BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state. — Apollodorus

The name "Ukraine" has the meanings 'land, province, region' at its core (I actually can't think of an exact English equivalent; there is, for example, a part of Slovenia that is called "Bela krajina" and it refers to a geographical region).

It's not uncommon for the names of nations and lands to have a common name as an etymological reference (many names of nations and lands can be etymologically "translated"), so this per se is not grounds for arguing for or against the legitimacy of a state.

But if we look at the history of states worldwide, it's clear that the legitimacy of a state is a very complex phenomenon. Germany, for example, became a nation state only a 150 years ago, Italy 160 years ago. One would expect a legitimate nation state to have a history spanning back much longer than that. Other states came into existence and disappeared, changed their shape. So where exactly is the legitimacy of a nation state? Note how the UK isn't exactly a nation state, while the US requires an entirely different concept of "nation" to consider it a nation state.

The situation in the Balkan and Eastern European states is very complex further because of the long history of the various foreign rulers and empires of which these lands were part. Moreover, what is now one country or parts thereof, often used to be part of several other countries.

At least when I was going to school, we were taught these things in history class. We learned about how the boundaries between the states were often a matter of negotiation or an administrative matter (we had to know all the foreign rulers, all the dates of treaties and wars, and the geographical situation at each time).

The corollary I draw from this is that state borders are largely artificial and national identities a matter of ideological construction.

The West is operating on the premise that people will do anything for money, for any amount of money.

Those who don't see the problems with this premise ... well, I don't know what to say.



It's also clear that the world at large isn't taking the situation in the Ukraine seriously, given that sports, fashion, and other entertainment events go on as usual, tv programs are only slightly changed, but the majority is entertainment as usual.

One would think that at a time like this, people would rethink their indulgence in enterntainment and luxury ... and one discovers that one was wrong.

Is it really philosophically correct to take for granted that the party who feels wronged is automatically the arbiter of morality?
— baker
You do know what I mean. Are you saying that rape is justified sometimes?
No one could say, yes I raped her as a self-defense. — L'éléphant

A: Tommy, why did you hit Harry?
B: Because he then hit me back!

Is Tommy the victim here?

How about we think before we take the neutral position or the it-depends position.

How about we discuss the complexity of the matter.

What this discussion is lacking is an acknowledgment of the role of the power differential in moral judgments.

The one who can punish is in the position of power.
If punishment is justified, as a matter of principle, then might makes right. Do you want to go in that direction?
— baker

First of all, I don't understand your post. Power differential in moral judgments -- what's that?

That whether something is perceived as moral or not has to do with the relative positions in the power hierarchy of those involved.

The same kind of action is perceived differently, depending on whether it was done by a person of wealth and power, or if it was done by a person of low socio-economic status.
Or if it was done by your boss or by you. Or by a teacher or his student.

If a rich person hits you with their car and runs off, they can expect to get away with it.
If you were to hit a rich person with your car and run off, you should get ready for grave consequences.

Etc.

Say we have a court functioning with integrity. Is it really that hard to discern fault here?

You mean a modern court in a democratic country where having a good lawyer can get one off the hook for pretty much anything, and where a person with few financial means has to endure injustice?

So we also need to watch our use of they-language. When we include ourselves in what we say about ‘people’, we recognise our own capacity to make the same errors of judgement. Using ‘they’ seeks to distance our self-awareness from the statements we make. It implies a passive self-righteousness. — Possibility

How self-righteous, and actively so!

You assume entirely too much and allow too little room.

When we include ourselves in what we say about ‘people’, we recognise our own capacity to make the same errors of judgement.

But perhaps we think that those might actually not be "errors of judgment" to begin with, but in fact virtues. If anything, the state of the world suggests that anger and blame are virtues, something to strive for. And that we (minority-we) are ninnies to think them vices.

I am not sure what kind of evidence would satisfy you. I imagine one could plot murder rates in various places vs some indicator of the prevalence of forgiveness in society. The latter indicator would be hard to develop though. — Olivier5

You were the one to make the claim, so it's on you to provide the evidence.

Or one could appeal to faith: all religions call for it.

This would take a bit to explain, but it's not clear that "all religions" call for forgiveness and redemption, or what they actually mean by them.

Or to logic: hatred breads only more hatred, so how else can one break the cycle than through forgiveness?

"Logic" cannot determine the truth value of the premises we use in a syllogism.

It makes life bearable. You should try it one day. — Olivier5

When "forgiveness" becomes a channel for contempt, then it no doubt makes life bearable, even more than that.

Another possibility is shame. If the person feels ashamed of asking for help
— baker

But then again, repaying (although not asked to do so) would assuage that feeling. — Tex

No. The psychological effect of debt and indebtedness can be overwhelming. It's not just about the money or particular favor per se. If one has received the money or the favor at a time when one was particularly vulnerable, then getting a sense of satisfaction by repaying it or returning the favor would only come if the other person would be in a similarly dire situation. Of course one doesn't wish that on them.

Could be, although I don't know where that sense of entitlement would come from. Seems illogical, but we're talking about people here.

It's quite common. Especially younger generations were raised with an enormous sense of entitlement.

But the fact is, this is not just about NATO enlargement. — ssu

No, it's about the normalization of bad faith, ill will, and dishonor.

And, as I said before, if Russia loses, British and American corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources, exactly as they did, or tried to do, in the 1990's after the collapse of the USSR. — Apollodorus

They've always had their claws set on Russian resources. That's always been clear.

Putin supporters tend to be quietists who seek stability. I don't see how they could reconcile this invasion with a concern for stability. — jamalrob

There comes a point when one has to decide between perishing on one's knees or die fighting.

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness. — Isaac

No, it's only the former.

Ever since I can remember, Slavic people have been put down by the West. In every international setting I have been, there was a palpable contempt for us. Online, as soon as people hear where I'm from, if they are Westerners, then 9 out of 10 times, they automatically adopt a negative, patronizing, bad-faithed attitude toward me. Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation.

This Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people is so consistent and so grave that there is even a trend for Slavic people to despise themselves because of their national roots, to deny them, to reinvent the past (like some who say that we're not really Slavic, but an offshoot from the Italian group), and many adopt a Western identity.

The way many Western people have been talking about Putin is actually "just business as usual". There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture, so normalized that most people don't even see it.

Is Putin Mad? — Wayfarer

Perhaps it should be described a bit better. That he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. — ssu

Such plebeian reasoning.

This is a part of the problem: People talking about big issues and people in high places as if those were topics suitable for pub conversations, in that lowly manner.

Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial" — ssu

People need to rethink whether traditional nation states are even viable if the people in them wish to live a first-world lifestyle.

One of the implied motivations for creating the European Union was precisely this insight: relatively small countries with limited natural resources cannot make it on their own to live a first-world lifestyle.

The EU is just implementing this in a way that helps the individual states save face. Which, however, is unfortunate, because people have lost sight of the value of natural resources and are taking them for granted.

EU's rhetoric about the motvations for joining should have been a lot more transparent.

If a more transparent discourse would be in place, it would be easier to understand what is going in the Ukraine.

hence I can annex territories from it.

Some formerly Ukraininan territories have separated themselves from the Ukraine. But very few acknowledge the will of these people. Why?

Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. I’m glad you at least comprehend the distinction between biological sex and gender. You will help to one day make such surgeries unnecessary. Because, of course, that’s the only thing that’s really going to stop it. — Joshs

Such surgeries have always been unnecessary.

It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem. — Joshs

Many heterosexual people have the same view of their own gender identity -- that's it isn't merely about whom they are sexually attracted to, but "who they really are, as persons".

Women's magazines, for example, are full of descriptions and prescriptions about what "a woman" is supposed to be like. From what I've seen on websites for "manliness", there is a similar model focus as to "what it means to be a man".

All in all, I see this as an obsession with roles, models, basically, play-acting. As if "who one really is" can and should (!) be defined with a model, and then an actual person is supposed to fit themselves into some model, which functions as a Procrustean bed.

What ignited furor was — Hanover

No. What "ignited furor" was the superficiality level at which the entire discussion should take place, and the bad faith in which it should be conducted.

Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. — Joshs

No, people who have dogs and several other species of animals often tell them apart by their biological sex by looking under their tail/between their legs. Not by behavior.

Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?

There's a reason why a certain school of psychology was called "rat psychology", with all its pejorative implications.

Don't be silly. You're putting forward the same type of model as the traditional ones. So you're, basically, doing the same thing as those you oppose, you just add a couple of more models, nothing more.

The traditional model expects biological males to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female". You switch this up a bit so that even biological males can be considered to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male".

But neither the traditional model nor you encourage one to, you know, just talk to the person. Instead, you both encourage people to act within scripted roles, and to interact with eachother in terms of those scripted roles (because this is what "perceptual-affective styles" are, scripted roles).

Remember, you said:

We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation. — Joshs

So evil and lack of conscience can be understood as a kind of arbitrariness , irrationality or capriciousness at the heart of intention and motivation, right? People are tempted, they stray from the ‘right’ path, but we don’t know why, or we assume there is no reason.
That’s my claim, that this arbitrariness is an assumption we make about ‘evil-doers’. But what if this simply reflects a failure of insight on our part? What if ‘evil-doers’ believe they are just, and their failure isn’t one of moral intent but of insight? — Joshs

And what if it's not failure at all?

I’m more interested in the philosophy and psychology of motivation. I understand your stance. What I would like to know is how you articulate the nature of wrong-doing and evil in terms of the capriciousness of straying from the path of righteousness. Tell me more about what makes such straying possible. Is it a kind of randomness? Is it an irrationality? — Joshs

I asked you (and @Tom Storm) about this before, but you didn't reply. Namely, on the difference between I-statements and you-statements (I-language and you-language).

E.g.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/632636
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/647537

I point this out because you're using you-language in your discussions of a topic that I think could be approached more effectively when acknowledging the distinction between I-language and you-language.

You need to keep yourself busy at all times because ...

The fact is, Russia poses no threat to America, so there is no reason for Americans to fear the Russians. — Apollodorus

But why then all the American anti-Russian propaganda?
Sheer contempt, to boost the American ego?

What if ‘evil-doers’ believe they are just, and their failure isn’t one of moral intent but of insight? — Joshs

You used this line of reasoning to defend Nazis.

So Putin's "failure of insight" is what exactly? That Slavic people are inferior and must let the West rule over them? That when the West makes promises to Russia and doesn't keep them, Russia must accept this and bow to the West?

What I am suggesting is that we can get rid of the concept of blame, but only when. we stop thinking of motive and intent as potentially arbitrary , capricious , vulnerable to bodily-emotive and social conditioning and shaping.

I dont know any philosopher or psychologist who follows me here — Joshs

Early Buddhism maintains something similar, but the matter is rather complex to explain (lots of things to remember).

Putin? haha — schopenhauer1

No, Biden.

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

Indeed, often, people who claim to only want peace and prosperity don't think their desires through to their logical consequences.

I should note that focusing on increasing our care and consideration implies that we believe we were acting carelessly and inconsiderately, which I consider to be forms of anger-blame. — Joshs

So if you live in a suburb, and dry your laundry by hanging it out in the air in your backyard, and your neighbor burns trash in his backyard, so that the smoke makes your laundry filthy -- you see no problem with this? You don't think he was careless and inconsiderate to do so, and that he should have at least warned you, so that you could take down the fresh laundry on time?

The solution is that you buy a dryer? But that is still care and consideration on your part, and as such, anger-blame.

If we believe ourselves righteous in anger towards someone, it’s a sure sign that we don’t understand where they’re coming from. That should give us pause. — Possibility

Why? People generally don't consider it very important to understand others. In fact, they generally prefer to see themselves as the arbiters of the others' reality, they prefer to see themselves as the judges over what is true for another person, esp. concerning the other person's inner life. They make this very clear in their insistence of using you-language.

Do we really think that attributing blame and directing anger towards someone will repair any damage or prevent future occurrences?

Of course. Blame and anger are effective means for gaining and keeping power over others. It's why people do it.

I think the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a clear example of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of blame and anger. What would a win-win situation look like here? Everyone is so focused on the significance of history in such a limited space, they’re ignoring aspects of the present reality. They acknowledge present pain and loss, but what’s not being recognised is the present state of humility. This is why the conflict continues, because both sides focus on past or consolidated pride to avoid a sense of humility in any present or future interaction. — Possibility

But such humility would require them to give up their identity. And --

There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are. — Tom Storm

Then we understand eachother.

What are you actually defending here? — Christoffer

The Old World.

The West will probably win, if in no other way, then by destroying the planet with consumerism.

That's why people provoke others into wars, to relieve their own boredom.

So what does Putin want? Perhaps one ounce of honour from the West to it's promises? — Isaac

The West has always been dishonorable toward Russia.

What's disgusting is the level of discourse at which you and your cronies want to exist.

A country either has sovereignity or doesn't. If it cannot take care of itself, then it doesn't have sovereignity. It's not posisble to take away something from a country that a country doesn't have.

Looks like the Western propaganda has done its job on you.

But moving past this, is it really philosophically correct to not assign blame for the wrong done? — L'éléphant

Is it really philosophically correct to take for granted that the party who feels wronged is automatically the arbiter of morality?

A no-blame morality is untenable and unsustainable because it is a one-sided premise whose burden is on the person harmed. — L'éléphant

As the poor and the powerless, and the innocent animals have experienced for millennia.

What this discussion is lacking is an acknowledgment of the role of the power differential in moral judgments.

The one who can punish is in the position of power.
If punishment is justified, as a matter of principle, then might makes right. Do you want to go in that direction?

The desert proponents once argued that punishment is a way for us to acknowledge the humanity of a person. Denying him a punishment is denying his accountability for his actions. And denying his accountability is denying his moral agency. So personhood has this component of culpability. You take away this culpability, then we treat him like we treat innocent animals.

And how people treat innocent animals? By keeping them in horrible conditions and then killing them or letting them die a gruesome death.

I see your point of trying to understand both Russia and China policies or affairs but I guess Ukraine's sovereignty is the big issue here and how it is being raped — javi2541997

Ukraine's sovereignty? A country that slavishly seeks the approval and protection of others and which depends economically on a country it considers its enemy? That's sovereignty?

There's a war going on with an aggressor who's invading and killing Ukrainians as we speak. You think I'm gonna sit here and be an apologist for someone like Putin? Treat him with respect? Like he treats Ukraine with respect? The fuck is wrong with you?

There are lines crossed when there's no morale choice but to remove a player that imposes threats of the scale he does and who's at the moment killing innocent people. I would say that when he indirectly threatens, with what all experts agree on, nuclear weapons towards anyone trying to help Ukraine. That is a fucking line crossed. — Christoffer

The West has been intensely building up contempt against Russia for at least 80 years.
For all this time, the West, and specifically the US, has made a concerted effort to consistently ridicule the Russians, in every way imaginable.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the West are well-intended and morally upright!

Read again what I said.

Remember, Putin wants his billionaire friends to be happy, he doesn't give a shit about the population of Russia. — Christoffer

Clearly, you don't understand much about Russia, or China.

These nations may be capitalist, but they are not the kind of simple-minded, greedy consumers as Americans and the West in general.



And again, do you even listen to yourself? With ease, you demand the death of another person, and here, you impute evil motivations on a person. Have you no shame?

Russia only wants destruction. — javi2541997

Do you even listen to yourself? The ease with which you project evil intent onto other people????

China has a lot more to lose on international trade than Russia. — Christoffer

Unlike the rest of the world, China and Russia actually can be self-sufficient.

I don't think people really understand the severity of the situation outside of what is actively going on in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Why do countries have so many so powerful weapons and so many soldiers, if not because they have every intent to use them?

Nobody of any relevance in this world believes that everything can be settled through dialogue, least of all the US and NATO.

Putin's actions are of one of a delusional lunatic. He's up there with Stalin, Hitler and the rest. I'm deadly serious in that he needs to go. He needs to be put down.

Right. When Russians defend their country, they are the bad guys. When Americans defend their country, they are the good guys.



Do you even listen to yourself? The ease with which you demand the death of someone???

Come, man, tell us what you know!

Is "the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say" something one can learn, or is it something one simply has or doesn't have, but cannot learn?

Afghanistan. Somalia. The US. — Olivier5

You said "without things like forgiveness and redemption, societies tend to accumulate hatred until people kill one another."

What evidence can you present that people wouldn't be killing eachother if they had "forgiveness and redemption"?

Resources needed for living are scarce and require considerable effort to be obtained. No amount of "forgiveness and redemption" can change that. People compete with eachother for the resources needed for living, and sometimes, this competition escalates to killing.

Unless Jesus makes haste and feeds multitudes with a few loaves of bread (and provides them with 5G internet while he's at it), from then on until forever, "forgiveness and redemption" are going to be as powerless as they've always been.