the selective hysterics over Russia — StreetlightX

I think there's another element to this, pedestrian but powerful:
The EU resents being dependent for resources, doubly so because they are dirty resources that pollute the environment, and so it projects these negative feelings onto the country from which it imports those resources.

Instead of being resentful and haughty toward Russia, the EU should feel humbled that it needs to import the basics.

And had they taken Kiev, they'd go on to occupy Poland, and so on, right?

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it?
— baker

For the sake of peace, a ceasefire deal affected and used as an opportunity to re-think and pursue strategic objectives further down the road when Russia is weakened by sanctions. — FreeEmotion

No, I'm asking you about what so far appears to be your support of acting in bad faith.

Why the insistence on making a tough stand now

For the sake of the ego.

I am learning new and disturbing things about 'our' world, things that do not inspire confidence in a peaceful future.

Then you're late.

But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. — Alkis Piskas

Hence, eventually: zombies.

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)

By all means, do tell. How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?

My view is — Wayfarer

Exactly.
Yet you want it to be taken as more than that.

It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

Yet people do it all the time, those Humpty Dumpties!

All these events deny people the right to be an individual; perhaps we can say that these governments are “anti-person” or “anti-personalism.” — Dermot Griffin

So you feel that capitalism and consumerism respect your right to be an individual?

If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. — Dermot Griffin

A change to what, and why?

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away. — Baden

Very easily: By declaring themselves to be the moral winners. The West is already helping them do that.

What I do not understand is why at least agree to a deal that can be simply rescinded at a later date — FreeEmotion

Promises can be broken so I do not see the point except to bring a ceasfire. — FreeEmotion

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it?

We want Russia to be free. — Olivier5

No. You want Russia to be Western. To be yet another consumerist hellhole.

Without some minimum degree of freedom of expression, new ideas just don't get expressed because expressing them would be dangerous. And if one can't express new ideas, why have them? So only cultures that are reasonably open and tolerant can generate new ideas at a sustained rate. Of course these things come and go: cultures evolve all the time. — Olivier5

Ideas that are merely new are useless. An idea must be good.

People were reasonably content but no one was happy. Nobody was ever smiling for instance, or joking or laughing their ass off, even when drunk. No public expression of joy. — Olivier5

Yes, because some people still know how to behave decently.

It must be pretty schizophrenic. I travelled through Hungary in the 80's. It was rather sad how nobody would ever speak their mind in public but would unload in private. — Olivier5

Exactly like in modern democracies.

Unless, of course, one's "own opinion" is actually all politically correct and pleasing to the regime.

I met an Albanian once, who had this story about the death of Enver Hoxha. She was at school when the news broke, a pupil in an average primary school in Albania. The teacher said that this was a terrible news and that they should all cry now. She found it hard to do, in fact she started to laugh irrepressibly. She quickly put her head down in her arms, crouched on her desk, and pretended to sob, all the while she was laughing and laughing. That's how she got through that.

1. In schools everywhere, children are taught how to think, feel, speak, and act about a variety of things. Failure to comply has ramifications -- poor grades, poor references, stigma. Just because the system allows the dissenters to live doesn't mean it's not oppressive, as has been addressed earlier in the thread.

2. To prioritize the opinion of a child in political matters is infantile.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally.

And scary.

Mind you, some of them seem not to know what to believe, or even what is real. Probably too much screen time. If a Russian artillery shell comes through the wall of your building, that would be a wake-up call. Although not if it’s only something you read about in ‘the media’. Then, it’s ‘propaganda’. — Wayfarer

You, of all people, should know better.

But perhaps different principles apply to Russian artillery shells than they do to arrows.

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.