Existentialism, you would take 3 classes 'from' Nietzsche, and, 3 classes 'from' Sartre, and, then, go from there where you would. You might take a class 'from' Ponty or one 'from' Arendt. You would still have electives, of course. I don't really know why I thought that this was such a good idea, but, do wonder if it has ever been tried. I had it in my head that it was some sort of European model. Is that how they teach you at the Sorbonne?

That aside, American Philosophy is mostly Analytic and European Philosophy tends to be more Continental. My independent studies have been mostly of Continental Philosophy, but, I will end up studying Analytic Philosophy at the university. We'll see how that goes, I guess. I think that it'll be sort of interesting. I've consumed too much 'Continental' Philosophy in my spare time. It kind of makes me feel like my rationale is a bit lacking. Analytic preconceptions of Reason do sort of bother me a bit, though. I don't really know how it will all pan out. I'm hopeful, though.

Does anyone know of a good deconstruction of Issiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty? I had this idea that positive liberties were more preferable, but, that negative liberties were all that a person has to level an argument with. You would prefer to have the freedom to do things, but, can usually only state a position with the freedom from whatever. I feel like his concepts might not add up to anything, though. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want to at all times. You can just spontaneously jump into a song and dance routine if you really feel like doing so. Negative freedoms seem to be the only freedoms that would be usually relevant to politics. Everyone, for the most part, already agrees with positive liberty. While his preference for positive liberty is sensible, negative liberties seem to be the only thing that people would really want to debate.

That's a bit off topic, but, I do think that it could be relevant to the discussion.

I see freedom as something that everyone already has. Everyone already has a limitless potential for agency. Subjugation relies on pathology. That there are people who are not free is resultant of some form of cult or another. In short, the problem is largely psychological.

Freedom proliferates by its expression alone. There is an indelible movement towards the liberation of all humanity that is just simply stifled by that people are willing to become subject to cult pathology in what more or less amount to schemes designed to limit the freedom of others. The liberation of all humanity may not necessarily prevail, but, it is a project that is always already being carried out.

I haven't quite hashed this all out, but, those are some of my preliminary thoughts on freedom. Take from them what you will.

Yeah, I had figured that out, but, I'm still unsure as to what you mean by the manusive comparison.

You figure things out by just whatever general way that it is that have that you go about doing things. Things just become revealed to you through living your life. There's a philosophical process that could be compared to inquiry. You experience "truth" as if it becomes revealed to you. Inquiry is one of the processes that a person goes through so that they can discover what is "true".

You don't actually discover what is true, though. You just discover how to better communicate in regards to what is considered as "true".

I did find one which I will read by Geoffrey Ostergaard. The search for Anarcho-Pacifism on there doesn't pull up as many results as you might expect. "Pacifism" turns up more results, but, a lot of them are critiques of Pacifism. Here's a pretty good wall of text from An Anarchist FAQ:

"A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called “anarcho-pacifism” (the term “non-violent anarchist” is sometimes used, but this term is unfortunate because it implies the rest of the movement are “violent,” which is not the case!). The union of anarchism and pacifism is not surprising given the fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism. After all, violence, or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by which individual freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out, “[g]iven the anarchist’s respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist values.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 637] Malatesta is even more explicit when he wrote that the “main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations” and that anarchists “are opposed to violence.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism, the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists during the Spanish Revolution — see sections A.5.4 and A.5.6, respectively).
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists. However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists, on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist, Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence). As Malatesta put it, violence, while being “in itself an evil”, is “justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence” and that a “slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally justifiable.” [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp. 53–54] Moreover, they stress that, to use the words of Bakunin, since social oppression “stems far less from individuals than from the organisation of things and from social positions” anarchists aim to “ruthlessly destroy positions and things” rather than people, since the aim of an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes “not as individuals, but as classes.” [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Mikhail Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, as they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum during any social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with the Dutch pacifist anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that “the violence and warfare which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the liberation of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution.” [The Conquest of Violence, p. 75]
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one of his book’s chapters, “the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism.” For de Ligt, and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any attempt to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, on the one hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other means. Nations often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, “violence is indispensable in modern society... [because] without it the ruling class would be completely unable to maintain its privileged position with regard to the exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and foremost to hold down the workers... when they become discontented.” [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit., p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so, for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the consistent anarchist must be a pacifist.
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an unavoidable and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as well as the only means by which the privileged classes will renounce their power and wealth. Those in authority rarely give up their power and so must be forced. Hence the need for “transitional” violence “to put an end to the far greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the majority of mankind in servitude.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To concentrate on the issue of violence versus non-violence is to ignore the real issue, namely how do we change society for the better. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists who are pacifists confuse the issue, like those who think “it’s the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work itself.” To the contrary, “[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 183] And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and only degenerate into violence when those in power try to maintain their position (a classic example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the occupation of factories by their workers was followed by fascist terror — see section A.5.5).
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the military machine (and so the “defence” industry) as well as statist/capitalist wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff, supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both arrested and deported from America for organising a “No-Conscription League” in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists. Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War, the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the slogan “No war but the class war” which nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war — namely an evil consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists urge working people to fight for their own interests, not those of their masters:

“More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all; and we must prepare to accomplish these things.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 251]

We must note here that Malatesta’s words were written in part against Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course, as Malatesta pointed out, “all Governments and all capitalist classes” do “misdeeds ... against the workers and rebels of their own countries.” [Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with Berkman, Goldman and a host of other anarchists, put their name to International Anarchist Manifesto against the First World War. It expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist movement (at the time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is worth quoting from:

“The truth is that the cause of wars ... rests solely in the existence of the State, which is the form of privilege ... Whatever the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression for the advantage of a privileged minority ...”

“The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace, is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political parties ... This confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the whole of the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a war of liberation.”

“We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and ... have been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.”

“The role of the Anarchists ... is to continue to proclaim that there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt against their masters.”

“Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies...”

“We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs... Social justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won, by the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction.” [“International Anarchist Manifesto on the War”, Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth, pp. 386–8]

Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he argues that “[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum."

All in all, a fairly reasonable opinion, but, I feel sort of like they sort of walled us out with Crimethinc's "diversty of tactics". The peace movement also seems to have sort of an aversion to Anarchists, probably because of such things, and, so, I'm not really sure where to go with this. I could read the google translate version of those French texts, I guess.

It seems like the internet demands a certain degree of established distance. I think that it can be good to explore an alternative identity online, but, wonder if the seemingly anonymous nature of online discourse doesn't lend itself to that a person dissociates rather than creates an extenuating identity. The crutch of the character mask lets a person become as another online. The simulated experience of acting as another is no substitute for actual human interaction. You should continue to develop your own identity, even anonymously.

Hopefully the dystopian futures projected in Cyberpunk media will never manifest into reality. I do think that talking to people online can be a worthwhile form of social interaction. I think that the problem is just that the social ecology of the net engenders dissociation and alienation. Everyone is connected, but, no meaningful connections are ever established.

The medium also just simply has its limits. It's kind of unnatural to just type away before plasma. A person shouldn't neglect that they probably do desire to communicate with others in the so-called "real world".

Yeah, I could have just confused what I knew about Schopenhauer's reactionary views with his asceticsm when I read that text. That does help to clarify a few things.

Nietzsche can totally be interpreted as the Might Makes Right philosopher that Ragnar Danneskjöld makes him out to be. A lot of people excuse Nietzsche of far too much. I do like Nietzsche, but, he was kind of like that.

I feel like Schopenhauer does sort of imply that the commoners are incapable of actualizing upon their will and therefore incapable of thought in The World as Will and Representation, though. I liked the text, but, admittedly didn't necessarily give it my undivided attention. Perhaps I am just assuming too much.

Triple post, sorry.

It looks like that graph was not made in good faith and is just designed to make someone like Michel Foucault out to be a Marxist-Leninist. The political compass would probably be better.

I don't think that you should abide by the map. Something akin to participatoy democracy, for instance, should be in the bottom left corner. They accepted the quasi-Randian division between Objectivism and Relativism. The libertarian/authoritarian distinction is fine. I think that the Left/Right of the political compass is actually better than the collectivist/individualist distinction. According to that graph, a May '68 protestor could be placed in the bottom right which would be totally absurd. I don't actually know what the distinction should be as opposed to Left and Right which still doesn't quite suffice. Perhaps a person's political philosophy is just too complex to map on a two-dimensional graph.

You'd have to figure out how to peace out the entire military and get Intelligence to give up on Game Theory. Who knows how that can be done?

Why does this graph put Relativism in the top-left corner?
Also, I am sort of the opinion that libertarian Socialism just is Anarchism, and, so, agree with that.

I honestly haven't read the entire thread. I just figured that I should chime in since I am a bit of a "relativist". I'm also somewhat confused as to what you mean by stating that all that a person knows is situated by their own subjective experience is similar to stating that all that a person knows is situated by their manusive experience. I guess I don't think that we "know" anything. There is no thing that we call "truth" that gets discovered through inquiry. There are just things that people generally agree upon or generally accept.

Truth simply bears the semblance of being revealed to a person. All that is discovered are the particular deviations and convergences as to how a person agrees or disagrees with whatever it is that is considered to be "true".

I don't think that I confuse my experience of the world with the world itself if that's what you're suggesting. There is a world that exists and it does exist in a particular way, but, all that I can know of it stems from my own limited subjective experience. Because everyone is like that, the validity of the concept of truth gets called into question. By stating that "nothing is true", I do not mean that there are not things that people can generally agree that do exist. This forum, for instance, exists. We can both agree that it exists by that we are both using it. I only, however, see this forum from the laptop that I am using at home. My experience is situated by that I only interact on the forum as such.

I feel like the problem arises out of a basic emotional disconnect. People fail to awknowledge that they are interacting with others online. The situation is one of a generalized anomie. Everything is supposed to be as if everyone is connected, but, often times, online engagement can just simply be further alienating.

There is, of course, a world that exists outside of myself, but, all that anyone knows is situated in their own subjective experience. "Truth" does not exist. It is just simply agreed upon.