The Philosophy Discussion Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 6:18 pm Look, sorry IC, but you really have to look at the data, not selected opinions of what the data means.

You don't know what I looked at. And I don't know the data you're looking at. But you can provide it, and I'll look at your data.

My PERSONAL position is what matters is ability/willingness to work together on the issue at hand even recognizing that we might be on opposing sides of some other issue.

Great. Now tell me your plan for addressing China, India, Africa, South America...and we can fix them all together, by being environmentalists.

Go ahead: what's the plan?

Fascism covers a RANGE

Not really. I mean, the "range" could be Italy and Germany, maybe. But that's ancient history, now. Fascism is actually pretty simple, as is Socialism, considered at the definitional level.

Now, one thing you didn't even try to pick up, but I think it's so important we get back to it. We both acknowledge the existence of "wolves" in the world. I say "Fabians," (as do they, obviously; they're proud of it, in fact); you might say "Nazis," and I'd agree they were wolves, too. But either way, there are wolves.

Okay.

So how is that possible, if human beings are basically good?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 6:27 pm

Fascism covers a RANGE

Not really. I mean, the "range" could be Italy and Germany, maybe. But that's ancient history, now. Fascism is actually pretty simple, as is Socialism, considered at the definitional level.

Gee let's leave out thinking about Finland 1920-1940 or Hungary during the Horthy regency. Although Arrow-Cross didn't take over until well into WWII it was active MUCH earlier. When I mentioned the attempted Marxist rising under Bela Kun I was oversimplifying. My grandmother told me what it was like with the Reds holding one end of their town and the Arrow-Cross the other << being small town, all knowing each other, not shooting at each other but just waiting to see how the rest of the country would go >>

Or you're UK, right? Was Mosley quite the same? (as the Germans or Italians)

BTW, your sense of "ancient history" and it being irrelevant is VERY different than mine. I suspect that is at least some of the problem with our communication. Depending on where in the world, historical events you would consider in the distant past still reverberate to affect things today.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 6:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 6:27 pm

Fascism covers a RANGE

Not really. I mean, the "range" could be Italy and Germany, maybe. But that's ancient history, now. Fascism is actually pretty simple, as is Socialism, considered at the definitional level.

Gee let's leave out thinking about Finland

No, not just a bunch of loose examples: definitions. Examples may vary, but the definitions stick.

Maybe that's why you're so terrified of defining Socialism. If you ever did, you'd have to realize that all the horrors of Socialism are because of...Socialism.

BTW, your sense of "ancient history" and it being irrelevant is VERY different than mine.

I suspect not. The "Fascists" the Left claims to be opposing today have little to do, if anything, with 1942 Germany. In fact, they seem pretty hard to locate. The Left would love to find them, and would put them onscreen every day, if they could find them; but what we get instead is a bunch of people being accused of being "Fascists," with really no credibility behind it.

There's no Fascist movement in play right now. Hitler came and, thank God, went. Same for Mussolini. They're not coming back. Whatever new evil Socialism throws up next, it will not be National Socialism of the Italian or Germanic kind. But the insane impulses that drove such men is alive and well, simply morphing into new forms, I think you'll agree.

Depending on where in the world, historical events you would consider in the distant past still reverberate to affect things today.

Well, of course...but that's true of ALL history. In a sense, the Roman Empire is still with us...but I don't think that the fear of conquest by raging legionaries is much on our minds today.

Back to my question, though: call them Fabians, or Nazis, or Red Guard, or whatever...how can there even be "wolves" when, as you seem to insist, people are basically good?

Seriously...could there BE a more urgent question for a Jewish person to answer? Because if it's not true that people are basically good, then what sort of consequences are likely to fall upon a person who is naively trusting about that? Were there not MANY Jewish people who, at the beginning of the Holocaust, simply refused to imagine it? How could it happen in the land of Mann and Schiller, of Bach and Beethoven, of Goethe, Gutenberg, Bultmann, Rahner, Kant, and Einstein?

And yet, it did. How?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 4:56 pm
-Imp

Good, but not as good as gnostic.

Back to my question, though: call them Fabians, or Nazis, or Red Guard, or whatever...how can there even be "wolves" when, as you seem to insist, people are basically good?

Seriously...could there BE a more urgent question for a Jewish person to answer? Because if it's not true that people are basically good, then what sort of consequences are likely to fall upon a person who is naively trusting about that? Were there not MANY Jewish people who, at the beginning of the Holocaust, simply refused to imagine it? How could it happen in the land of Mann and Schiller, of Bach and Beethoven, of Goethe, Gutenberg, Bultmann, Rahner, Kant, and Einstein?

And yet, it did. How?

If people are basically bad, then how can they do good?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:07 pm

Back to my question, though: call them Fabians, or Nazis, or Red Guard, or whatever...how can there even be "wolves" when, as you seem to insist, people are basically good?

Seriously...could there BE a more urgent question for a Jewish person to answer? Because if it's not true that people are basically good, then what sort of consequences are likely to fall upon a person who is naively trusting about that? Were there not MANY Jewish people who, at the beginning of the Holocaust, simply refused to imagine it? How could it happen in the land of Mann and Schiller, of Bach and Beethoven, of Goethe, Gutenberg, Bultmann, Rahner, Kant, and Einstein?

And yet, it did. How?

If people are basically bad, then how can they do good?

Well, is it necessarily ALL one or the other?

Well, is it necessarily ALL one or the other?

It seems like you have answered your own question.

Well done.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:37 pm

Well, is it necessarily ALL one or the other?

It seems like you have answered your own question.

Well done.

Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:04 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:37 pm

Well, is it necessarily ALL one or the other?

It seems like you have answered your own question.

Well done.

Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:07 pm

Back to my question, though: call them Fabians, or Nazis, or Red Guard, or whatever...how can there even be "wolves" when, as you seem to insist, people are basically good?

Seriously...could there BE a more urgent question for a Jewish person to answer? Because if it's not true that people are basically good, then what sort of consequences are likely to fall upon a person who is naively trusting about that? Were there not MANY Jewish people who, at the beginning of the Holocaust, simply refused to imagine it? How could it happen in the land of Mann and Schiller, of Bach and Beethoven, of Goethe, Gutenberg, Bultmann, Rahner, Kant, and Einstein?

And yet, it did. How?

If people are basically bad, then how can they do good?

bigger and more guns of course

victory in Ukraine

-Imp

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:04 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:37 pm
It seems like you have answered your own question.

Well done.

Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

the afterlife is questionable, death is certain

-Imp

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:04 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:37 pm
It seems like you have answered your own question.

Well done.

Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

What's the basis of your supposition? I'm not seeing the logic there.

Maybe you can connect the dots you're connecting for me: why would people who are "not essentially good" be going to Heaven?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 12:32 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:04 am
Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

the afterlife is questionable, death is certain

-Imp

If death is certain, then we'd best be ready for what's certain.

What does Heaven or Hell have to do with the question? Unnecessary to the argument.

Could ANY human society/culture work (survive, compete with others) if humans weren't more good than evil? So that would have to be true for us while alive. What (if anything) happens after death beside the point.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:29 pm What does Heaven or Hell have to do with the question? Unnecessary to the argument.

I didn't bring it up. I just answered it, when it was brought up by another.

Could ANY human society/culture work (survive, compete with others) if humans weren't more good than evil?

Of course. Self-interest is a powerful motivator. Or fear of death. Or the mere desire to obtain benefits that can't be had another way, such as mutual protection from enemies, or resource acquisition. Reproduction opportunities. There are many possible motives for such. It's not obvious that "goodness" needs to drive most of them.

But you've changed your position somewhat -- from "people are essentially good" to "people are more good than evil." It's gone from a standard of actual goodness, to one of merely slightly better than evil -- better on balance.

But how much good does one have to do, before the evil one has done ceases to matter?

But that really doesn't get to the original question. The question really was, Where does the "wolfishness" we both recognize come from?

It's important, Mike, isn't it? Wolves capitalize on those who believe there's enough sheepskin on their backs to make them harmless.