Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:29 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:48 pm To be honest, maybe if we give Putin what he wants it'll become evident who the real monster is. So let's let him have Ukraine. Maybe he'll be satisfied with Ukraine and stop because he feels safe. If that's what needs to be done to prevent Armageddon, then let's do it.
...and what if Putin - as per his expressed ambitions - wants more of the former Soviet lands after you give him Ukraine? Should we hope he doesn't want more and live with that? When was that kind of appeasement ever successful!

The greatest imperial power that ever existed is America today. It is always easy to demonize that which one fears, but one must ask one's self, what do my fears give me license to do to others? America is morally bankrupt; this is probably why it is in decline. The Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders. You are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul; and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this. You need to rethink who the bad guys are here.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:49 am**

popeye1945 wrote:

Either you're having difficulty understanding me or you're dodging the question, but here goes. It is not a civil war it is a war between Russia and the United States, with the United States the aggressor. I feel you are getting a bit silly and wonder if it is not disparate avoidance to the question presented. You do see this war as between Ukraine and Russia- yes? Then you must also feel that the Vietnam war was between the north and the south; and nobody is pulling the strings and it is not a puppet show. You're also missing the point that Russia, China, India, the Middle East and Southeast Asian as well as many other countries do not wish to be governed by the United States. Try to look below the surface of things.

AGREE.

The timing of this war is very interesting because it comes immediately after a health crisis on this planet and this war exposes economic problems, financial problems in particular, supply line problems and everything else that has to be rectified if you want to reset the world's economic order, that is if you want to have a new order........this is the perfect scenario.

So we have a food crisis and we have an energy crisis.

Yet not so long ago in fact under the Trump era America was totally independent in terms of its oil needs and these were immediately shut down when the new administration took over almost like a preparation for a crisis, almost as if they were preparing for a plan, something very specific.

The war in Ukraine is creating the greatest food crisis since world world 2 the UN says, so it is a universal issue, this war has created a catastrophe on top of a catastrophe and will have global impact beyond anything we have seen since world war 2.

Joe Biden, was talking up war with Iraq five years before invasion, said the only way of disarming Iraq is "taking Saddam down"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnTnLgBI_8&t=132s

Hussein, it turned out, did not have an active WMD program.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 3:29 pm**

reasonvemotion wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 6:49 am Joe Biden, was talking up war with Iraq five years before invasion, said the only way of disarming Iraq is "taking Saddam down"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnTnLgBI_8&t=132s

Hussein, it turned out, did not have an active WMD program.

Our rulers are deranged psychopaths. They're never going to get it right until they grow a soul. Sadly, they'll be rewarded with wealth, power and admirers until the end of time. That's the way the world works. The winners win and the losers lose. There's no reward for doing the right thing, only a lonely death. So be it.

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:45 pm**

The best the individual can do is no matter what your government says listen to what the global community is saying, and try to become aware of your government's behaviors towards the global community both past and present. Government lies, all governments!! What is done, not what is said to have been done. Look for patterns through time to the present and that which is trending.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:41 am**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amAmerica is morally bankrupt; this is probably why it is in decline.

Look at Russia now and all its inner frictions and then insist that isn't the case with them as well, independent of how morally bankrupt you suppose America to be.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amThe Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders.

Oh, were they ever in danger of being invaded by the Ukrainians? What country, including the U.S., or conglomerate like NATO would be insane enough to risk invading Russia? What makes Russia - especially Putin as former KGB - so nasty now is a decades-long inferiority complex which hasn't improved based on recent events and the reason they keep threatening, in their paranoid desperation, nuclear retaliation against the West if the war in Ukraine goes against them as if they were the ones attacked! Thus far the Russians have made themselves equally dangerous and pathetic at the same time which doesn't bode well for global peace...not to mention the possibility of a future without a future!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou need to rethink who the bad guys are here.

So how many cities in Russia has Ukraine, NATO or the U.S. destroyed or committed war crimes against compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the pretext they had to denazify them? The Russian army now is just like it was in 1945, a drunken rape gang of torturous. Ever read "Savage Continent" by Keith Lowe, or suchlike? It seems the Russian beast's behavior in war hasn't improved any since that last episode. The best way to describe it is to call it gruesomely enlightening!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul;

...and how does that render it different from any other military superpower like Russia and China, especially the latter who are doing everything they can to neutralize the U.S. to do what they want to do...not unlike what America itself has already done.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am...and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this.

...the one thing you said which rings true! America has NEVER been the beneficent benefactor it always claims to be. The world knows it as do many Americans.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou need to rethink who the bad guys are here.

They're ALL bad and a danger to the future of the human race, but to claim that America is the one evil power on the planet is bullshit. The solution would be much easier to obtain if only it were so simple as pointing one's finger at only one culprit culpable for most of the ills in the world.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:55 am**

The Cuban Missile War was the most devastating war in world history.

The estimated number of North American deaths was upwards of 200 million. Double, perhaps even quadruple that number of Soviet, Eastern European, and Chinese citizens perished, and no one had any reliable data on how many Western Europeans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and others were killed by the radioactive fallout as it enveloped the globe.

Cuba instantly became a wasteland, and there were few structures left standing in Moscow and Washington, D.C.

It was an unthinkable war, but not an unimagined one: In 1957 Australian writer Neville Shute described its denouement in his eerily tranquil apocalyptic novel, On the Beach.Adapted for the screen by Stanley Kramer in 1959, On the Beach premiered simultaneously in major U.S. cities and Moscow. There were reports of viewers sobbing as Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Fred Astaire, and Anthony Perkins stoically prepared for the arrival over Australia of the deadly radioactive fallout from a nuclear war in the northern hemisphere. They were the last surviving humans, going quietly into the endless night.

The Pentagon, opposed to any film that might undermine public enthusiasm for nuclear weapons, refused to cooperate.

But the Cuban Missile Crisis did not replicate On the Beach, and so thoughts about a Cuban Missile War passed unobtrusively into history. While participants and historians of the crisis never tire of recalling its details and its dangers, the majority of the generation that lived through it, and subsequent generations, never became emotionally engaged with its potential consequences. It was neither Vietnam nor Watergate, nor was it Dallas on November 22, 1963.

It was just the most devastating event in world history . . . that somehow didn't happen.

Why the Cuban Missile Crisis ended peacefully, and what were its consequences, remain relevant questions for historians even 50 years later. The terrifying realization in 1962 that nuclear armageddon was merely a stumble away profoundly influenced Cold War behavior for the next 27 years, until the collapse of a wall in Berlin ushered in a second nuclear age.

But that ending was far away on a portentous autumn evening when President Kennedy gave the speech "heard around the world."

JFK Tells the Nation: Nuclear War Possible

The public learned that nuclear war was an imminent possibility on Monday, October 22, 1962, at 7 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

"This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba," President John F. Kennedy began in what has to be counted as the scariest presidential address of the Cold War.

"Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere."

Kennedy went on to explain that Soviet officials had repeatedly lied about the buildup. He said the United States was demanding that all the offensive missiles be removed from Cuba forthwith—or else—and announced that a "quarantine" of Cuba (calling it a blockade would have represented it as an act of war) was only the first step toward forcing the removal of the offending weapons. And he added that any missile launched from Cuba would be considered to have originated from the Soviet Union and would require "a full retaliatory response" upon the USSR.

Sound familiar?

History repeating itself.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:30 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:41 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amAmerica is morally bankrupt; this is probably why it is in decline.
Look at Russia now and all its inner frictions and then insist that isn't the case with them as well, independent of how morally bankrupt you suppose America to be.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amThe Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders.
Oh, were they ever in danger of being invaded by the Ukrainians? What country, including the U.S., or conglomerate like NATO would be insane enough to risk invading Russia? What makes Russia - especially Putin as former KGB - so nasty now is a decades-long inferiority complex which hasn't improved based on recent events and the reason they keep threatening, in their paranoid desperation, nuclear retaliation against the West if the war in Ukraine goes against them as if they were the ones attacked! Thus far the Russians have made themselves equally dangerous and pathetic at the same time which doesn't bode well for global peace...not to mention the possibility of a future without a future!
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou need to rethink who the bad guys are here.
So how many cities in Russia has Ukraine, NATO or the U.S. destroyed or committed war crimes against compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the pretext they had to denazify them? The Russian army now is just like it was in 1945, a drunken rape gang of torturous. Ever read "Savage Continent" by Keith Lowe, or suchlike? It seems the Russian beast's behavior in war hasn't improved any since that last episode. The best way to describe it is to call it gruesomely enlightening!
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul;
...and how does that render it different from any other military superpower like Russia and China, especially the latter who are doing everything they can to neutralize the U.S. to do what they want to do...not unlike what America itself has already done.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am...and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this.
...the one thing you said which rings true! America has NEVER been the beneficent benefactor it always claims to be. The world knows it as do many Americans.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am You need to rethink who the bad guys are here.
They're ALL bad and a danger to the future of the human race, but to claim that America is the one evil power on the planet is bullshit. The solution would be much easier to obtain if only it were so simple as pointing one's finger at only one culprit culpable for most of the ills in the world.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Ukraine is an American puppet, but American aggression is going to be relatively short-lived, one way or another; watched the video.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:51 pm**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:30 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:41 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amAmerica is morally bankrupt; this is probably why it is in decline.
Look at Russia now and all its inner frictions and then insist that isn't the case with them as well, independent of how morally bankrupt you suppose America to be.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amThe Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders.
Oh, were they ever in danger of being invaded by the Ukrainians? What country, including the U.S., or conglomerate like NATO would be insane enough to risk invading Russia? What makes Russia - especially Putin as former KGB - so nasty now is a decades-long inferiority complex which hasn't improved based on recent events and the reason they keep threatening, in their paranoid desperation, nuclear retaliation against the West if the war in Ukraine goes against them as if they were the ones attacked! Thus far the Russians have made themselves equally dangerous and pathetic at the same time which doesn't bode well for global peace...not to mention the possibility of a future without a future!
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou need to rethink who the bad guys are here.
So how many cities in Russia has Ukraine, NATO or the U.S. destroyed or committed war crimes against compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the pretext they had to denazify them? The Russian army now is just like it was in 1945, a drunken rape gang of torturous. Ever read "Savage Continent" by Keith Lowe, or suchlike? It seems the Russian beast's behavior in war hasn't improved any since that last episode. The best way to describe it is to call it gruesomely enlightening!
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 amYou are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul;
...and how does that render it different from any other military superpower like Russia and China, especially the latter who are doing everything they can to neutralize the U.S. to do what they want to do...not unlike what America itself has already done.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am...and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this.
...the one thing you said which rings true! America has NEVER been the beneficent benefactor it always claims to be. The world knows it as do many Americans.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am You need to rethink who the bad guys are here.
They're ALL bad and a danger to the future of the human race, but to claim that America is the one evil power on the planet is bullshit. The solution would be much easier to obtain if only it were so simple as pointing one's finger at only one culprit culpable for most of the ills in the world.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Ukraine is an American puppet, but American aggression is going to be relatively short-lived, one way or another; watched the video.

Looks like a return to a dark age for America and Europe. As an American, I can't say I welcome it but there's not much I can say in our defense either. Time to take our lumps.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:26 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:06 am In a way, they very much are. They are not the direct fault of the victims, but they are certainly the result of the fact that man, and the creation placed under his care, are alienated from God. There were no earthquakes or cancers before the Fall of Man. And the Fall was the result of a human choice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:55 pm There's no such thing as genuinely "democratic Socialism," even though people try to fool you by using such a term. This is because Socialism, by definition, requires comprehensive and lasting control of all aspects of public life by one party. It cannot allow democracy, because democracy implies the people have a choice of party, agendas, ideologies and policies, and can choose non-Socialist alternatives every few years. Socialism cannot allow that to happen, since it undermines Socialism.

What interests me here is first declarative statement that is based in religious mythology ...

... and the second declarative statement which is based in a clearly reasoned and I think fair, realistic and accurate assessment of socialism and communism.

What I find interesting is how this contrast points up an amphibious tendency in man's perceptual capabilities. That is, that we can and we do refer to intuited metaphysics and explanatory systems ["there were no earthquakes or cancers before the Fall of Man. And the Fall was the result of a human choice"] which we actually can *believe in* though there is no evidence . . .

. . . and other modes of knowing and deducing which are indeed based on sober and careful analysis of the *facts*.

How strange that the two can, and do. exist in one place and function together.

But they are not related (as Gary seems to believe). Immanuel Can does not believe that socialism and communism are bad and destructive because it is written in the Bible. Indeed there are many Christians who are very much in favor of socialism. What he really seems to be critiquing is the concentration of power in the state apparatus.

How odd it is -- referring back to Gary's posting of the perspective and ideas of Chomsky -- that Chomsky is equally critical of all such apparatuses that involve power-concentration. He does say that all systems, all national power-system conglomerations, are in one degree or another systems for controlling and managing their populations. To one degree or another, he reasons, they show a tyrannical tendency.

So his *reasonable intellectual perspective* is to propose anarchism as a viable alternative. Intellectually it might be, ideally. But it is entirely impracticable except perhaps in a small community.

It is quite likely -- I believe I have noticed this before when examining Immanuel's thought -- that he can't quite carry forward the core impetus of his own assessment in respect to the concentration of power in the State. He is capable of critical thought in respect to *socialism* but cannot extend his through to a system -- like the American system -- which has pretended to be anti-socialist. But some propose that the Soviet communist system has a mirror (of sorts) in the American system.

The larger issue certainly has to do with the United States as the power behind the construction of the present world-system. Here Chomsky is quite useful as he does explain coherently that the US designed a world-management system in the postwar era which it administered through all of its vast powers. Military and industrial power certainly, but also public relations and propaganda, economic influence and coercion, and the entire sphere of cultural production ("Hollywood") which is so influential.

Referring to Hayek, there is a difference between the 'serfdom' that will result when any State apparatus becomes too powerful and a State that becomes excessively generous in terms of 'welfare' and other sorts of programs designed to protect people or defend people.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:50 pm**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:08 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:29 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:48 pm To be honest, maybe if we give Putin what he wants it'll become evident who the real monster is. So let's let him have Ukraine. Maybe he'll be satisfied with Ukraine and stop because he feels safe. If that's what needs to be done to prevent Armageddon, then let's do it.
...and what if Putin - as per his expressed ambitions - wants more of the former Soviet lands after you give him Ukraine? Should we hope he doesn't want more and live with that? When was that kind of appeasement ever successful!
The greatest imperial power that ever existed is America today. It is always easy to demonize that which one fears, but one must ask one's self, what do my fears give me license to do to others? America is morally bankrupt; this is probably why it is in decline. The Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders. You are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul; and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this. You need to rethink who the bad guys are here.

Yet it is not *imperial* rather *neo-imperial* which is sufficiently different to make a big difference. As I did above I see some sense in referring to Chomsky's view: that in the postwar the US presided over the construction of a world-scale economic and political order. You can easily find the *apologists* for the 'goodness' of that system by reference to someone like Victor Davis Hanson.

There does exist a favorable way to look at what the US achieved especially when compared to other possible alternatives.

I do not quite understand the 'moral bankruptcy' argument. Was there ever a time, and during the time when America was designing, implementing and organizing a world-economic system obviously favorable to its interests, that the power-brokers and the power-wielders were not 'bankrupt'?

What sort of moral bankruptcy are you talking about?

It seems to me that any power-system, set up on the Earth, and necessarily playing by the rules of terrestrial existence, will always behave brutally. But is the use of brutal force evidence of bankruptcy? It does not follow. Power is brutal (ferocious, ruthless).

The Russian people are not unlike our own people, they are a proud and noble people with a right to secure their borders just as any other country has a right to secure its borders.

The error of the US -- or is this part of its strategy and its rick-taking? -- was in pushing a bit too far. But the objective of eliminating Russia or 'containing' it -- by using all possible power-machinations at its disposal is nothing exceptional in the real world of power-dynamics and power-struggles. Or is there something I am not seeing?

The game of power-politics is absolutely brutal but it is best played by those who can diplomatically made brutality appear as something else, no?

You are naive if you think the American war machine is interested in anything other than its own survival and expansion, the industrial military complex is without a soul

Did one ever assume that such a vast power-system in service to a nation and a national expansion did anything in accord with the soul's promptings?

But what do you mean 'soul'? What nation has a soul in the sense that you mean? By definition a nation and a national interest has nothing to do with the interests of a human soul -- it has only to do with getting and holding resources.

I do not get your mixing of theological terms with those of strict power poilitics.

and responsible of murderous acts across the global in overt and covert acts of violence to subdue and colonize physically and/or economically. America has not been a kind master and much of the world is painfully aware of this. You need to rethink who the bad guys are here.

This is a bizarre statement from my (present) point of view. First, there is no power-system, no state, no empire, that has ever been benign in the sense that you imply is possible. Therefore, you are referring to romantic idealism. But that is no platform for any sort of realistic view. It will only lead to mistakes of perception.

Power and the handling of power require and necessitate the use of violence and the infliction of destruction and death. There is no power-system that has acted, nor will ever act, differently. Power demands that level of control.

But at least from a comparative perspective America, when examined historically, has constructed something extraordinary though I am also inclined to criticism of the sort you (too easily) engage in.

The curious problem and issue is: To what to direct one's support?

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 4:45 pm**

The bottom line is that we're going to need to stop looking at the world as our backyard and everything that happens in it revolves around us somehow. Maybe we should apply to join BRICS. And then hope they choose to accept us.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:17 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:26 pm Immanuel Can does not believe that socialism and communism are bad and destructive because it is written in the Bible.

We believe they're bad and destructive because 100% of the time, that's exactly what they are. That's pretty much the end of the debate.

But in point of fact, the ideology, suppositions, and view of human nature upon which Socialism depends are anti-Biblical, whether everybody knows that or not.

Marx knew it. That's why he classed his "critique of religion" as, to use his words, "the first critique."

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:15 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 4:45 pm The bottom line is that we're going to need to stop looking at the world as our backyard and everything that happens in it revolves around us somehow. Maybe we should apply to join BRICS. And then hope they choose to accept us.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

WOW, that would be something, world peace! We both know that isn't going to happen through; but hopefully BRICS by roundabout means will subdue American aggression.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:17 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:17 pm We believe they're bad and destructive because 100% of the time, that's exactly what they are. That's pretty much the end of the debate.

Defense of either communism or socialism is not my bag. And though I recognize that in your world debates simply end by declarative ultimatum, in my world I cannot pull that off so easily.

But it is true that a strict Marxism is by definition opposed to Christian anthropological tenets. However, there certainly are Christian theologians who work within and with the Marxian design.

But in point of fact, the ideology, suppositions, and view of human nature upon which Socialism depends are anti-Biblical, whether everybody knows that or not.

The point is taken. Though I think there is more relationship between certain Christian concepts and Marxian idealism than meets the eye.

Must a Marxian frame annul religious convictions?

Marx knew it. That's why he classed his "critique of religion" as, to use his words, "the first critique."

With at least a good amount of soundness. The first critique really must be directed to the metaphysical framing, mustn’t it? Either to support, critique or reform it.

We explored that in depth on the Christianity thread. My impression? You won no one to your side. Weak arguments? Rebellious interlocutors? Or are your general premises off-the-mark?

Let’s cut to the chase:

Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.

The ideas here cannot simply be dismissed with an imperious gesture of the hand. They have high relevancy — especially for a self-conscious, ethical person (say perhaps even a Christian).

Quoted from some scholarly page: “Marx, whose orientation was largely materialist and historicist, framed his analysis around four central points: the physical reality of people, the organization of social relations, the value of the historical context of development, and the human nature of continuous praxis.”

Interestingly, every person writing on this forum is inclined to a stance more alike to this than to any position that is remotely ‘religious’.

Could religion and religiousness alone define political and social organization or provide a framework for the same? I do not think so.

Posted: **Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:28 pm**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:15 pm WOW, that would be something, world peace! We both know that isn't going to happen through; but hopefully BRICS by roundabout means will subdue American aggression.

Philosophy Now Forum

Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Re: Ukraine Crisis