Philosophy Now Forum

That’s it, folks. Conversation with Flash …

You just did a whole thing about co-creation of wars and holocausts... but now you want to say that if you didn't get full satisfaction in a conversation that none of that is your fault. Sort of undermining your own position.

I just expressed the understanding that the European wars, and their effects, were co-creations of all the players involved. I did not make mention of the destruction of European Jewry.

Erm, sure, fine. But so what? Why is your conformist impulse to wish the whole world would relive the moral certainties of your grandfather's great aunt Mildred important to anyone else? I sure as fuck don't care about the imaginary anchor that you chose to pray to.

If the question is actually So what? it is a good question.

In referring to an anchor you screw it up because you only hear your projection of what you imagine I am saying.

In one way or another, now, in the past, and certainly in the future, seeking anchors and defining them will always be a primary endeavor. It is the primary objective of philosophy. For that reason a reference to Plato.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:01 pm

Erm, sure, fine. But so what? Why is your conformist impulse to wish the whole world would relive the moral certainties of your grandfather's great aunt Mildred important to anyone else? I sure as fuck don't care about the imaginary anchor that you chose to pray to.

In referring to an anchor you screw it up because you only hear your projection of what you imagine I am saying.

In one way or another, now, in the past, and certainly in the future, seeking anchors and defining them will always be a primary endeavor. It is the primary objective of philosophy. For that reason a reference to Plato.

What is this pretentious waffle about seeking and defining anchors supposed to actually mean? Are they supposed to be found or invented?

Who are you to tell anyone what the primary objective of philosophy is? Is this nonsense about Plato something to do with the Forms?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:20 pm What is this pretentious waffle about seeking and defining anchors supposed to actually mean? Are they supposed to be found or invented?

For one like you possessed and directed by emoted rhetoric, you will need to slow down and back up -- if you can get control over yourself.

In the course of conversation I spoke of conservative reaction against something that people felt to be encroaching on them and the reference was to the political and social ideology, with specific praxis, of Marxist-Lenninism. The time-frame being the early 20th century. Perhaps you as an individual do not understand that encroachment to be a threat of consequence, I suspect not, but the point is that many people within the culture (European society) did feel that way, and supported their belief with sound reasoning, but reasoning with which I imagine you would take issue.

When these individuals were confronting a radical intrusion of a political and social ideology with *acidic* qualities -- if you wish I will define what *acidic* means in more depth -- they reacted against it. Now reaction must be examined and understood. To react involves an arming of oneself, or a rearming, through recourse to specific concepts and action. One is alarmed, one is concerned, and one then is forced into a confrontation with Self as to how one will confront and respond to the dangerous encroachment.

What I suggest is that the individual will have to ask very basic questions about *value* and will have to interrogate himself about what he really and truly values. The question, the issue, is ultimately and also profoundly philosophical in the original and the most important sense. Do I really need to spell this out for you? I will if so but for the time being let's leave it there. If something is threatened, and if what is threatened is a felt and believed in *value*, it is quite easy and reasonable that the individual will seek to arm himself with concepts about why the value has value, and how to confront the encroaching attack on what is felt to be valuable and worthy of preservation. This is intellectual, ethical and moral work. And it also involves, and certainly implies, the recognition of objective valuation.

When I refer to *anchors* I refer obviously to a symbol of something that holds one in place. And here the Platonic notion of *the mutable world*, the ever-changing and ever shifting world of Becoming is referenced. Call it *the world* call it *the manifest world* call it *reality* and liken it, if you wish, to the ocean (another symbol). The symbol of an anchor is a prospect, a possibility, of something that keeps one situated. That is the most simple description. But in that Platonic sense the implication is that in contrast to the mutable world there is something that is unique to man, and that is the notion of Being.

So yes, if the notion of Being is referenced it has to be defined, right? And the way that it is defined is by reference to what is eternal, ever-existing, constant and perhaps one might also say non-changing. You ask whether this is *discovered* (found) or *invented* and naturally you do so because, for you certainly and for many more, the answer is unclear. Or in your case you have for yourself answered the question and you construct an ideological position, a perceptual position, and an interpretive system, in which all objective values are really subjective value-impositions that do not have universal existence. I refer to you as a man who is deeply involved in emoted rhetorical categories for this reason.

So, and for example, I would say that you do not have an *anchor* in categories that are universal. But when your position is analyzed what results is that if you cannot define a universal category of value, then all your value-impositions are arbitrary, subjective and lack substantiality. You cannot make any definitive or let's say empowered statement in reference to what is *good* and what is *bad* because in the same breath you undermine your capability to do so.

But turning back to people generally, and to the time-frame we have been discussing, my assertion was that when a radical form that has acidic characteristics presents itself, it drives people to reactive positions as a sort of entrenchment. (I do not mean this in the negative sense though, in fact, what is negative in habitual entrenchment must be taken into account). I made reference to the most salient form of seeking an *anchor* within those categories of value described as transcendental -- again it is possible to reference Platonic thought and conception in this regard. And my assertion is that a recurrence to a Christian philosophy, and a Christian metaphysics, can best be understood when it is examined through Platonic concepts. I am not here as an apologist for Christianity specifically but I am here defining Platonic concepts and their relevance to the notion of *metaphysical anchor*.

I recognize (suspect in any case) that you do not *believe in* the transcendental as a genuine category, but this does not matter because you are not relevant to the discussion of what the people and the cultures I refer to actually did and why they did it.

What is this pretentious waffle about seeking and defining anchors supposed to actually mean?

I see that you struggle mightily within simple categories. I empathize. What to me seems obvious and self-explanatory for you requires explanation that will (I reckon) make you squirm in your seat.

An *anchor* in the sense I am referring to is both a discovery and a creation by man. But it deals in issues having reference to value, meaning and yes what *transcends* mutable existence. It is therefore something unique to man and to the human. But you may ask *Is it tangible?* or is it *physical* and I would have to say that no, it cannot be compared or reduced to such a categorization. Yet it happens that people, in one way or another, seek anchors, discover anchors and also construct with anchors.

When you are not masturbating and sodomizing minor children (rent boys) do you ever devote any thought at all to the categories I have presented here?

The reference to sexuality and *animal passion* is not unrelated to the breakdown in our capacity to recognize and assign higher value to that which I refer to as transcendental categories. The abuse of sexuality (in my opinion) is an activity that does affect perception in those higher orders of thought and valuation. You will have no means to understand why there is truth in the statement "You cannot simultaneously masturbate and pray to God". There is a reason why there is a sound philosophy that deals on the proper relationship to our sexual expression. In this life, to all appearances, you will not be capable of getting to that particular realization, and your love of chidren's assholes will continue to consume you.

Yet I hope that you understand, you pervert, that though it appears that I am writing to you and for you I am not, not really. I am simply trying to offer some clarifications to *general readership* and also to myself. In reaction to you I must define anchors (in value and meaning) for myself.

Who are you to tell anyone what the primary objective of philosophy is? Is this nonsense about Plato something to do with the Forms?

You insipid moron. There is something pitiable about your dullness.

"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."

–- St. Augustine, City of God.

I have a strong feeling that this quote fits within this thread and what it attempts to discuss. For myself I accept, and without question or doubt -- based in my own experience naturally but also through careful intellectual reasoning -- that what is meant in this assertive quote is *true*.

Personally, it makes more sense to understand what Augustine has proposed as being a Platonic expression rather than a Christian one. In this sense my understanding is that Platonic philosophy can best explain a great deal about value-assertions in Christian theology -- which in any case is thoroughly infused with Greek philosophical categories.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:06 pm What I suggest is that the individual will have to ask very basic questions about *value* and will have to interrogate himself about what he really and truly values. The question, the issue, is ultimately and also profoundly philosophical in the original and the most important sense. Do I really need to spell this out for you?

Yes please do. That all sounds deeply subjective, which is a concern if you are attempting to uncover universals à la Plato, but you do you.

You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it.

I think you might be conflating a certain amount of Aristotle into your ideas about Plato. The stuff about mutability suggests you are actually thinking about Aristotle's view of the spheres with the Earthly sphere being made of corruptible, mutable substance, while the heavenly is made of celestial immutable substance.

I see no reason why your connection to your *anchor* is threatened by somebody else not connecting to your *anchor* and choosing their own. Surely we all have a preference for liberty?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:25 pm

"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."

–- St. Augustine, City of God.

I have a strong feeling that this quote fits within this thread and what it attempts to discuss. For myself I accept, and without question or doubt -- based in my own experience naturally but also through careful intellectual reasoning -- that what is meant in this assertive quote is *true*.

What's "true" about it? Can you provide evidence to support the assertion?

Pay no attention to that doofus augustine. He's a slavish mind leading the christian slave revolt against the stirnerite aristocrats, and for all the wrong reasons. He's just jealous becuz they aren't meek like him, and rather than recognizing the problem for what it really is - these wicked men are economic parasites to the working class - he makes this whole big imaginary thing about evil and how the slaves are the lambs of god yada yada and the wicked guys are goin to hell.

No. They're not going to 'hell'. They're going straight to the bank if u don't pull your passive-aggressive head out of that ridiculous bible and get with the effin program.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:17 pm What's "true" about it? Can you provide evidence to support the assertion?

Try this: take the idea, entertain it, do some work in relation to it, and then submit your thoughts here.

Surely you must have something to say about the sense or meaning expressed? Or is it for you *completely unintelligible*?

If you engage with the idea, I will engage with you in relation to it.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:38 pm Pay no attention to that doofus augustine. He's a slavish mind leading the christian slave revolt against the stirnerite aristocrats, and for all the wrong reasons. He's just jealous becuz they aren't meek like him, and rather than recognizing the problem for what it really is - these wicked men are economic parasites to the working class - he makes this whole big imaginary thing about evil and how the slaves are the lambs of god yada yada and the wicked guys are goin to hell.

No. They're not going to 'hell'. They're going straight to the bank if u don't pull your passive-aggressive head out of that ridiculous bible and get with the effin program.

Nice shot, Promethean, but the idea can be worked with irrespective of Augustine's own position in relation to it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:51 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:17 pm What's "true" about it? Can you provide evidence to support the assertion?

Try this: take the idea, entertain it, do some work in relation to it, and then submit your thoughts here.

Surely you must have something to say about the sense or meaning expressed? Or is it for you *completely unintelligible*?

If you engage with the idea, I will engage with you in relation to it.

"Slaves" are "free" and "kings" are "slaves"? I would have thought the opposite. Not true, eh?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:09 pm Yes please do. That all sounds deeply subjective, which is a concern if you are attempting to uncover universals à la Plato, but you do you.

You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it.

You as well will have to do work in relation to the idea presented. That is how this game is played.

If you reduce all notion of universal value to a subjective position, and you do, then you've made your statement and there is a rat's ass of a chance that anything I will say will change your perspective. Isn't that right?

And similarly with the idea of *acidic ideology* in reference to Marxian praxis. If the idea, on its face, is unintelligible to you it will remain so.

I cannot help you here. I suggest further research.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:58 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:51 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:17 pm What's "true" about it? Can you provide evidence to support the assertion?

Try this: take the idea, entertain it, do some work in relation to it, and then submit your thoughts here.

Surely you must have something to say about the sense or meaning expressed? Or is it for you *completely unintelligible*?

If you engage with the idea, I will engage with you in relation to it.

"Slaves" are "free" and "kings" are "slaves"? I would have thought the opposite. Not true, eh?

Speaking as Augustine might have: If a man is a king and enjoys all the temporal accoutrements of kingly position, but yet (let's say) is a sex addict or some other sort of addict (let's assume ones that are not chemical, like alcoholism) in which he debases himself in relation to his temporal sovereignty, or abuses his position as sovereign, and shows himself a slave to his passions and not in some level of control over himself, is it possible that you can gain an insight into what Augustine was referring to?

(If you need to we can linger over this for a series of posts. Do your very best Gary and let me know what you think.)

Similarly, a man who might be enslaved and have no exterior freedom (a slave within the palace let's say), may have no vices or addictions of the sort mentioned above, and therefore on that inner or psychological plane may be vastly freer than the king who suffers under his vice.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:58 pm . . . and there is a rat's ass of a chance that anything I will say will change your perspective. Isn't that right?

Well, first we'd have to determine if there are such things as "bad slaves" and "good kings". If all slaves were good, then does it also hold true that all slaves are free? Or is it only the good slaves who are "free"? And what are the characteristics of a "good" slave? The same goes for kings. If all kings were hypothetically bad kings, then would they also be "slaves" or might they be more "free" to carry out their "wicked" ways? I would suggest that freedom and slavery are entirely independent things of wickedness and good. I'm sure just because a person is wicked doesn't make them "slaves" and just because someone is "good" doesn't make them a "king".

But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read about "replacement theory" so there are all sorts of things I'm probably ignorant about.