The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Philosophy is not about personal experiences, which you cannot investigate or your personal preferences.

long pause- Korea and Vietnam never happened

-Imp

At some point the Senate has to investigate the causes and conduct of this war. Probably after the midterms when some of the collaborators have been swept from office. It's going to be much larger than the Benghazi commission.

I wonder how well Kegsbreath will do in those hearings.

puto wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 7:46 am Philosophy is not about personal experiences, which you cannot investigate or your personal preferences.

Knowledge comes from personal experiences.


What I object to, is the reduction of war to 'baseball statistics' and 'video games' .

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 5:56 pm

puto wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 7:46 am Philosophy is not about personal experiences, which you cannot investigate or your personal preferences.

Knowledge comes from personal experiences.


What I object to, is the reduction of war to 'baseball statistics' and 'video games' .

The unimaginative often balk at similes.

No need to experience a leap off a cliff to imagine the implications.

It would be like, a big ouch.

"Like," being the point.

puto wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 7:46 am Philosophy is not about personal experiences, which you cannot investigate or your personal preferences.

Phenomenology, Existentialism, Empiricism.
With philosophers like Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Husserl, Heidegger, a bunch of Nietzsche and you can throw in Locke and Hume who do focus a long on personal experiences on the empircism end.

But what is more ridiculous is that a discussion of the ethics of war, the personal experiences of those suffering the war directly would be outside of philosophy, especially when referred to in general. And you further dismissed his post as somehow wrong because we are in a less violent period. That response did not fit what he wrote. Further we've had a recent increase in violence worldwide in the last ten years and a long improving trend has reversed.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2026 1:22 pm However, should we be forcibly spreading liberal democracy and our influence around the world? Or should we let other peoples decide for themselves what they want for their own government? For example: Is the Chinese way of government "their way" of doing things that should be respected by us? Or should we be in favor of democracy in China?

Once the “real reasons” for undertaking these recent escapades are presented and understood, at the very least clarity is helpful to separate “pragmatism” from “idealism”.

What Trump and his crew are attempting is purely pragmatic, geo-strategic, and is an attempt to reassert a type of military-economic authority in the world. Secure Venezuelan oil fields (vastly important to the machine of the US economy); and now to eliminate a substantial thorn in the side of US dominance over that other oil producing region. Put all ideology to the side, the ruling regime in Iran simply obstructs certain supply lines. And this recent “war” is an attempt at gaining control. At least in the abstract the adventure has a logical basis.

However, and as it stands now, was the adventure successful? or has it failed? Has the battle ended, or has it really only just begun?

We need a perspective of “realism” to grasp Americanism and American objectives. Liberal democracy, you say? That term does not mean what it appears to mean. American liberal democracy means, for the subject of it, integration into a developed system. That is “the world order” established by the US after WWll: The Grand Economic Order. Generally, it has operated relatively decently (compared perhaps to some of the alternatives). But: step out of obedience and cooperation and yes there is that extraordinary military power that can and does act decisively to “secure interests”.

One major problem with Trump is an extraordinary lack of subtlety and of “delicate finesse”. The Iranian expedition could have been prepared for in advance by roping in allies. But no! This bellicose figure must act as a perverted John Wayne figure as if it is 1950 and not 2026. It could all have been handled differently.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 2:19 pm The United States is morally finished. Well done Donald. The Republican Party should be disbanded for the good of humanity.

Again, if we interested in “realism” we have a large group of issues and problems that must be faced squarely. One, the US is a vast system and if you will a “machine” that runs on resources. It cannot do or be without those resources. Your “idealism” is abstract. What does it “run” on? What you fail to understand is that the Machine, whether under Republican or Democrat management, is precisely and exactly the same machine.

The good of humanity, you say? In some dreamy, abstract, sentimental sense I would agree you are concerned for humanity. But looked at through realism’s eyes (please don’t take offense) you are drunk. I mean, you are sniffing vapors. You fail to gasp that an entire physical system was constructed, and the entire world is involved in it, complicit in it.

In this sense, Gary, you are utterly emasculated in the sense of having a grounded, realistic political and existential philosophy. If you can see this, you might then choose to expand your horizons of understanding.

This may sound as if I am dismissing genuine concerns about significant issues, but that is not so. I am supposing that part of realism, as an imperative, is to ground oneself in the practically attainable.

I notice that you analyze Gary but you don't give any reasons or examples as to what is wrong with his thinking.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 7:23 pm An impeachment would send a message to future leaders of the US to use more tact in foreign policy because if they don't there will be consequences. A war crimes trial would make that message in bolder type.

No punishment at all might be a sign of tacit approval, so that seems like a non starter.

Sorry to keep focusing on your exasperated statements but these questions are interesting.

If the realistic aims of the US were better understood by “the masses” they might well get behind the program more. Even if “the world” — the Occidental world — better understood they (some at least) might be able to get behind it more.

However, it sure looks like the US has taken aim even at allies. For example, the destruction of that Russian pipeline into Europe. These are geo-strategic operations that have to do with control (of resources). We must recognize (?) that the geo-strategic planners have determined that energy is everything. (At least I think this is correct).

Again, the recent radical efforts have a function and purpose, but the ideological lenses disinhibit us from seeing clearly (and realistically).

But you are very right: At the first opportunity they will attempt impeachment. That reflects however deep social, cultural and political differences within the polity. Do these actually link up with geo-strategic policies and goals? No, I think they are largely separate.

You could examine yourself as a dissident, even “destructive” element, within the social realm. But even if Trump were removed, and if I am right (or partly so), the Machine will still be there. And it has geo-political needs, requirements and objectives.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 1:16 pm I notice that you analyze Gary but you don't give any reasons or examples as to what is wrong with his thinking.

That is a difficult request since “Gary’s thinking” is quite bound up in his psychological stance or condition.

If you define the “question” you think should be asked, and answered, perhaps then an answer could be attempted. Give it a shot?

That is a difficult request since “Gary’s thinking” is quite bound up in his psychological stance or condition.

You have already stated that there is an (objective?) "realism" and that Gary is "drunk" in comparison.

Without reference to Gary specifically, you should be able to state what the "realism" is and and what the "drunkenness" is.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 2:06 pm

That is a difficult request since “Gary’s thinking” is quite bound up in his psychological stance or condition.

You have already stated that there is an (objective?) "realism" and that Gary is "drunk" in comparison.

Without reference to Gary specifically, you should be able to state what the "realism" is and and what the "drunkenness" is.

I thought I did (?) Realism is seeing real motives, real needs and objectives, and realizing we are ‘complicit’ within this system. See what I wrote about geo-political objectives. I thought it was clear.

Drunkenness, in my view, is to attempt to demand that The World act not in accord with realism, but in accord to idealism. It is sort of a “godly one’s” moral power-play. All the deep sighing, the hand-wringing, the intense frustrations: these are vain expressions.

Mind you, I do not say that emotions are bad. I just think that if we clarify motives and objectives we can become more clear and perhaps more at peace (?)

I thought I did (?) Realism is seeing real motives, real needs and objectives, and realizing we are ‘complicit’ within this system. See what I wrote about geo-political objectives. I thought it was clear.

What you see as "real".

What if the "emasculated men" have a better understanding of motives, needs, etc than you do?

Let's take conquest and control of territory ... is that a "real need"?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 4:33 pm Let's take conquest and control of territory ... is that a "real need"?

Why argue with me on this point? It is one of the primary motives of bellicose policy throughout history.

My definition of “emasculation” must be carefully thought through. It might sound insulting (to a degree it is critical) but it can be explained.