Philosophy Now Forum

Ned wrote:Just look at history and recent political events.

The world is broken up to 196 countries, never mind the myriads of tribal sub-groups in each individual country.

It is the same species, on the same planet, easily intermixable with each other as immigration statistics show.

However, as long as individuals carry their tribal identity, instead of their species-identity, with them, there will always be wars, massacres and atrocities.

The ‘leaders’ take full advantage of this by sicking one tribe against the other, convincing their ‘subjects’ that the ‘other’ is subhuman, evil, dangerous, out to get you.

All this would be impossible if people realized that we are, for all practical purposes, one tribe: we want to live our limited life on this planet, in peace, being productive, looking after our families and friends.

Until people realize that they are primarily human beings, all in the same boat, instead of members of a besieged sub-group somewhere defending their territory tooth and nail, they will be always at each other’s throats.

And our masters laugh all the way to the bank.

Ned wrote:Options in a mental Institution

Historical fact: In the old Soviet Union dissidents were often locked into a mental institution to silence and punish them. Many of them actually developed mental problems due to being locked into a delusional environment.

All my life I have had to listen to arguments against idealism from pragmatists. Their argument usually goes like this: You live in a dream world, where people are perfectly rational and nice to each other. That world does not exist and if you live there, you give up any chance of making the real world better.

The problem with this argument is in the assumptions I would have to accept in order to be pragmatic.

Most clinical psychiatrists can tell you that schizophrenics often use perfectly sound logic and be consistent, though their actions are based on a central delusion.

Would I like to live in a mental institution, where everyone behaved sensibly, as long as one accepts the assumption that the water faucet is God?

And that is my problem with the human species.

Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Gun registration is enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.

The real solution to this unsolvable problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.

Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.

Why?

Because everyone knows that it is impossible.

Just like 'everyone knows' that the water faucet is God.

Now, as a good pragmatist, I could accept that and try to find another solution, based on the premise that assumes: it is impossible to stop manufacturing firearms. But do I want to participate in a society where the only sane solution is rejected out of hand as impossible?

Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.

Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.

So, do I want to participate in a society which is run by people who reject the only sane solution as impossible? Where the majority of citizens go along with this by refusing to consider and implement the required life style changes?

I can only see four basic choices:

1/ Escape from the mental institution to a place of sanity.
2/ Go along with the assumption that the water faucet is God.
3/ Try to convince the inmates they are wrong
4/ Ignore the inmates and isolate myself as much as humanly possible.

Looking at these options, I have to realize that: 1/ would require a space ship or a time machine; 2/ is repulsive and painful for a healthy mind; 3/ I have tried that - no chance in hell; 4/ is the only practical solution I have ever found.

Time to end this experiment.

Ned wrote:Just look at history and recent political events.

The world is broken up to 196 countries, never mind the myriads of tribal sub-groups in each individual country.

It is the same species, on the same planet, easily intermixable with each other as immigration statistics show.

However, as long as individuals carry their tribal identity, instead of their species-identity, with them, there will always be wars, massacres and atrocities.

The ‘leaders’ take full advantage of this by sicking one tribe against the other, convincing their ‘subjects’ that the ‘other’ is subhuman, evil, dangerous, out to get you.

All this would be impossible if people realized that we are, for all practical purposes, one tribe: we want to live our limited life on this planet, in peace, being productive, looking after our families and friends.

Until people realize that they are primarily human beings, all in the same boat, instead of members of a besieged sub-group somewhere defending their territory tooth and nail, they will be always at each other’s throats.

And our masters laugh all the way to the bank.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Ned wrote:Options in a mental Institution

Historical fact: In the old Soviet Union dissidents were often locked into a mental institution to silence and punish them. Many of them actually developed mental problems due to being locked into a delusional environment.

All my life I have had to listen to arguments against idealism from pragmatists. Their argument usually goes like this: You live in a dream world, where people are perfectly rational and nice to each other. That world does not exist and if you live there, you give up any chance of making the real world better.

The problem with this argument is in the assumptions I would have to accept in order to be pragmatic.

Most clinical psychiatrists can tell you that schizophrenics often use perfectly sound logic and be consistent, though their actions are based on a central delusion.

Would I like to live in a mental institution, where everyone behaved sensibly, as long as one accepts the assumption that the water faucet is God?

And that is my problem with the human species.

Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Gun registration is enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.

The real solution to this unsolvable problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.

Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.

Why?

Because everyone knows that it is impossible.

Just like 'everyone knows' that the water faucet is God.

Now, as a good pragmatist, I could accept that and try to find another solution, based on the premise that assumes: it is impossible to stop manufacturing firearms. But do I want to participate in a society where the only sane solution is rejected out of hand as impossible?

Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.

Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.

So, do I want to participate in a society which is run by people who reject the only sane solution as impossible? Where the majority of citizens go along with this by refusing to consider and implement the required life style changes?

I can only see four basic choices:

1/ Escape from the mental institution to a place of sanity.
2/ Go along with the assumption that the water faucet is God.
3/ Try to convince the inmates they are wrong
4/ Ignore the inmates and isolate myself as much as humanly possible.

Looking at these options, I have to realize that: 1/ would require a space ship or a time machine; 2/ is repulsive and painful for a healthy mind; 3/ I have tried that - no chance in hell; 4/ is the only practical solution I have ever found.

Time to end this experiment.

Again.
So when are you going to leave this time?
When the Ignore list gets top heavy; the ignored join as a 'tribe' and you feel alienated or got at?

aiddon wrote:

phyllo wrote:

why do I still, stubbornly, obtusely think
that I communicate
when I pontificate
on my internet link?

Maybe you should pontificate less and communicate more.

There is a difference. Pontification is talking down to people from a high pulpit. Communication is listening and speaking on the same level.

Writing doggerel on a discussion forum usually means one wishes to communicate only what they have to say.

Ned wrote:Looks like the tribe is circling the wagons!

duszek wrote:There are some criteria that are not bad: a set of moral values that a group shares. We try to gain followers for our moral camp.

Ned wrote:
I am so happy that this thread was resurrected -- it is a very important topic to think about.

I hope for some interesting comments on it this time (first time around I wasn't that lucky).

So what do you think?

Do you see any signs toward global consciousness (as opposed to global economy)?

Skip wrote:Too cluttered with off-topic commentary. It would be more productive to start over.
Perhaps a streamlined version for the texting generation?

marjoram_blues wrote:

Skip wrote:Too cluttered with off-topic commentary. It would be more productive to start over.
Perhaps a streamlined version for the texting generation?

I agree. A new start would be better.
Apologies for the off-topic posts.
If Ned wants to keep this thread, the irrelevant ones can be deleted.

spike wrote:Okay!

Tribalism is certainly the undoing of the Middle East, where tribes hate each other. The motto there has been rule or die.