fascism in America?

[Belinda]

Fascism is Goliath against David as democracy.

Where is this huge "giant" of yours, B? It should be incredibly hard to hide...Yet there are no modern Fascists at all...just a bunch of Lefties calling everybody who disagrees with them "fascists..."

...while burning down cities, demonizing "races," bludgeoning opponents, denying free people a right to speak or defend themselves against big government, getting involved militarily in other countries and eliminating alternate political parties....rather like the Fascists did...

In which case, point taken.

You are such an optimist! The human world works by aggression, like a posturing Goliath. All we have to protect the right and good is the clever shepherd who can wield the sling of democracy

[Immanuel Can]

The human world works by aggression, like a posturing Goliath.

You mean like the Biden speech? Hardly a "Goliath," posturing or not.

"Sling of democracy"?

[Belinda]

The human world works by aggression, like a posturing Goliath.

You mean like the Biden speech? Hardly a "Goliath," posturing or not.

"Sling of democracy"?

No. Biden is not aggressive. He is a partisan to democracy as you must know. The Biblical story, as you must also know, has David as the small and apparently weak hero who with God's help defeats the monstrous Goliath.

[Immanuel Can]

The human world works by aggression, like a posturing Goliath.

You mean like the Biden speech? Hardly a "Goliath," posturing or not.

"Sling of democracy"?

No. Biden is not aggressive. He is a partisan to democracy as you must know.

He uses the word. But what he means by it, when he uses it, is the open question. He doesn't mean what you and I mean, clearly.

But after last night's speech, you can hardly say Biden's not "aggressive." He alienated half of his own electorate, calling them "terrorists" and "extremists". Not very "democratic" of him, I would think.

[Belinda]

You mean like the Biden speech? Hardly a "Goliath," posturing or not.

"Sling of democracy"?

No. Biden is not aggressive. He is a partisan to democracy as you must know.

He uses the word. But what he means by it, when he uses it, is the open question. He doesn't mean what you and I mean, clearly.

But after last night's speech, you can hardly say Biden's not "aggressive." He alienated half of his own electorate, calling them "terrorists" and "extremists". Not very "democratic" of him, I would think.

Sometimes we have to fight just like David did against Goliath the would-be aggressor. But God was on the side of the smaller weaker David.

[Immanuel Can]

Sometimes we have to fight just like David did against Goliath the would-be aggressor. But God was on the side of the smaller weaker David.

Yes, I know the story well.

I'm not sure I see the application you're aiming at, though.

[Belinda]

Sometimes we have to fight just like David did against Goliath the would-be aggressor. But God was on the side of the smaller weaker David.

Yes, I know the story well.

I'm not sure I see the application you're aiming at, though.

In today's climate of world affairs David and Goliath can be taken as a warning against apathy when the threat is actual.

The human species, like Goliath, is power hungry by default. Democracy , like the sling of David , is an imperfect weapon against power -hungry leaders and agitators. But democracy is all we have and with the grace of God it will be enough.

[Immanuel Can]

Sometimes we have to fight just like David did against Goliath the would-be aggressor. But God was on the side of the smaller weaker David.

Yes, I know the story well.

I'm not sure I see the application you're aiming at, though.

In today's climate of world affairs David and Goliath can be taken as a warning against apathy when the threat is actual.

No, I don't think it can.

The Hebrew world never conceived of anything like "the climate crisis." There can have been no thought of that when that story was written. So that alleged "application" has to be your own.

[Belinda]

Yes, I know the story well.

I'm not sure I see the application you're aiming at, though.

In today's climate of world affairs David and Goliath can be taken as a warning against apathy when the threat is actual.

No, I don't think it can.

The Hebrew world never conceived of anything like "the climate crisis." There can have been no thought of that when that story was written. So that alleged "application" has to be your own.

So it was. It was my gift to you.

[iambiguous]

From what I have read of the Bible so far it encourages certain behaviors and discourages others. I, personally, have yet to meet anyone who perfectly exemplifies what the Bible teaches, rather most of us fall short, including myself. We're all sinners. But it is up to God to judge us, not me. Most of the prohibited behaviors seem to me to be behaviors that, when taken to the extreme, can have detrimental effects on a person or community of persons. Most of the encouraged behaviors seem to me to encourage peace and fellowship. Maybe the Bible isn't for everyone. Maybe it's just for messed up people like me. If you don't think the Bible applies to you, then maybe you're doing something right.

Again, you believe this. It comforts and consoles you to believe it. But this is a philosophy venue. And, in my view, you do not really attempt to respond to the points I raised above. Either in regard to God or in regard to such ideological equivalents as fascism.

Instead, it is more like a reply one might expect to come across in church, or among like-minded friends or around the family dinner table.

That's your prerogative of course. It's just not what I'd expect to encounter in a philosophy discussion forum.

I disagree that a person ought not share their metaphysical speculations on a philosophy forum. I've heard plenty of metaphysical statements made on this forum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against metaphysical speculation. Especially in a philosophy forum. After all, some questions evoke thoughts that swirl around the very mystery of existence itself. And, indeed, that's why Gods and political ideologies are invented...over and over and over and over and over and over again. Human history let's call it.

But in regard to speculation and conjecture about a God, the God, my God, or a fascism, the fascism, my fascism, you are either able to demonstrate that what you think about them all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are obligated [re Kant] to think as well, or you're not.

Right?

[henry quirk]

you are either able to demonstrate that what you think about them all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are obligated [re Kant] to think as well, or you're not.

You know, you've never demonstrated that what you think (dasein, bein' fractured, nihilism, etc.) is what anyone -- rational or not, virtuous or not -- ought to think.

You sorta just start from the unjustified place that your stuff is the default and all us fulminators ought to defend our stuff.

Why are all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women obligated to think as you do, about anything?

[promethean75]

i got this, biggs.

biggs has made it abundantly clear that he is fractured and fragmented and unable to take an official side in anything, as he claims to understand why opposing ideas might seem rational to those who hold them; pro-lifers and pro-choicers, free marketers and socialists, heterosexuality and homosexuality, etc.

be that as it may, he's logically unable to fuliminate over anything because he believes everything and nothing at once. biggs has experienced a protagorean splitting of personality which is causing him to seize any objectivist claim he sees and play the antagonist to socratically dupe his interlocutor into a state of disheveled uncertainty. or so he hopes. and he does sometimes. well quite often really. okay all the time who am i kidding.

[henry quirk]

who am i kidding.

Indeed.

Biggy fulminates all the time, and, he's never duped anyone into uncertainty.

Not here, anyway.

My question stands: Why are all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women obligated to think as biggy does, about anything?

[promethean75]

i mean he's not challenging metaphysical certainty really, only that those subjects are almost useless for settling ethical problems. that's a relevant point. he challenges ethical certainty tho... that's the philosophy department he's most comfortable working in. what he does is pick any generic social antinomy and exploit which ever side is the most vocal, and therefore the most objectivistic, in expressing what they believe all good, rational people should think, do and value.

but he's certainly leftist leaning because he doesn't lampoon the left as much as the right, the establishment, capitalism, etc.

but biggs does have some of the same spirit N said Socrates had in his critique. it's a slight sadistic joy in disarming and proving wrong, in producing self-suspicion in the opponent, disorientation, uncertainty, confusion. on the one hand there is a general interest, sincerely, in philosophy and truth and knowledge and meaning and all that... but on the other hand there's a personalized weaponization of philosophy in the hands of people like Socrates, Protagoras and Biggsasaurus. they enjoy proving you wrong, and this is something more than just arriving at the truth in a philosophical dialogue with someone. maybe the soft vehemence of the cynic who likes to watch you doubt yourself.

N explains like a boss how Socratic interrogation was considered rude and plebian by the aristocratic nobility and upper classes of athens. you just didn't do what Socrates did with all that goddamn questioning people all the time. so of course then N expands on the idea and goes in. can't remember which book it's in. wanna say human all too human.

i think N had S's essential personality wrong but was accurate in describing S's what ... schadenfreude?... during diogue.

[henry quirk]

So many words...for nuthin'.

-----

biggy,

You've never demonstrated that what you think (dasein, bein' fractured, nihilism, etc.) is what anyone -- rational or not, virtuous or not -- ought to think.

You sorta just start from the unjustified place that your stuff is the default and all us fulminators ought to defend our stuff.

Why are all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women obligated to think as you do, about anything?