For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I've done that, but I can oblige again. Here is a bunch. There's more on the main site. Pick what interests you.
The occasion of introducing civilisation and democracy to sub-Saharan Africa was via European Christian and post Christian culture, and also to some extent via Islam. That said, can we now stop talking about times past, and instead talk about what needs to be done?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 2:32 pmIf you have followed what I have so far written on this topic you will know that what you describe here I fully understand and I also have taken it into consideration. I very well understand that the South African situation, which certainly included apartheid, came to be seen as intolerable. World-opinion, certainly, turned against it. And I made it clear that I grew up with parents who were in various ways involved in this same opposition, as was the near entirety of popular culture at that time. And were you to have asked me to give an opinion on the matter I would have responded as did popular culture.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:40 am Apartheid was in force in South Africa, and Apartheid was found by more civilised standards to be against human rights. "European culture" is not monolithic but dynamic rather like Xianity is dynamic. How to attain human rights in sub-Saharan Africa is via self determination and democracy. Romantic attachment to 'European culture' as was in some idealised notion of 'European' has been shown by Hitler and Co, to be wrong.
So 'the righteous' triumphed. The bands played. The ceremonies were performed. The idealism celebrated. The leaders stepped forward and made their pronouncements. Heroes were honored. The villains vilified.
And a slow descent began, which proceeds today, toward ruin.
The righteous, with perplexed expressions, do not know quite what to think. So they double-down on versions of the original story: the Whites have too much power still. The injustice still determines the outcome. In order for the new South African project to succeed, therefore, the revolution must continue. Etc., etc., etc.
I find that on some levels at least I cannot disagree with this analysis. Why is that? Because, evidently, I *buy into it*. And any other view that I would take, according to the Reigning Narratives, places me among the unrighteous.
So with that said I return to my principle point: The narratives of *righteousness*, powerful as indeed they are, determining as indeed they are, and permitting no opposition, go forward in many different areas. There is celebration. And things, generally speaking, and inexorably, tend not to improvement and successful outcomes, but to something unlike that.
Therefore, I have to examine from a more critical perspective 'civilized standards' 'human rights' and also the well-established condemnatory posture, presented as 'righteousness' and as 'goodness', against what you describe as "romantic attachment to European culture". And then, which is even more difficult (it is employed as the *ultimate block* and an insurmountable hurdle, you make it plain that if I take any position that stands opposed to "civilized standards' 'human rights (etc.) that you and others see this as aligning with "Hitler & Co".
This is how a General Narrative functions.
This is a 'declarative statement' which arises out of the Narrative of Righteousness, but is it, in fact, true? You seem certain. I am not at all certain. But I am, as I say, susceptible to the power in the narrative declaration. I do not want to openly oppose it for fear of being associated with unrighteousness.How to attain human rights in sub-Saharan Africa is via self determination and democracy.
Self-determination and 'democracy' are ur-European categories! They are *impositions* made by Europe on peoples who did not in any sense conceive of these as necessary. And, in my observations, when they are imposed it is often the case that factions far more interested in power alone, and something like dictatorial control, seem more often than not to emerge. The righteous, as per usual, frown in bafflement and concern. And they ramp up their core argument all over again. That the cause of disarray, or chaos, of degeneration, is . . . [fill in the blank]
This statement interest me: What is shown to be wrong. It is good for you and for one with your position to know and with certainty what is 'wrong' and also what is 'right'. I have not been as convinced that I do know. Or, once I was highly certain that I did know and now I doubt.
So here is what I say more or less in summation: our history presents us with a narrative that exclaims with certainty that the trajectory it defines as 'good' and 'necessary' is the right one. The right one? What does that mean? It means, I think literally, that what is unfolding unfolds because it is metaphysically sound and also necessary. It arose and is part-and-parcel of what I could say is perceived, consciously at times, unconsciously most other times, as 'God's will'. I kid you not. When once 'God's will' was declared a veritable force, a 'real thing', now the idea submerged and went underground. It operates at another level though. No one on this forum, except the old-school god-believer, could assert the idea of God or God's will for the Earth. And yet among an entire class of people the core idea, the metaphysical assumption, is evermore dominant and powerful.
Even within that paradigm however (God's will or metaphysical determination, or evolution according to an unfolding plan) it is actually possible to make a whole other set of assertions about what is needed and what 'does good'. It seems to be a question of where one stands in relation to that set of definitions.
In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.
You are mistaking socialism for communism. Are you American?Walker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:33 pmIn practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.
Socialist education is called indoctrination, which is obvious to true intellectuals.
I hear they even have re-education camps, so folks can get their minds right.
It's a bit more of a challenge to get a true intellectual's mind, right.
And you're mistaking idealism for actuality.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:05 pmYou are mistaking socialism for communism. Are you American?Walker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:33 pmIn practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.
Socialist education is called indoctrination, which is obvious to true intellectuals.
I hear they even have re-education camps, so folks can get their minds right.
It's a bit more of a challenge to get a true intellectual's mind, right.
Socialism is the opposite. It's by NOT really educating the "proles" that they survive. It's on forcing conformity, and playing "whack-a-mole" with anybody who raises their head.
As in the Cultural Revolution, for example.In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.
Immanuel, I cannot conceal from you that I regard you as having, and reasoning from, a cockroach-level intelligence. You are, simply put, a Christian religious fanatic and therefore you actually are convinced by those videos and that level of intellection.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:00 pmI've done that, but I can oblige again. Here is a bunch. There's more on the main site. Pick what interests you.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX
It’s interesting how those whacky Germans were indoctrinated into believing the Glories of anti-nuclear, anti-oil, pro-wind, and pro-solar.
Speaking by way of logical deduction, not facts, they could all be false, plausibly -- unless they exhaust all the possibilities; in which case, one would have to be true. Logic also tells us that.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:30 pm The presentation is ensconced within the proposition that either all are true, or false, or the possibility that one in particular (particularism) is in fact ‘true’.
No one of these must, necessarily, be true.
And nowhere is this more evident than when an "inclusivist' attempts to "include" an exclusivistic ideology within his worldview.Indeed, that's a good point, already known and understood.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:44 pm
When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.
This is why I say you operate from a cockroach-level intellect. You will here attempt to employ the non-contradiction argument in an absurd attempt to challenge and overturn what I have said. And you will go further: you will mire the issue, and the conversation, in a similar false-controversy just as you did, and do again, with this ridiculous rehearsal about an 'original mating pair'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:44 pm However, if you believe you are telling the truth about that, then your statement is false -- your view would be true, and theirs would all be wrong. In which case, you're not denying that something is true...you just think it's your view, not theirs.
This is largely true, but not absolutely true. An alternative exists (for a mature individual).This is what I mean by all belief systems being exclusivist.
Wrong again. There are indeed outlooks that opt for 'inclusive perspectives'. Thus -- actually -- they exist.There are no actual "inclusivist" perspectives.
Here you simply *come out into the open* and make your supremacist declaration. That is where you started from, and that is where those who concocted those videos started from, and that is your purpose and their purpose.When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.
Not that complex. Here we will apply logic to find out why you have to be wrong.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:02 pmYou will here attempt to employ the non-contradiction argument in an absurd attempt to challenge and overturn what I have said.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:44 pm However, if you believe you are telling the truth about that, then your statement is false -- your view would be true, and theirs would all be wrong. In which case, you're not denying that something is true...you just think it's your view, not theirs.
Then you deny what Christianity says about Buddhism.I do not say that *Christianity is wrong* and I do not say that Buddhism is wrong.
Wrong again.There are no actual "inclusivist" perspectives.
You just excluded me."
No intelligible ones, though. None that makes sense. None that can honour even the most basic principles of logic or rational thinking.There are indeed outlooks that opt for 'inclusive perspectives'.
In this example *Jesus* is simply a reference made. One supposes, because it takes the form of a direct quote, that the man Jesus spoke it. That is questionable. It is questioned. Not by wicked people but by thoughtful people. What Jesus said, and didn't say, are matters of substantial debate. I doubt that the figure Jesus actually said what is ascribed to him myself. Because of its implications.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:50 pmIndeed, that's a good point, already known and understood.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:44 pm
When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.
Thus, one must examine the qualities of Jesus, and not the form.
I am not aware that Christianity, and certainly not the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, made any statement about or against Buddhism. But if by this you are referring to the statement that has been assigned to Jesus ("no way but through me"), yes, I most certainly reject it but more especially what you mean by it. I reject the supremacist root in Judaism and its Christian iteration.Immanuel writes: Then you deny what Christianity says about Buddhism.
That according to you. But you know and I know that you have a specific a priori opinion on the matter. So no other position could be admitted to be 'intelligible' to you. Were you to do that you'd have to modify the *supremacist* stance. And if you did the *house* would tremble and might eventually collapse.No intelligible ones, though.
Many people have shown you that, in fact, your own System has so many odd holes in it that it does not, cannot, make sense. Unless one takes the route of abandoning sense altogether and simply giving oneself over to *faith*.None that makes sense.