WOKE and proud of it....

[Iwannaplato]

It can be decided much quicker than that. Walter Mitty types like you never bother to learn the basics of philosophy, so no, you will never even become passable, let alone great. You are all wind and no whistle, you don't know how to construct an argument, and you have nothing to say using one even if you did.

I would say the larger problem is that he considers criticism and dialogue almost completely unnecessary. What great philosopher just pontificated their way to greatness?

In one thread where I was critical, he implicitly compared himself to Einstein. But Einstein not only had long discussions with peers where criticism was always part of the process, he explicitly asked for criticism. And so it is with all the great minds he's mentioned.

[Age]

I want to be a great philosopher.... again, will I succeed?
that is to be decided... but not by me...
I shall be long dead before it is decided

It can be decided much quicker than that. Walter Mitty types like you never bother to learn the basics of philosophy, so no, you will never even become passable, let alone great. You are all wind and no whistle, you don't know how to construct an argument, and you have nothing to say using one even if you did.

.... who else around here wants
to be great? a very, very few...

A short list of people on this little site who either think they are already the greatest philosopher of all time, or else who think their own theory is so novel and important that a status along those lines is understood to be implied....
Roydop (official greatest ever).
Age (Offical greatest ever).

Well this is a huge claim here if from you "flashdangerpants".

Do you have absolutely any thing, which you have not misinterpreted, that backs up and supports this claim of yours here about me?

If no, then why make this False claim?

But, if yes, then will you provide it?

If no, then why not?

Advocate (Offical greatest ever).
Vagina Aquarium (implied top 10 of all time - but if you ask him nicely he will give you FRESCO to work out his exact position)

All of those people are useless idiots just like you. Delusions that you are close to just stepping up to be the world's greatest philosopher are quite a bad sign in general. Becoming decent at your hobby without fooling yourself would be no bad thing.

[Fairy]

Wow. That meant...something...I'm just not sure what.

It’s meant to appear as though there is a someone saying something that no one understands.

The you there should know what that means, because you do it all the time.

If so, perhaps that's my fault...but, on the other hand, perhaps not. Sometimes, the meaning is there, but the recipient isn't processing it.

“ Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment. Cleverness is mere opinion. Bewilderment brings intuitive knowledge.” - Rumi

“Love is never wasted, for its value does not rest on reciprocity.”
― C.S. Lewis


Confusion is the perfect state, it helps you to understand what you are actually feeling.

[Immanuel Can]

Confusion is the perfect state, it helps you to understand what you are actually feeling.

Well, you're female. That's for sure.

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing. Confusion is not better than clarity.

But it is a more common state. That much, I can grant you.

[phyllo]

I still know that Socialism is the ideology of killers and a disaster for economics, as it has proved to be in every single place in the world it's been tried.

You live in a socialist country. Canada is a socialist country.

And you're less likely to be killed in Canada than in the USA.

[Harbal]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

Certainty of knowing is only a feeling.

Confusion is not better than clarity.

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

[Alexis Jacobi]

….

While it is possible to critique with fairness Kropotkin’s approach and presentation, what I have been led to wonder about is the question of “philosophical objective”. One thing: most of what is talked about, and bickered over, on this forum is less about philosophical problems and more about individual orientation within existential issues and questions. And these devolve into stark and generally fruitless arguments between political, social and ideological orientations.

Is progress ever made? (And what is progress?)

I reviewed my own orientation and objectives here on this forum dedicated to philosophical conversation and am clear about what I am doing here (and in my intellectual life).

But I wanted to ask you, FDPs (if you wish to talk about it) just what your objectives with philosophy are and, additionally, what you hope to achieve, or what you are achieving, here in this space?

One added comment based perhaps an intuited perspective — and I could use Kropotkin (and some others) as a reference-point — but I think at times that people engage even in polemics and vain argumentation (idea wheel-spinning) in some sense to remain alive. To feel some level of connection, even if dysfunctional, with other people. Being able to vehemently oppose someone, or some idea that one dislikes, fears or is horrified by, keeps one’s juices flowing. Provides a reason to keep pushing even if the pushing does not result in resolution, progress or agreement.

The thing that most amazes me is the thorough lack of agreements among the atomized participants here. I do think about that in relation to Nietzsche’s metaphor of the “erasure of horizon”.

Naturally, that is one main reason for my personal concern for the religion-question: that clinging to “metaphysical categories” in a chaotic and I think devolving world where people fall out of communion and unity with the people around them.

In this sense — again referring to Kropotkin — he describes (honestly, revealingly) his existential struggle as an impasse. The world falls apart around him, he is trapped in economic restraints, he seeks to see and explain why, and simultaneously his body begins to give way.

I am curious to hear your thought, or anyone’s thoughts, on these views.

[Fairy]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

What do you mean by “knowing” ?

Do you mean…”knowing” as in having knowledge of something like “God” for example?

Or something else?

Please clarify.

Do you know that you can only know something after a reaction, never before?
Knowledge is memory, not the actuality of the present.

Knowledge is time based. Where as the present is timeless. There is no person knowing in the timeless present.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I still know that Socialism is the ideology of killers and a disaster for economics, as it has proved to be in every single place in the world it's been tried.

You live in a socialist country. Canada is a socialist country.

And you're less likely to be killed in Canada than in the USA.

K: Canada has roughly 40 million people, the US has 340 million people,
simple numbers suggest that one will get kill in the US at a greater
rate than Canada...

Kropotkin

[Fairy]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

I don’t know what you mean by feeling is not the same as knowing.

Are there different forms of “knowing” to you?


For example: I know I have a toothache because I am a feeling organism. I can feel a pain, and that pain can be known to me, I know I am in pain.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Alexis Jacobi:
While it is possible to critique with fairness Kropotkin’s approach and presentation, what I have been led to wonder about is the question of “philosophical objective”. One thing: most of what is talked about, and bickered over, on this forum is less about philosophical problems and more about individual orientation within existential issues and questions. And these devolve into stark and generally fruitless arguments between political, social and ideological orientations.

K: and for me, the reason that there is no universal agreement about
any political, social or ideological orientations is basically that is all we
have...if you have 30 people, you are going to have 30 different viewpoints...
there is no universal, one value fits all possibility..... so the philosophical
attempts to create a universal value evident since Plato and going on through
Hegel.... is, has and will continue to be a failure because there is no such rock
upon which to build any type of universal, overall, fits everyone ism or ideology.....
we fruitlessly argue about these matters because there is no one size fits
all ism that will cover everyone... god, which god and why that god?
nationalism, again, which nation, which values and why that nation
and why those values? Every single ism that has presented itself
as an answer, a universal answer to our questions has failed...
from Capitalism to communism to Catholicism/religions....

I stand here alone, and I can do no other... quoting Luther...
is the human condition.... and what we really seek is some point
of connection that can/will unite us.... but the one bond that can
actually, unite us is the human bond.... not religions or nationalism
or even sports, but the mere fact that we are human.... that is
literally the only true connection we have between each other.....

thus, any attempt to diminish or dehumanizing others, is the
diminishment or dehumanization of ourselves....
this relentless pursuit of profits that is the object/goal of
capitalism.. which devalues/dehumanizes people, also
devalues/dehumanizes ourselves.... if we put profits before
people as capitalism does and that the management of corporations
do, then they devalue people and in doing so, devalue themselves....

but given that all we have is different viewpoints, no universal viewpoint,
can we accept this devaluation as legitimate?

I say no.... and have offered many reasons as to why not....
what say you? to be ''WOKE'' is to be aware of this devaluation
of people via isms and ideologies... to be aware that capitalism
devalues and diminishes human beings... as does communism
as does religions as does any ism that puts people behind some other
stated goal..... god before people is a devaluation of human beings...
and there are plenty of other isms that devalue and dehumanizes people...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

I still know that Socialism is the ideology of killers and a disaster for economics, as it has proved to be in every single place in the world it's been tried.

You live in a socialist country. Canada is a socialist country.

And you're less likely to be killed in Canada than in the USA.

K: Canada has roughly 40 million people, the US has 340 million people,
simple numbers suggest that one will get kill in the US at a greater
rate than Canada...

Kropotkin

Death rates are calculated as a quality per 1,000 or 100,000 population per year.

Mortality in 2023 was:
Canada 8.17 per 1000
USA 8.42 per 1000

Intentional homicide rate in 2022 was :
Canada 2.273 per 100,000
USA 6.383 per 100,000

[Alexis Jacobi]

So the philosophical attempts to create a universal value evident since Plato and going on through Hegel is, has and will continue to be, a failure because there is no such rock upon which to build any type of universal, overall, fits-everyone -ism or ideology. We fruitlessly argue about these matters because there is no one size fits all -ism that will cover everyone.

All that applies within the borders of California, I grant you that. But when you leave that infernal territory things are different. Really!

We fruitlessly argue about these matters because there is no one size fits all -ism that will cover everyone.

Ok, Ok: then let’s get right to the business of massacre. Then those left can “construct agreements”.

Fair enough?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Intentional homicide rate in 2022 was :
Canada 2.273 per 100,000
USA 6.383 per 100,000

This is because Americans are better marksmen than Canadians. They fire even more but miss more often than not.

[FlashDangerpants]

….

While it is possible to critique with fairness Kropotkin’s approach and presentation, what I have been led to wonder about is the question of “philosophical objective”. One thing: most of what is talked about, and bickered over, on this forum is less about philosophical problems and more about individual orientation within existential issues and questions. And these devolve into stark and generally fruitless arguments between political, social and ideological orientations.

Kropotkin has nothing really to do with philosophy, he just has a fantasy about being super-clever or ultra-wise or something and he thinks that talking random bollocks about Nietzsche and Kant makes him look the part. From what I've seen, which is not a comprehensive sample so I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken.... he name checks the top 10 most famous philosophers of all time, and only in vague terms. You could learn everythig you need to know about Plato to understand everything Kropotkin (or Jacobi) says about that guy from the back of a cereal box.

But IWP was right, his stuff tends to be "Plato and Me", "Neitzsche and Me" or "Hegel and Me", not actually something about Kierkegaard himself, but always something about how Kierkegaard relates to Kropotkin.

I reviewed my own orientation and objectives here on this forum dedicated to philosophical conversation and am clear about what I am doing here (and in my intellectual life).

No offence, but the simple reality is that you've got a similar fantasy going on; something to do with being an influential thinker in the race realism movement or whatever far-right deal you are actually into. All of your references to philosophy are similar acts of costumery to his. You've read lots of books, but bat around empty terms such as "individual orientation within existential issues and questions" like a marketing robot.

But I wanted to ask you, FDPs (if you wish to talk about it) just what your objectives with philosophy are and, additionally, what you hope to achieve, or what you are achieving, here in this space?

I like philosophy. The real stuff involving epistemology and ontology and papers written by working philosophers who aren't famous and whose names can't be used to impress rubes. Sometimes a little of that happens here. Currently I am reading a paper by Peter Railton of Ann Arbor (Uni of Michigan) becasue I found something that VA mentioned in another thread sort of intriguing.
https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/docs/11 ... ealism.pdf

One added comment based perhaps an intuited perspective — and I could use Kropotkin (and some others) as a reference-point — but I think at times that people engage even in polemics and vain argumentation (idea wheel-spinning) in some sense to remain alive. To feel some level of connection, even if dysfunctional, with other people. Being able to vehemently oppose someone, or some idea that one dislikes, fears or is horrified by, keeps one’s juices flowing. Provides a reason to keep pushing even if the pushing does not result in resolution, progress or agreement.

The thing that most amazes me is the thorough lack of agreements among the atomized participants here. I do think about that in relation to Nietzsche’s metaphor of the “erasure of horizon”.

That's the sort of purple prose infused hyperbole we have come to expect from you. I find your racial politics obnoxious so I disagree with you about that stuff, I don't tether my existence to arguing with you. However, Kropotkin is something of an empty vessel on the whole, so perhaps he does what he does to spin some wheels and not be dead yet. Same goes for that weirdo Buzzcap7.

Naturally, that is one main reason for my personal concern for the religion-question: that clinging to “metaphysical categories” in a chaotic and I think devolving world where people fall out of communion and unity with the people around them.

Very poetic, but does it mean anything?

In this sense — again referring to Kropotkin — he describes (honestly, revealingly) his existential struggle as an impasse. The world falls apart around him, he is trapped in economic restraints, he seeks to see and explain why, and simultaneously his body begins to give way.

I am curious to hear your thought, or anyone’s thoughts, on these views.

Kropotkin suffers from the firm belief that he must be special in some way, but the inability to locate any talent that supports his notion. What he really struggles against is that.