Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:19 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:03 pm "Pity": I have NEVER asked a single person to have pity for me. I have NOT accepted pity from anyone.

Ummm...maybe you'd best jump to the "dealing with realities" bit.

why are you telling me to believe that Biden needs to go?

Because it's the topic? And also, because it's obvious he does. So do most of the politicians. They're poison. And even you can see that, with or without my help. America's in terrible trouble, and the present politicians are not only not helping, but are deliberately plunging your country into confusion, racism, corruption and disorder. They need to be fired...as of yesterday.

Where did I once "insult you" as a speaker?

You put words in my mouth, then had to retract and admit I'd never said them. You were playing a game, called, "Look at IC being so mean to me...and I have mental illness, too." That's hogwash. I've only ever been nice to you; but even if I had not, you owe it everyone here to deal with the subject matter, not to drag the discussion into your personal struggles, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the present topic.

Once again, I call BS. You did that, you know you did that, and the transcription of your words show you did that, for anybody who looks back. It's time you stopped playing victim. It should be apparent to you by now that it's not getting you anything better for your life. Time for a new and better strategy.

Whatever. Don't listen to me. Listen to yourself. It's what I do.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 4:43 pm Here's a study that provides more detail and accuracy than your self-serving perspective.

Wait, my perspective? I have been explaining how other people, other groups, explain the world to themselves. My project is different.

I glossed the article rather quickly but I did pick up its gist. I do not dismiss psychological analysis from any discussion about ourselves, our beliefs, our political affiliations, etc. so I do not have a problem with attempting psychological analysis. But surely you must recognize that such psychologizing is an ideological tool, don't you? Generally, such projects are part-and-parcel of social engineering. So if you assert -- let's take an example -- that to be opposed to homosexuality (they use the term homophobia) arises in people because of a psychological defect in themselves, and that there is something wrong with them for having such a view or reaction, your *psychologizing* shows itself as a powerful tool in social engineering.

You know me -- I love to illustrate points with cultural and *textual* references. So examine this clip from American Beauty where the two gay neighbors make their *welcome visit* to the poor, backward, uptight, repressed Marine. These portrayals, in this case in film, illustrate how cultural and attitude engineering actually work. It is a form of *applied psychology*.

Rather than framing this as some sort of unfair repression, I think it is better described as suppressed hatred that is given permission at some point to escape society's conduct safeguards for moderation and appropriateness, so that it can then run rampant in mindless destruction... as extremist groups (so convinced of their 'rightness') have done in humankind's embarrassing past.

It does not surprise me that you would concoct such a framing. But as I have said I think that you do not have enough self-circumspection to see into your own attitude-formation.

You illustrate a very common *outlook* which, to you, seems metaphysically sound. What alternative is there?

I will not say, and I do not say, that all platforms of ideas should not be examined before they are accepted, and I do not by any means exclude any group or ideology from such critical examination, but what I can say is that the Alt-Right and the Dissident Right (take Alain de Benoist or Pierre Krebs as examples here) present contrarian but not overtly destructive ideas. They see their ideas as *protective* or *defensive* against a larger destructive excessive Liberalism (my tern is hyper-liberalism or liberalism gone amuck). That is, constructive ideas that naturally are based in contrarian, oppositional stances.

But to make this clear would necessarily involve a careful discussion of their ideas. And you my dear are fully unqualified for that!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:40 pm 'That's very silly of them, then.

Our entire moral and legal tradition, to say nothing of the educational system, the medical system, our human rights, and all sorts of things normally taken to be "right-spectrum" causes are deeply indebted to what has been called "the Judeo-Christian tradition." They're like an idiot sitting on a tree branch, and trying to saw it off between them and the trunk. If they succeed, then they fail.

Having myself studied Christian philosophy somewhat closely,

And still not even being able to define what a "Christian" actually is? That doesn't sound nearly "closely" enough.

I find Adam Green's videos that show rabbis talking, intimately, about *real Jewish belief* to be particularly revealing.

So you think you know what "real Judaism" is, and you have decided that it's whatever Green says it is; but you don't know what real Christianity is?

...absolute and sheer intolerance,

A side-word about "intolerance."

To "tolerate" is not always a virtue. Sometimes, it's an outright vice. To "tolerate" differences of opinion is very good; to "tolerate" evil is very bad. So "tolerance" is a two-edged sword. It needs to be justified by the quality of the thing to which it is applied. And I have no doubt that there are people who are badly "intolerant." But I also have no the slightest doubt that there are people who are wickedly "tolerant." So more is needed to justify any allegation of "intolerance" than the naked fact that what they're doing is "intolerant."

What's the alternative, the virtue that ought to replace brainless "tolerance"? It's called "discernment." It means knowing the difference between things that should be "tolerated" and those that should never be.

You describe yourself as Judaism's junior helper.

Those are your words, not mine. I don't hate Jews, as you apparently do. I don't try to destroy them or the country that has been deeded to them by God. But I am fully cognizant of how Judaism feels about Christians...maybe a good deal more aware of it than you are. Still, "Love your enemies" is a rule for all, not just for non-Jewish enemies. And Judaism has a right to exist. In fact, Atheism, Nihilism, Egoism and Communism have also a right to exist, until HaShem says otherwise; because people have an inalienable right to form their own beliefs and live and die by them...even those with which I do not agree.

You of all people know this! You will not allow one iota of ultra-traditional belief to be modified.

That's an absurdity I have not uttered. You made it up yourself. Sorry. I see no need to defend that which I have never said.

And you still talk too much while saying far too little.

No wonder I haven't heard of your guys. Clearly, they aren't very bright. They don't seem to have any sense at all of the derivation of their own civilization. But not being bright hasn't stopped the Left from gaining a large audience, so the question returns again: why can the Left spout rubbish and have media, education, politics and so on boom their message and get their political pollicies adopted on a widespread basis, while the pack of renegades you mention remain practically invisible to the world?

They still don't sound like a "dangerous" bunch. They just sound prejudiced and ill-informed.

Actually some of them are very bright indeed.

Not by the available evidence. But then, a person can be reasonably intelligent and yet "ideologically possessed," which is maybe what these people are. In any case, the important point remains: they aren't influential. They aren't high profile. They aren't posing a danger to anybody, so far as I can see. They're just goofy. And in a democratic polity, one has to be prepared to let people be goofy sometimes. Like I said, they have a right to make up their own beliefs and live and die by them.

So again, where is this "dangerous Alt-Right"? We've got liminal people the Left has effectively excluded from influence already. Where's the "danger"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:36 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:40 pm 'That's very silly of them, then.

Our entire moral and legal tradition, to say nothing of the educational system, the medical system, our human rights, and all sorts of things normally taken to be "right-spectrum" causes are deeply indebted to what has been called "the Judeo-Christian tradition." They're like an idiot sitting on a tree branch, and trying to saw it off between them and the trunk. If they succeed, then they fail.

Having myself studied Christian philosophy somewhat closely,

And still not even being able to define what a "Christian" actually is? That doesn't sound nearly "closely" enough.

I find Adam Green's videos that show rabbis talking, intimately, about *real Jewish belief* to be particularly revealing.

So you think you know what "real Judaism" is, and you have decided that it's whatever Green says it is; but you don't know what real Christianity is?

...absolute and sheer intolerance,

A side-word about "intolerance."

To "tolerate" is not always a virtue. Sometimes, it's an outright vice. To "tolerate" differences of opinion is very good; to "tolerate" evil is very bad. So "tolerance" is a two-edged sword. It needs to be justified by the quality of the thing to which it is applied. And I have no doubt that there are people who are badly "intolerant." But I also have no the slightest doubt that there are people who are wickedly "tolerant." So more is needed to justify any allegation of "intolerance" than the naked fact that what they're doing is "intolerant."

What's the alternative, the virtue that ought to replace brainless "tolerance"? It's called "discernment." It means knowing the difference between things that should be "tolerated" and those that should never be.

You describe yourself as Judaism's junior helper.

Those are your words, not mine. I don't hate Jews, as you apparently do. I don't try to destroy them or the country that has been deeded to them by God. But I am fully cognizant of how Judaism feels about Christians...maybe a good deal more aware of it than you are. Still, "Love your enemies" is a rule for all, not just for non-Jewish enemies. And Judaism has a right to exist. In fact, Atheism, Nihilism, Egoism and Communism have also a right to exist, until HaShem says otherwise; because people have an inalienable right to form their own beliefs and live and die by them...even those with which I do not agree.

You of all people know this! You will not allow one iota of ultra-traditional belief to be modified.

That's an absurdity I have not uttered. You made it up yourself. Sorry. I see no need to defend that which I have never said.

And you still talk too much while saying far too little.

No wonder I haven't heard of your guys. Clearly, they aren't very bright. They don't seem to have any sense at all of the derivation of their own civilization. But not being bright hasn't stopped the Left from gaining a large audience, so the question returns again: why can the Left spout rubbish and have media, education, politics and so on boom their message and get their political pollicies adopted on a widespread basis, while the pack of renegades you mention remain practically invisible to the world?

They still don't sound like a "dangerous" bunch. They just sound prejudiced and ill-informed.

Actually some of them are very bright indeed.

Not by the available evidence. But then, a person can be reasonably intelligent and yet "ideologically possessed," which is maybe what these people are. In any case, the important point remains: they aren't influential. They aren't high profile. They aren't posing a danger to anybody, so far as I can see. They're just goofy. And in a democratic polity, one has to be prepared to let people be goofy sometimes. Like I said, they have a right to make up their own beliefs and live and die by them.

So again, where is this "dangerous Alt-Right"? We've got liminal people the Left has effectively excluded from influence already. Where's the "danger"?

What is IC saying that you disagree with, AJ? You've studied the alt-right. They're not dangerous, at least not as dangerous as socialists. It's what IC believes. Isn't that what you believe also? Please enlighten those of us who need it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:40 pm 'That's very silly of them, then.

But you are only interesting to me because you illustrate the larger picture of what these Jewish and Christian belief-systems do through their belief. I regard it -- please excuse me -- as a form of madness. But that does not mean that I dismiss what is valid, relevant and important in Christian (or Jewish) philosophy. So in this sense I am in a strange and somewhat torturous position. I do not desire to make a mistake of acute rejection (of what is valuable) but I have no choice except to see the belief-system (and you illustrate this perfectly and to a *t*) as based in sheer lunacy! And I say this not because I am challenging you to retort but because, after more than a year, I have concluded that your belief-system is based out of lunacy.

I pointed this out a long time ago... yet you defended it simply because you were entrenched in your pompous ping-pong game!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:09 pmI must regard it and its pathological elements as something I must comment on.

Me too.

Alexis Jacobi to Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:09 pm You of all people know this! You will not allow one iota of ultra-traditional belief to be modified. You recognize, more than most, that doing this puts the entire belief-system in danger. So you force yourself to belief what cannot be believed in order to protect the edifice. This is what I learned from you. You are a great teacher for this reason (though you do not achieve what you desire to: conversion).

All of the false claims and dishonorable tactics demonstrate the truth and the real agenda... which is not 'conversion', but self-glorification.

I think it is important to acknowledge it for what it actually is. It is of darkness and hate... not light and love. It is focused on self-preservation and divisiveness... not compassion and connection. The Jesus of the Bible would have been absolutely disgusted by such positioning and tactics. I think it aligns most with the complete opposite of what it claims to represent. It is a deceiver which is not smart enough to do it without revealing itself -- effectively demonstrating the way darkness instantly dissipates in light.

The madness is revealed through the ongoing claims despite all discrediting. The insistence to cling... the refusal to re-assess or self-assess. The position must be held... the 'rightness' must be right... the ego must be preserved at all costs, even if it is serving a dark master. These are interesting insights for those who are courageous and truthful enough to recognize and acknowledge such small-minded human potentials that they will not submit to, themselves.

I know, I know, it is tremendously difficult to bring out in discussion views, perspectives and ideas that have been deemed to be "unthinkable". That is, if you-plural accept that there are ideas that are understood to be "unthinkable". Actually the term Unthinkable Thought I got from Noam Chomsky but it is really an interesting concept. Try to think of ideas that even before they fully constellate are cut off. Ideas that are not allowed to rise to the level of being through through.

Now, the weirdest thing is that I have not ever said any negative (or *hateful*) thing about Jews. What I do desire to talk about is about the nature of bizarre and I think harmful belief-systems. The entire idea of being selected by God, or especially selected, or selected out of the nations, is in my view just such an idea. And this idea also infuses and percolates into Christianity. Just think it through. But I do not recommend doing harm to anyone since, according to the analysis I try to work with, if you become convinced that God has selected you, and that you are fundamentally different or better than others, that right there damage has been done to you.

That is why, in other places, I have spoken of a 'priest class' that manipulates populations through the use of ideas of these sorts.

So you think you know what "real Judaism" is, and you have decided that it's whatever Green says it is; but you don't know what real Christianity is?

You should it seems to me be able to express in one simple paragraph what Christianity is. Why don't you give it a shot?

You can make any assertion you wish to -- proposing that I do not understand Christianity or cannot define what it is -- but you will not be able to get it to stick. But that is not your point really. Isn't your point just to thrown up a block?

But make the clarifying statement. (In the past you've said it is 'to be freed from the consequences of sin').

I studied Judaism for years & years Immanuel. Long before I became interested in Christianity. So I certainly do not have to rely on *what Green says*. What Green does is to present long expositions by rabbis to theor congregations about the inner dimensions of strict Orthodox belief. Green is a bit like a kid who has stumbled upon a strange edifice that dazzles and shock him.

But in the videos that I linked to, you get it, as it were, right from the horse's mouth. His value is in seeking out and watching hours of such videos and then editing our sections that illustrate what is his essential point (or project). I do not have to agree, or disagree, to be capable of gaining something from understanding strict Orthodox belief. But I do acknowledge that the topic -- anything that is Judaism-critical -- can only be taken as antisemitism.

But my point is as always different: my point is to bring to the fore what is going on, actually, in contemporary society, both at a surface level and under the surface (under the floorboards in the Dostoevskian sense). My object is to bring everything to the surface so that it can be rationally examined and thought through.

I describe a large branch of Evangelical Christianity as setting itself up as "Judaism's junior helper" and my views have been influenced by people like Stephen Sizer and Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?. Your readership here is unaware of the degree to which your Evangelical Christianity has been influenced by Christian Zionism. They do not know what Chsitian Zionism is! Or even Zionism. And they have no idea what traditional Judaism is, either. I don't know precisely what you-singular believe, but you-singular are not my focus! You-plural is my topic as it should be for all of us.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:53 pm AJ? You've studied the alt-right. They're not dangerous, at least not as dangerous as socialists.

Who's more dangerous: the lunatic ideologues who have control of the political system, the media, the education system, the military and the public imagination, or the lunatic ideologues who have control of nothing?

Use your brain, Gary: that's what it's there for.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:53 pm AJ? You've studied the alt-right. They're not dangerous, at least not as dangerous as socialists.

Who's more dangerous: the lunatic ideologues who have control of the political system, the media, the education system, the military and the public imagination, or the lunatic ideologues who have control of nothing?

Use your brain, Gary: that's what it's there for.

But my brain is mentally ill. Are you sure you want me to use it? Maybe I should just let you use yours instead?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:53 pm AJ? You've studied the alt-right. They're not dangerous, at least not as dangerous as socialists.

Who's more dangerous: the lunatic ideologues who have control of the political system, the media, the education system, the military and the public imagination, or the lunatic ideologues who have control of nothing?

Use your brain, Gary: that's what it's there for.

What specific "lunatic ideologues" have control over all those things? And should I therefore give the other "lunatic ideologues" more control or at least control of something?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:10 pm I know, I know, it is tremendously difficult to bring out in discussion views, perspectives and ideas that have been deemed to be "unthinkable".

I have no idea who you imagine you're talking to. I don't think anything at all is "unthinkable." I would say that some things may be unreasonable, but that's quite a different case.

I realize you're at real pains to present yourself as if you're some kind of "dangerous thinker" or "daring truth-teller" who can "handle" what others simply cannot "handle," but it's an absurd posture for you to take, and I see nothing in all you say that justifies anybody getting that impression.

I got from Noam Chomsky

He was a good linguist, but a horrible philosopher. He was really ideologically lazy and Leftist.

So you think you know what "real Judaism" is, and you have decided that it's whatever Green says it is; but you don't know what real Christianity is?

You should it seems to me be able to express in one simple paragraph what Christianity is. Why don't you give it a shot?[/quote]
Because frankly, I'm not going to hand to you what you should already have in hand for yourself. You are the one who ventured all the big, fulminating, nonsensical theories about what you think "Christianity" has done or caused; I just want you to show that you have the most basic knowledge possible: knowledge of the very "object" you claim to talk about.

So far, I've seen no evidence you do.

In the past you've said it is 'to be freed from the consequences of sin'.

I never have, actually. It's never been a part of any defintion of "Christian" I've ever offered. Rather, that's an outcome of salvation, theologically speaking. It's not something that happens to human beings on this earth, but only afterward.

My object is to bring everything to the surface so that it can be rationally examined and thought through.

Naw, I don't buy that. If I were cynical, I'd have to say that your object is to self-present as a gnostic illuminatus of some kind, under the mistaken impression that people are actually taking you for one when you write a lot and ramble. It's not working, but you sure do keep trying.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 pm Use your brain, Gary: that's what it's there for.

But my brain is mentally ill.

Then you're on the wrong site. You should find some place where precise thought and staying on topic are not part of the reasonable expectation of your interlocutors. Perhaps "pityparty.com" would suit you better? It's what you really seem to want.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:34 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 pm Use your brain, Gary: that's what it's there for.

But my brain is mentally ill.

Then you're on the wrong site. You should find some place where precise thought and staying on topic are not part of the reasonable expectation of your interlocutors. Perhaps "pityparty.com" would suit you better? It's what you really seem to want.

Gee. OK, sir. I'll just go to "pityparty.com". Is there anything in particular you'd like me to share with the other residents of that forum?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:34 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:27 pm
But my brain is mentally ill.

Then you're on the wrong site. You should find some place where precise thought and staying on topic are not part of the reasonable expectation of your interlocutors. Perhaps "pityparty.com" would suit you better? It's what you really seem to want.

Gee. OK, sir. I'll just go to "pityparty.com". Is there anything in particular you'd like me to share with the other residents of that forum?

Yeah, well, Gary, give me some time to think about that...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:56 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:34 pm
Then you're on the wrong site. You should find some place where precise thought and staying on topic are not part of the reasonable expectation of your interlocutors. Perhaps "pityparty.com" would suit you better? It's what you really seem to want.

Gee. OK, sir. I'll just go to "pityparty.com". Is there anything in particular you'd like me to share with the other residents of that forum?

Yeah, well, Gary, give me some time to think about that...

OK. I'll pray to God while you take your deliberation. Maybe God will bestow a blonde porn star to magically land in my lap. There's nothing else in this shit world worth pursuing as far as I can tell. Might as well take the booby prize. It's as good a joke as anything else. But feel free to buzz off any time you like.

"But my brain is mentally ill."

That's not what Thomas szasz.