Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:06 pm That's just obvious.

I don't know. Your "obvious" and my "obvious" seem to be a bit different.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:06 pm That's just obvious.

I don't know. Your "obvious" and my "obvious" seem to be a bit different.

Seems so.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:23 pm If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war,

Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:23 pm If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war,

Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:23 pm If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war,

Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

How would that be enforced?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm
Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

How would that be enforced?

The same way anything else is enforced. [sarcasm]If it's unenforcible then what do you do just outlaw something harmless that is enforcible instead? Like no one knows how to think I guess? [/sarcasm]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:23 pm If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war,

Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

Here's an idea for you IC. Just outlaw whatever you want. If you don't want to outlaw war, then don't. I'm tired of dealing with morons.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:10 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 3:15 pm I am not sure if the simplistic label of ‘socialism’ and ‘socialists’ is enough to explain a régime and a power-structure.

Then you need to read Hegel, Marx and the Cultural Marxists. It's all there.

I regard Chomsky, similarly to Leo Strauss possibly, as a Machiavellian theorist. In much of Chomsky’s work (On Power & Ideology comes to mind) he exposes brutally and uncompromisingly the true power-machinations of the US power-régime during and after WW2. He also says that all political systems are or tend to be similar systems for the control and management of populations. Therefore, his analysis can be applied to all political systems.

Knowing this, as I think it is wise to know, we need not refer necessarily to Hegel, Marx nor the Cultural Marxists in our analysis of power. Long before any of them this dynamic existed.

For this reason — but in no sense discounting harsh critical examination of the influence of Hegel, Marx or the CMs — I said “I am not sure if the simplistic label of ‘socialism’ and ‘socialists’ is enough to explain a régime and a power-structure”, and by that (since this is really the topic) I make reference to the power structure that runs, or own, America in this more global sense (neo-imperialism).

Are you saying that the the only proper lens to view the power-dynamic that Machiavelli understood to operate can only be viewed through a Hegelian or Marxian lens?

It does seem very necessary that Cultural Marxism in our present be seen and exposed, but there is a larger reality that must appear under the label of strict power dynamics it seems to me.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:56 pm

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

How would that be enforced?

The same way anything else is enforced. [sarcasm]If it's unenforcible then what do you do just outlaw something harmless that is enforcible instead? Like no one knows how to think I guess? [/sarcasm]

You didn't answer the question, you just deflected.

How would it be enforced?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:23 pm If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war,

Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

With what body? What authority?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:10 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 3:15 pm I am not sure if the simplistic label of ‘socialism’ and ‘socialists’ is enough to explain a régime and a power-structure.

Then you need to read Hegel, Marx and the Cultural Marxists. It's all there.

I regard Chomsky, similarly to Leo Strauss possibly, as a Machiavellian theorist.

I didn't mention him.

we need not refer necessarily to Hegel, Marx nor the Cultural Marxists in our analysis of power

Nobody said we should. I said that if you want to understand the Socialists of today, though, those are the people you need to understand.

Are you saying that the the only proper lens to view the power-dynamic that Machiavelli understood to operate can only be viewed through a Hegelian or Marxian lens?

I'm not talking about "the power-dynamic." I'm just talking about today's Left. They do get their derivation from Marx and Hegel.

I don't know where you got your idea about "power dynamic" stuff from. It could be pratically anybody...Nietzsche, Rand, Foucault, or Chomsky. They all talk about "power." And Foucault is somewhat relevant, as is Nietzsche. But they're not relevant to today's Left in anything near the way that Marx and Hegel are. So let's stick to the topic.

I was explaining dialectics. Hegel and Marx are the right sources.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:58 pm

How would that be enforced?

The same way anything else is enforced. [sarcasm]If it's unenforcible then what do you do just outlaw something harmless that is enforcible instead? Like no one knows how to think I guess? [/sarcasm]

You didn't answer the question, you just deflected.

How would it be enforced?

I don't know. I'm not a police expert. Go ask someone who is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 8:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:54 pm
Great idea.

Describe how you'd get that done.

If someone declares war on someone else, then outlaw that.

With what body? What authority?

How about the UN?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:05 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:00 pm

The same way anything else is enforced. [sarcasm]If it's unenforcible then what do you do just outlaw something harmless that is enforcible instead? Like no one knows how to think I guess? [/sarcasm]

You didn't answer the question, you just deflected.

How would it be enforced?

I don't know. I'm not a police expert. Go ask someone who is.

I don't think a couple of cops are enforcing international law.

Do you expect your idea to be enforced by... more wars?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:05 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:27 pm
You didn't answer the question, you just deflected.

How would it be enforced?

I don't know. I'm not a police expert. Go ask someone who is.

I don't think a couple of cops are enforcing international law.

Do you expect your idea to be enforced by... more wars?

You can't stop war by declaring war, can you???????