Virgo, I don't actually support any if this. What I'm doing is I'm just granting the leftists this hypothetical to press on another issue.

but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth

I think you'd be surprised and I think you'd find a fair amount of support for this idea insofar as everyone is contributing and working hard.

EDIT: I think plenty of people just do value equality as well. Even as someone who's right-leaning the word doesn't disgust me.

If we truly value equality then why are we mostly stopping at economics? That's only one area of human life.

Well, if you spend all day hating the game and marinating on these thoughts don't be surprised if you find yourself in misery. Some thoughts that you have - and these thoughts may reflect reality - just aren't helpful and you should discard them.

In the end, I'd rather be a clueless pollyanna than live like Schopenhauer. But it's your call.

Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.

Well, if you're stuck in the game you might as well make the best of it... the rewards could be quite great. I think the rewards could blow you away. I do believe the reason for the game is the reward (to be specific, it's love.)

It doesn't really matter if you accept that you're in the game or not, or that you like the game itself or not... you're here, and you have one shot at this game (as far as we know) so pursue those rewards!

This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.

Could you give me an example?

I, personally, have identified obstacles to achieving greater happiness. I am working on breaking those down. I think if I were to break them down I would be thrilled and achieve a much higher degree of consistent happiness.

The problem in our discussion is that "the premises of life" seem to be extremely broad. Some of them might bother you, but not bother other people so it's not an inevitability.

I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.

I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.

The problem is that the scope of this discussion is soooo broad and we're probably experiencing different problems so that if I were to give advice it could be completely out of place or inappropriate to the situation you're dealing with.

In my case, I have... 1 or 2 main problems that I would like to fix. But I can still enjoy life. I have other areas in my life that I'm doing well with so I can sort of fall back on those.

Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.

I don't have a number for that. I think the question we should be asking is when is suicide justified.

If you're suicidal then we're no longer having a philosophical discussion: You need to go to therapy and get help. Anti-depressants can work wonders.

He was able to find meaning in his suffering. He could have killed himself at any point. There was no point which he just lied down and quit.

And for the record I don't blame people who committed suicide in those types of conditions, but it's not a certainty either.

I never said it was totally independent from past events, I'm just saying it's not a certainty given A or B. A or B could have an impact on C, but that's not to say that A or B caused C.

If you read Man's Search for Meaning it's about a guy's experience in a Nazi concentration camp. He was under some of the worst conditions imaginable, but he never wanted to kill himself or die. It's a matter of mindset.

The way I see it... there's risk factors for suicide. We can address these risk factors (poverty, losing a job, etc) but suicide is ultimately a choice that you make.

I just don't think that's how causation works when it comes to suicide.

Sure, losing your job or getting divorced or going into poverty might increase your chances of suicide but there's no 100% direct causation. Even the worst conditions like a concentration camp don't qualify as a "B" to your "C."

It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."

You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life."

I think by 'practical effects' he means the effects which actually happen on the ground, not effects that you theorize to happen. The ultimate verdict of a theory for the pragmatists would be if it actually works during its implementation, not whether the relations between the abstract ideas work out.

Maybe a thread about it would be useful.

Pierce also said: "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." This was his version of the pragmatic maxim.

If pragmatism is just about keeping purposes in mind then it's pretty innocuous, but I think it's founders had a little more in mind than that.

Let me try another example:

If I were to ask you to defend libertarian socialism would you respond with something along the lines of "Well, here's case study 1, here's case study 2, and here's case study 3 where the practical application of libertarian socialism led to x,y, and z as opposed to these implementations of capitalism here...."

Now, I haven't studied pragmatism academically, but from what I understand about it is that it's a ground-up approach where you're starting more with whether the approach has actually worked in the past and there's no meaningful sharp distinction between "in theory" and implementation.

I've just always read you as more of a theoretician; it would seem to me that a pragmatist's first impulse would be to respond with actual empirical data or historical fact to an issue rather than theory.

In what sense do you mean? I mean it in the sense of the philosophy called “pragmatism”, focusing on philosophical questions through the lens of what practical endeavor an answer is meant to facilitate. Do you mean some other sense?

That was the sense that I was talking about - the philosophical sense.

Obviously I don't know your whole philosophy, and yes it's your book so its your decision.

Do you remember our discussion about the existence of non-moral oughts? You said that there wasn't because the non-moral oughts in the end just basically come down to moral oughts, if I remember. You were trying to find the truth behind the language, but I just don't think this is how a pragmatist would approach it. Pragmatists would probably be more partial to ordinary language philosophy where we just take the meanings as they are commonly used in the language.

I've tended to view you as more on the abstract side of things, generally, but again it's you we're talking about so you're the authority.

From what I've read of you, I would not call your approach to philosophy "pragmatic." This isn't intended to be an insult, it's just not your approach.

Isn't the juxtaposition between analytic and continental a bit trite? Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy?

Well, there's also pragmatism.

I think a case could be made for what you're saying but in my experience the two schools have veritable differences at least looking to the past. Maybe they are converging; I don't know.

If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.

We had this exchange earlier:

If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
— BitconnectCarlos

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

...So in other words you'd be against the ethno-state if it included minorities.

The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.

It would seem to be one of the basic laws according to wikipedia.

In any case make no mistake about it; Israel is a fundamentally Jewish state and that has always been the intention since its founding.

I'm not saying that at all. Read again.

You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.

could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?

edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.

How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?

Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.

You're missing the point. You cited the basic laws of Israel earlier, which undeniably establish Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It's not vague about that. Even under a "best case scenario" you'd still be complaining because it's Jewish as opposed to Arab or Muslim. Jews are going to be favored when it comes to immigration or who gets citizenship.

I'm trying to distinguish here between what is inherently so and what is not inherently so.

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

Well, I'm happy to hear that you're applying the same standards across ethnic groups.

From how I see it, whether it's the armenians, the kurds, or the jews all three of these groups have suffered serious mass killings and repeated historical injustice if not actual genocide (with the jews and armenians) with the primary purpose of an ethno-state (whether it be kurd, armenian, or jewish) being much needed security for those groups. It's not like the international community is going to come in and rescue them, after all. Ultimately, everyone must fend for themselves.

You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:

"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."

"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."

"The State shall be open for white immigration."

Under "Connection to white people", article 6:

"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."

Under "White people settlement", article 7:

"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."

Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.

There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?

This is pretty in line with what I find too.

To OP: At the end of the day, ideas matter. You can't just choose to "not do" philosophy because it's unavoidable. Some ideas are a hell of a lot more destructive than others and lend themselves to certain types of extremely murderous behavior.

Good analytic philosophy is like a laser beam: Precise, clear, but very narrow.

Continental philosophy tends to be broader and a little more abstruse. If you receive a philosophical education in the US it's probably going to be analytic or possibly pragmatic. I've heard continental is more popular in Europe.

EDIT: Analytic philosophy can be super-critical. What we would do is basically read an article, construct the author's argument with his premises, and then basically once that's done look for potential criticisms. I always needed to be very precise with wording.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

I'm fully aware that the UN has condemned Israel on quite a few occasions.

In 2016, there were more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the entire world. It was 3x more than any other country, so if you go by the UN then Israel must be the worst country.

Between 2012 and 2015, the UN General Assembly charged 86% of their resolutions against Israel.

No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.

If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.

EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.

Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.

Only a bad faith actor would argue that the Palestinians are completely innocent. Of course both sides have committed wrongdoings and if someone is going to take the position that the blame rests entirely on side it's not worth engaging them.

Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.

Were your ancestors/family involved in this conflict? That's the key question here. I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.

Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit.

This particular incident was caused by lies spread by the mufti of jerusalem. I don't really care that internal arab politics likely played a role, but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood.

I'm not interested in pinning arabs against jews or making all arabs out to be jew haters. I never said that all arabs hated jews during this period. the relationship between the two groups of people is complex.

Ultimately, what the jews need is security. they will not find this if they simply rely on arab powers and hope that the arabs treat them nice. it's not just a matter of the arabs either; the same could be said for the europeans. jews ought to be done with "hoping" or "depending" at this point when it comes to national security.

"Whiteness" isn't referencing the existence of a person with white skin, but the existence within the social context of white idenity and its relation to opression. The equivalent in disability context is the able-bodied identity and bias.

I get a little tripped up when you mention "social context of white identity." I understand the whole social context part, trust me, but when you mention "identity" in a more abstract way you tend to lose me. Would you mind clarifying a little more concretely?

I would like to add that disability has a strong social component and I'd say there's a little more to it than what you described, and I'm happy to explain but I don't feel like getting side tracked (I could explain if you're interested.) Again, with your point on disability you lose me with the "able-bodied identity" part. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't quite understand the lexicon.

In terms of psychological toxicity I'm more referring to the oppressed rather than the oppressor. I'm not too worried about the privileged class here.

Just for the sake of clarity here, I am white-passing or white depending how you define "whiteness." I'm an ashkenazi Jew so depending on who you ask I am either white or I'm not and I've never really attempted to delve deeper into the question because I just don't see it as particularly meaningful to me personally. In other words, there is no real answer as to whether I am "actually" or "really" white even though my skin is white. But no, for all intents and purposes I do not understand what is it like to be a person of color in the US.

I am however disabled so I experience disability-related issues daily and I'd be far more aware of them than the average person. I just feel like there might be analogies to racial issues we're discussing here so I'd be interested in exploring that.

But to speak of a pogrom, one must assume that it is a massacre of a defenseless Jewish population, like were usual in Czarist Russia. If the figures given by Wikipedia and the response of the British authorities are correct, there was a conflict between two communities and the Jewish community seemed to have good offensive capacity, as the small difference in casualties shows -only about twenty. In these conditions it seems more correct to speak of a conflict between communities in which there was a terrible massacre in Hebron.

David, most of those arabs were killed by the british, not by any sort of significant jewish security apparatus. there was no battle here, no struggle between two sides. I'm tired of being your history teacher David, please do your own research.

Yes I agree, but do those systems have a direct connection to the real world? My answer is that no they don't.

I'd say that they do. Philosophers serve on ethics boards. These boards guide what can or cannot happen within, say, medicine. Over time most of the west is moving away from religion and if these atheistic or secular thinkers can lay forth compelling cases for new forms of secular morality then I think we're going to see drastic shifts in, well for one, medical ethics but also many, many other areas.

If you look at the effective altruist movement many of the leaders in that movement are philosophers. that movement is starting to catch on in the public eye and it's very much created by philosophy phds.

the world is moving away from religion whether we like it or not, someone's going to have to create new accounts of morality, truth, reason, etc.

The main leaders on both sides were condemned by the British authorities. The Arabs for incitement to hatred and the Jews for possession of arms. It is more complicated than a pogrom.

if it's not a pogram or a massacre then would you mind enlightening me as to what it actually was when hundreds of arabs murdered jews in their living spaces with household tools? i like that you're trying to keep it "fair and balanced" here; go on, keep telling me how awful those zionists are for... possession arms. when those nice arab men come to your home how could those dirty jews zionists dare even think about grabbing a firearm! the proper thing to do is welcome them in and politely ask where they would like to murder you and your family.

but yes, both sides are to blame here. the situation is very complicated.

The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.

oh thanks, yeah got it, it was zionism that was the cause behind those families being murdered with blunt objects in their homes around dinner time. ya know for a second i thought it might have been the virulently anti-semitic arab political leadership in jerusalem at that time as well as the actual perpetrators who had no qualms about killing their neighbors with household tools but thanks for clearing that up for me; damn zionism... igniting tensions again. i mean how many more jewish children does zionism need to murder with a tire iron to the head before we just be done with the idea forever?

it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period

oh no, there were no other riots. no other anti-semitic attacks during that period. you've clearly read your history here.

but seriously go back and read about the grand mufti of jerusalem and the numerous riots and killings he is responsible for. he's an extremely ugly figure.

all of them?

Palestinian violence against the Jews minority (at the beginnings of the 20th century it was very minority) starts with the proclamation of the State of Israel.In any case you cannot claim for a right that supposes equal violation of the rights of other people. — David Mo

The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.

Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right?