Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:20 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:45 pm Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil.

Nobody believes in ontological evil. Hitler was this very bad man who did exceptionally evil stuff. And you are this weird man who needs to avoid saying that but also wants nobody to notice.

But he was loved.
He loved his dog; refused to eat meat.
He built the autobahns. Ahnd many people hate Jews. They think he did the right thing.

Now how many people think Obama, Bush and Clinton are "evil"?? I can tell you that many people who live in islam and have suffered from US agression think this trio are evil. Are they right?

terrorism.jpg

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 9:31 pm But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:02 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 6:23 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 6:07 pm I understood that part, but what does to transmute my mire into something positively actionable mean?

Any ideological position, say about social conduct and ethics, involves ideas or aspirations that in relation to one can take action.

If the project is, for example, renovation of the corrupted self, then some remedial choices will be taken. That means “action”. (But ceasing to act in some area can also be seen as action, if you get my point).

Those people today (in politics, in social affairs) who propose remediation do so in relation to actionable ideas.

Clear now?

So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take? Am I the one who is supposed to take action in response to some process of persuasion, or will the action be imposed on me by some authority or other?

You are being vague again. You have obviously arrived at certain conclusions about me, so, based on those conclusions, what, exactly, could I expect to experience in your world?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 9:57 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 9:31 pm But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

I don't have a stomach for the killing of people, especially when done by my own government. It bothers me.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 9:31 pm Note: When certain ideas are mentioned, ideas that just a short while ago were entirely normal, a psychological mechanism is activated. The switch is thrown and entire sets of reactive ideas, always expressed through astounding emoted moralizing, are heaped on whoever vocalizes them.

The Spectre of ontological malevolence is invoked, and all consideration of the ideas themselves is made impossible.

Here we can easily see that •European grammar of self-intolerance• which, I assert, has been installed in us.

To confront decadence, decay, corruption and decline is not in any sense morally wrong.

To critique liberalism — hyper-liberalism — and to examine social and political remedies or alternatives — that is not wrong either.

To consider, or reconsider, questions of •identity• on all levels, and on any levels, is neither inherently wrong. In fact it can be highly moral.

And certainly the examination of metaphysics in the sense of one’s •metaphysical dream of the world• and attempting to define that is not wrong nor bad.

But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:12 pm Don’t be silly. The ideas expressed are ultra-clear. I assume you experience some ideological friction, so bluntly condemn, without consideration, what was expressed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:17 pm

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Classical liberal arts education.

Am I the one who is supposed to take action in response to some process of persuasion, or will the action be imposed on me by some authority or other?

You are being vague again. You have obviously arrived at certain conclusions about me, so, based on those conclusions, what, exactly, could I expect to experience in your world?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:53 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:17 pm

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Classical liberal arts education.

Is that it, just another link to someone else's words?

Jacobi's favourite Lesbian poem wrote: That man seems to me to be equal to the gods
who is sitting opposite you
and hears you nearby
speaking sweetly

and laughing delightfully, which indeed
makes my heart flutter in my breast;
for when I look at you even for a short time,
it is no longer possible for me to speak

but it is as if my tongue is broken
and immediately a subtle fire has run over my skin,
I cannot see anything with my eyes,
and my ears are buzzing

a cold sweat comes over me, trembling
seizes me all over, I am paler
than grass, and I seem nearly
to have died.

but everything must be dared/endured, since even a poor...

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:53 pm Is the question too hard for you, or something?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:12 pm Don’t be silly. The ideas expressed are ultra-clear. I assume you experience some ideological friction so bluntly condemn, without consideration, what was expressed.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:21 pm Both the US and the UK should be occupied by some hostile nation for a few decades, that would set them straight heh.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:04 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 10:53 pm Is the question too hard for you, or something?

No, it is that you don’t understand my responses nor my core motivations and what I express. You-plural hear it and twist it.

Making any sense?

I linked you to an academic program — the Great Books Program — and that is non-intelligible to you.

Really, it is a list of books that are foundational to our civilization.