:lol:

Damn man, I think statements such as those should be put in a novel, it's terrific. To be clear I'm laughing at what you are saying, not at you, I like the attitude.

I haven't heard nor know anything about New Order, but I'll be sure to check them out. I personally like a healthy range of musical genre's. Certain parts of rap, reggaetón and a good portion of modern pop music aren't to my tastes. But different strokes...

Criticizing art is problematic. You can certainly get highfalutin people thinking that anything after Mozart is crap. And sure, Mozart is very likely much more sophisticated than what I like, but a lot of it puts me to sleep. But then there's certain music that to me is like nails on a chalkboard.

Here's another, maybe you've heard of them:

Waterfall by Stones Roses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuGuPZnqqlI

And straight up racist too.

It's instructive to see how "Israeli" and "Jewish" are used interchangeably here. But all Palestinians are just Arabs, who cares where they live? It's the same thing. All Arabs have states, what they want another one? :roll:

We haven't improved much on racism. Somewhat sure, but damn, we've got ways to go...

Chomsky's the world — StreetlightX

:100:

All nation states, to the extent they have power, use force. Israel is no exception. It's just that they got into colonialism a few years later than others.

And now everybody can see how brutal it is. What boggles the mind is the excuses they come up with! "Human shields", "They don't want peace", "Move to Jordan", etc. etc.

Sure. Perhaps someone reading these posts might get it, so it's always worth a shot.

Anyway, carrying on:

Satisfy My Soul - Bob Marley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8GCc8OhTz8

Truth is no-one cared for the Jews out of the nation states. Even in full knowledge of the Holocaust, it wasn't a moral issue till like the 60's or 70's in terms of anyone caring much outside Jews.

It's tragic. Though it doesn't justify what they did in Palestine, but I understand it.

But by now, after much reparations from Germany, they have an advanced industrial country and a massive military. They could just stop stealing more land and killing people indiscriminately. Jeez.

Is the English that are known for understatement? Are you English? That's got to rank right up there at the tippy top old chap! — James Riley

Na. I'm Dominican/American/Spanish, but I love British humor. ;)

Sure. This issue does raise passions a bit, with good reason there's plenty of stuff in it.

So should I be concerned more with the victims of the fighting or with the reasons for the fighting? — Michael

There's no single rule.

Number of casualties and who is murdered probably are (probably) the priority.

The history is long, complex, ugly. But there's substantial scholarly evidence that time and time again it's been Israel who has rejected peace in favor of expansion. It happened in 67 when besides Gaza and the West Bank, they took the Golan Heights from Syria and the Sinai from Egypt.

Egypt offered a full peace treaty, not even recognizing Gaza and the West Bank in 1970. Israel considered the option, but rejected it in favor of incorporating the Sinai to Israel. They were building a city their, Yamit.

After the 73' war, they had to withdraw from the Sinai AND recognize Palestinian grievances this time around, which was worse from the Israeli perspective.

But they've continued building in the occupied territories. It does this because it has the power to do so. Israeli is acting like any other imperial state.

But this is what there is.

First of all stop stealing more land.

Then go back to resolution 242, create two states.

Then we can proceed.

And Jews can go to New York.

This is nuts.

It's a good PR tactic.

Does that justify killing civilians? — Michael

No.

But under occupation they can acquiesce or resist. Resistance need not imply violence at all.

They're under a blockade in Gaza in which the Israeli authorities count the calories each citizen eats. That's monstrous no matter what:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/1-million-face-hunger-in-gaza-after-us-cut-to-palestine-aid

They are continuing to build in territory which does not belong to them. They're stealing another people's home and you except these people to say "thank you"?

180 is correct. They're not in a position to choose peace while occupied. They only have resistance or they acquiesce.

That's an incredible statement.

That's like saying why do Jews need Israel if they already have New York.

People who defend Israeli actions now are not too different from those that defended Apartheid South Africa when it terrorized the population by claiming that they are "defending themselves".

Of course they are. What are they going to say? We're killing children?

And to those that think that the Arabs have not sought peace, just look at the "Palestine Papers" from just a few years ago. The PLO was willing to give up all of East Jerusalem just to be left alone. But this goes way back. It's been Israel, not the Arab states, that have repeatedly rejected peace in favor of power.

But Israeli loyalists will say that they are in an "existential threat" situation. They say this as they are actively destroying a nation. And see no irony in this.

But don't forget Israel created Hamas in order to divide the PLO, it just so happened that Hamas gained power in Gaza and manage to fight back to a limited extent...

Powerful images:

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/5/12/in-pictures-9

Yes, no kidding. What "missiles" are those that you can throw 200 of them and kill 2 people?

And to be crystal clear: I do not wish to see any more deaths on any side. This is a tragedy, but those with least capacity to fight back are getting totally slaughtered.

Those "anti-missile" technologies are just for PR purposes, they barely work. Using state of the art technology against civilians is contemptible.

and Saudi Arabia still gets all the hardware they want, which recently has been a shit ton — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which contributes to the Yemen catastrophe.

Now we have this massacre. During a pandemic no less.

And then we still have people (a bit less so than before thankfully) asking "why are the Muslims so radical?"

Hah. As if many of us wouldn't be in Hamas or the Brotherhood or whoever is around to fight back to some degree, which compared to Israel or Saudi Arabia is like throwing a rock to a tank.

However why the US has quite a different approach to the conflict as in other cases was what I had in mind. This is very important in this case. We see that the whole peace process itself was started by Israel anticipating that once the Cold War was over, the US policy might change (as happened with South Africa). But that didn't happen, which is crucial here. — ssu

Sure. As far as I know, what brought the US in such close alliance was the 67' war, in which Israel defeated Nasser and with him secular Arab Nationalism. The US suddenly had an ally it could depend on in the Middle East. They also had Iran as an ally back then. Now they have less military allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel essentially, which is quite crazy if you think about it. Also Egypt, but they're not doing good.

Yes, the end of the Cold War did not bring forth a positive solution which could have been reached when the USSR collapsed. Now, very few (if any) powerful states support the Palestinians. Turkey a few years ago was agitating. Now I don't know. Maybe Russia could do something, but I don't know how it benefits them, which we sadly have to consider.

China is another potential player, but I don't see them getting too involved.

So the US is the main player here and Europe does almost nothing...

We could go back to The British Mandate of Palestine. We could then go to WWII and mention that a large portion of the Jewish elites did not care much about the Holocaust, as such an event provided an opportunity to demand a state.

We could also talk about how the original UN proposal would've divided the land of Israel something like 55%-45% in favor of the incoming European refugees. And it would've actually been less bad to the Palestinians to accept that UN resolution, because what they ended up getting was way worse for them.

Of course, I completely see why they would reject such an offer, it basically gave off land to settlers. But now they have almost nothing.

We could also talk about how Israel obtained the Gaza and the West Bank in the 67' war. All of this is legitimate and interesting and useful.

But for the narrow purposes of this "war" or massacre, I think talking about Jews and Arabs and religion complicates the scenario with not crucial info for the moment. What matters, I think, is that children and civilians are being killed indiscriminately. This shouldn't be accepted regardless of the history.

That's why I'm not talking much about the whole history of Israel. Which is very interesting.

Which is tragic. But even worse are the number of elder Palestinians and children being killed. So again, I don't see the point of talking about Jews here.

It takes away from the main problem now:

An occupying force is killing civilians in lands it is stealing. That's the point.

Hamas launches rockets from civilian areas. — BitconnectCarlos

You're just a propagandist.

:up:

Excellent. It's been long overdue, over 50 years of occupation and murder and massacre and theft. Really ugly stuff. The Israeli left is very small now, it needs to pick up members again to shift internal politics inside the country.

Yes, many Israeli's are honest about what they do, even if it's quite ugly. But as your post shows, it's now almost impossible to defend these acts. You just can't compare the land of Gaza which is now a garbage heap with one of the most advanced militaries in the world.

It's tragic that so many people have to get killed in such a senseless, brutal manner. But it's changing eyes and minds...

Didn't say the word "Jewish" once, if you actually saw my post. There are Israeli's which aren't Jewish and the religion here is irrelevant to the crimes.

B'Tselem is excellent and is run by mostly Jews, I don't know why you raised that point. Unless you are purposefully mixing in the Israeli state as representing all Jews and then calling criticism of the state "anti-Jewish" hatred, which is getting very old by now.

It's more accurate to call it "aggression". If you think it's acceptable to kill people who's lands you are stealing, that's your problem.

Well Žižek is entertaining and sometimes says interesting things and he's a Lacanian. But learning about Lacan for me didn't help me with Žižek. I don't think it was a waste of time necessarily, one finds out what roads not to follow.

Agreed with what you say about not being able to read everything, it would be a total mess in terms of not being able to establish your own thinking because too many ideas are clashing in your head.

I had no clue. :sweat:

I don't get it. What about these bands?

Yes, I think so too. Plus the way Postmodernism uses science is embarrassing, just look at Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense and The Sokal Hoax and you'll see what actual scientists have to say about what many of these figures said. It's not even wrong as the phrase goes.

Psychoanalysis has many branches, some of which seem to depart quite a bit from Freud. You'll gain much more by reading any of these than reading Lacan, honestly. I studied him for almost two years and I would be embarrassed to present Lacan's "thoughts", as they are so arbitrary and treated like gospel.

Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and these types actually have interesting things to say. But there's only so much time and many people to read, so you'll have to decide what type of thought you are most attracted to eventually, I think. But it's always good to read different views irrespective of what you may be sympathetic with.

That's very interesting, Manuel. Can you tease this out? What appealed then and what do you think happened to that connection? — Tom Storm

It's a long story, so I'll have to compress what I say. I stumbled on Heidegger via Hubert Dreyfus' interpretation. I thought he was doing something original, kind of offering an in depth analysis of manifest reality in a manner than was thoroughly philosophical, without basing his thought on modern science. I liked the idea of collapsing the man-and-world distinction, or at least, closing the gap in many respects.

He has an amazing gift of presenting very ordinary situations in a very thoughtful manner. Heck what could be simpler than someone using a hammer? But he made it stand out.

Over time and trying to explain his thought plainly, I discovered that I was mostly saying obvious things in different ways. And I could not see a way how to add to his project without continuing in a path that leads to what I think is a wrong way to think about how people relate to the world. I find his emphasis to exaggerate those moments of "flow" or not thinking about what we do things when we do them.

I still think his was a good way to try a new kind of philosophy and some of what he says still sounds impactful, but I think a more rationalist take on such a philosophy would be more fruitful for what I'm interested in.



You did well. Saved yourself from a lot of nonsense. Not all, to be fair, but much of it is just bad.

Wish You Were Here - Pink Floyd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXdNnw99-Ic&t=108s

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?
Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war
For a leading role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl
Year after year
Running over the same old ground
What have we found?
The same old fears
Wish you were here

This song - like most of Pink Floyd's songs, has a fascinating if tragic background. It may seem on first glance that this song is generally about wishing someone we love was here, meaning usually that this person is dead and one is mourning a loss.

And while that is a perfectly fine interpretation, this song is literally about Syd Barrett, the man responsible for forming Pink Floyd and launching them to some degree of fame in England. Barrett was by all means a promising genius, but he had a delicate psyche. While living the dream of "sex, drugs and rock", he accidently consumed too much LSD one time and from that point onward, ceased to become the Syd Barrett that the band members knew.

He attempted to continue writing music, but his mind was too far gone and thus Syd retired to tranquility. Literally, this song is about a person who is alive, but gone meaning they're no longer at all the person they once knew, so not "here". This can be seen in the lyrics, with the question it asks. I take it to mean something like Syd traded his sanity for comforting delusion.

By a strange cosmic coincidence, when Pink Floyd was recording this album, Syd went to visit the band members for the first time in years. They were recording this song when they saw a strange man they did not recognize, it took them several minutes to discover who he was. Once they found out who it was, they cried.

They showed him some of the songs on this album. It's not clear he could take in what they were dedicating to him. The rest, as they say, is history.

A beautiful song that should be interpreted however one feels like. :heart:

Hotel California (Live Acoustic) - The Eagles

The best version of this song by far. :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mbI74lV68

Yes, I agree with this. I used to really like Heidegger. When I read him now, it does little to me. It doesn't connect nearly as much, though I do still find some value in him.

I had a "postmodernism" phase many years ago, in which I liked Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan. I now think Lacan and some parts of Deleuze are just awful, unhelpful and can quite literally make you think irrationality about how the world works. But my opinion on Derrida never changed, he just plays with words and tries to sound complex. Other would fiercely disagree. That's fine.

The opposite happened to me with Whitehead. I use to think his main work was mostly incomprehensible jargon, with little to no value. I now think he's very interesting, even if his verbosity takes away some extra value that would be there had he been better in expressing his ideas.

And is it unreasonable to consider a mind that exists when the body and brain dies that makes us away or possible past lives and a world beyond this one? A mind that is too quiet in the presents of brain minds? — TiredThinker

It's quite unlikely I think, there's no good reason to believe mind goes on absent certain configurations of matter, like brains.

As for mental distinctions, it's an open question. The distinction we make on the world may or may not "cut up" nature in the proper manner. I think there is good reason to believe that when a physicist postulates an atom, he is correct in also postulating electrons and protons, that is it's a successful separation of nature.

But as for making a natural distinction between mind and matter, that does not seem justified. As for mind itself there's many aspects to it. Intentionality goes from the subject to the world, perception comes from the world to the subject. Both are mind-involving acts, but I don't think postulating intentionality on one side and perception on the other is a real cut in nature, as atoms and electrons are.

Memory involves mind, but need not be necessary in some instances. So that may be a good distinction. On the other hand having no memory at all, not even one that lasts, for example .5 seconds, might make experience impossible.

Skimming is fine, for anything, I think. But that's just to get a general idea. Sometimes a philosopher/scientist/author is simply not for you.

Sure, technicalities in science are quite difficult for the non-expert, which is why popularizers such as Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and others are very, very helpful.

I've read Pynchon, which I've heard is as hard to read as Joyce, though this is debated. I think part of Finnegans Wake is simply meant to frustrate the reader.

Which is why I choose a thermometer, not a random lone person out the window. If, however there were a crowd outside and they all wore cold weather clothing, I might be more likely to go this path. — Tom Storm

It becomes complex quite quickly.

Perhaps you can say that looking at a thermometer gives you more reasons yo believe it is cold outside as opposed to looking at a person. A thermometer isn't subjective, perhaps the person you are looking it is particularly sensible to slight changes in weather or perhaps that person looked at the same thermometer before choosing what to wear.

Then again someone can always come back at you and say that this thermometer might be broken or misleading, etc.

So you can add all the extra complications you'd like. In such a scenario I tend to prefer trusting a thermometer over a person because more people are involved in making sure the thermometer is working properly as opposed to what a single person may feel.

Fallibillism (originally CS Pierce) may be the best approach. — Tom Storm

:up:

Yes. He's an excellent choice on these matters.

That's part of it sure, we don't have absolute certainty in any case. But I think the problem with Gettier paradoxes lies in some measure, with the concept of "knowledge". It's not a straightforward word that applies in all instances and it has certain English specific idiosyncrasies.

We can speak of a person knowing the history of WWII and while we can say that a person knows that he sees a lake, these are very different uses of the word, established by very different criteria. Some could argue that speaking about "knowing" that you see something is not really knowledge, it is perception. This is debatable though.

And then we also have knowledge by accident, as in bumping into a tourist from a particular country and happening to know the language they speak. And many other cases.

So instead of knowledge we may be better off using "understanding" or some other term.

It's likely inevitable. It forms part of our innate categorization of things to belong, at the very least, to a community of people which today is associated with a nation state.

It's not as if you could reject your national identity even if you wanted to, some of sticks, the extent of which this happens varies. A closely related question is to what degree can you try to reject those aspects of nation identity which you may not like. Some may be strongly bonded with national identities. Others may think it's more silly than useful. It has its good and bad sides.

I hope such feelings diminish to the extent they can. The problems we are facing cannot be adequately solved by identities belonging to a nation state. We need the world in some fashion.

So how do people stay endlessly fascinated? How does one master the capacity to stay engaged? I believe this is a topic that demands more attention. — Benj96

First of all, this is an excellent question. It's something I struggle with with relative frequency.

If I had to guess, I think that in large part the capacity to sustain fascination is person dependent. There are times in which I just cannot bring myself to care, be invested in, or think about certain topics that on most other times, are just the most interesting topics of all: philosophy, science, international relations and literature.

Maybe there is something to be said about discipline. It probably helps you to stay connected with a topic even if it's not being interesting at the moment. It's probably also good to engage with something you normally wouldn't, it could lead to new things.

Then again, if something is not connecting with you at the moment, you might be actually be better served doing something else.

There is a world of difference in the capacity for retention and engagement with serious issues if you are interested or fascinated as opposed to moments when, for whatever reason, you aren't so interested.

I'm sure others have different experiences.

No problem at all.

Yes, I agree with your statement. It's a very different idea of thinking about God, which is what makes it unique.

But it is extremely dark, maybe the most pessimistic system in the whole of philosophy.

Dark sentiment indeed. Interesting project you have going on here. :)

You are open to many possibilities, that's a good trait in general.

I'd only be careful in taking science out of context, that could be if not dangerous, then problematic at least when attempting to make sense of evidence.

Some people love Finnegans Wake. Can one call it a novel? I suppose. I can't read much into it. But in the arts, whatever moved you or gets you thinking is legitimate, I think.