Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:29 pm
That's just definitional.

It's saying, "If you believe in Social Democracy, then you'd be the kind of person who believes in certain social rights." It doesn't say that Social Democracy is better or more moral or preferable in any way: it just defines what kinds of things that agenda includes. It doesn't defend them, or tell anybody why that's better than being a Communist, or Islamist, or Nazi, or capitalist, or autocrat, or anything else.

So if that's all you've got, you've got no way to persuade anybody to be a Social Democrat. Can you do any better?

I just think that one cannot have such benefits in life if one lives under another government.

No Socialist government has ever provided those things. No Socialist government even can provide reasons why those things have to be provided. So there's no reason to prefer a Social Democrat government. They promise all kinds of stuff, and deliver much, much less than they promise...along with a whole bunch of nasty things, like centralized control, central planning, force, economic collapse, and so on.

You've got no case. If you can't even convince somebody like me, then you can't convince people from anti-democratic cultures, for sure.

What is your favorite type of Government?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:46 pm
I just think that one cannot have such benefits in life if one lives under another government.

No Socialist government has ever provided those things. No Socialist government even can provide reasons why those things have to be provided. So there's no reason to prefer a Social Democrat government. They promise all kinds of stuff, and deliver much, much less than they promise...along with a whole bunch of nasty things, like centralized control, central planning, force, economic collapse, and so on.

You've got no case. If you can't even convince somebody like me, then you can't convince people from anti-democratic cultures, for sure.

What is your favorite type of Government?

It really doesn't matter what government I would prefer: I'm not the one who's trying to create the "one nation" solution, so I'm not on deck to force anybody to go along with anything. I can accept that different people have different cultures, languages, governments, and so forth...and I can accept that as the necessary price of letting people make up their own minds about how to live...even when I disagree with them.

But you can't. Not if you hope to make us all "one nation."

It's not as easy as you hoped, is it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:56 pm
No Socialist government has ever provided those things. No Socialist government even can provide reasons why those things have to be provided. So there's no reason to prefer a Social Democrat government. They promise all kinds of stuff, and deliver much, much less than they promise...along with a whole bunch of nasty things, like centralized control, central planning, force, economic collapse, and so on.

You've got no case. If you can't even convince somebody like me, then you can't convince people from anti-democratic cultures, for sure.

What is your favorite type of Government?

It really doesn't matter what government I would prefer: I'm not the one who's trying to create the "one nation" solution, so I'm not on deck to force anybody to go along with anything. I can accept that different people have different cultures, languages, governments, and so forth...and I can accept that as the necessary price of letting people make up their own minds about how to live...even when I disagree with them.

But you can't. Not if you hope to make us all "one nation."

It's not as easy as you hoped, is it?

It is not easy!

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:00 pm
What is your favorite type of Government?

It really doesn't matter what government I would prefer: I'm not the one who's trying to create the "one nation" solution, so I'm not on deck to force anybody to go along with anything. I can accept that different people have different cultures, languages, governments, and so forth...and I can accept that as the necessary price of letting people make up their own minds about how to live...even when I disagree with them.

But you can't. Not if you hope to make us all "one nation."

It's not as easy as you hoped, is it?

It is not easy!

I'll go one further: it's not possible. It's not going to happen. So long as people, cultures, governments, values, ways of life, languages, beliefs, geographies, ambitions, personalities, and so on are different, you're never going to make even one nation truly "one." You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:43 pm You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

It might be possible when we stop looking for the different in others and focus on the common.
It is certainly not necessary to make all nations or peoples into one, because that is what divides us, but I say that we need to focus on what unites us. And that is not even God, because he also divides us and not unites us. So what is it that unites us, regardless of national identity or faith?

In the end, if national borders are erased, then the very concept of nation will become meaningless, because it is defined by borders - it is why is impossible to create one nation. Not to mention the fact that as long as social, ethnic, religious, etc. inequalities(everything that separates us) exist within this united "nation" , conflicts and bloody conflicts will still exist. Look back at the USSR - an example of how the great "friendship" of nations fell apart.

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:43 pm You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

It might be possible when we stop looking for the different in others and focus on the common.

Well, language is perhaps the biggest hurdle. People who speak different languages, and not each other's, have almost no possibility of understanding each other. Certainly they can't come to harmony on any topic but the most rudimentary and superficial sort of arrangements, because they can rely on nothing but signals and gestures.

It is certainly not necessary to make all nations or peoples into one, because that is what divides us, but I say that we need to focus on what unites us. And that is not even God, because he also divides us and not unites us. So what is it that unites us, regardless of national identity or faith?

Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

The ideology called "multiculturalism" tends to dismiss unity as being unimportant. Instead, it celebrates "diversity," which is the opposite characteristic. The problem, though, is that people only meet on common ground, not on their differences. In fact, it's the differences that often provoke the disputes. So to be "diverse" means to be fragmented, factionalized, competing for public space and resources, and often, warring. How can we look to "diversity," the thing that creates the problems, to provide solutions?

In the end, if national borders are erased, then the very concept of nation will become meaningless, because it is defined by borders - it is why is impossible to create one nation.

But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

People don't fight because of borders; they put up borders because they fight. The stakes are often things like resources, territory, tribe, genetics, desire for power, access to water, cultural conflict... And a border is the thing they establish to say, "This is mine, and that is yours; don't come here." In fact, what happens when the border is violated is not that one happy, peaceful nation forms, but rather that the two people-groups fight with each other to re-establish their functional boundaries. Sometimes they fight until they kill off or enslave the other people-group.

So dissolving borders isn't a way to prevent war; sometimes, it's just the fastest way to provoke one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:22 pm Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

I didn't mean to say that we all have to be the same, or that we can't be different. What I meant was that we should not focus on these difereces. Not that our diversity is worthless, but that it cannot be the main value, because the main thing should unite us. Men will always be men and women will always be women - I mean in the biological sense - but should these differences really become an insurmountable obstacle to unity?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:22 pm But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

I did not mean to say that a social order without borders is impossible, I meant to say that in this case the concept of nation would become meaningless. Because national identity only makes sense to separate oneself from other nations.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:22 pm So dissolving borders isn't a way to prevent war; sometimes, it's just the fastest way to provoke one.

Of course, people isolate themselves for a reason, and forcibly tearing down boundaries only exposes those reasons. That is why I am against revolutions, and accordingly for evolution. A bad peace is better than a good war.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:13 pm
So you agree with the idea of one nation. That is a great start.

Have you never read anywhere in my writings here previously talking about 'the idea' of everyone living together as One?

No, please refer me to your posts on this topic.

They are scattered throughout this forum, and are of not that much importance anyway. They just mention 'the idea' and do not explain in full detail how, what you call, 'one nation' can and will be reached and achieved. So, there is no real need for me to search back for what you could do "yourself".

A few of my posts, by the way, include words like: To show how this idea/goal can be and will be created and achieved I am more than willing to, prepared to, and ready to have a discussion and back up and support these claims, that is; with absolutely any one else who is also Truly interested to.

This still stands within this or any thread as well.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:55 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:13 pm What do you think that I said wrong?

Just about everything in regards to reaching and achieving the idea of 'one nation'.

Have you not been reading and following what I have been saying and pointing out about the Wrongs things that you have said and claimed here?

No, I didn't find anything worth considering. Unless I miss something. Could you please repeat it again?

Instead of repeating what I have just already said, written, and pointed out here in this thread I will here now suggest you just re-read my replies to you. Oh, and by the way, you could also re-read "immanuel can's" and/or other's replies to here in this thread to see all of the Wrong things that you have been saying, and are very, very much worthy of being considered, by you, that is if you really are Truly interested in learning what not to do to create and reach what you call and refer to as 'one nation'.

By the way if absolutely any one points out absolutely any thing, which they consider to be a Wrong thing, then I find it absolutely always a good and great idea and worthy of considering. But, if you find absolutely nothing at all worthy of considering when just about every one replying to you is saying and pointing out the exact same Wrongness in your approach to creating and achieving 'one nation', then so be it. Just maybe you are not really that ready, nor prepared, for 'the idea', which just about everyone else has had and does have and/or hold anyway.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:15 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:13 pm
Give me another example of a government that you think is better.

I informed you earlier, when you asked me more or less the exact same question, previously.

That is; a 'self-governing' one.

Can you see 'it', this time?

Seld-governing! What is that?

Finally. If I recall correctly I have used that term about three or four times, just in this thread alone, and only now you ask for clarity. But at least you are the first one.

The Self-governing society is one where absolutely every one is doing absolutely everything that they want and have chosen, and choose, to do, voluntarily. There is absolutely no judging of others, no ridicule, nor humiliation of others, and certainly no punishment. So, there are no need at all for human made up laws at all. It is 'a world' where absolutely every one is doing what helps, benefits, and supports absolutely every one, as ONE, on or in the goal of a One Nation Earth.

The words Self-governing came about because people have, finally, discovered, or learned, and understood the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' and with and through this realization they know what is True and Right, in Life, and thus 'now' know what to do in order to create, reach, and create 'the world' in which every one, once anyway, wanted to live in. The is; a Truly non-greedy, selfless, stress-free, pollution-free, war-less, peaceful, loving, and harmonious world, together, with every one, as One.

Now, how 'this world' is actually created, reached, and achieved is just a nine step process, which can be explained in full detail, very simply and very easily I will add, and thus also can be very simply and very easily understood also. But, again, that is to those who are Truly interested, thus Truly curios and Truly OPEN as well.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:15 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:13 pm
What is the other way that will work?

Through 'self-discipline' to learn how to teach what is actually Right, in Life.

That is very general.

What were you expecting? The whole 'plan' to reach 'a Truly peaceful and harmonious world' explained in this thread? Or, something else?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:02 pm Could you please be more specific?

Yes.

Once you show that you have the 'self-discipline', curiosity, and 'self-drive' to learn what is actually True and Right, in Life, and how to teach what is actually Right, in Life, then, obviously, you can and will learn what to do. Which, by the way, would already be fairly obvious. That is; 'What is the best way 'to learn', and thus to 'come-to-know', some thing, as well as 'to learn and know' the 'how-to' do of some thing as well?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:51 am I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.

Another example could be: Imagine a "christian", explain how you could get them to stop using the, obvious to 'us', False and Wrong language that God is a male-gendered 'he'?

How could you get "christian" to just learn, see, and understand this irrefutable Fact, as well get them to change the words they have chosen to use, especially considering just how time and effort, and how much faith and belief, that they spend putting into their chosen faith and belief?

Now, why would these people want to 'just change' and just use another language/different words?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:47 pm quote]
I am not saying that we should use force.

Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.
[/quote]

I am with "immanual can" here "bahman". Without 'force' how can you get "the others" to see 'the light', as some might say?

If you cannot get an already english speaking, so-called, "christian" to 'see-the-light', and change its Wrong ways, then how are you going to get 'the rest' that "immanual can" exampled above here, let alone the rest of the whole world?

By the way, the answer is Truly simple and easy. Finding adults who are Truly OPEN, curios, and wanting to change, for the better, and not just for "themselves" but for others firstly, is the only seemingly 'hard' part here.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:51 am I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.

I am not saying that we should use force.

Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

If you have absolutely any idea that 'money' or 'monetary wealth' plays any part in a Truly 'One nation earth, or world', then you are very sadly mistaken, and are on the Wrong path, already.

you have to use the actual Truth alone to create, reach, and achieve a Truly peaceful and harmonious world "bahman". Absolutely any thing that is not absolutely True just leads you off-track, and thus on the Wrong path or track, in Life.

As can be clearly seen and proved Truth throughout human history hitherto when this is being written.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm So, if we could convince the civilized nation to form one nation then other nations would be tempted to join one nation. As simple as that.

Let us see you recognize and listen to this advice "bahman".

If absolutely any idea that you have needs to be 'convinced' to another person, then this is a fairly obvious and sure sign that 'that idea' is not a good, True, nor Right idea, at all.

Can you see and recognize 'this', this time?

Or, do you still find 'this' not worthy of even just considering it at all?

By the way, when another is trying to 'convince' one of any thing, then 'this behavior' can feel 'forced', upon one.

Can you at least 'consider' 'this' now?

nemos wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:22 pm Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

I didn't mean to say that we all have to be the same, or that we can't be different. What I meant was that we should not focus on these difereces. Not that our diversity is worthless, but that it cannot be the main value, because the main thing should unite us. Men will always be men and women will always be women - I mean in the biological sense - but should these differences really become an insurmountable obstacle to unity?

If they're not going to be, then we need an awfully strong unifying factor. So far, in all of human history, no such factor has been discovered, obviously. We're more fragmented than ever...and no longer just internationally, but even within the nation state itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:22 pm But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

I did not mean to say that a social order without borders is impossible, I meant to say that in this case the concept of nation would become meaningless. Because national identity only makes sense to separate oneself from other nations.

That never happens. So long as language, culture, values, beliefs, objectives, race, tribe...etc. are diverse, we will make distinctions and reinforce them with borders of various kinds. It's what we do.

Consider something like BLM. How jealously is that "B" guarded? How happy would they be with the axiom, "All lives matter"?We don't have to speculate: they hate it. They've made that very obvious. Or consider what would happen if we tried to deny that there was any such thing as "women's rights," and said everything from now on was just "human rights": how much would the Feminists love that?

People love their distinctives, and yet despise difference in others. That's just how human nature is.

A bad peace is better than a good war.

That's not so easy to say. Lots of people think that if, say, your personal freedom, your family, your culture or your nation is threatened by an external force, you are legitimately allowed to defend it with war. Peace wouldn't be good if it's "pacification," meaning the subduing of the weaker by the stronger to the point where they can no longer resist. And tyranny is very, very bad, even if it "pacifies" the nation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:47 pm
Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.
Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death.

Because, once again, when people are being 'forced' or are being tried to be 'convinced' of 'an idea' or of 'a way' to reach and achieve 'an idea', then 'conflict' will and does occur. And, obviously, whenever there is 'conflict', there is not peace and harmony.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things.

Exactly like all so-called 'democratic' or 'capitalist' societies end up the exact same way, that is; some human beings are favored, at the expense of other human beings.

There is no real difference between all of those types of societies. That is; they all end up in a mess. As proved True by 'the way' human beings are living in the days when this is being written.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:18 pm
The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death. Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things. Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

What "immanuel can", others, and 'I', "bahman, are waiting for here is for you to show and explain a different 'way' to approach people, in order to reach and achieve the 'one nation idea'.

In other words, 'the way to approach people', which you have shown and explained so far, is the 'exact same way' that has been used and tried before, but which has never ever worked.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:39 pm
They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

Then you're going to have to make the case that you are going to do otherwise. What "type of government" are you advocating, and what is the way to "approach people" that they are bound to all accept?

I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government.

Once again, and some think that 'this' is worthy of considering, although you obviously have not and still might not, but what you 'think' is a suitable form of government certainly in no way at all means that 'it' is nor makes 'it' so.

Are you able to understand this irrefutable Fact?

I can and will inform you now "bahman" that a 'social democracy' government is certainly not a suitable type of government. Well not to create, reach, and achieve what you and every other being wants, or once wanted.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:16 pm How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

So-called 'educating' others to your own thoughts or beliefs is just trying to 'convince' and/or 'force' them to your way of thinking, which is obviously not yet True, Right, nor good anyway. So, what this means is that your own beliefs need to be questioned and challenged "bahman". And, you are obviously not yet ready nor prepared for this, so why expect absolutely any other human being will be?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:16 pm
I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government. How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

Social Democracy is an extremely rare and contested form of government.

Actually, it is not that rare. Many civilized nations chose that type of government such as Sweden, Germany, Norway...

This one here known as "bahman", continually throughout this forum, provides a snap shot of, and absolute proof of, one who is, literally, stuck in 'its' own thoughts and beliefs, and really is absolutely blind and deaf to absolutely anything outside of 'its' own thinking and believing.

This one provides 'us' with the primest example/s of the power of 'belief', and how it can CLOSE one off, absolutely.

And, thus why believing things can be a very, very dangerous thing to do. This one, literally, is still believing that all others should follow, listen to, accept, and abide by 'its' 'way' of thinking and of doing things.

Which is the exact same thing that all ended up, called, 'tyrannical leaders' have done. That is; CLOSED "themselves" off so much that they could only see, and hear, their own thoughts and beliefs, and none of others.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:28 pm Most polities in human history and in the world now do not practice it. It's certainly not obvious to everybody that they should. So you're going to have to make your case: why do we all owe it to each other to become Social Democrats?

From Wiki: "Elements of direct and representative democracies are combined in a form of participatory democracy. It also adopts a mixed economy combining the principles of a capitalist free-market and economic or social interventionism. Social democracy rejects the "either/or" phobiocratic/polarization interpretation of capitalism versus socialism. Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, public transportation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers. Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, ethnicity, sex, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class."

'Social democracy' is still based on a 'monetary society', which ends up with a 'love-of-money' attitude, which ultimately ends up making and creating greedy and selfish adult human beings, and we can all see how that turned out by just looking at 'the world', in the days when this was/is being written.