Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:18 pm Your words. Shrill and emotional are compatible with sceptical reasoning. Hysterical and over-blown are your own evaluations.

Me disagree. Fundamental level. What now?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 5:41 pm B, admittedly that idea is largely anecdotal in my case, as i have never once in my entire life experienced anything positive from an encounter with police. rather quite the opposite. false imprisonment and illegal confiscation of my personal property being the most recent. but my case is special becuz by virtue of my constitutional rights being stripped of me, I'm not 'formally' an american citizen and the cops are just little guys running around in uniforms, in my eyes. they don't get to tell me what i can and can't do.

but the fundamental reason why police are illegitimate is becuz they uphold and defend a system designed to protect the property and privilege of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat. that's numero uno, and there are endless examples of how police activity does just that. second is the very crimogenic nature of capitalist societies.

note also how the organgutan gets to turn himself in at his own leisure. anybody else would have been arrested in Florida immediately after the issue of the warrant and detained until extradited to new york, which would have likely happened in less than twenty four hours.

also, how much are tax payers paying the secret service to follow his dumbass around everywhere he goes? is this shit for real? we get to pay for this guy's personal body guards for the rest of his miserable life?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:29 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:18 pm Your words. Shrill and emotional are compatible with sceptical reasoning. Hysterical and over-blown are your own evaluations.

Me disagree. Fundamental level. What now?

When you say "emotional" do you refer to emotions that are utterly unrefined by the cortex? Surely neither you I are talking about dementia.

In cases of people who are not demented, emotions and cognitions both are prerequisites for the best reasoning.

Surely neither you I are talking about dementia.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:54 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:29 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:28 pm
Me disagree. Fundamental level. What now?

When you say "emotional" do you refer to emotions that are utterly unrefined by the cortex? Surely neither you I are talking about dementia.

In cases of people who are not demented, emotions and cognitions both are prerequisites for the best reasoning.

Fair questions. Certainly feelings and sentiments are vital to thinking, assessing, valuing and acting. But if thinking well and rationally (a general way to refer to balanced thinking) is desired, then infantile emotionalism is a possible intruder, but not a desired one.

For example what about the emotionalism at a National Socialist rally like Leni Reifenstall filmed? The reasoning part of the mind is overpowered by an emotional part of the man. Would you describe that as ‘good’ ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’?

What about the rather insane reaction to Donald Trump? So called Trump Derangement Syndrome? When screeching freakshows mounted on wheeled platforms with independent fuel supply for careening locomotion react madly?

What about the mawkish, but oddly dangerous, over-sensitive emotionalism of university students who require safe-spaces and who are intolerant of people and ideas they irrationally fear?

It is fair to mention as well the emoted ideas, the paranoid emoted ideas of those known as Q-anon. When the overheated mind is captured by strange imagery and graphics of an over-excited type. How do we assess that?

How do you catalogue these examples of irrational emotionalism?

Surely neither you I are talking about dementia.

The charming, trembling young woman there: demented? Possessed? Shrill? Overwrought?

And when ‘she’ is a National Phenomenon? How now?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:09 am Belinda please, cooperate with me.

If there is no “possession by demons” what was Carl G. Jung on about?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 9:47 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:09 am Belinda please, cooperate with me.

If there is no “possession by demons” what was Carl G. Jung on about?

If Jung believed in demons, and the capability of them to 'possess' humans, then unfortunately he is a moron, and anyone that believes such nonsesnse belongs to the same bin of idiocy.

Same goes for NE belief in the Devil...which liveD

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 9:47 am If Jung believed in demons, and the capability of them to 'possess' humans, then unfortunately he is a moron, and anyone that believes such nonsesnse belongs to the same bin of idiocy.

“The devil “… describes the grotesque and sinister side of the unconscious; for we have never really come to grips with it and consequently it has remained in its original savage state. Probably no one today would still be rash enough to assert that the European is a lamblike creature and not possessed by a devil. The frightful records of our age are plain for all to see, and they surpass in hideousness everything that any previous age, with its feeble instruments, could have hoped to accomplish.”

Jung (1946)

“… the historic events of our time have painted a picture of man’s psychic reality in indelible colors of blood and fire, and given him an object lesson which he will never be able to forget if—and this is the great question—he has today acquired enough consciousness to keep up with the furious pace of the devil within him. The only other hope is that he may learn to curb a creativity which is wasting itself in the exploitation of material power. Unfortunately, all attempts in that direction look like bloodless Utopias.”

Jung (1942)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:09 am Belinda please, cooperate with me.

If there is no “possession by demons” what was Carl G. Jung on about?