The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:00 pm

I don't think eliminating Trump is necessary. It would be better if Trump just didn't go breaking up Federal agencies and starting wars. Criticism is designed for people to take notice and change their behavior. Trump notoriously disregards public criticism. He's in his own world, living in his own private Idaho.

You're still thinking in terms of politics, not of human nature. So long as you do that, you're going to find yourself betrayed...if not by Trump, then by the Dems, or the Socialists, or anybody else who manages to seize power.

Well, if that's the case, then we may as well vote for anyone and everyone who comes along. Just throw darts at the voting booth and see who wins.

How about the opposite? That is, instead of complaining about individuals, how about doing something about the problem that's at the root of it all...the sin problem in human beings, including D. Trump, you and me?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:15 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:09 pm
You're still thinking in terms of politics, not of human nature. So long as you do that, you're going to find yourself betrayed...if not by Trump, then by the Dems, or the Socialists, or anybody else who manages to seize power.

Well, if that's the case, then we may as well vote for anyone and everyone who comes along. Just throw darts at the voting booth and see who wins.

How about the opposite? That is, instead of complaining about individuals, how about doing something about the problem that's at the root of it all...the sin problem in human beings, including D. Trump, you and me?

So are you saying we should all accept the Bible and then everything will work out better? Reading and adhering to the Bible will solve all of our problems? We've all strayed away (some more so than others), and that's where all the problems arise?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:15 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:13 pm

Well, if that's the case, then we may as well vote for anyone and everyone who comes along. Just throw darts at the voting booth and see who wins.

How about the opposite? That is, instead of complaining about individuals, how about doing something about the problem that's at the root of it all...the sin problem in human beings, including D. Trump, you and me?

So are you saying we should all accept the Bible and then everything will work out better?

No, I'm saying, "Look at what human beings really are, how they really operate, and what they really do." Then ask yourself, "who has the honest and correct view of what human nature is like?" If it's the utopian Socialists, believe them, I guess. But I think that any honest investigation will show you that the most realistic chacterization of human nature is the description found in the Bible.

You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:55 pm You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

I would disagree. The question is whether a political system can be devised that works well/properly/as intended to IN SPITE OF bad human actors. Im might have my doubts about the possibilities were ALL of the human place holders were bad in the same way at the same time. But that is perhaps overly pessimistic.

This is not totally unlike `the situations in information theory or engineering where we need `error correcting codes or devices designed to continue operating properly even as some components fail.

Anybody who designs a system of governance dependent on all the human actors always behaving `rightly is an idiot.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 9:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:55 pm You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

I would disagree. The question is whether a political system can be devised that works well/properly/as intended to IN SPITE OF bad human actors. Im might have my doubts about the possibilities were ALL of the human place holders were bad in the same way at the same time. But that is perhaps overly pessimistic.

You're not paying attention. I said that a political system must not be utopian, not perfectionistic, because of the evils of human nature, or its susceptible to those evils. So we're agreeing insofar as any realistic political system must take that fact into account.

Where, perhaps we differ is more on the question of whether or not any political system can be devised which can perfect human nature. Socialists insist "yes," and I would argue "no."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:15 pm
How about the opposite? That is, instead of complaining about individuals, how about doing something about the problem that's at the root of it all...the sin problem in human beings, including D. Trump, you and me?

So are you saying we should all accept the Bible and then everything will work out better?

No, I'm saying, "Look at what human beings really are, how they really operate, and what they really do." Then ask yourself, "who has the honest and correct view of what human nature is like?" If it's the utopian Socialists, believe them, I guess. But I think that any honest investigation will show you that the most realistic chacterization of human nature is the description found in the Bible.

You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

So there's no such thing as a good person or a good society. Everyone is just mundane, the lowest common denominator, a humble "sinner"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 12:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:20 pm

So are you saying we should all accept the Bible and then everything will work out better?

No, I'm saying, "Look at what human beings really are, how they really operate, and what they really do." Then ask yourself, "who has the honest and correct view of what human nature is like?" If it's the utopian Socialists, believe them, I guess. But I think that any honest investigation will show you that the most realistic chacterization of human nature is the description found in the Bible.

You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

So there's no such thing as a good person or a good society. Everyone is just mundane, the lowest common denominator, a humble "sinner"?

Indeed.

After all, Gary, where has "the truly good society" ever been? There have certainly been better ones and worse ones, ones people flee and ones people flee to. But there are no perfect societies, and never will be, so long as societies are collections of people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 1:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 12:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 6:55 pm
No, I'm saying, "Look at what human beings really are, how they really operate, and what they really do." Then ask yourself, "who has the honest and correct view of what human nature is like?" If it's the utopian Socialists, believe them, I guess. But I think that any honest investigation will show you that the most realistic chacterization of human nature is the description found in the Bible.

You see, Gary, our political prospects will never be better than the nature of the people involved allows them to be. If we can't find a way to fix humankind, we'll never fix politics.

So there's no such thing as a good person or a good society. Everyone is just mundane, the lowest common denominator, a humble "sinner"?

Indeed.

After all, Gary, where has "the truly good society" ever been? There have certainly been better ones and worse ones, ones people flee and ones people flee to. But there are no perfect societies, and never will be, so long as societies are collections of people.

When you say "no perfect society", what do you mean by that? Obviously, nothing is "perfect," or "foolproof," but some things are more messed up or else better than others. Socialism is not "utopia." Every educated person understands that. What socialism doesn't do is take it for granted that nature or God or whatever is going to make sure everything turns out OK without any human oversight. It involves planning and decisions made democratically by the people using the best information available, gleaned from informed experts. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing diabolical or sinister about listening to experts. Experts are not out to take advantage of people and screw them over for their own gain. That seems like an extremely pessimistic and dismal view of the quality of a properly educated person.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 4:09 am Socialism is not "utopia."

No, it's not: but it pretends to offer that. What else would you call a scheme that promises you things like complete equality, freedom from all oppression, money guaranteed, free healthcare, free housing, food without cost, work without toil, complete security, etc...all without you having to do anything but approve the scheme? If that isn't a utopian dream, I don't know what you'd call it.

Well, except "unrealistic." You could call it that.

What socialism doesn't do is take it for granted that nature or God or whatever is going to make sure everything turns out OK without any human oversight.

By "human oversight," it means "government." In other words, it trusts some fallen, fallible men to be capable of being good, so as to be trusted with controlling power.

That's why it always fails. You can't argue with a 100% record of disastrous failure: you can see something's profoundly wrong with their plan.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 4:15 am By "human oversight," it means "government." In other words, it trusts some fallen, fallible men to be capable of being good, so as to be trusted with controlling power.

That's why it always fails. You can't argue with a 100% record of disastrous failure: you can see something's profoundly wrong with their plan.

No it does not. Or rather a system of government which depends on (fallen*) fallible humans to be capable of (always) being good is not going to do the trick. The system of government chosen must contain features that control/correct for the reality that humans are imperfect. Perhaps you don't believe that possible, so we'll disagree. But not that design tolerant of imperfect/failed components is common in other areas.

"That's why it always fails. You can't argue with a 100% record of disastrous failure: you can see something's profoundly wrong with their plan."
<< actually can argue with that --- only have to succeed with a sufficiently fault tolerant design once. Think of all the things we humans would not have if discouraged by even hundreds of successive failures. Then only part of what you said I will agree with is that any who imagine easy, that they do not need a fault tolerant design, that they can depend on the goodness of humans; yes, THEY are deluded. >>

* fallen --- Your specifically Christian truth isn't necessary here. Even the secular will accept "fallible" and that by itself sufficient. Thus I would NOT agree that the problem is that Man is "fallen". Reconsider. Would Man NOT having attained moral knowledge be any better placed to govern? Sure, not going to intentionally be doing wrong. But would be making choices not for the good, just randomly bad, work?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 3:07 pm The system of government chosen must contain features that control/correct for the reality that humans are imperfect.

Yes, we agree on that. But Socialism has no checks on its elite, or on its dictator. Not even the democratic vote of the people is allowed to resist Socialist diktats.

As the old saying goes, "You can vote Socialism in, but you can only shoot your way out of it."

"That's why it always fails. You can't argue with a 100% record of disastrous failure: you can see something's profoundly wrong with their plan."

<< actually can argue with that --- only have to succeed with a sufficiently fault tolerant design once.

Ask yourself why, then, with all the attempts to create Socialism, nobody's been able to do it.

Are you saying the Chinese are too dumb? The Russians were too backward? The Koreans...not sophisticated enough? The Cubans...didn't know what "real Socialism" was? The Congolese and Zimbabweans...just to primitive to get it right? The East Germans...not as bright as the West Germans? And all the rest...just plain thick, were they?

But you, you know what "real Socialism" would be, because you know it could work. That's what you want me to believe?

* fallen --- Your specifically Christian truth isn't necessary here.

Well, I prefer the truth. I would hope you would, too.

And it's not merely "Christian truth"...it came straight from Torah, from "Jewish truth." That's the great thing about truth: it doesn't play favourites.

Reconsider. Would Man NOT having attained moral knowledge be any better placed to govern?

If man knew only good, and had no conception at all of evil, and no possibility of the experience of it either? Absolutely, he'd be more fit to rule.

But it's not the world we live in anymore.

Considering Trump's threats to make Canada the 51st state, I don't know why IC doesn't bash Trump as much as he does "socialists" or Democrats. It's really weird. I wonder, if I stopped bashing Trump, would IC still oppose my posts?

I'll give it a try:

I think Trump is a reasonably OK President, no worse than the others. What do you think, IC?

"There's nothing diabolical or sinister about listening to experts. Experts are not out to take advantage of people and screw them over for their own gain."

experts must be saints... wait, saints sounds too christian or religious or something icky like that

if only government experts were perfect non humans...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 12:49 pm "There's nothing diabolical or sinister about listening to experts. Experts are not out to take advantage of people and screw them over for their own gain."

experts must be saints... wait, saints sounds too christian or religious or something icky like that

if only government experts were perfect non humans...

-Imp

True. But what can we expect from the shithole God created? Is anything in life fair? Is anything in the world God created fair? If I'm not fair to Christians, then are you being fair to society's best educated and most studious intellectuals? There's not a lot of difference between the two of us, judging from our posts on this forum. But maybe you have a fair point about intellectuals. In the end, they're human like we are and subject to the same failures of character that we are.

Anyway, I don't like this world. It's mostly shit. I'm just waiting around to die at this point. Probably, the same as you, I would guess.

Considering Trump's threats to make Canada the 51st state, I don't know why IC doesn't bash Trump as much as he does "socialists" or Democrats. It's really weird.

A minority of Canadians want to join the US.

In several provinces, there are minorities that want the province to separate and become an independent state.

Some Canadians want Trump style policies implemented within Canada.

I expect IC falls into one of those groups.