Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:12 amHow do you even define the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

As with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:12 amHow do you even define the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

As with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

What do you define 'good' on here, exactly?

And, can 'flavor', itself, be in relation to what is 'intelligible' and/or 'unintelligible'?

If yes, then how, exactly?

And, is 'good' and 'intelligibly flavored' relative to every one, some, or just you alone?

Powerful and relevant questions, Age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUpidCc7wwY

Soup is good food

-Imp

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:20 amAs with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

We take what we want and leave the rest, just like your salad bar. -Egg Shen

Soup is the first course, unless that's all you've got.

Q: Did the collaborative broth of stone soup ever please everyone on the globe?
A: No, only the most powerful.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:12 amHow do you even define the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

As with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

Shoudn't the soup just have a single ingredient

Reflecting on Brother Iwannaplato's contributions, a few comments.

Allow me to remain within the central polarity that I feel is important to acknowledge:

There are two types of discourse, or two poles, and they are:

1) clean, upstanding, rational, careful, balanced discourse which through that method aid in the communication of intelligible ideas
2) dirty, hot, contaminated, misleading, bad-spirited, also bad-faith, highly charged rhetorical presentations

Let us draw back from that clarifying statement and examine not so much the specific elements in the video that FishPie posted (he merely suggested that it be considered, and did not advocate for its positions) and note the following: the speaker in the video, and presumably his audience, are attempting to make sense of their world by making statements about it. Thus it is (I think obviously) highly interpretive and at the same time it expresses an activist's intentionality. As I often say the presentation has a function. We all are familiar with the term "agenda" and this means that in any presentation there is some underlying intention. To influence, to persuade, to convince.

Richard Weaver said "All speech is sermonic". Examine this: anything that we say, and certainly when it pertains to important and consequential issues, has that *sermonic* element. The point of a sermon is to bring you to a point where you are induced to some type of action.

Let us agree that the video presentation FishPie submitted is *superficial*. It is definitely superficial, say, when contrasted to the detailed presentations of people like Alain de Benoist. Allow me to insert a snip from an article about de Benoist to introduce the *concerns* that motivate him. I do this to contrast his presentation, highly articulated, with the glossary presentation in the video:

This article will not explore the vast theoretical work that de Benoist has published in the last decades, which goes well beyond political philosophy. Neither will not examine the advent and characteristics of the ND, as such work has already been done by other scholars. Instead, it will focus on one of his key ideas: ethnopluralism, the notion that different cultures should not coexist in as much as each of them has a unique character that should be preserved and respected. The article will locate de Benoist’s ideas in their particular context, analysing them as part of what shall be called ‘the cultural turn in racism’, a moment in the history of the far right in which a series of intellectuals began to reject biological racism overtly while retaining nativist and ethnic-based preferences, focusing on preserving cultural rather than racial identities. It will not only treat the French thinker as a far-right intellectual, but also as an interlocutor (and one who has won the prestigious Prix de l’essai) who has repeatedly defended himself against accusations of racism and xenophobia coming from academics. The main research objective is to explore ethnopluralism as a renewal of xenophobia that emerged in the late twentieth century, and to do so through the writings of Alain de Benoist.

And now I will insert the comment about *polarities* and the difference between sober, careful discourse and hot, contaminated, underhanded discourse:

1) clean, upstanding, rational, careful, balanced discourse which through that method aid in the communication of intelligible ideas
2) dirty, hot, contaminated, misleading, bad-spirited, also bad-faith, highly charged rhetorical presentations

I refer to just ONE EXAMPLE, not five or a dozen. I say: there is a way to cleanly, fairly, honestly and productively talk about what is happening, socially and culturally, in European nations when the issues that attend the consideration are brought out in fair terms.

Veering away from this I would then turn to Flash Danger Pant's *discourse*. I put it in quotes because, when examined, it is no discourse at all. In short what he wishes to say, what he proposes, is that if anyone entertains these ideas that that person is Hitlerian. Though this assertion is ridiculous on the face we have to realize that it has a function. It is both simple and also has labyrinthian elements. It states that anyone who is concerned for one's cultural composition and the health of one's culture is intrinsically morally corrupt. I.e. a bad person. It also has the function of stifling conversation. You are forced not to talk about the actual issue -- carefully and reasonably -- but must launch into a defense whereby you deny a vast set of accusations. That is a trap, of course, and this is clearly seen in Flash's posts in this thread.

The result? That the actual issue which is of concern to FishPie (and many people) is not and cannot be discussed.

It is important, in my view, to understand Flash's tactic not solely because of the contamination of discourse on this forum, but really because in our culture at large, our intellectual culture and environment, discourse and discussion on themes determined to be *bad* and *evil* by certain factions are stifled through this core technique. Blaming & shaming; associating with Nazism, etc. It appears ridiculous when it is clearly pointed out except that, in truth, this illustrates and exposes a fundamental issue of our day: thought control and the limitation of the parameters of *thinkable thought*.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 1:43 pm

I've mainly watched the video and read some of the shorter responses here, pardon my laziness. I couldn't see so much directed at the ideas, though I couId have missed something. In general, I agree with what you say here in genera in forums. I can't weigh in on FDP's contributions, not having read them. But in general I can see a spectrum where on one end we have exploration, analysis and the other end we have political identification and attack speak. Obviously there can be mixtures.

I tried to do the former, so far just with the beginning of the video.

One thing I'd add though, is that the video is a video aimed more or less at a sympathetic audience. People who share the same beliefs. It's not hot language, but it's not expIoration and analysis either. It may well be connecting ideas/patterns out there/events/phenomena for people who wiII already be of a certain general attitude. So, a video aimed at one group, mainIy, that generally opts not to demonstrate anything, placed in a philosophy forum, is a king of entrapment. One can expect, not just in the passive sense, to trigger people to be hot. Because it functions as hot in this context, even whiIe the narrator does put in some efforts to quaIify and not encourage hate.

Here it is as if these positions need no justification.

As a video in someone's channeI it functions differently.

A simillar video by a woke woud produce the same hot reactions. And perhaps you wouId caII for the not hot reactions to that.

But there's the option of starting a thread with an actuaI not hot post that justifies and expIores. Yes, there's a good chance that also woud get hot responses. I mean, reaIism and antirealism get hot responses and I have troubIe seeing how either Ieads to, for exampIe, bad things happening to chiIdren or any other importatn concerns.

But my generaI reaction is, of course a video such as this wiII get hot responses. In context it's hot, even if in rhetoric it isn't.

Which is not me hitting it because I beIieve it's wrong in some binary way. It also react this way to Peter Kropotkin whose on another team, one of the supposed two teams, though he's more obvious in his hotness, in the ways he categorizes the right/conservatives.

Instead of the video A could have started the thread with something that is not aimed at one group, but rather something focused on anaIysis and exporation, given it's a phiIosophy forum. Presentation has a function and the video's not really the right interpersonal function in this forum, I wouId say, unless one wants hot responses.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 7:40 am He then moves into the liberaI non-Iiberal split. This is one area I have issues with this guy's perspective. I think he both asserts and denies what I think is going on. To some extent liberals don't mind WEC simply because it isn't really looked at by most media. Not because they are aIigned with the current social poIicies the WEC supports. They just don't think about it. Just as both conservatives and liberals haven't thought much about most of these eIite assembIies. The Left used to look at these clumpings of people in power much more than the Right. The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations , The Bilderberg Group and so on. It was the Left, which is not the same as liberals, who mentioned these groups and was critical of them. Now this has shifted to a more Right, if anyone, concern. But I doubt most conservatives are aware of these groups.

This all gets out of hand because there is no meaningful definition of "globalism" nor any hope that one could be furnished for such a nebulous notion. Simply look at the "anti-globalists" and you will see an array of unrelated contrarians each fighting a different monster. It goes beyond the left and the right (two nebulous objects in themselves that really don't mean anything specific either).

MAGA anti-globalists seem to be fighting against immigration, but also apparently regulation. They seem to tie up environmental regulation in particular with globalism for some reason that perhaps Henry would want to explain. As far as I can tell, they seem to think various foreign or stateless entities that harbour ill-will towards ... the west in general? ... impose regulations of all sorts in order to weaken and impoverish America. Nominally right wing, these MAGA types support such trad lefty notions as tarrifs to protect local jobs against foreign competition. This group holds a zero-sum (Mercantilist) set of beliefs about international trade in which every dollar sent abroad to buy stuff is a loss and every dubloon brought in from the rest of the world to buy something for export is a win. Often these people wish to return to other outdated economic concepts especially the Gold Standard.

Euro-lefty anti-globalists also approve of tarrifs to protect local jobs and industries, hold to outdated mercantilist notions of trade in which every sale is assumed to contain one winner and one loser, but these people accuse glabalism of undermining regulation in support of the Great Satan known as "corporate profit margins". Some complain that environmental concerns are a globalist fraud, but for them it is perpetuated to keep the Global South in poverty rather than to put North America into poverty.

Euro-righty anti-globalists are in a complete mess and have been since Grexit and Brexit tbh. The level of infighting within these groups just makes them unintelligible to any outsider I think. Some of the simpler ones such as AFD are just in it for the racism and immigration control. A lot of the others are the same bizarro-world combo of marxist international trade theories and social conservatism that drives MAGA. A remainder are free-trade money-observes-no-borders globalists themselves who just tell a bunch of low-information voters that they are opposed to globalism, and because they support drastic measures against immigration, somehow that works.

These and many others are all imagining their own contradictory versions of what globalism is and what it does. That's what nebulous imaginary villains are for though.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:14 pm perhaps Henry would want to explain

Sure.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 6:49 pm Who Are The Globalists?

Look in the mirror.

What Do They Want?

To close the few remaining gaps in the walls of Black Iron Prison.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 1:32 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:12 amHow do you even define the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

As with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

Shoudn't the soup just have a single ingredient

Invalidating the old phrase, "Soup to nuts," is easily accomplished by serving a first course of Nut Soup. Stepping Into the grander scheme, if the subsequent philosophical meal can be tasted or completely polished off down to the bones, then at a civilized table the feast appropriately finishes with either nuts, or the nut house.

That was fun.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:14 pm

This all gets out of hand because there is no meaningful definition of "globalism" nor any hope that one could be furnished for such a nebulous notion.

I do think it wouId be useful to not necessarily define GlobaIism, but cut it up in the parts that are considered bad. That way we can focus on specific facets. To some degree global connections and cause and effect chains are impossible to avoid. And while people willll obviously differ over what facets are bad, facet discussion seems cIearer to me.

Simply look at the "anti-globalists" and you will see an array of unrelated contrarians each fighting a different monster.

And ironically aligned with some members of the current Left and in parts aligned with much of the of the oId Ieft.

It goes beyond the left and the right (two nebulous objects in themselves that really don't mean anything specific either).

And then once IiberaIs and conservatives get tossed in as terms as weII it gets very messy.

MAGA anti-globalists seem to be fighting against immigration, but also apparently regulation. They seem to tie up environmental regulation in particular with globalism for some reason that perhaps Henry would want to explain. As far as I can tell, they seem to think various foreign or stateless entities that harbour ill-will towards ... the west in general? ... impose regulations of all sorts in order to weaken and impoverish America. Nominally right wing, these MAGA types support such trad lefty notions as tarrifs to protect local jobs against foreign competition.

I beIieve there are a lot of crossing ironies in both directions. The new Right says things that the Ieft have been saying about corporations and the finance industry for decades.

This group holds a zero-sum (Mercantilist) set of beliefs about international trade in which every dollar sent abroad to buy stuff is a loss and every dubloon brought in from the rest of the world to buy something for export is a win. Often these people wish to return to other outdated economic concepts especially the Gold Standard.

I'd Iove to see reguIar discussion of ffractional reserve banking and banks' abiIity to create money out of nothing, which the Gold Standard did not reaIIy controI.

Euro-lefty anti-globalists also approve of tarrifs to protect local jobs and industries, hold to outdated mercantilist notions of trade in which every sale is assumed to contain one winner and one loser, but these people accuse glabalism of undermining regulation in support of the Great Satan known as "corporate profit margins". Some complain that environmental concerns are a globalist fraud, but for them it is perpetuated to keep the Global South in poverty rather than to put North America into poverty.

There are aIso ruIes being put in pIace where corporations can sue countries for having past Iaws that can be viewed as restricting business.

Euro-righty anti-globalists are in a complete mess and have been since Grexit and Brexit tbh. The level of infighting within these groups just makes them unintelligible to any outsider I think. Some of the simpler ones such as AFD are just in it for the racism and immigration control. A lot of the others are the same bizarro-world combo of marxist international trade theories and social conservatism that drives MAGA. A remainder are free-trade money-observes-no-borders globalists themselves who just tell a bunch of low-information voters that they are opposed to globalism, and because they support drastic measures against immigration, somehow that works.

Sure. Not that I consider myseIf expert on this, but a it is a mess out there. And there are aII sorts of ironies. Perhaps there are right and Ieft groups that reaiIize they can form temporary aIIiances around specific issues. But we don't hear about it. Trump was against a North AtIantic free trade agreement that was very simiIar to Nafta, but I heard no peep about this from the Ieft who were quite vocaI on Nafta. the rhetoric now is so binary. The sIightest deviation from supposed party Iine, that is from one of the two supposed onIy poIitica groups existant, and you are evil, mad, etc. So, to even consider being temporary focused aIIies is verboten. And/or we don't here about this much in the media.

These and many others are all imagining their own contradictory versions of what globalism is and what it does. That's what nebulous imaginary villains are for though.

And I'm an villain to either of the supposed to sides. Or a kind of non-person at least.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:33 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 1:32 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:20 am
As with good soup, many ingredients come together intelligibly flavored.

Shoudn't the soup just have a single ingredient

Invalidating the old phrase, "Soup to nuts," is easily accomplished by serving a first course of Nut Soup. Stepping Into the grander scheme, if the subsequent philosophical meal can be tasted or completely polished off down to the bones, then at a civilized table the feast appropriately finishes with either nuts, or the nut house.

That was fun.

I enjoyed it, though I have to say it went over my head. Or perhaps I expected it had a symboIic side when it didn't. Either way, carry on.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:49 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 2:33 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 1:32 pm
Shoudn't the soup just have a single ingredient

Invalidating the old phrase, "Soup to nuts," is easily accomplished by serving a first course of Nut Soup. Stepping Into the grander scheme, if the subsequent philosophical meal can be tasted or completely polished off down to the bones, then at a civilized table the feast appropriately finishes with either nuts, or the nut house.

That was fun.

I enjoyed it, though I have to say it went over my head. Or perhaps I expected it had a symboIic side when it didn't. Either way, carry on.

What it means is: a philosopher who takes philosophy to the limit must land in the nut house, because he will be so at odds with whatever power structure he offends that rules the circumstances of the situation.

Thus the necessity of integrating what philosophy hath wrought, back into the weave of the environment, which few in philosophy address.

I thought you knew this, seeing as how it's bigger for the individual than even "globalism," since it universally applies to every social situation, as defined by two or more transmitting and receiving.