Philosophy Now Forum

Y'all just got different daseins, that's all. Still a valid point could be raised: if Christianity, its religious and historical facts and truths, are so clear and readily accessible to anyone, why do our resident Christian apologists, - AJ, NA and IC - so frequently and fervently disagree on so many of these facts and truths?

Discuss.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 8:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 7:38 pm "Europe" is a geographic mass. It was never Christian. There was nothing "Europe" could reject. / Don't you see the futility of such generalizations? They just don't work.

I understand that in your view you can say, sincerely, that Europe was never Christian. If seeing it that way serves some purpose for you, stay with it. I have already explained where I stand.

Again, it's your definition of "Christian" that's killing your theory.

AJ: In a general sense America has been, shall I say, conquered and subdued by exceedingly effective PR and advertising of a Zionist sort.

IC: Really? Where are you getting that from?

Through various sources and as a result of study/reading. If you'd like me to recommend a source or two I can do that.

If you've got any good ones, okay.

That America has historically tended to be supportive of the survival of Israel as a nation. But that all seems good to me. Especially when you consider the alternative.

What *seems* good, to you, may or not mean that it is good in fact.

Oh? Well, the alternative is that Israel ceases to exist. Are you calling that a "good" thing?

So, and returning to what I said before, I am not going to get into haggle-sessions with you on topic you are not prepared for.

Oh, I'm well prepared.

But then, I know what a "Christian" is.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 8:36 pm Y'all just got different daseins, that's all.

Heh. The concept's just a pain in the dasein.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 8:36 pm Y'all just got different daseins, that's all. Still a valid point could be raised: if Christianity, its religious and historical facts and truths, are so clear and readily accessible to anyone, why do our resident Christian apologists, - AJ, NA and IC - so frequently and fervently disagree on so many of these facts and truths?

Discuss.

Because human primates have nothing better to occupy their minds than to play the silly game of “Call My Bluff”

Come on, every one knows that

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 3:57 pmRemind me Gus: in your view, does one have to take any of the New Testament as true to be a Christian? Of course they have informed world events, but do you care whether the gospels are history or literature?

You mean 'remind' you in a Platonic sense I gather?

Well, if you mean anamnesis, then no. Perhaps you have something else in mind.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmThe way I see things -- it is idiosyncratic I'd admit -- is that any man and every man exists within his *imagined world*. Meaning, that 'the world' is viewed through an imagining apparatus.

That view is not idiosyncratic. Most scientifically or philosophically literate people will be comfortable with the fact that we each have our way of interpreting the information before us. Gestalt, paradigm, philosophy, weltanschauung, call it what you will, the idea of an imagining apparatus is mainstream.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmI have to imagine the Gospel world when I read the Gospels.

Well yeah, if you can't inhabit a world, you can't explore it. That's a fundamental of literary criticism.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmBut when I do complete my reading, and when I have, say, received and extracted the message (and what is that message?), I am still, and only, within my *imagined world* -- within my own self where I see, perceive, interpret and live.

Absolutely. This has been understood for at least two and a half millennia. Once again I cite Xenophanes:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

We all see the world through our own filters.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmOddly, no one can take the Gospel story as real since it is being grasped in an unreal world, our imagined world.but do you care whether the gospels are history or literature?

Well, if in your imagined world the Gospel story is real, which for some contributors it clearly is, then of course one can take it as real.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmSo what I focus on -- as I have said numerous times -- is our 'metaphysical dream of the world'. Which is what I have just described.but do you care whether the gospels are history or literature?

Physics is basically observation and measurement. Metaphysics is interpretation. Everybody has some interpretation of what they observe.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmI think what you are asking -- and I commend you for avoiding drooling when you do ask -- is Do I consider Jesus Christ God as a literal and real entity or power somewhere out there, in some celestial plane, up there or out there in a heavenly world, outside of my own self; and if and when I pray to Jesus Christ God, does Jesus Christ God then beam down into me that grace or enlivening or whatever it is that a Christian refers to?

This is the way that it is conceived, is it not? Or to put it another way There must be some conceptual image that is held in the mind (the imagination) through which whatever we are talking about (if one thinks theistically) is imagined to take place.

This is how I put the question:

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 3:57 pm...do you care whether the gospels are history or literature?

Well done me for not drooling, but a simple yes or no would do.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pmSo I tend to focus more on the conceptual image.

What is God, where is God?

That's a change of emphasis, which happens and you are perfectly entitled to, but I think your earlier preoccupation with the influence of christianity on European psychology is much more tangible.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 3:57 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:50 pmI do not regard it as a defect that early Christianity incorporated into itself different traditions. As I have said a few times those early centuries were made up of 'a confusion of peoples' and also a confusion of ideas and conceptions.

Remind me Gus: in your view, does one have to take any of the New Testament as true to be a Christian? Of course they have informed world events, but do you care whether the gospels are history or literature?

No, the gospels are works of art. But this requires knowing what art is and its purpose as opposed to expression. From Maurice Nicoll's book "The New Man."

Chapter One

THE LANGUAGE OF PARABLES

PART ONE

ALL sacred writings contain an outer and an inner meaning. Behind the literal words lies another
range of meaning, another form of knowledge. According to an old−age tradition, Man once was
in touch with this inner knowledge and inner meaning. There are many stories in the Old
Testament which convey another knowledge, a meaning quite different from the literal sense of
the words. The story of the Ark, the story of Pharaoh's butler and baker, the story of the Tower of
Babel, the story of Jacob and Esau and the mess of pottage, and many others, contain an inner
psychological meaning far removed from their literal level of meaning. And in the Gospels the
parable is used in a similar way.

Many parables are used in the Gospels. As they stand, taken in the literal meaning of the words,
they refer apparently to vineyards, to householders, to stewards, to spendthrift sons, to oil, to water
and to wine, to seeds and sowers and soil, and many other things. This is their literal level of
meaning. The language of parables is difficult to understand just as is, in general, the language of
all sacred writings. Taken on the level of literal understanding, both the Old and New Testaments
are full not only of contradictions but of cruel and repulsive meaning.

The question arises: Why are these so−called sacred writings cast in misleading form? Why is not
what is meant explained clearly? If the story of Jacob's supplanting of Esau, or, again, of the
Tower of Babel, or of the Ark constructed in three storeys riding on the. flood, is not literally true
but has a quite different inner meaning, why is it all not made evident? Why again should parables
be used in the Gospels? Why not say directly what is meant? And if a person thinking in this way
were to ask why the story of Creation in Genesis, which clearly cannot be taken literally, means
something else, something quite different from what the literal words mean, he might very well
conclude that the so−called sacred writings are nothing but a kind of fraud deliberately perpetrated on Mankind. If all these stories, allegories, myths, comparisons and parables in Sacred Scripture
mean something else, why can it not be stated clearly what they mean from the starting−point so
that everyone can understand? Why veil everything? Why all this mystery, this obscurity?

The idea behind all sacred writing is to convey a higher meaning than the literal words contain, the
truth of which must be seen by Man internally. This higher, concealed, inner, or esoteric, meaning,
cast in the words and sense−images of ordinary usage, can only be grasped by the understanding,
and it is exactly here that the first difficulty lies in conveying higher meaning to Man. A person's
literal level of understanding is not necessarily equal to grasping psychological meaning. To
understand literally is one thing: to understand psychologically is another.................

Immanuel Can wrote:

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

From your position within your Fort you can, and you do, take on all comers.

Immanuel Can replied:

Sound like a great "fort"! It's doing everything it should.

Intransigent authoritarianism, like what Immanuel glorifies, is typical of political dictators and expansionist regimes like that of Zionist Israel.

Israel's gradual slaughter of Palestinians' land and culture is not of God ; it's political and God has been coopted to add gravitas to theft.

AJ: In a general sense America has been, shall I say, conquered and subdued by exceedingly effective PR and advertising of a Zionist sort.

IC: Really? Where are you getting that from?

AJ: Through various sources and as a result of study/reading. If you'd like me to recommend a source or two I can do that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 8:44 pmIf you've got any good ones, okay.

First, a comment about why this particular issue is relevant to this larger and on-going conversation -- according to my understanding of things.

One basic, elemental and core view of mine is that we live in and are surrounded by lies. My notion here is that no matter where we look, no matter to what source, and especially when the issue concerns something of vital importance, we must as a general rule suspect that we are being lied to. The examples are legion. We know that corporations and governments will lie -- strategic, cynical, conscious and planed lies -- when it is necessary. And people will lie when their interests are at stake.

If this is so, and most will agree that it is so (and that we do not know what to do about it and are to one degree or other powerless against it), we should also extend our suspicion to our own histories. That is, the descriptions and narratives that are concocted (or assembled if you wish with greater or lesser degrees of good faith) to support *our view of our own selves and what we do*. We know that powerful groups and factions, with specific ownership interest, often construct these historical accounts. And we know that, often, lies (misrepresentations, omissions) are interwoven into narratives with many elements of truth and out of this comes a useful but a defective and misleading story.

My impression and my understanding is that when the lies and distortions within the narratives (or the histories) grow to an extent that in respect to a given situation the real truth seems almost impossible to get at, that then we face a real moral problem.

All the events (of history) that led to the founding of Israel are so complex, so intricate, so replete with issues of power and power-dynamic, and in which a bona fide human necessity (the plight of Jewry in the aftermath of WWll) plays a large part, that arriving at a truth-perspective seems to be nearly impossible. Try as you might -- and if you are a mere spectator -- it may prove impossible to arrive at a genuinely truthful perspective. So you will latch on to a constructed narrative to resolve the moral conflict.

That is why I suggested that, at the very least, the effort should be made to comprehend the perspective and view of someone like Miko Peled even if one, ultimately, would choose to override it. When I say 'override' what I mean is a bit strange. When I did have a more standard Zionist perspective (there was a time when I explained and justified it) I also knew, simultaneously, that the core crime of the reconquest (or invasion/occupation) of Palestine was real and could not be sugar-coated. But this was my manoeuvre: I chose to understand that it is not 'moral rightness' that decides things in our world but, as Noam Chomsky points out, straight power-principles.

Thus the issue of the Thracymachus Problem.

"Thus, for Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state or we can further define it as "another's good". Laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is treated as violation of justice."

So, I confronted the problem of the conquest of Palestine through a power-justification manoeuvre. I knew that what Israel was doing, and what its intention all along had been, to slowly annihilate those people who wound up living in that land. A slow strangulation. This was the object and, as object, it did not in fact require a moral defense. It simply had to happen.

So I was forced to try to explain and justify that power will do what power does. I am not completely weaned of this view I should say. It may be more true than any other alternative, idealistic view.

But if this is true in respect to Israel, it actually indicates that *this is how the world really works*. And if one realizes that it is more truthful to realize and understand that this is how the world really does work, where does that leave the so-called 'moral individual'? It is 'insanity', in a way, to turn against the true way of the world! So what does one do? Go along with 'the world'? or separate oneself from the world in this sense? The answer to that question hinges on the degree of one's 'ownership interest' and complicity.

The books I would recommend:

1) Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armagedden by Stephen Sizer.

2) Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the US was used to create Israel by Alison Weir.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:40 pm ...this was my manoeuvre: I chose to understand that it is not 'moral rightness' that decides things in our world but, as Noam Chomsky points out, straight power-principles.

Ah. I've got where you're coming from.

This is straight from Nietzsche.

You may have mediated it through others, like Foucault ("Knowledge/Power") or Chomsky (whom I find a good linguist but a totally lunatic, blindly Leftist political philosopher), or somebody else, but it's a common view these days.

In any case, its most-influential proponent, possibly even its real originator (at least in the public imagination) was Nietzsche. I'm sure others thought of it earlier, but Nietzsche was surely its greatest publicist.

It's really dead simple. Its the claim that moral language is all a fake. All of it. All of it looks like it refers to a real or objective "good" or "evil," but actually it is nothing but "will to power." That is, moralizing conceals a tyrannical impulse: you want to control my behaviour, therefore you use moral terms to fool me. But the truth is, you just want to control me. That's the assumption.

But it just takes for granted the most important question. It acts as if Nietzsche had answered it, when he had not at all. And that question is, "Is moral language really nothing but an expression of will to power?"

It's one thing to say it, or even to insist it with rhetorical flourishes, as Nietzsche did. It's quite another thing to say, honestly, "I have proved that moral language is never more than the will to power." That's quite a different claim. But without it, that perspective is all assumption with no evidence.

Now, it might be possible -- and I have no doubt it is -- to make the case that some moral language is the will to power. I can think of plausible examples, for sure. But that doesn't help the case at all. It could be that ten times to one, people are using moral language in such a way; but let there be any portion of moral language that is NOT like that, and the thesis falls apart like wet tissue.

For the deeper question is the one Peter is obsessed with: namely, "Is there such a thing as objective morality?" (Peter thinks "No," of course. I think he's barking into the wind.)

If objective morality exists, (ontologically, not merely epistemologically), then it doesn't really matter that some people have used it dishonestly. That just proves they've been dishonest. In fact, if objective morality exists, and is ultimately real independent of man (for example, if it exists as terms in the mind of God), then even if no person in history had used moral language with sincere purposes, even if they'd all just been using it for power purposes, then morally objective truth would still exist and be obligatory. In fact, even if we were all charlatans of the Nietzschean sort, then all that would happen in the Judgment is that our moral language would stand condemned by the fact that it failed to conform to the objective truth about morality, as determined by God. We'd all be guilty. But we wouldn't be free of moral condemnation.

So really, for any thinking person, Nietzsche's claim has to seem rather pathetic and shallow. Not only has he got no proof, he would never even be capable of having sufficient proof. Truth be told, in making his claim that morality is will to power, he was operating on nothing more than "what seems to me." He had no studies, no proper data, no evidence at all, outside of his own impressions and the searching of his own (admittedly rather dark) heart. And such studies, had they been done, such evidences, had he had them, and such data, had he collected any, would have been insufficient in any case to warrant the claim he really needed to prove: namely, that moral facts do not exist.

However, modern people have tended to grip onto Neitzsche's claim like a drowing swimmer to a piece of flotsam. They want there to be no objective morality. They want there to be no facts to which they are morally responsible. They want all moral language to be exposed as a "fix'," so they can do whatever the heck they want. But they want it too much. As Freud said, beware of things you passionately want (whether it's for a religion to be true or for morality to be false); it can turn out to be no more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy, a childish desire. So we have to make sure that what we come to believe is not merely what we would like to believe, but what is rational to believe, what has evidence and warrant for us to believe. And that's a salutary warning for us all.

Nietzsche's claim doesn't pass that sniff test. We can choose to believe it or not, but if we do, it will be out of nothing more than desire. He cannot prove his claim, nor did he even give us the respect of trying to do so. He just claimed it.

But now, here's the bad thing about accepting Nietzsche's starting point so blindly as that. It means that reality is amoral. People may remain interested in morality and moralizing, but they're only fooling themselves, or trying to fool you. A rational Nietzschean, meaning somebody who tries to be logical with the second and third steps, even though they've taken Nietzsche's claim for granted, blindly, as first principle, is going to realize that his own best interests are to use moral language (if at all) in the treacherous way Nietzsche claims all moral language is used. In other worlds, not only is the will to power going to be being employed, but that Nietzschean is going to believe it's the only way it CAN be employed, and that it is thus totally legitimate to deceive others in this way.

Why not? After all, he thinks the precept "Thou shalt not bear false witness" or "Thou shalt not lie" is nothing more than an old guy named Moses trying to exercise his power over people. And why should he listen to a dead man?

Well, other than Nietzsche, of course.

For as the old joke goes:


"God is dead" -- Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" -- God.




P.S. -- The Israel thing...I think you come to the right position on it, when you say:

All the events (of history) that led to the founding of Israel are so complex, so intricate, so replete with issues of power and power-dynamic, and in which a bona fide human necessity (the plight of Jewry in the aftermath of WWll) plays a large part, that arriving at a truth-perspective seems to be nearly impossible.

I would add that with the cloud of conspiracy-minded literature surrounding that issue, the situation does become practically hopeless. There are too many lies, and not enough clarity left in that issue. So maybe we should say not just "nearly impossible" but "impossible now humanly." That might be right.

What is interesting, though, is the obsessiveness with which secularists of all stripes return to nattering about this tiny little country with its tiny little population, as if it were the center of the World...just as the Bible says it is. It's almost like, underneath their antipathy, is a sneaking realization that Israel was, indeed, the nation upon which the name of God rested, and they had an unhealthy interest in vengeance against everything ever associated with God, and a burning passion for seeing that Name extinguished. It's quite pathological.

If it were otherwise, they could just ignore Israel and the Jews. And that's what common sense should expect. Nothing in the size or activities of that country warrants the degree of perverse interest they have in it, or the degree to which they routinely ignore much bigger problems (Russia, China, the Arab Countries, etc.) in order to harp on this tiny little sliver of land, and to cavil over whether or not a tiny nation has a right to live at all.

Just saying.

Alexis

One basic, elemental and core view of mine is that we live in and are surrounded by lies. My notion here is that no matter where we look, no matter to what source, and especially when the issue concerns something of vital importance, we must as a general rule suspect that we are being lied to. The examples are legion. We know that corporations and governments will lie -- strategic, cynical, conscious and planed lies -- when it is necessary. And people will lie when their interests are at stake.

You are describing life in Plato's cave in which corruption is the norm. We can either argue the validity of lies and partial truths or admit the unnatural human condition and why Man as a whole are governed by it. If true, does perennial Christianity, not man made Christendom, offer a way out of the darkness of the Cave by entering the inner direction of freedom?

Until a person becomes aware of and admits the human condition within themselves, they will deny Christianity in favor of some interpretation of man made Christendom and just turn in circles

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 4:43 pm Ah. I've got where you're coming from.

This is straight from Nietzsche.

You may have mediated it through others, like Foucault ("Knowledge/Power") or Chomsky (whom I find a good linguist but a totally lunatic, blindly Leftist political philosopher), or somebody else, but it's a common view these days.

In any case, its most-influential proponent, possibly even its real originator (at least in the public imagination) was Nietzsche. I'm sure others thought of it earlier, but Nietzsche was surely its greatest publicist.

It's really dead simple. Its the claim that moral language is all a fake. All of it. All of it looks like it refers to a real or objective "good" or "evil," but actually it is nothing but "will to power." That is, moralizing conceals a tyrannical impulse: you want to control my behaviour, therefore you use moral terms to fool me. But the truth is, you just want to control me. That's the assumption.

But it just takes for granted the most important question. It acts as if Nietzsche had answered it, when he had not at all. And that question is, "Is moral language really nothing but an expression of will to power?"

I only quote this portion of that heroic post from which it came!

It is curious to me the degree to which you have misinterpreted, and through misinterpretation, launched into another direction completely. I do appreciate the intellectual detective work though! We have no choice but to perform such work as we try to get clear about where people are coming from.

I need to make a small correction at the outset. It is not intellectually legitimate, and it is not wise, and it is not accurate, to perform the hack-job you just did on Noam Chomsky. So this is a good place to talk about what overblown binary reductions do when they get possession of a man's mind. In order to contradict what you are asserting I have to approach the topic (Chomsky) with a far more balanced mental frame than you are capable of or interested in. (I have read about 8 of his books so I know his work quite well). Such a stance, then, becomes the medicine to balance-out your injudicious assessment which seems to arise in an overheated mind.

So, in contradistinction, I would make a different statement about Chomsky, but it would not mean that I take up the other and opposite side of your (ridiculous) binary assessment -- an elaborate, and similarly binary defense. However this is what such binary assessments evoke. Binary assessments of the possessive sort provoke oppositions and ideological oppositions make conversation and exchange of ideas impossible.

What Chomsky is very very good at is explaining how power-systems actually work. And his usefulness, despite being a Communist (that is what Anarcho-Syndicalist means) is largely in that. It occurred to me, years back, that Chomsky's general perspective can be looked upon as a sort of applied Machiavellianism. In this sense he dissects the Prince and shows what that prince is actually up to. And this in contradistinction to what the prince himself tells you about what he is up to.

Be that as it may . . .

I did not and would never say that all 'moral language is fake'. And I would never have said that all moral language, or all morality, is will to power in disguise. But what I do say, because I am quite sure that it is true, has to do with the complications that arise when 'ownership interest' is considered. And those who have ownership interest (power, control) have as a result all sorts of very good reasons to present what they do in non-truthful, misleading ways. The issue is at the core of any consideration of morality. 'Complicity' is also a factor related to the degree of ownership interest. The more ownership interest, the more complicity.

It is far more easy to be moral when one does not have ownership interest in and is not complicit in the types of systems I described.

So to bring the matter home, as it were, what I am saying is that if there is 'moral language' by Zionist Israelis that is used to explain and justify the invasion, conquest and occupation of Palestine -- I not only accept that this happened, I know that it happened -- I must then examine the structure of lies that the powerful use to present what they do. It is not a complex assertion.

Double post

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 6:10 pm ...the hack-job you just did on Noam Chomsky.

I don't do anything to Chomsky. His follies have fallen from his own lips, so many times...in print, on video, and so on. They need no help from me. https://www.city-journal.org/html/ameri ... 12361.html

What Chomsky is very very good at is explaining how power-systems actually work.

He has some good insights, I'll admit. But one has to pick them out of his political rubbish like diamonds out of a dunghill. It's quite a lot of work, and one gets a bit dirty in the process.

He's a conspiracy theorist, really. That's not a great thing to be.

Be that as it may . . .

I did not and would never say that all 'moral language is fake'.

Well, you wrote:

I chose to understand that it is not 'moral rightness' that decides things in our world but, as Noam Chomsky points out, straight power-principles.

In other words, you believe Chomsky, who got it from Nietzsche. He didn't invent the idea himself. And as you say, "I chose to understand" that way.

Okay, you can. You can choose what you wish. But it does entail the conclusion that moral language is fake. So I'm saying that you need to consider the consequences of that "choice" of yours. That's only fair.

What moral language needs to be is objectively moral. If it's anything else, then it's fake.

...those who have ownership interest (power, control) have as a result all sorts of very good reasons to present what they do in non-truthful, misleading ways.

That's true. But so do people who don't yet have power (or control) and want to seize it. That's why the Marxist lie so freely...not because they yet own the means of production already, but because they're Hell-bent on so doing, and are prepared to say anything that serves their ambition. In both cases, the problem is that truth gets traded off for propaganda value.

But that is also human nature. People lie.

'Complicity' is also a factor related to the degree of ownership interest.

No, today "complicity" is a jargon word of the Left. By it, they mean only "Even if you didn't cause situation X, I want to make you feel guilty of it, so I can manipulate you." That's all.

It is far more easy to be moral when one does not have ownership interest

Hilarious. So the poor are more moral than the rich, are they?

If that's the case, I have not seen it. You'll have to prove that one to me. It seems to me that people are the same at every economic level, and differ only in respect to their power in acting upon their impulses.

Zionist Israelis

I'm curious why you care. You don't seem to have much sympathy for the poor in the barrios of Colombia. You seem more elitist in regard to them, and would even insist they are potentially less worthy candidates for salvation than the educated elites -- or so it would seem from your earlier comments. What makes you such an interested party in regard to Palestinians? That's a conflict nowhere near you. I would think that if you wanted to advocate for the poor and downtrodden, you'd have lots to do in your own back yard.

I have to ask.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 7:02 pmI don't do anything to Chomsky. His follies have fallen from his own lips, so many times...in print, on video, and so on. They need no help from me.

You're avoiding admitting the integrity of your own assessment of Chomsky by an appeal to authority argument. Many different people say many different things about Chomsky, and for a wide group of reasons and with various purposes.

You also -- as per normal -- missed the core of the point I made: by asserting a too-binary and too-prejudiced assessment, and one that keeps you from seeing clearly, fairly and discriminatingly, you evoke an opposite binary reaction, in this case it would be a defense by me of Chomsky. But I have no interest in making such a defense since my only assertion is that 'power-systems' exist and are real. They employ different forms of deception (spin, propaganda, PR, call it what you will) to justify activities that, often, have a dark side which they desire, logically, to cover over. Nothing controversial here. My original assertion (about Israel) was straight-forward, non-complex and intelligible.

Further, I might suggest that a large part of what I am referring to, if we take it as 'our condition', can be examined through a Christian lens. To quote CG Jung in Aion.

"The ideal of spirituality striving for the heights is doomed to clash with the materialistic earth-bound passions to conquer matter and master the world".

IC writes: In other words, you believe Chomsky, who got it from Nietzsche. He didn't invent the idea himself. And as you say, "I chose to understand" that way.

Okay, you can. You can choose what you wish. But it does entail the conclusion that moral language is fake. So I'm saying that you need to consider the consequences of that "choice" of yours. That's only fair.

What moral language needs to be is objectively moral. If it's anything else, then it's fake.

Here you veer off again -- away from what I said and suggest and into the territory of re-phrasings. I believe Chomsky demonstrates a sort of method that can be used to examine any power-system. But I make no other statement about his utility. I also said that I think 'hack-jobs' are non-productive.

Before Chomsky, Machiavelli is one thing I might suggest.

But it does entail the conclusion that moral language is fake.

No, in fact it doesn't. Moral language and moral action may be very difficult to apply to states and other vast enterprises. And moral action is only really possible by a solitary individual. So how a solitary individual achieves being moral is in no sense a fake issue. It is a fraught issue nonetheless. But when seen in the conflict here described: "The ideal of spirituality striving for the heights is doomed to clash with the materialistic earth-bound passions to conquer matter and master the world".

Complicity, in my view, always arises the deeper one gets involved in *the world* in the sense described.

AJ: Those who have ownership interest (power, control) have as a result all sorts of very good reasons to present what they do in non-truthful, misleading ways.

That's true. But so do people who don't yet have power (or control) and want to seize it.

You are affirming the core point -- the only point really -- I tried to make.

No, today "complicity" is a jargon word of the Left. By it, they mean only "Even if you didn't cause situation X, I want to make you feel guilty of it, so I can manipulate you." That's all.

Another unbalanced statement. You are on a roll today!

I define 'complicity' as I defined it, not how you assert that I (or they) define it.

AJ: It is far more easy to be moral when one does not have ownership interest

IC: Hilarious. So the poor are more moral than the rich, are they?

Here again you are rephrasing what I meant into something I did not intend to say.

Ownership interest implies complicity in larger systems (corporations, states for example). The poor, or those people who have very limited ownership interest, do not deal with complicity of the sort or at the level I am referring to.

But in no sense would this, or could this mean that poor people do not deal with moral issues. The poor are sometimes, perhaps often, victims of larger machinations (or organizations, corporations, states, etc.) and therefore do not have to deal with ownership interest at those levels. But generally speaking when those interests are attained they show themselves equally *complicit* in my sense of the word.

I'm curious why you care.

There is a wide range of reasons.

You don't seem to have much sympathy for the poor in the barrios of Colombia. You seem more elitist in regard to them, and would even insist they are potentially less worthy candidates for salvation than the educated elites -- or so it would seem from your earlier comments.

Since I have no certainty what 'salvation' is (you have a very flimsy idea about it that, when examined, is hollow) I have no idea who achieves it.

You are stating misconceptions one after the other. Often, and perhaps more usually, I have more natural respect, admiration and sympathy for the underprivileged (of Colombia) than I do for the privileged classes. But that is really a whole other story.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 7:02 pmI don't do anything to Chomsky. His follies have fallen from his own lips, so many times...in print, on video, and so on. They need no help from me.

You're avoiding admitting the integrity of your own assessment of Chomsky by an appeal to authority argument.

No. I was providing you with specific examples, by way of the link. If you read what the guy says, you know I'm right. If you didn't...well, I can't help you there.

I believe Chomsky demonstrates a sort of method that can be used to examine any power-system.

Whether it's the right method, and whether or not it yields truth is still be to debated.

But let's see it.

But it does entail the conclusion that moral language is fake.

No, in fact it doesn't.

Yeah, in fact...it inevitably does. Sorry.

It means when anybody says "good" or "evil," all they mean is "I want to control you."

Complicity, in my view, always arises the deeper one gets involved in *the world* in the sense described.

Two problems: one is that "complicity" assumes objective morality. It has to, because it's never wrong to be "complicit" with good things. So it's not an indictment of anything, if that thing is not objectively wrong.

The other is that "complicity" is a BS idea cooked up by the Woke set. See https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-complicity/ for lots and lots of cases.

No, today "complicity" is a jargon word of the Left. By it, they mean only "Even if you didn't cause situation X, I want to make you feel guilty of it, so I can manipulate you." That's all.

Another unbalanced statement.

No. See above. Abundant examples are provided to show the case. Just check the site.

I define 'complicity' as I defined it, not how you assert that I (or they) define it.

You're free to do so: but if you change the meaning, you owe us to notify us in advance that that is what you are going to do. The Woke never do that; but we should. It's only honest.

Ownership interest implies complicity in larger systems (corporations, states for example).

Not at all.

All "ownership" implies is that a thing is yours, not somebody else's. It's perfectly legit, as John Locke said.

It's only Marxist who try to make an evil out of "ownership." And they're always wrong when they do. "Ownership" is a neutral term.

I'm curious why you care.

There is a wide range of reasons.

You don't seem to have much sympathy for the poor in the barrios of Colombia. You seem more elitist in regard to them, and would even insist they are potentially less worthy candidates for salvation than the educated elites -- or so it would seem from your earlier comments.

Since I have no certainty what 'salvation' is (you have a very flimsy idea about it that, when examined, is hollow) I have no idea who achieves it.

You mistake the case.

My definition of "salvation" isn't "flimsy" at all. It's the Biblical one.

If there's something you lack understanding of, feel free to ask.

But you never answered: why are you so darn het up over the Palestinians?