Marriage For Everyone!

[Obvious Leo]

Who is qualified to interpret the world?

Anybody who takes the trouble to study it and draw conclusions about the events which occur in it. That these events are interpreted within the cultural and ideological zeitgeist of the observer of them is scarcely breaking news and your suggestion that the Nazi apologists and conspiracy theorists might elect to take a different view from mine is neither relevant nor interesting. I refer to the way in which the behaviour of the US during this period has been regarded and is being currently regarded by the rest of the global community because it is these real-world interpretations which inform the current geo-political realities. The scholarly analyses you refer to may be of interest to those with an eye to the broader landscape of history but since very few people ever bother to read such dissections they are of precious little use to us in understanding the realpolitik of the real world in the real today. It is these perceptions which I refer to because it is perceptions which drive human behaviour irrespective of their truth value.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I make no bones about it and I state my position with the utmost of respect. It was the US who saved the world from plunging into the moral darkness which was being enforced on humanity by both Nazism and Japanese imperialism. I believe that it was during the Cold War afterwards that the US lost its moral compass and gradually degenerated into just another imperialist aggressor in its own right. I don't equate the motives of the US with those of these earlier chilling doctrines but to many of the poorer nations of the world the outcomes have not been substantially different than if they had been. The real question is what the fuck to do about it, because in my view the US still has much to offer the world as a global superpower. I remain cautiously optimistic, despite the trend of current events which seems to suggest otherwise.

If Europe had a History Channel this would surely be a primary tenet. But it is canned thought really, little more. It is an historical view that has been determined by bias and by convenient and easy predicates.
?

The History Channel can be accessed in Europe. It's okay for a laugh once in a while, if you like UFO stories.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Esteemed Obvious Leo,

While it is true that 'anyone' can study this issue, and any other issue, and come out with 'conclusions', it is likely that many or most people will arrive at incorrect or inaccurate conclusions.

The reason I bring this up here is - obviously I thought - that I cast into doubt your interpretive capabilities. Not only on the basis of the historical interpretation offered, but obviously in relation to other analysis - and for example the ideas that drive your discourse vis-a-vis religion and the spiritual.

The 'ideological zeitgeist' of the whole world may declare thus-and-such to be true or right, and none of this should matter to those drawn to knowledge and to truth. And this is precisely the point, and the thrust of much of my discourse.

If it is erroneous real-world interpretations that drive world opinion, it is therefor necessary not to come under their sway and to resist them.

The 'scholarly analysis' I am interested in, I would suggest, is in a large sense a resistance to scholarly analysis and to the academy generally, but importantly to a mind which sees itself as authoritative but which (I merely suggest it possible) when more closely examined is spouting commonplaces, 'ideological zeitgeist', and idées reçues.

And now we circle back around to Mr Obvious Leo and of course numerous others who spout opinion as if it is established truth. We notice their declarations, we question them, and we desire to do this with a certain force.

Finally, when you say that such 'dissections are of precious little use to us in understanding the realpolitik of the real world in the real today', I'd say that you have to clarify the statement. To understand realpolitik requires precisely such dissections. And yet it is also necessary to understand a structure of lies and deceptions that (it would seem) are discoverable at the base of propaganda systems and systems of interpretation.

[Dubious]

It is these perceptions which I refer to because it is perceptions which drive human behaviour irrespective of their truth value.

This is ONE 'truth' which lives up to the name. It perfectly explains why all of this philosophical truth crap has very little effect on the way people think in spite of the fact that 'truth' is mentioned so often. We've ALWAYS been ruled by perception as the social myth currently in effect.

All the ways we allow Truth to be overruled by our perceptions and the ways we seek to justify them is perhaps the greatest of our existential problems though still in line with human nature whose greatest myth is that humans are inherently dedicated to truth. There's too much 'Free Will' available to negate that proposition while at the same time preserving the idea in its own inner Sanctum...as long as it doesn't have to show its face too often being mostly ruled by the diplomacy and expediencies of our own lies.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is these perceptions which I refer to because it is perceptions which drive human behaviour irrespective of their truth value.

This is ONE 'truth' which lives up to the name. It perfectly explains why all of this philosophical truth crap has very little effect on the way people think in spite of the fact that 'truth' is mentioned so often. We've ALWAYS been ruled by perception as the social myth currently in effect.

All the ways we allow Truth to be overruled by our perceptions and the ways we seek to justify them is perhaps the greatest of our existential problems though still in line with human nature whose greatest myth is that humans are inherently dedicated to truth. There's too much 'Free Will' available to negate that proposition while at the same time preserving the idea in its own inner Sanctum...as long as it doesn't have to show its face too often being mostly ruled by the diplomacy and expediencies of our own lies.

The trouble with "truth" is that it is not always factual.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

This is ONE 'truth' which lives up to the name. It perfectly explains why all of this philosophical truth crap has very little effect on the way people think in spite of the fact that 'truth' is mentioned so often. We've ALWAYS been ruled by perception as the social myth currently in effect.

All the ways we allow Truth to be overruled by our perceptions and the ways we seek to justify them is perhaps the greatest of our existential problems though still in line with human nature whose greatest myth is that humans are inherently dedicated to truth. There's too much 'Free Will' available to negate that proposition while at the same time preserving the idea in its own inner Sanctum...as long as it doesn't have to show its face too often being mostly ruled by the diplomacy and expediencies of our own lies.

If we are always ruled by 'perception' (social myth or else our own will-to-perceive, our own 'insistance'), and if when we say we are interested in truth we are really more interested in our lies, does this not place in grand doubt and confusion any and all 'declarations' about truth?

I'd also have to draw the conclusion from your statement that in all domains - political, economic, social - that the philosophical approach and philosophical valuation really has no place there and is a sham.

If that is so, the only arena where philosophy has validity is for those who operate on the outside of 'interest' and those who are not complicit.

Would you say that it is that we allow truth to be overridden by our own interests?

It seems to me that what you describe - I find that I am in agreement largely - must lead to a strong attitude of cynicism and pessimism toward all domains of human interest and that if a man is to maintain self-respect and integrity the only domain for his focus is his own self.

[Dubious]

If we are always ruled by 'perception' (social myth or else our own will-to-perceive, our own 'insistance'), and if when we say we are interested in truth we are really more interested in our lies, does this not place in grand doubt and confusion any and all 'declarations' about truth?

We are 'mostly' ruled by our perceptions, the prevailing social myth at any one time being its consequence. This doesn't imply that we are not interested in truth only that we will not allow it to get in our way if it 'injures' the moment. Truth is temporarily in retreat only to become more insurmountable later. We may be suspicious of consequences but as long as its certainty is not manifest we proceed in the name of some favorable expediency stuffing time with greater uncertainties and insecurities.

Truth is essentially mundane. Nature has been fairly consistent in recording it. If in our activities we cannot or will not acknowledge Time & Truth as symptomatic of prophecy, there is nothing otherwise grand we can declare about it...except for philosophy indulging in an endless maze of useless theoreticals in which no Minotaur was ever slain.

It seems to me that what you describe - I find that I am in agreement largely - must lead to a strong attitude of cynicism and pessimism toward all domains of human interest and that if a man is to maintain self-respect and integrity the only domain for his focus is his own self.

His 'own self' is where it should begin, but whether it does or not, once transposed into a 'societal' context the integrity factor diminishes and the expediencies multiply. It is this which overrules everything, never more than in that monolith called politics and everything it includes virtually declassifying the planet itself as if it were only a subset.

Truth no longer acts as container for that which requires acknowledgement or what demands to be served - except when you've reached a natural boundary - but instead serves most deferentially as a credibility ploy usually instigated by fine speeches or threats meant only to alibi the intent which counters truth. Whether personal or national, if self interest is a credo which amounts to no more than that, it becomes a Truth killer which societies, unfortunately, are replete with in 'almost' every way you can imagine.

---------------------------------------

The trouble with "truth" is that it is not always factual.

...especially when applied as the most potent method to avoid a fact, that is, forging one in order to negate the actual one. A good fictional truth will override the real one any day. We do it all the time. Besides the complexity of Truth is in league with much more than merely fact. It would be superflous for Philosophy to discuss Truth if it meant discussing facts only.

[surreptitious57]

The trouble with truth is that it is not always factual

Especially if it has been arrived at by way of emotional reasoning

Subjective truth is also some times confused with objective truth

[Hobbes' Choice]

The trouble with truth is that it is not always factual

Especially if it has been arrived at by way of emotional reasoning

Subjective truth is also some times confused with objective truth

I would venture to say that all non-factual 'truths' are subjective ones. And that however impartial you want to appear objective truths are always selected in some respect and therefore partial or interested depending on the context in which they are selected.
One needs always to suspect the motives of those declaring objective truth, most especially when that truth lies in the moral realm.