Zionism

[Dubious]

MAN with his burning soul
Has but an hour of breath
To build a ship of truth
In which his soul may sail—
Sail on the sea of death,
For death takes toll
Of beauty, courage, youth,
Of all but truth . . .

Alexis, I say this with all due respect: if you feel the urge to post poetry—especially this kind of misty-eyed, abstract lamentation—maybe consider Facebook, a personal blog, or even a creative writing forum.

This is Philosophy Now. The rest of us are trying to have a discussion rooted in arguments, logic, and clarity—not navigate a sea of loosely tethered verse. Save the stanzas for places where they’re the point—not where they derail it.

There is nothing misty-eyed about it. As written, it expresses with utmost clarity an existential condition which is itself part and parcel of what humans have always contended with based on their own limited existence attempting to finalize into an unnegatable, non-negotiable truth.

Humans are a prime example of physics yielding to metaphysics in the discovery of what is termed truth. It's the physics which caused the metaphysical to assert itself in acknowledging the one unavoidable default truth which all are subject to...that everything which is, goes back to nothing. It remains for the metaphysical to intervene and strive for meaning in the cusp between the beginning of awareness and its conclusion.

If your brand of determinism can't accommodate or include that which the poem explicitly states, then it remains fatally flawed and only true by half at best...your version of it being nowhere near complete.

In case I'm not clear, since your reading skills have so often proven to be inferior to your writing skills, determinism does not preempt metaphysics on any level; in fact, cannot be understood without it.

[BigMike]

Alexis, I say this with all due respect: if you feel the urge to post poetry—especially this kind of misty-eyed, abstract lamentation—maybe consider Facebook, a personal blog, or even a creative writing forum.

This is Philosophy Now. The rest of us are trying to have a discussion rooted in arguments, logic, and clarity—not navigate a sea of loosely tethered verse. Save the stanzas for places where they’re the point—not where they derail it.

There is nothing misty-eyed about it. As written, it expresses with utmost clarity an existential condition which is itself part and parcel of what humans have always contended with based on their own limited existence attempting to finalize into an unnegatable, non-negotiable truth.

Humans are a prime example of physics yielding to metaphysics in the discovery of what is termed truth. It's the physics which caused the metaphysical to assert itself in acknowledging the one unavoidable default truth which all are subject to...that everything which is, goes back to nothing. It remains for the metaphysical to intervene and strive for meaning in the cusp between the beginning of awareness and its conclusion.

If your brand of determinism can't accommodate or include that which the poem explicitly states, then it remains fatally flawed and only true by half at best...your version of it being nowhere near complete.

In case I'm not clear, since your reading skills have so often proven to be inferior to your writing skills, determinism does not preempt metaphysics on any level; in fact, cannot be understood without it.

Dubious, you’ve managed to wrap a contradiction in a riddle and call it philosophy.

You claim there's “nothing misty-eyed” about that poem—then immediately go on to praise it for expressing a metaphysical yearning born of existential despair. That is the mist, Dubious. That’s the fog I’m talking about. You’re romanticizing confusion, dressing emotional reaction in abstract language and pretending it’s insight.

Now, to your claim that "physics yields to metaphysics": that’s pure assertion with no explanatory power. Physics doesn’t “yield” to anything. Physics explains. Metaphysics, in your usage, just fills the emotional gap where explanation hasn’t yet arrived—or where someone’s too impatient or uncomfortable to wait for it. You’ve turned it into a philosophical safety blanket.

And this line—“determinism does not preempt metaphysics on any level”—is a nice-sounding phrase that means nothing unless you define your terms. Determinism isn’t trying to “preempt” anything. It describes how cause and effect shape the universe, including your metaphysical musings. Your awareness, your questions about truth, your love of poetry—those too are caused. There’s no mystical override button.

You say determinism can’t be understood without metaphysics. I say: your version of metaphysics can’t be understood at all—because it’s not grounded in anything but poetic hand-waving. If you want to bring meaning into the discussion, fine. But don’t confuse emotional longing with ontological necessity, and don’t pretend metaphysics adds clarity when all it’s doing is dramatizing the unknown.

Your version of “truth” seems to demand that we feel something big and vague rather than understand anything specific. That’s not profundity—that’s just mood in disguise.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In short, Shakespeare is not a finalization of what it means to be human. The danger resides in how deterministic that process may be based on his own seemingly pre-programmed responses as incubated by long periods of historical time. Could it be that high-tech itself is fated to be an instrument of MAD and that AI, if delivered in time as the final overseer, will emerge as its antidote!

Within the context of the “conversation” that must always occur here when a man — I refrain from naming names — becomes possessed by mechanical, reductionist ideas and seeks to develop a “philosophy” for the education of children (i.e. a paideia, a training in perception with wide implications), it becomes necessary in my way of thinking to propose antidotes to that reductionist ideology. And for this reason, I think, it is needful to provide the mind with different messaging: to present to the mind that, despite all positivist declarations (autocratic, absolutist, domineering and also deaf) that in the long course of our human history man has discovered meanings and values that, as it certainly seems, can only be expressed through allusion.

Now, I am pretty sure that you, Dubious, along with others, have paid attention to the nature of the conversations that occur on this forum. Despite its intended purpose (some sort of abstract, hyper-intellectual engagement with philosophical texts in a remove from the realness of what people are actually living day-to-day), we all note that in fact every conversation, every viewpoint, every opinion presented, is always about the existential stance of that individual! Always! And we also note (in any case I note) that most conversations devolve into “bickering” — an alternative to constructing agreements, bridging perspectives, that sort of thing.

The intensely jacked-up perspective offered by our own chief ideologue of a new, absolutist, scientistic perspective — I believe — must be confronted as a (allow me to borrow the term:) destructive mind virus. This perspective is presented as an absolute cure, but it definitely does not seem to be such from where I sit. Characterizing it, therefore, takes on veritable importance — given the consequences.

A reference to (Harold) Bloom in the context of this thread — supposedly a critique of Zionism — is apropos! He is a man who holds an Indo-European native man (Shakespeare) in the highest esteem. As such (in my view) he serves a general, and admirable, valuation of that which is most valuable in our own traditions. The imperative? Not to allow value and meaning carved out, uncovered, by genuine human adventure and processes of discovery, to be diminished by that reductionist mind virus that is so powerful, so advanced in a pathological process, so mechanized, that it can no longer see itself, nor to itself apply a brake.

[Alexis Jacobi]

These are sets of ideas, even armaments, that when (properly) understood, can operate as antidote:

Thomas Carlyle, French Revolution:

Observe, however, that of man’s whole terrestrial possessions and attainments, unspeakably the noblest are his Symbols, divine or divine-seeming; under which he marches and fights, with victorious assurance, in this life-battle: what we can call his Realised Ideals. Of which realized Ideals, omitting the rest, consider only these two: his Church, or spiritual Guidance; his Kingship, or temporal one. The Church: what a word was there; richer than Golconda and the treasures of the world! In the heart of the remotest mountains rises the little Kirk; the Dead all slumbering round it, under their white memorial-stones,' in hope of a happy resurrection': Dull wert thou, . . if never in any hour . . it spoke to thee things unspeakable, that went to thy soul's soul. Strong was he that had a Church, — what we can call a Church: he stood thereby, though 'in the center of Immensities in the conflux of Eternities', yet man like towards God and man; the vague shoreless Universe had become a firm city for him, a dwelling which he knew. Such virtue was in Belief; in these words well spoken: I believe. Well might men prize their Credo, and raise stateliest Temples for it, and reverend Hierarchies, and give it the tithe of their substance; it was worth living for and dying for. But of those decadent ages in which no Ideal either grows or blossoms? when Belief and Loyalty have passed away, and only the cant and false echo of them remains; and all Solemnity has become Pageantry; and the Creed of persons in authority, ... an Imbecility or a Machiavelism? Alas, of these ages World-history can take no notice; they have to be compressed more and more, and finally suppressed in the Annals of Man-kind; blotted out as spurious, — which indeed they are. Hapless ages: wherein, if ever in any, it is an unhappiness to be born. To be born, and to learn only, by every tradition and example, that God's Universe is Belial's and a Lie; and 'the Supreme Quack' the hierarch of men! In which mournfullest faith, nevertheless, do we not see whole generations .. live, what they call living; and vanish?...

[BigMike]

In short, Shakespeare is not a finalization of what it means to be human. The danger resides in how deterministic that process may be based on his own seemingly pre-programmed responses as incubated by long periods of historical time. Could it be that high-tech itself is fated to be an instrument of MAD and that AI, if delivered in time as the final overseer, will emerge as its antidote!

Within the context of the “conversation” that must always occur here when a man — I refrain from naming names — becomes possessed by mechanical, reductionist ideas and seeks to develop a “philosophy” for the education of children (i.e. a paideia, a training in perception with wide implications), it becomes necessary in my way of thinking to propose antidotes to that reductionist ideology. And for this reason, I think, it is needful to provide the mind with different messaging: to present to the mind that, despite all positivist declarations (autocratic, absolutist, domineering and also deaf) that in the long course of our human history man has discovered meanings and values that, as it certainly seems, can only be expressed through allusion.

Now, I am pretty sure that you, Dubious, along with others, have paid attention to the nature of the conversations that occur on this forum. Despite its intended purpose (some sort of abstract, hyper-intellectual engagement with philosophical texts in a remove from the realness of what people are actually living day-to-day), we all note that in fact every conversation, every viewpoint, every opinion presented, is always about the existential stance of that individual! Always! And we also note (in any case I note) that most conversations devolve into “bickering” — an alternative to constructing agreements, bridging perspectives, that sort of thing.

The intensely jacked-up perspective offered by our own chief ideologue of a new, absolutist, scientistic perspective — I believe — must be confronted as a (allow me to borrow the term:) destructive mind virus. This perspective is presented as an absolute cure, but it definitely does not seem to be such from where I sit. Characterizing it, therefore, takes on veritable importance — given the consequences.

A reference to (Harold) Bloom in the context of this thread — supposedly a critique of Zionism — is apropos! He is a man who holds an Indo-European native man (Shakespeare) in the highest esteem. As such (in my view) he serves a general, and admirable, valuation of that which is most valuable in our own traditions. The imperative? Not to allow value and meaning carved out, uncovered, by genuine human adventure and processes of discovery, to be diminished by that reductionist mind virus that is so powerful, so advanced in a pathological process, so mechanized, that it can no longer see itself, nor to itself apply a brake.

Enough.

Let’s drop the faux-literary decorum, Alexis, and call your little sermon what it is: a vitriolic rant against truth itself. You can dress it up in poetic flourishes and vague appeals to “allusion” all day long, but at the end of it, you’re just spitting venom at science—at knowledge, at clarity, at reality—because it threatens the fog machine you’ve built your identity around.

You talk about my position—grounded in science, reason, and demonstrable fact—as if it’s some apocalyptic ideology infecting your delicate metaphysical sanctuary. A “mind virus”? No, Alexis. You’re just an anti-science, anti-facts, anti-truth bigot in philosopher’s clothing, raging against the very thing that exposes your foundationless musings for what they are: empty performance.

You call determinism “mechanical” and “reductionist” as if that’s a sin. As if explaining the causes behind behavior is inherently evil. You’re terrified of understanding because once things are understood, the mysticism dissolves—and so does your act. You want to defend a world where truth is optional, where facts are up for poetic interpretation, where vague spiritualism trumps reason.

And you accuse me of being absolutist? You’re the one claiming your nebulous metaphors contain deeper truths than testable reality. You declare that what can only be whispered in allusion must be protected from the clarity of scientific scrutiny. That’s not nuance—it’s cowardice.

You’re not here to bridge perspectives, Alexis. You’re here to protect your intellectual fiefdom from encroaching reason. You attack anything that threatens to clarify, because clarity makes your fog irrelevant.

So let’s stop pretending. You’re not defending human meaning. You’re defending your inability to confront reality without a veil of metaphor and myth. And that’s not wisdom—it’s evasion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

When the charming, driven, possessed, mathematically-minded ideologue speaks, it is always through a standard boilerplate. A response-formula which replicates itself in every statement.

Scientistic reductionism, a closed perceptual alleyway, lent power by a very specific personality type, has the unique and demonstrated ability to reduce everything to terms that it believes it can control. That is its function: the performance of closed loop of reductionist convulsions with no alternative but endless replication.

[Alexis Jacobi]

THERE is a soul above the soul of each,
A mightier soul, which yet to each belongs: There is a sound made of all human speech,
And numerous as the concourse of all songs:
And in that soul lives each, in each that soul,
Though all the ages are its lifetime vast;
Each soul that dies, in its most sacred whole
Receiveth life that shall for ever last.
And thus for ever with a wider span
Humanity o'erarches time and death;
Man can elect the universal man,
And live in life that ends not with his breath,
And gather glory that increaseth still
Till Time his glass with Death's last dust shall fill.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again from Carlyle:

Hapless ages: wherein, if ever in any, it is an unhappiness to be born. To be born, and to learn only, by every tradition and example, that God's Universe is Belial's and a Lie; and 'the Supreme Quack' the hierarch of men!

It is an age that cannot define “up” from “down” or worth from valuelessness, nor honestly define what is superior to the inferior. Once everything is leveled, a given man wanders in a ruin.

Perhaps it is distressing that the sort of value and meaning expressed in such old-school poetry is always metaphysical in the sense of recognized higher value which enters a lower-world and affects man’s heart and mind.

It seems to me that you cannot really build much of real value when one is building from the bottom up. I.e. from a platform of reductionism, of mere assembly from facts.

But the very Age we are in is truly reductionist and violent in its reductionism.

Once again — this directed to Dubious — I am led to think of Ortega y Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses.

The mass-man would never have accepted authority external to himself had not his surroundings violently forced him to do so. As to-day, his surroundings do not so force him, the everlasting mass-man, true to his character, ceases to appeal to other authority and feels himself lord of his own existence. On the contrary the select man, the excellent man is urged, by interior necessity, to appeal from himself to some standard beyond himself, superior to himself, whose service he freely accepts. Let us recall that at the start we distinguished the excellent man from the common man by saying that the former is the one who makes great demands on himself, and the latter the one who makes no demands on himself, but contents himself with what he is, and is delighted with himself.

Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, and not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, and not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendental. Hence he does not look upon the necessity of serving as an oppression. When, by chance, such necessity is lacking, he grows restless and invents some new standard, more difficult, more exigent, with which to coerce himself. This is life lived as a discipline- the noble life. Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us - by obligations, not by rights.

[BigMike]

Again from Carlyle:

Hapless ages: wherein, if ever in any, it is an unhappiness to be born. To be born, and to learn only, by every tradition and example, that God's Universe is Belial's and a Lie; and 'the Supreme Quack' the hierarch of men!

It is an age that cannot define “up” from “down” or worth from valuelessness, nor honestly define what is superior to the inferior. Once everything is leveled, a given man wanders in a ruin.

Perhaps it is distressing that the sort of value and meaning expressed in such old-school poetry is always metaphysical in the sense of recognized higher value which enters a lower-world and affects man’s heart and mind.

It seems to me that you cannot really build much of real value when one is building from the bottom up. I.e. from a platform of reductionism, of mere assembly from facts.

But the very Age we are in is truly reductionist and violent in its reductionism.

Once again — this directed to Dubious — I am led to think of Ortega y Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses.

The mass-man would never have accepted authority external to himself had not his surroundings violently forced him to do so. As to-day, his surroundings do not so force him, the everlasting mass-man, true to his character, ceases to appeal to other authority and feels himself lord of his own existence. On the contrary the select man, the excellent man is urged, by interior necessity, to appeal from himself to some standard beyond himself, superior to himself, whose service he freely accepts. Let us recall that at the start we distinguished the excellent man from the common man by saying that the former is the one who makes great demands on himself, and the latter the one who makes no demands on himself, but contents himself with what he is, and is delighted with himself.

Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, and not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, and not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendental. Hence he does not look upon the necessity of serving as an oppression. When, by chance, such necessity is lacking, he grows restless and invents some new standard, more difficult, more exigent, with which to coerce himself. This is life lived as a discipline- the noble life. Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us - by obligations, not by rights.

Alexis, once again you've served up a beautifully polished sermon—glossy on the outside, hollow at the core. Quoting Carlyle and Ortega like a priest rattling off scripture, as if invoking the right “great man” automatically grants your argument weight. It doesn’t. It just proves you still think name-dropping can fill the gap where substance should be.

Let’s be clear: you’re not lamenting a loss of value—you’re lamenting the loss of your authority to define it. You keep sneering at “reductionism” as though assembling facts and seeking truth from the bottom up is somehow inferior to importing metaphysical fluff from the top down. But what you really hate is that facts don’t care about your metaphors. They don’t kneel to your “higher values,” your poetic moods, or your recycled quotes. They just are. And that infuriates you.

Your elitist reverence for the “excellent man” who bows to some imagined transcendental ideal isn’t nobility—it’s intellectual servitude dressed in purple robes. You want to serve something “higher” because the thought of standing on your own, without cosmic validation, terrifies you. But here's the kicker: there is no “up” or “down” in metaphysics, Alexis. There's only cause and effect. The rest is projection.

You call this age “violent in its reductionism.” No—it’s honest. It's not burning your temples; it’s just turning on the lights. And in that light, your grand poetic hierarchies don’t look noble—they look delusional.

You say you can’t build real value from facts? Then it’s no wonder you keep building castles in the air. But some of us are building with what’s true—not with borrowed words and mythical scaffolding.

So yes, keep quoting. Keep reaching for those long-dead voices to back your dread of reason. But don’t pretend it’s philosophy. It’s retreat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

FYI — please don’t take it personally — I have no response. All the reasons have been carefully explained.

[BigMike]

FYI — please don’t take it personally — I have no response. All the reasons have been carefully explained.

Oh please, Alexis—“all the reasons have been carefully explained”? Don’t flatter yourself.

You haven’t explained a damn thing. You’ve thrown out cryptic quotes, romantic laments, and cherry-picked philosophers like confetti, but at no point have you actually engaged with the core arguments of science or determinism. You hand-wave at “reductionism” like it’s a dirty word, but you’ve never once shown where the scientific method—yes, the very process that gave you every piece of modern civilization—is actually wrong.

You act like your vague allusions and metaphysical fog somehow dismantle the foundations of physics, neuroscience, and empirical reasoning. They don’t. You haven’t falsified a single principle, undermined a single causal chain, or offered a coherent alternative. You just don’t like what the truth looks like when stripped of myth and metaphor—so you call it “autocratic” and retreat into literary dramatics.

So no, you haven’t explained “all the reasons.” What you’ve done is avoid the argument, again and again, because you can’t win it. You don’t have reasons, Alexis—you have excuses.

[Alexis Jacobi]

::: sigh :::

(It is my fate).

[BigMike]

::: sigh :::

(It is my fate).

::: sigh :::

No, Alexis—it’s not your fate. It’s your cop-out.

You posture like some tragic intellectual martyr, doomed to suffer beneath the weight of misunderstood profundity, when in reality you just can’t defend your position. You can't engage with the science, can't counter the logic, and can't tolerate that your poetic smokescreens keep getting blown away by plain, grounded truth.

So you wrap yourself in melodrama and sigh like you're Hamlet. But let’s be honest—this isn't Shakespeare. It's just a tired deflection from someone who ran out of arguments and reached for theatrics instead.

[Atla]

Huh

Which AI chatbot commonly uses expression as "X dressed up as Y", "X wrapped in Y", "X is Y in disguise" etc?

The AI chatbot most commonly associated with expressions like:

"X dressed up as Y"

"X wrapped in Y"

"X is Y in disguise"

is Claude, developed by Anthropic.

These metaphorical phrasings are a stylistic hallmark often found in Claude's responses, especially when explaining nuanced topics, like when something appears to be one thing but functions as another. It's part of Claude's tendency to use vivid, analogical language to promote understanding.

For example, Claude might say something like:

"This looks like a friendly feature, but it's surveillance dressed up as convenience."

"It's essentially control wrapped in the language of freedom."

"This policy is censorship in disguise."

This style contrasts with ChatGPT, which typically leans more toward direct, explanatory phrasing—though it can certainly use metaphors too, it's less frequent or stylized in that particular way.

Would you like a side-by-side comparison of how Claude and ChatGPT might respond to a sample prompt using that style?

[Ben JS]

Huh
[...]

If a response is a valid response -
if we're interested in philosophy,
should the source determine the merit of a proposition?

Perhaps one frustration,
is those well versed in mental gymnastics,
cannot compete with the cardio of a machine.

But if one is interested in refining one's understandings,
then being offered valid critiques (regardless of source),
has it's own utility, right?

Again,
I can understand those who wish to feed their ego,
wouldn't approve of being shut down by an A.I. with access to most human knowledge.
Reveals the limitations of people, particular the narcissists.

...

In fairness,
I can respect the critique if valid,
that to present the words of an A.I. as one's own,
is misleading and deceptive.

All that's been provided though,
is circumstantial evidence,
and the misgivings of a frustrated crowd.

Herd mentality isn't a surefire path to truth.
"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum,
is a logical fallacy where something is assumed to be true or good
simply because it is popular or widely believed"

Whether a message came from a person or A.I., or a mix of both -
if the criticisms are valid,
the ball is in the court of the receiver to defend/refine their claims -
or reveal that presently that is not their top priority.

===

(One isn't obligated to respond to another. One can simply move on - it's OK)