Thanks!

As I see that I've assumed the role of the orchestrator or sorts, I leave it to other members to decide on how (what companion to use and how many propositions we'll be covering at some rate) and when to start the reading group.

Do you want me to keep an eye on the direction? — Sam26

Yes, please. It's easy to get distracted from the points raised in the Tractatus, as it sort of requires one to have a laser focus and infinite working memory of sorts.

@Sam26, would you be willing to moderate this reading group? I don't want to ask if you would want to take it under your control, as I don't think you would want to.

Thanks.

I can give my complete assurance that I am of sane and rational mind in case anyone is wondering if I'm off my rocker. I take my medication as prescribed for my own issues, which from henceforth I won't bring up. Everything I have said is true and accurate in this thread. Having said that, if the moderators feel that this thread has no further purpose, then I think it be wise or diplomatic to lock it up.

One issue that has appeared in this thread, is the fact that talking about issues seems to be some taboo on a forum like this, for whatever reason. I hope we can come to terms with the fact that the entertainment of 'philosophy' is specific to some people who have their own issues and bouts of doubt about their own sanity, given reasonable accommodations. I hope we can be more understanding of those (not all) who do experience such pangs of self-doubt or uncertainty in their own lives in a more formal or tactful manner, if at all possible.

That's all I have to say. Thanks. Time to sleep for me.

Here's my candid view, and it's what makes this psychological talk very uncomfortable for me. This is the internet, where there are people from backgrounds extremely unfamiliar to many of us, where we meet people far outside our social groups who we have very little understanding or appreciation for. People share with us, including you, that they have many serious psychological issues, many of which doubtfully are addressable by talk therapy, but are matters where medication is required. Where talk therapy might be beneficial, none of us I believe are qualified to give it, and if any of us were, I really doubt we'd be as reckless to offer it through public postings through the tidbits we gather in these posts. — Hanover

Fine, that's the rational thing to do. It's none of your business to try and remedy the problems of the world. Its just that behind all of what you're talking about is a seemingly lack of concern or care for other people. TimeLine took her job too seriously, but, there's something praiseworthy to be said about her efforts.

I also believe that postings in this forum can be a manifestation of the psychological condition at play, meaning that responding and even offering validation for someone's feelings could be an enablement of the condition, making us a part of whatever is at play. — Hanover

Yes, and it is imperative that we do not just brush aside these so called "manifestations".

What I am saying is that I have taken it upon myself to be difficult to anyone who attempts to use this forum as a psychological sounding board when the matter goes beyond mundane questions like "how do you think I should I ask Betty Sue out" or other innocuous sorts of quandaries. — Hanover

Yeah, well I do what I can around here and try and empathize with other people's concerns and problems, not that I'm Jesus or anything like that. I'm not so high or deluded to think that I will change every mind or dissuade people from irrationality or some such matter.

I don't say this as a mod, but as someone who just thinks the sort of talk in this post are at best a waste of time, and at worst part of an unhealthy episode. — Hanover

So, you're in contradiction or not?

That I think that my comments here might be harmful to your psychological state, whatever it may be, (and I sort of do) is even the more reason why we shouldn't tread in these waters at all. — Hanover

OK, I agree to disagree. I do recall you taking your time and addressing my problems and issues in the past PF and around here, for which you have my gratitude. I'm not asking you to be a surrogate father of sorts, just a little more compassion? In all honestly, I find this forum and the contemplative state of mind that it puts a person in, highly therapeutic, and a source of potential benefit for others, for which I hope others might notice, utilize, or benefit from.

The cat in your avatar is awesome, BTW.

I guess. It's just that it is hard to find people who don't want to project their own assumptions and such, instead of understanding the other.

Basically, the super-ego is more apparent here (or not), than a real life interaction in my humble opinion. Maybe, I'm just reading too deep into our interactions on this forum; but, it's hard to find people with common interests as the ones displayed hereabouts.

I think so too -- but I think there is something to a physical relationship as well. And what you are asking after I would be more comfortable having a physical relationship with you. (as awful as that sounds -- I know the implications -- I just mean meeting you for a beer vs. reading you words here) — Moliere

Not sure about that. Physical relationships are governed by different rules. Here we are allowed to (to some detriment) be more open and forthcoming about our beliefs and held prejudices about ourselves, the world, and other such matters. Despite, this being a different form of communication, there's still a lot being understood and thought about. You form a mental image of me, and so do I of you based on your held beliefs. I might not entirely understand you; but, that should not be a limiting factor in us trying to arrive at some common ground or goal.

Without knowing you in the flesh it's just hard to say. We all can edit our text here and choose what we say. There's not enough information to give good advice. — Moliere

Well, that's a topic worth exploring. If you and I assume that we are both being honest and sincere in our postings, then I don't think you have a better image of me than anyone else can perceive if they knew me in person. Make no mistake, I honestly think lives are changed on these forums given how intimate and profound philosophy can be to a person. My posts are almost entirely devoid of pretension or false ideas about myself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/being-a-couch-potato-may-change-your-personality1/
Something to think about. — NKBJ

Interesting, thanks. I guess I have wallowed as much as possible and that needs to change.

I vote for going back to college and studying philosophy--tough degree to get a job with, but apparently you don't need one? You'd get all the fun of the forum with more rigor and you'd get out of the house — NKBJ

Well, I have registered for a community college class this summer. So, I will at least have something to do that is edifying. I'm just wary of college, and going into debt anymore. Though, I will have to reconsider that idea, and since I take this whole philosophy thing so seriously, then maybe I should go deeper into it. Thank you for the show of support!

Have you read any of my analysis of the Tractatus? — Sam26

I have somewhat, though if you can re-point me in the right direction, I would gladly re-read them.

I have, but I don't have the knowledge to understand the logical concept of the Tractatus yet. I do understand the ethical and metaphysical concept though.

I basically think it (the Tractatus) is best understood under a Two-Dimensional Semantic theory, which I am reading about here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/two-dimensional-semantics/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensionalism

I'm waiting for this analysis, what happened? You need to understand a bit of Frege and Russell, and Wittgenstein's thoughts leading up to the Tractatus, viz., the Notebooks. — Sam26

Not quite ready to do an analysis on both books and how they relate. I'm still an amateur on the topic of Wittgenstein and don't want to spout nonsense.

Is existence structurally negative for the human? Again, there will be many phenomenological angles to explore that issue and mine certain ideas that can be intuited from this kind of rationalizing about the human condition. — schopenhauer1

One can perhaps dig deeper than the ologies and try to mine what is at the heart of human nature and existence in general. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure if this issue can be addressed via philosophy. Much of the jargon we're using in this thread, "coping", "enduring", and so on are borrowed from the field of psychology. I'm wary of philosophers or anyone who claims to have an astute understanding of human psychology based on some false sense of authority, who then goes on to make sweeping generalizations about the true nature of man. That's not to denigrate or demean your feelings about the issue, though.

I hope that made more sense.

What's interesting is that the above phenomenon which I'm alluding to did not.occur at the old PF due to emotions and feelings being compartmentalized, allowing for more cool and rational discussions. Everything here seems to be mixing and mashing together. That's all I have to say on the issue.

Just the general sentiment or trend that I have noticed on these forums of using psychology as a weaponized means to prove a point in many of these discussions about human nature and such matters. Such discussions have no end and only fester resentment and anger over disagreements which in some sense are unavoidable since there's no real authority on the matter.

Too much unjustified fatalism originating from a false sense of certainty derived from emotional reasoning on the matter. That's my take on these deep psychoanalytic discursive talks. Not saying there's nothing to be learned from it though.

I figure, that if I have stated that I am content/happy/satisfied with my current state of affairs, then there is no point in questioning those feelings, although I do like to question almost everything.

Anyway, as always thanks for the tips, advice, and input.

Your trepidation over your stated satisfaction belies your claim to satisfaction. — Hanover

Hmm, good point. Although, "trepidation" is not the right word here, in my humble opinion. Maybe, doubt or uncertainty or lack of confidence would be more appropriate here.

If you're looking for someone to condemn your shiftlessness, you won't find it here, mostly because none of really know your capabilities and it's really none of our business. — Hanover

A very strange way to perceive issues, don't you think? Maybe you don't care about all this babble; but, seemingly others do. If it's none of your business then, why bother at all?

In my opinion, you need to find something you are passionate about and will make you want to move forward. — Lone Wolf

Perhaps, it's because I'm passionate about philosophy, that has given rise to all these sentiments.

Sometimes we are far too easily pleased with ourselves and never accomplish anything because we are satisfied with so little. — Lone Wolf

Is that a bad thing? I don't think being satisfied with less is an issue. Maybe, I'm just splitting an infinitive here.

Do you like animals? — Lone Wolf

Yes, I do. :_)

If you enjoy writing, maybe start a blog, as if you work hard enough at it, you might bring in a little cash. — Lone Wolf

Yeah, maybe. I don't really have much to say though about anything in particular.

Thank you for entertaining my trite and mundane babble.

Some of us do not have a problem with the word "crazy" -- just to give you a heads up in case the word should appear in responses to your OP. — Bitter Crank

Oh, well I just treat it as the F-word, or another way of saying STFU. It's really meaningless if a trained professional such as a psychiatrist or psychologist won't ever use it.

On the other hand, you have been generating more threads on TPF lately -- all to the good. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, thanks!

I'm sorry to hear that THIS is your only source of entertainment and intellectual stimulation. — Bitter Crank

Well, nothing to be sorry about, really. Why do you say that?

Have all the libraries closed? Is there no educational television? No National Public Radio (like the 1A. or Fresh Air?) — Bitter Crank

Well, the libraries are still open; but, just home is just a matter of preference for me to stay home and read stuff online or play League of Legends or post here and actually interact with people in a safe and distant manner. I don't watch that much TV. Sometimes Bloomberg, about the economy. Don't like the radio that much either.

Don't let your disability become a second disability. — Bitter Crank

It doesn't bother me. Just who I am, and I've come to terms with it. As of recent I've even stopped going to group therapy meetings also.

There are good reasons for people to have disability status -- and I'm not knocking it. But it is important for persons who are disabled (or retired, or unemployed, or otherwise not working) to have on-going "work" of some kind which is meaningful. Your involvement in TPF is an example of on-going work. — Bitter Crank

Meh, I don't know what's all the jazz about work. I used to clean toilets and urinals, pick up trash, and clean the popcorn from kids and parents in a movie theater. To each their own, I figure.

I'd be a little concerned about being at home all the time, eating and laying in bed (wallowing). — Bitter Crank

Well, wallowing is fun in general. You just wallow around haha.

I think you should get out a bit more--exercise, social contact of some kind, sunshine (vitamin D), etc. — Bitter Crank

Don't get the idea that all of this is dysphoric in some sense. It's not depression, not some form of existentialism. Just trying to reality test my own thoughts against yours or someone else.

Sounds good.

Can anyone recommend a good companion to use for the tractatus?

But this was less fear driven than idealism driven. — Bitter Crank

That's a statement worth exploring in more detail, I think. See this video for instance:

'It was going to happen eventually' says student on Texas shooting

YOU know there are several groups of special interests and elites who control the balance of political power in the US Congress and President's Office. I know that too, and maybe a couple of million inquiring minds in the country know that, but most people are not aware of how extremely disproportionate the power the elites have is and how little the population at large has. — Bitter Crank

They might not know it, however you want to define that term; but, I'm sure they have some inkling about it in general. Low voter turnout, disenfranchisement among young voters, and other trends point to this idea.

That's happened, and Eisenhower was right. What happened was that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about had gotten big, and has since gotten a lot bigger. Armaments are a major export item and support a lot of jobs. Military bases bring income into the regions in which they are located. — Bitter Crank

I'm not against the MIC. For all intents and purposes, it's a net positive on the economy and social welfare. I also don't really buy into the idea that the country being run by generals or a deep state, although Eisenhower was one hell of an awesome president in my book.

On the other hand, wars have gotten a lot more expensive. Avoiding the body bag PR problem of Vietnam has led to war with low death rates (for us), and a lot of smart bombs, cruise missiles, drones, heavier armoring of vehicles, more electronic warfare, etc. etc. (Unfortunately, that doesn't mean our military activities achieve exactly what they are intended to achieve, but...) — Bitter Crank

Well, that's solely because our aversion towards war has grown so high that it's hard to justify any jingoistic tendencies anymore. A topic worth exploring, perhaps.

I think a lot of Americans are aligned with the Military Industrial Complex's capacity to rain death and destruction (shock and awe) down on Islamic Enemies, or whoever else is next. Yes, there is human rights nattering about civilians getting blown up, but civilians have always been getting blown up in war. It's one of the great War Time Traditions. And in a cultural war of Islam Vs. Western CIVILIZATION, who is a civilian anyway? If it wasn't for all those other pesky nuclear powers, we'd probably should have just nuked the whole Middle East and been done with it. [These are not my personal views, mind you.] — Bitter Crank

Yeah, as much as I'd like to think that the above is just batshit, there are quite a few people with the above views.

SO THEN THE ALIGNMENT QUESTION: The people are aligned with what they believe the Government is doing, and why the government is doing what the government does -- most of the time. Every now and then the curtain is pulled back a little and people see that what the government is doing is not necessarily what they would like the government to be doing. The mismatch between belief and reality has to be egregious before people can really see it, because we are all drenched in a lot of misleading propaganda. — Bitter Crank

Fundamentally, the problem is that this is a top down process that has going on in regards to aligning the will of the people to the doings of our government, not the other way around, unfortunately. Why do you think that is?

Something about the nipponification of western culture just feels right. — VagabondSpectre

That would be amazing. We definitely need more social cohesion.

So, just to carry on the idea of the ordinary folk not having their voice heard (What I'll refer to as the 'alignment problem'). What can be done about this? It seems to me that the rhetoric of "draining the swamp" and such matters are just a distraction from the larger issue of not having the interests of the few and powerful only realized at the highest levels of governance, and with that a growing sense of distrust, paranoia, and even fear.

Is this simply a systemic feature of our form of governance in the US?

What s/he said.

Although, I'd like to point out, for sake of sincerity, that this isn't a purely "Republican" (although I did use the term "predominantly" in the OP, and still stick by it) issue. It's displayed on both sides of the aisle.

Well, looks like we got the all-stars of this forum in on this reading group. I'm feeling nervous of even attempting to handle this reading group, given that it could take a week to cover (one) proposition at a time. They're really that dense.

Anyone with more courage want to handle this reading group?

Posty, I just don't think most people object that much to most government activities. The People and The Government are reasonably well aligned, for better and for worse. — Bitter Crank

You really believe that? I find that hard to believe (?) I can post studies showing that special interest groups and a handful of elite have more power than what my vote can ever hope to do. Hell, you had Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation telling us that the Military Industrial Complex was getting out of hand in, back in 1961...

And these fearful children aren't fearful and paranoid about the government, they are fearful and paranoid about armed lunatics killing them -- a not altogether unreasonable fear (as long as they don't get carried away with fear; 99.999% of children attending school will not be victims of deranged gun-toting NRA zombies). — Bitter Crank

Maybe I was born yesterday; but, I recall hordes of school kids doing a walkout requesting some action on gun violence to be undertaken by our great and caring leaders.

This foolish, stupid, screwed up view of the world is no defense against the harsh realities of a globalized economy. — Bitter Crank

Are you saying that I got it all wrong, with projecting my own concern about these issues here?

I don't really see the insight looking at the alignments has to offer. — BlueBanana

Well, the point is that the government is serving interests other than that of the common folk, which Ciceronianus alluded to. That's all I was attempting to say on the matter. As to how to realign the interests of the common folk with the government is another matter, possibly worth exploring if anyone cares to start a thread on the issue.

It is not a new thing, but it is the essence of Americanism, and like all things traditionally American, it is more embraced by Republicans than Democrats, who for some reason are enamored by the European ideology America very intentionally stood in opposition to. — Hanover

The fact that European nations are able to set aside their differences and unite under a common flag under the name of the European Union, which is something very similar although not the same as the United States, speaks volumes about the level of maturity and sanity of Europeans. Basically, that's something desirable and to be applauded for.

I think that people from majority Muslim countries that had their requests to travel to the US denied by the new administration, on the sole grounds that they are from a Muslim country, would disagree. — andrewk

Yes, I stand corrected then.

One of the things that stimulates paranoia and fear is erratic change and uncertainty. Americans, like people all over the world are more subject to unexpected changes and uncertainty; it's destabilizing, especially when some of the changes mean worsening conditions, and some mean improving conditions. — Bitter Crank

I think the issue is that the goals of "the government" are not aligned with the interest of the common folk. I call this the alignment problem.

Lots of people are getting jacked around by economic forces directed from distant locations, and people think the government is behind it. Sometimes the Gov is behind it; other times, not. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I guess so. It's the economy, stupid! Not really...

Just say NO to fear and paranoia. — Bitter Crank

It's really worrying when you see it in children, of all people, who are afraid to go to school because some mentally deranged person wants to shoot up the place.

I'm not putting you in the hot seat. Just that schopenhauer1 felt like your post was condescending, which it might actually not be due to the implicit reference to treating the whole issue as a matter of taste (of art). Is that correct?

I don't think so. The sentiments schopenhauer1 and darthbarracuda have been professing are contrary to the modern day mentality, but not immature or infantile. I hope we can learn to respect their opinions instead of resorting to claiming they are just adolescent bickering or angst.

I'm not sure what you mean by "around here" but when I searched for "Chomsky" I came up with 253 mentions, which I would think isn't bad as far as mentions go. — Ciceronianus the White

I was speaking comparatively, to the old PF, where we even had a bot (think it was called ModBot), made by Paul, that would quote Chomsky whenever his name was mentioned or something like that.

As to what he says as quoted above, I'm not sure if he's addressing (1) why Americans are afraid of their government; or (2) "fear of the United States"; or why Americans fear (or hate) others, using Indians and slaves as examples. I think it's a confusing response, as I think these are different issues. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, it is just a manifestation of the underlying fear and paranoia in the US. I'm no authority on the issue, and hope someone can reassure me that cool reason will prevail in the end. Anyway, I can search for statistics in some cherry picking manner to support my point of people being paranoid and fearful of the government in the US. Think about the loony conspiracy theories around 9/11, JFK's assassination, the ambiguous role of the CIA/NSA, the appalling distrust of the FBI among the general population. Data collection by the NSA and other alphabet agencies on civilians... etc.

Speaking only for myself, I think our government is largely corrupt, as it is so entirely dependent on money and so influenced primarily by those who have it and are willing to spend it in assuring politicians will do their bidding. So, I don't admire or trust our government. I don't particularly fear it at this time. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, that's a depressing state of affairs to hold in your mind. I don't know what to say to that sentiment, other than maybe I'm just naive on the matter.

God's teeth. Does Noam Chomsky know everything? — Ciceronianus the White

Most certainly not. Although, he does know a lot, more than I do.

Whether he does or not, must we so persistently learn what he thinks and alert others when we do so? — Ciceronianus the White

What do you disagree with in his short analysis of the underlying fear, paranoia, and distrust prevalent in the US?

He's become a kind of modern, but prolix, version of the Oracle of Delphi. — Ciceronianus the White

Not around here, at least. I haven't seen him mentioned that much on issues pertaining politics hereabouts.

Here's a short article from Chomsky on the issue, more or less:

Noam Chomsky: Why Americans Are Paranoid About Everything (Including Zombies)
Noam Chomsky explains why Americans have always had high levels of fear -- fear of Indians, of African-Americans ... even zombies.

Question: This might sound kind of random, but I would really like to ask your opinion of why you think there's this preoccupation with the apocolypse and with zombies right now in our culture.

Noam Chomsky: I've never seen a real study, but my guess is that it's a reflection of fear and desperation. It's a very frightened country. The United States is an unusually frightened country. And in such circumstances, people concoct either for escape or maybe out of relief, fears that terrible things happen.

Actually, the fear of the United States is a pretty interesting cultural phenomenon. It actually goes back to the colonies. There are some good studies out there. A very interesting book by a literary critic, Bruce Franklin. It's called War Stars. You might want to take a look at it. It's a study of popular literature, the kind of literature that most people read from the earliest days to the present. When it gets to the present it switches to television, things like that. Just kind of popular culture.

There are a couple of themes that run through it that are pretty striking. For one thing, one major theme in popular literature is that we are about to face destruction from some terrible, awesome enemy. And at the last minute we are saved by a superhero or a super weapon, or in recent years high school kids going to the hills to chase away the Russians, things like that. That's one theme that runs through constantly. And there's a sub-theme. It turns out this enemy, this horrible enemy that's about to destroy us, is somebody we're crushing.

So you go back to the early years, the terrible enemy was the Indians, who were going to destroy us. The colonists were, of course, invaders. They were invading the continent. Whatever you think about the Indians, they were defending their own territory. There's a scene in the Declaration of Independence, people read it every July 4th, but not many people pay attention to what they're reading. It's kind of like a prayer book, you move on somewhere else. But if you read it and pay attention, there are some pretty remarkable passages. So one passage is a list of a bill of indictment against King George the Third of England explaining why the colonists were revolting. One of them is “He unleashed against us the merciless Indian savages, whose known way of warfare is torture and destruction” and so on. Well, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that and is a very great thinker of the Enlightenment, knew perfectly well that it was the merciless English savages whose known way of warfare was destruction and murder and were taking over the country and driving out or exterminating the natives. But it's switched in the Declaration of Independence and nobody comments on it for years. That's another sign of the same concern.

After that it became the slaves. There was going to be a slave revolt, a terrible slave revolt, and the slave population, the black population was going to rise up and kill all the men, rape all the women, destroy the country, something like that. Then it goes on through the centuries. It becomes modern times, Hispanic narco-traffickers are going to come in and destroy the society. One thing after another. And these are real fears.

That's a lot of what lies behind the extremely unusual gun culture in the United States. It's quite unique. Homicides, deaths by guns in the United States are way outside—there's a kind of hysteria about having guns. A large part of the population believes they just have to have them to protect themselves. From who? From the United Nations. Or from the federal government. From aliens. Maybe from zombies. Whoever it is. We just have to have guns to protect ourselves. That's not known elsewhere in the world. Maybe in, say, Syria, a country that's warring you might find something like that. But in a country that's not only at peace but has an unusual security and a great degree of freedom, that's quite remarkable.

I suspect that what you're bringing up is part of that. I think it's, much of it is kind of just a recognition, at some level of the psyche, that if you've got your boot on somebody's neck, there's something wrong. And that the people you're oppressing may rise up and defend themselves, and then you're in trouble. And another is strange properties the country has always had of fear of invented dangers. There is a kind of paranoid streak in the culture that's pretty unusual. — Noam Chomsky

One positive thing that I have noticed, though, is that Trump didn't continue the legacy of Bush and Obama in regards to the war on terror.

Anyone know if Chomsky has already addressed this question, as I'm sure he has? He doesn't get mentioned enough on the forums when it comes to US politics.

You're just restarting your favorite "woe is me, the world is terrible" discussion. — T Clark

Not really. The point is that if one has to endure or cope with a situation, then that's not a personal problem.