Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal. — RogueAI

List at least three examples of such democracies.

They won't be able to travel, buy foreign goods, import anything from the West. How is that a victory? — Wayfarer

Some junkfood franchize closing shop in Russia is not a loss, it's a good riddance.
And similar for so many other things from the West.

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? — Wayfarer

For instance the RSF Press Freedom Index. — Olivier5

Journalists have way too much power. They are, first and foremost, moralizing busybodies. They are playing god.

The very idea that someone, anyone could have an "objective, unbiased" view of a situation is philosophically problematic to begin with.

Even more problematic is the idea of granting that someone else to have such a view, to trust them so much.

Philosophers have been working on the notion of "How do we know what is true?" for millennia, but we should all take for granted that the problem is actually trivial and that the journalists and the average Joe have solved it???


And this is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that tens of millions of people are being displaced, thousands of people killed, entire cities laid to waste, and all for no good reason. — Wayfarer

Who are you to judge that it is "and all for no good reason"??

Here in our little sheltered workshop everything is very comfy.

Speak for yourself. How many of you here are close enough to the Ukraine to actually be affected by what is happening there?

Is the dissolution of nation states something to be hoped for or admonished? — Banno

What would Nato do if there would be no nation states anymore?

To your question: How soon do you want a Mad Max scenario to be be brought about? Aside from perhaps nuclear devastation, a ruthless capitalism seems to be the quickest path to it, while nationalism stands in its way as an obstacle.

I think it's objectively true that in WW2, America was fighting for the good side and Germany was fighting for the bad side. — RogueAI

In some years, given the current trends, it looks like Nazism and Fascism will be fully rehabilitated, and history rewritten once more.

Yep. Ethics is hard.Much harder than just consequences and duty. It requires working on oneself so that one is better placed to make the right decision. — Banno

Who gets to be the judge whether the decision was right or not?

Zombies are alive, technically.
— baker
Yes, Frankenstein's monster too. — Alkis Piskas

My point is that acting on principles like

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival — Alkis Piskas

we don't avoid a zombie apocalypse scenario. Ie. if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives.

Why are they standing in the queue, then? — Tom Storm

Ah, the wannabes!

I agree, I think theism should have a more robust definition. — Shwah

And it does, in its native context: in the actual religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets. — Tom Storm

Such people don't go to concerts, they are not the audience. They are the performers.

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the mojor number" is survival — Alkis Piskas

Zombies are alive, technically.

His famous example of a trade-off scenario:

You are distributing a lifesaving drug. — Camille

No, this is overstating the case. It is not possible to save a life, nor to give a life, it is only possible to take a life.

The people who do get the medication might recover, or they might not, this is not in our hands. It is also not in our hands whether those who don't get the medication will die or not.

What is in our hands is the decision as to whether to kill or not.

Despite that, the shunning of Russia may be the only weapon to actually bite home. — Banno

If it does, it means that there was no Russia anymore to protect to begin with.

Is it possible that Russian involvement in global economic activities had become so vital that Russians find it impossible to get by without it

In that case, they had already sold themselves.

Russia's biggest mistake was to allow itself to become Westernized.

Might this century be the one in which the growth of global economic interdependence brings about a world in which the fear of being shunned means that nation states finally renounce their anacronistic boarder disputes?

In global economic interdependence, nation states are an anachronism.
Globalization serves only the rich and consumerism.

And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that Putin should be assassinated:

Lindsey Graham calls for Putin to be assassinated by someone close to him: ‘Is there a Brutus in Russia?’ - Independent — Apollodorus

So if an American citizen calls for the murder of another American citizen, that is wrong, but if an American citizen calls for the murder of a non-American citizen, that is okay?

Imagine the international outcry if Putin had called for Biden to be toppled or killed .... — Apollodorus

When one has God and righteousness on one's side, who can be against one?!

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

This can be done in some forms of Hinduism, but not in the Abrahamic religions.
The salient difference is that generally, in the Abrahamic religions, there is said to exist a type of separation between God and his creation that can be pervasive and eternal, but no such separation exists in some forms of Hinduism.

Not only that, but Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. — Apollodorus

Hence adhering to principles of morality becomes of crucial importance in such settings where empirical evidence is not available or not available reliably.

Ideally, one's stance should be such that it is minimally vulnerable to changing empirical facts.

To put the fire out. Do you really think there was some kind of moral equivalence between Nazi's using violence to round up and kill Jews and Americans using violence to stop the Nazi's? — RogueAI

This only seems just because the conflict roughly ended at that point. History is written by the winners, as is morality.

The Western colonialists won the wars against indigenous peoples, but we generally don't think of the colonialists as the good guys (even as we know that the indigenous peoples were doing horrible things to eachother).

I personally fear that the war will just continue for far longer even if a conclusion could be made earlier.
— ssu

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them. — Baden

Already 20 years ago, even further back, it was clear enough what would likely happen. At that point, the Ukrainians could have taken charge, acting proactively and in good faith and directly bring up the issue with both Russia and the West. I'm sure they would've gotten a good enough deal back then. If nothing else, such a direct confrontation would force all parties involved to clearly state where they stand.

The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side.

It's already happening, as high politicians from some EU/Nato countries have, on their own accord, gone to meet Zelensky, and intend further visits. They also (intend to) send weapons.

It's as if their intention is to draw the fire to themselves, and then Nato will go to Russia.

https://english.sta.si/3014400/jansa-morawiecki-and-fiala-back-in-poland

If I were to have a vision for Russia, it might be a place where people wanted to go — jorndoe

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.)

Indeed, just in time, I was just thinking of posting a thread of what constitutes theism proper.

Belief in Jehovah simply isn't like belief in Elvis. Just any idiosyncratic "belief in the existence of god or gods" cannot pass for "theism", for that renders the term so wide in meaning that it becomes useless.

Further, from an insider perspective of a religious monotheist, an atheist can also be someone who does believe that God exists, but who refuses to worship him. An atheist isn't simply someone who "lacks the belief in god or gods."

Philosophy began with one objective in mind - to discover how to live the good life. — Agent Smith

Can you back this up with some reference?

To answer this seemingly simple query, philosophers needed to deal with other matters like truth & knowledge (epistemology), reason (logic), good and bad (ethics), gods, free will (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), so on and so forth. In short, as far as I can tell, all the various branches of philosophy are subgoals that we need to attain just so that we can finally answer the question "what is the good life?"

Philosophers soon realized the complexity and profundity of the problem. Each subdiscipline of philosophy turned out to be a tough nut to crack that required entire lifetimes of study.

As facts stand, philosophers have all but forgotten the original question (what is the good life?). They're now only interested in topics auxiliary to the main one viz., to reiterate, the good life.

Are philosophers missing the forest for the trees?

If the original goal of philosophy really was "the good life", then, after all those complex and lengthy excursions into epistemology, ontology, etc. etc., that original goal began to appear too pedestrian to be taken seriously any longer.

I was once at a lecture on virtue epistemology by Duncan Pritchard. He also spoke about "living the good life". It struck me as too superficial to take seriously. Talking about Gettier problems for an hour and then about the "good life" -- how does one put those two together?

You often have to fight fire with fire. — RogueAI

To get what?

Oh no, protests are very useful for demonstrating that that Regime allows dissent and democracy. The power structures are safe from any influences from below, and things carry on as usual. They don't jail people for protests, worse, they ignore them.

These people are captives: they are being used to pacify, ironically, those who were against the war: see, we are protesting, we are fighting back, but in the end there is no effect. — FreeEmotion

So a proper, strong democracy is the one that can maintain its own illusion?

The British have traditionally been racist towards the Irish too, e.g. the phrase 'That's a bit Irish' means 'That's stupid'. That doesn't amount to a Western Jihad against the Irish. — Baden

The point is that the anti-Slavic sentiment, and specifically, the anti-Russian sentiment serves as a framework, a context, in which it is perfectly sensible to say mean things about Russians and their leaders, and to take action against them. Without decades of anti-Russian propaganda under their belt, the Westerners couldn't pull this off.

And a NATO jihad against NATO members, such as Poles, would be a bit self-defeating wouldn't it?

Not if they use the Poles as cannon fodder. That would be achieving two goals with one blow.

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

Pffft.

People love to say they are against "authoritarianism and imperialism", and they do so in an utterly authoritarian manner.

The endless ironies of life.

not to mention Russia forever losing its honor as a nation. — FreeEmotion

Eh? Did you ever get the impression that it had any honor in the eyes of Americans and most other Westerners?

Yet the fact is the Russian reality is absolutely strange. It's a myriad of strange occurrences and crazy events in the eyes of Westerners. I don't know what would come close to it: a perpetual Trump administration? It's really different from the West.

In a way it's on purpose organized to various different elements, a multitude of intelligence services with their own military forces and to army and national guard, in order that there wouldn't be some strong counterweight to Putin himself. Quite similar to the Third Reich, actually. — ssu

The total genius of Western democracies is that they outsourced government oppression to individual people. So that it isn't the government which oppresses people, it's Tom oppressing Dick and Harry. The government's hands are clean, but the people walk on eggshells and fear for their jobs and lives. At the same time, they are becoming more and more alike, the differences between them are superficial at best, one big mass of mindless drones. And what does it help if some politician can hold his elected position of power only for 4, 8 or, 10 years, or so, if the next one differs from him only by name?

The greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.
— baker

No, he's genuinely being pro-Putin. — ssu

Look, Biden refers to Putin with he! It must be that Biden is a Putin troll!!!!!$#%"/$&%3

You're so hyped up that it clouds your judgment.

I can't remember the keywords, so I can't find you many direct quotes, but @Apollodorus has said things like:

If Ukrainians can resist Russia in Ukraine, Europeans can resist America in Europe. It's just a matter of Europeans uniting against foreign powers. — Apollodorus

That's clearly not pro-Putin or pro-Russia. In some earlier discussion elsewhere, I also saw him commenting negatively on Putin. So I see no reason to think he is pro-Putin.

Did you read through the his quotes that I gave? Likely not.

*sigh*
Your bad faith really isn't helping.

And what came of those protests? Nothing.
— baker

Captive /.../ — FreeEmotion

It's not clear what your reply has to do with my question. The protests against the war in Iraq changed nothing, other than once more convicing people that protests accomplish nothing and are useless.

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. — StreetlightX

The previous prime minister of Slovenia (prime minister is the position with the most power in the country) was a former comedian. He wasn't in position for the full term, he was overthrown by the current government just before the covid crisis broke out.

He has proven to be a competent enough politician, but it's just hard to take him seriously, because everytime he begins to speak, I recall his comedic impersonations of politicians.

This has nothing to do with classism. It has to do with the justified expectation that a political leader should be an honorable and capable person.

I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power, as a general rule.

"Vote for us, and you will all have higher salaries!" is a slogan one of the current government parties here is using (the elections are in April). I used to think such slogans would be limited to dystopian science-fiction and caricatures in politology textbooks, and that no actual political party would ever say such a thing. But they do. And they come from the ordinary people.

What do the categories of people you mention above know about how to run a country?
And how could they fend against political extremism taking over?

If anything Zelensky's sense for the dramatic has been an absolute boon to Ukraine in this war, even if people are really so thick as to take it at sheer face value. But that's not Zelensky's fault.

It doesn't help that the war is presented as a video game.

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it.

You know what the slang term for Slovenes is? "Viennese horse stable keepers" (it's a succint phrase in Slavic languages).

Ever since I can remember, it's been beaten into us that we are inferior, an inferior race, and that only the British, the French, and the German are "proper people".

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "acting in bad faith", but I don't think accepting we've emboldened Putin matches any understanding of the term I know of. — Isaac

You've used the image of the bully on the block in other discussions about this topic. Thus taking for granted that he's a bully (and that "we" need to find ways not to provoke him).

What would you do if someone called you evil, a monster, and would persist in that for a long time? Eventually, you'd probably conclude that the person doesn't mean well to you and you would take some action against them, depending on the circumstances and your resources. Would that make you an monster, a bully? Or just someone concerned about his own safety and wellbeing?

I think the same kind of scenario happened to Russia, on a much greater scale, of course. The West has always belittled and demonized Russians, and acted against them. The Russians were fully justified to conclude that the West doesn't mean well to them, and that proactive self-defensive action needs to be taken.

It's why I think the West didn't "embolden" Putin. To "embolden" Putin implies that he's a thug who just needed a little push.

My point is that the moment one thinks of another person as evil/a bully/etc. and treats them accordingly, the interaction is bound to deteriorate. You can observe how this happens between individual people, and between countries.

There is, of course, a tendency to minimize the context in which one sees the matter, people tend to ignore the initial bad faith in which they entered the interaction, and all they do is look at the other person's negative reaction.

In contrast, when one genuinely means well to others and acts accordingly, the other person will generally reciprocate in kind.

If the West would be fair and goodwilled toward Russians from the onset, the Russians would have no reason to think the West doesn't mean well to them, and there'd be no conflict. No war.

The West is like someone who hits the other person first, and then cries foul if the other person hits them back. "Look what he did to me! He hit me! He must be destroyed!"

Another example of ignoring the existing qualitative aspects of a relationship to frame one’s position as ‘logical’. There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight. — Possibility

*sigh*

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill. — baker

And I didn’t frame it as ‘man vs woman’. Read it again.

You said:

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy. — Possibility

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt.

Are you grateful to your god/s?
Do you express submission to your god/s?
Do you acknowledge that they were there before you and that they contextualize you?

Clearly I do.

I've discussed him issues far enough. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. — ssu

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

The matter is the same as in the covid discourse: a simplistic side-taking prevails.

So there you hear from the troll. Starting from that Putin cannot be a dictator. Putin has a point in many things, according to him. And he tells what Putin has told very accurately. Only saying that what Putin says are facts.

Has it ever occured to you that he is just trying to be fair?

And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are.

Again, you're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

Secondly, some people still have a sense of shame and so they would not say about another person (what to speak of saying it to the other person), "He's a piece of shit", "He should be put down", "You have no soul", and things like that.

There was a time and a place when people considered it beneath their dignity to say such things about other people, what to speak of saying them directly to them. They believed that they would lower themselves if they said such things.

It seems there are very few such people left.

I feel disheartened to see what language is being used in this discourse (as well as in many others). It shows how low so many people have fallen.

Thus such "theists" themselves render God irrelevant.
— baker

Well, without them we wouldn't exist. So they give meaning to all life. Their reasons for creating us were selfish but understandable. — EugeneW

What you have isn't theism, it's a type of atheism, and of the worst variety.

Theism proper requires active membership in a monotheistic religion. Without that, one is just making stuff up to suit one's fancy.

But maybe it's not necessary to intepret it in this way. What if it means, not that Christianity is the only true religion, but that only those who follow 'the truth, the light, and the way' - in whatever form it manifests or incarnates - are 'saved'? That is one of the interpretations of John 10:16 'other sheep that are not of this flock'. (Of course this kind of interpretation is much more intuitively obvious to Hindus than to Christians.) — Wayfarer

No, this is still a Christian rendition of a Hindu view.

A Hindu view would be something like: God is the source of all religions. People are born into a particular time, place, and religion according to their spiritual acumen (as developed in previous lifetimes). God gives people a particular religion according to their spiritual acumen.

Which is why in Hinduism, among other things, preaching to outsiders and religious conversion are unintelligible concepts.

There is not one god. There are as many gods as there were, are, and will be creatures in the universe. — EugeneW

Thus such "theists" themselves render God irrelevant.