Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:

thedoc wrote: As far as Trump being president, what has he done in office that you don't like, not what his critics claim his actions will lead to, not the allegations made before the election and inauguration, but only his actions in office as president?

I don't like the Bush Era/ billionaire choices he has made regarding his administration,

I'm not sure which choices you are referring to.

I don't like his destruction of the epa,

It's time someone reigned them in, the EPA has been overstepping it's authority for too long.

I don't like his proposed plan to cut taxes of the ultra wealthy at the expense of middle class Americans,

Is he really cutting taxes or making all taxes more equal?

I don't like the wall, I don't like the deportation of illegal immigrants,

I think those are both good ideas. If an immigrant is here illegally, they should be sent back and let them come in legally.

I don't like him trying to ban people based on religion,

He didn't, he banned people from known terrorist countries, they just happened to be of a certain religion.

I don't like his use of nepotism in the white house,

Hire people you know and trust, it's a good idea. Would you hire the dealer who didn't deal with you fairly, without keeping a close watch on her?

etc. Basically, there is not much I liked, but more important than all of that is the fact that since he has been in office Americans have followed the 'tone' of this man's paranoia and false bravado. Instead of the stoic "no drama Obama" we have a adolescent mindset in the white house, who's main goal of foreign affairs is to 'poke the bear', Stir the shit and basically run the white house like an episode of "the real housewives of Mara Lago".

It's about time someone stood up to the bullies, till they back down, and they will. I'm guessing you approve the appeasement that led to WWII.

Immanuel Can wrote: You're saying that criticizing the "culture of abuse" isn't supposed to be a "moral" assessment, or to "change anything"?

Where is the criticizing?

You're saying it's a "prevailing social reality," but isn't really bad

No, I didn't say that.

and isn't capable of change?

I didn't say that, either. I said strength of moral argument - which you informed me i didn't have, anyway - won't affect a change.
I did say what would: Bankrupt the institution that cultivates and perpetuates abusive practices.

And you're saying it's a "reality," but can't (or choose not to) name a single current example in reality?

armed forces
prisons
private schools
seminaries
military schools
intelligence agencies
banks
mental health facilities
political parties
political administrations
boy scouts
churches
law firms
reform schools
broadcasting corporations
agri-business
construction industry
trade unions
newspapers
security companies
investment brokerages
sex trade
porn industry
sports franchises
movie studios
drug cartels
border patrol
transportation industry

But then you say, "the situation is...likely to deteriorate." But "deteriorate" is a pejorative, moralizing word: it means, "get worse."

I never said it wasn't bad.
It's bad for anyone who happens to be in one of the peon pools rather in the upper ranks. That includes me, so from my perspective it's pretty bad. That's not moralizing; that's a subjective position.

you insist it is not a "moral" problem

Stating something once in response to a direct quote is not insistence. Where did I say it wasn't a moral problem?
But if the dominant "moral" foundations of a society support the germination and growth of abusive institutions, then the moral problem goes a lot deeper than any local culture of some kind of abuse.
If slavery is legal and a staple of the nation's economy, anyone who attacks the institution on moral grounds, or refuses to acknowledge it in his own sphere of influence, will be outcast by his church hierarchy and eventually hanged.
Docking the wages of an occasional overseer for excessive whipping serves only to disguise the culture of abuse inherent in the institution.
Besides, the friends of that overseer will point to the plantation down the road, where their overseer wasn't punished enough for his whippings, and yell: "Injustice!" - not in defense of the victim, but of their favoured perpetrator. This does nothing to change the system.

If the dominant culture defines what's moral, then there is no moral problem; there are only unique, anomalous actions by isolated individuals with no reference to their environment, and their actions are judged by whichever faction of the same mob is in charge at the moment.

but merely a "description" of how things are, of "prevailing social realities"?

Correct.
Take a fish out of a pond. Chastise it severely. Cut off its head. Go away with a warm and cozy feeling that Justice has Been Served.
Has the pond changed? Is it likely to?
There are all kinds of moral problems in the world that I don't propose to solve by printing lots of little emoticons in a box on a screen that hardly anyone reads and nobody gives a damn about.
But I saved these for you

I confess that the mix of moralizing and anti-moralizing language here is incomprehensible to me.

Obviously. Quite a lot seems incomprehensible to you.
Perhaps it's your breadth of scope in interpreting other people's words that makes it so.

Skip wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: You're saying that criticizing the "culture of abuse" isn't supposed to be a "moral" assessment, or to "change anything"?

Where is the criticizing?

You called it "a culture of abuse." Unless you like "abuse," I'm guessing you were criticizing. The fact that you used the word "deteriorate" was another indicator of your disapprobation.

These are moral terms. But you say your condemnation is not "moral"?

You're saying it's a "prevailing social reality," but isn't really bad

No, I didn't say that.

and isn't capable of change?

I didn't say that, either.

Actually, you seemed to say both. You said your comment wasn't a "moral" comment, and that you were just taking about a "situation," not positing a need for change.

But if you misspoke, then feel free to say differently.

And you're saying it's a "reality," but can't (or choose not to) name a single current example in reality?

armed forces
prisons
private schools
seminaries
military schools
intelligence agencies
banks
mental health facilities
political parties
political administrations
boy scouts
churches
law firms
reform schools
broadcasting corporations
agri-business
construction industry
trade unions
newspapers
security companies
investment brokerages
sex trade
porn industry
sports franchises
movie studios
drug cartels
border patrol
transportation industry

There ya go! I knew you could do it!

Now, these seem rather different "cultures." What feature they all have produces "abuse"?

I never said it wasn't bad.
It's bad for anyone who happens to be in one of the peon pools rather in the upper ranks. That includes me, so from my perspective it's pretty bad. That's not moralizing; that's a subjective position.

If it's just a "subjective position," then it's not "abuse." For example, if the only reason against oppression is that it would be bad if you were the oppressed, but good if you were the oppressor, then there is no real argument against oppression. Just "I don't like it, because of where I am; but when I get to be the oppressor, I'll be fine with it."

I doubt you'd accept that conclusion, but that's what it would entail.

If the dominant culture defines what's moral, then there is no moral problem; there are only unique, anomalous actions by isolated individuals with no reference to their environment, and their actions are judged by whichever faction of the same mob is in charge at the moment.

Right: that would follow. And that is the world you're claiming we live in, it would seem. But you're not then in any position to be critical of it, or call it a "culture of abuse." All it is, is the powerful doing what they do, and the weak not liking it, as they do.

If, as Foucault argued, all morality is nothing but different constituencies competing to have power, there are no oppressors, and no oppressed -- just winners and losers -- and there's no morality capable of judging any use of power as being wrong or "abusive."

So there's no "culture of abuse." I don't believe that, and I'll bet you don't either. But it follows logically.

...but merely a "description" of how things are, of "prevailing social realities"?

Correct.
Take a fish out of a pond. Chastise it severely. Cut off its head. Go away with a warm and cozy feeling that Justice has Been Served.
Has the pond changed? Is it likely to?

Yes. It has one less dangerous fish.

But we are not fish. We do not merely respond to instinct. We think, reason, moralize, do philosophy, and practice ethics. The analogy, then, is not just: fish may have no sense of justice, nor any means to assert it: but we do.

But I saved these for you

Please feel free to keep them. I have more.

They merely were added to indicate I was genuinely shocked at the confusions generated by your language. I didn't want you to think I was speaking ironically or unkindly, but in genuine uncertainty. However, if they offend you, I can leave them out.

I'll simply add that your position seems illogical to me...there it is, in words instead.

Immanuel Can wrote: fish may have no sense of justice,

I think you're forgetting about the magistrate fish aka. the arbitrator of the deep, covered with the scales of justice.

Immanuel Can wrote: You called it "a culture of abuse." Unless you like "abuse," I'm guessing you were criticizing.

I'm not mad keen on "Immanuel Can", either, but don't take it as a criticism. I could call you Daisy if that were less pejorative.

The fact that you used the word "deteriorate" was another indicator of your disapprobation.

Subjective perception, as previously stated.

These are moral terms. But you say your condemnation is not "moral"?

No, I say you don't know what 'condemnation' means.

Actually, you seemed to say both....But if you misspoke,

I only know what I say, not what you will read.

Now, these seem rather different "cultures."

No, these are very different institutions, which have features in common

What feature they all have produces "abuse"?

such as the ones I outlined circa pge 3.
They do not all produce abuse; they are eco-systems in which abuse is readily cultivated.

If it's just a "subjective position," then it's not "abuse."

It's not "just" subjective: it is my not-at-all-humble opinion. Which happens to be shared by the abused and those
vast pools of potential victims and their advocates - and it turns out, the current legal code of some countries.

For example, if the only reason against oppression is that it would be bad if you were the oppressed, but good if you were the oppressor, then there is no real argument against oppression.

Finally!! That was one slow penny.
Oppression is never relieved by arguing. Only by removing the oppressor's source of power.

And that is the world you're claiming we live in, it would seem.

That is the world all of us live in.

But you're not then in any position to be critical of it, or call it a "culture of abuse."

Until I'm arrested for saying so, I can name any bloody shovels I see.

All it is, is the powerful doing what they do, and the weak not liking it, as they do.

All? It's enough for me.

If, as Foucault argued, all morality is nothing but different constituencies competing to have power, there are no oppressors, and no oppressed -- just winners and losers -- and there's no morality capable of judging any use of power as being wrong or "abusive."

That's very cute of him. But how are these "constituencies" constituted to balance the relative competing abilities of oppressed and oppressors so that they can change places in the next match?

So there's no "culture of abuse." I don't believe that, and I'll bet you don't either. But it follows logically.

It follows prestidigitally. If you play silly enough buggers with a phrase.

But we are not fish.

Right. We are very pretentious fish who can

think, reason, moralize, do philosophy, and practice ethics.

but can't navigate their way up a river without a GPS.

The analogy, then, is not just: fish may have no sense of justice, nor any means to assert it: but we do.

It was you who pulled out the fish you considered dangerous, and you who administered justice to that naughty individual
and thereby imagined to purify the pond.
If that's not a good ecological analogy,
then just go with the one about constitutional slavery.

They merely were added to indicate I was genuinely shocked at the confusions generated by your language.

Then, it would be unnecessarily cruel to cause any more shocks and confusions.

Skip wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: You called it "a culture of abuse." Unless you like "abuse," I'm guessing you were criticizing.

I'm not mad keen on "Immanuel Can", either, but don't take it as a criticism. I could call you Daisy if that were less pejorative.

Not an answer, of course.

What feature they all have produces "abuse"?

such as the ones I outlined circa pge 3.
They do not all produce abuse; they are eco-systems in which abuse is readily cultivated.

Okay: but a garden is a place in which flowers and poisonous mushrooms are equally capable of being "cultivated." So any badness or "abuse," if you like, is not caused by the garden but by something else. What would that be?

If it's just a "subjective position," then it's not "abuse."

It's not "just" subjective: it is my not-at-all-humble opinion. Which happens to be shared by the abused and those
vast pools of potential victims and their advocates - and it turns out, the current legal code of some countries.

Bandwagon fallacy.

For example, if the only reason against oppression is that it would be bad if you were the oppressed, but good if you were the oppressor, then there is no real argument against oppression.

Finally!! That was one slow penny.

If that's what you want me to conclude, then you don't object to "abuse" or a "culture of abuse." You've logically lost any legitimacy in doing so, since you've announced there's no such thing as "oppression"...or, presumably, as "abuse."

Oppression is never relieved by arguing. Only by removing the oppressor's source of power.

But "oppression" isn't, as per you, bad. There's no reason to "relieve it."

Meanwhile, "power" knows nothing and cares nothing about "oppression." It simply goes to the most powerful, regardless of their moral condition. So "patriarchy" isn't "oppressive," and isn't "bad," and can't legitimately be stopped if it possesses the power.

That's your logical conclusion there. Happy with it?

But you're not then in any position to be critical of it, or call it a "culture of abuse."

Until I'm arrested for saying so, I can name any bloody shovels I see.

Of course I mean "legitimately." You can call a thing anything you want, of course. It's just that unless you're warranted in your assessment and can show reasonable others that they should share it, your complaining about it is useless. Nobody has to believe it.

If, as Foucault argued, all morality is nothing but different constituencies competing to have power, there are no oppressors, and no oppressed -- just winners and losers -- and there's no morality capable of judging any use of power as being wrong or "abusive."

That's very cute of him. [/quote]
He got it from Nietzsche. There's a substantial tradition of moral relativism that backs this "cute" assessment. And Hitler made hay with it.

But how are these "constituencies" constituted to balance the relative competing abilities of oppressed and oppressors so that they can change places in the next match?

Well, Nietzsche said on no basis but power itself. Might makes right: end of story, according to him.

We could accuse him of advocating "abuse" of power; and he did, of course. But then again, there can be no such thing as "abuse" if there's no such thing as "right use." (The "ab-" is just a particle of negation, of course) What today's liberationist Leftists want to do is to claim they are "abused" or "oppressed," but leave out of the question any definite teleological or moral picture of what the right "use" of a human life is.

The problem is that they cannot logically and legitimately claim the former if they've denied the possibility of the latter.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, Nietzsche said on no basis but power itself. Might makes right: end of story, according to him.

I hope you didn't have to think too hard before making such an idiot statement. Why an IDIOT STATEMENT you ask without really wanting to know! Because if it were that simple it would have been the end of story for Nietzsche right then and there!

...but as usual, your customized versions of lubricated logic to self-justify is not unlike that used by Hitler himself to distort Nietzsche into the opposite of what he was or represented. But liars will be liars...end of story.

Don't get me wrong! I'm not comparing you to Hitler...though I do wonder what the damage would be as an inquisitor during the witch hunt trials of the Middle Ages and how many auto-da-fé barbecues you'd be directly responsible for!

...please note the summarizing paragraph of a long essay entitled "Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? On the Uses and Abuses of a Philosophy" published by the Princeton University Press...

No other thinker of his time saw as deeply into the pathologies of fin de si`ecle German and European culture, or grasped so acutely from within, the sickness at the heart of anti-Semitism in the Christian West. It would be more just to see in Nietzsche a tragic prophet of the spiritual vacuum that gave birth to the totalitarian abysses of the twentieth century. As such he remains profoundly relevant to our own time.

...end of story!

Dubious wrote:

No other thinker of his time saw as deeply into the pathologies of fin de si`ecle German and European culture, or grasped so acutely from within, the sickness at the heart of anti-Semitism in the Christian West. It would be more just to see in Nietzsche a tragic prophet of the spiritual vacuum that gave birth to the totalitarian abysses of the twentieth century. As such he remains profoundly relevant to our own time.

...end of story!

You miss the point, though. It's well-known that Nietzsche hated Nazism. The problem is this: that there was nothing in Nietzscheanism that resisted an interpretation like Hitler's. Heidegger was Nietzsche's disciple; and if Nietzsche wasn't fond of Nazis, Heidegger certainly was.

Once you declare that power is the deep fact of all morality, and once you start believing that every faction is vying not for goodness or truth but merely out of "the will to power," as Nietzsche himself put it, what is there that rules out Nazism? Nothing, really. It's just another option, and one that, if it can seize power, becomes as much a manifestation of "the will to power," and hence as "legitimate" as anything else.

To call Nietzsche a "tragic prophet" is a partial truth: but he did more than "prophesy" it. In declaring God dead, he killed morality. He created the "totalitarian abyss" into which Nazism flowed, just as Marx created the "totalitarian abyss" eventually filled by Communism.

Darn right he "remains profoundly relevant to our time": in a very real sense, he created it.

Immanuel Can wrote:It's well-known that Nietzsche hated Nazism.

It's well known that Nietzsche had been dead for twenty odd years before there was any such thing as Nazism.

Immanuel Can wrote:...if it can seize power, becomes as much a manifestation of "the will to power," and hence as "legitimate" as anything else.

The will to power manifests in all sorts of film-flam: people believe things like astrology, psychoanalysis, numerology, tarot and god knows what other forms of witchcraft, give them control. What is so tragic about religion is that adherents are required to relinquish control to some god, who just happens to have representatives on Earth who will take your utter submission by proxy. Nietzsche was not the only person to point out what a load of bollocks religion is, but he came up with a snappy slogan, and one that religious nuts feel obliged to react to.

Immanuel Can wrote:To call Nietzsche a "tragic prophet" is a partial truth: but he did more than "prophesy" it. In declaring God dead, he killed morality.

That's only because you subscribe to some half-arsed divine command theory.

Immanuel Can wrote:He created the "totalitarian abyss" into which Nazism flowed, just as Marx created the "totalitarian abyss" eventually filled by Communism.

Darn right he "remains profoundly relevant to our time": in a very real sense, he created it.

Good grief. You really do believe in mythical gods and monsters, don't you, Mr Can?

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:To call Nietzsche a "tragic prophet" is a partial truth: but he did more than "prophesy" it. In declaring God dead, he killed morality.

That's only because you subscribe to some half-arsed divine command theory.

I do think moral fibre is depleting the more secularised our society becomes. As more people snigger and think its common sense that there is NO God, the less they feel any burden of guilt as they conspire to rape and murder etc... Ultimately, its them i feel sorry for from what i have been witness to regarding God.

Ya, fiber is important.

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:To call Nietzsche a "tragic prophet" is a partial truth: but he did more than "prophesy" it. In declaring God dead, he killed morality.

That's only because you subscribe to some half-arsed divine command theory.

I do think moral fibre is depleting the more secularised our society becomes. As more people snigger and think its common sense that there is NO God, the less they feel any burden of guilt as they conspire to rape and murder etc... Ultimately, its them i feel sorry for from what i have been witness to regarding God.

Of course. Because 'secular' people are doing ALL the rapes and murders.

Immanuel Can wrote:You miss the point, though. It's well-known that Nietzsche hated Nazism.

You mean he hated the ingredients - already apparent in his lifetime - which eventually coalesced into Nazism.

Immanuel Can wrote:The problem is this: that there was nothing in Nietzscheanism that resisted an interpretation like Hitler's.

Do you read anything else except the bible? There’s a mountain of literature you can google affirming the absolute opposite which only proves you know nothing of Nietzsche. He could only be made palatable to the Nazis by heavily revised editions of his works compliments of his sister whom he despised for her anti-semitism and rabid nationalism.

Immanuel Can wrote:Heidegger was Nietzsche's disciple; and if Nietzsche wasn't fond of Nazis, Heidegger certainly was.

...and, so! What’s your point? What’s Nietzsche got to do with what Heidegger or any other philosopher, for or against, thought of him? Because Heidegger, on his terms, colluded with Nietzsche, does that make N guilty by association?

Immanuel Can wrote:Once you declare that power is the deep fact of all morality...

There never was a morality which didn’t have some kind of power paradigm at its core!

Immanuel Can wrote:...and once you start believing that every faction is vying not for goodness or truth but merely out of "the will to power," as Nietzsche himself put it...

...as usually demanded by you, show me exactly where he said that, and most importantly in what context? One can state generically and in total honesty that everything alive manifests a “will to power” because living means striving which requires “power” whether implemented in will or instinct. In humans especially it’s a prerequisite to any condition of happiness we're capable of. You, for instance, wouldn’t believe in god as much as you do if it didn’t “empower” you in some way.

A more Nietzschean explanation of Will to Power is the overcoming of resistance in oneself; an urge to self-mastery as a measure of fulfillment and earned happiness.

But he killed your god along with god’s mandated morality so you despise him. As should be known by now, Nietzsche was referring to the erosion of the Christian god in Western consciousness and its ramifications. He was agnostic on the question of an actual god existing. It meant nothing to him; with no resolution possible the question itself devolves to silence.

Immanuel Can wrote:To call Nietzsche a "tragic prophet" is a partial truth: but he did more than "prophesy" it. In declaring God dead, he killed morality.

Morality must already have been hugely vulnerable if a simple statement like that could kill it. He didn’t kill morality; instead he made it subject to analysis, holding up the mirror as it were to gain new perspectives...a subject in itself, but let’s not get into that again!

Immanuel Can wrote:He created the "totalitarian abyss" into which Nazism flowed, just as Marx created the "totalitarian abyss" eventually filled by Communism.

To claim that Nietzsche created the "totalitarian abyss" of Nazism is at least as much of an oxymoron as claiming that Marx is responsible for the Bolshevik interpretation of his ideas! In both cases, their philosophies were implemented as a total distortion of its original meaning and intent. Who after all this time doesn’t already know this!!

Immanuel Can wrote:Darn right he "remains profoundly relevant to our time": in a very real sense, he created it.

The very opposite is true! He "remains profoundly relevant to our time" not for having created it but for having the precognition of knowing what was on the horizon and warning against it! He didn’t create the will to power and it’s deleterious consequences in nation states; neither did he create anti-semitism which he considered a disease and also warned against. He is considered a “prophet” of what was to come not its creator.

Your understanding of Nietzsche truly belongs in the first half of the twentieth century. It’s long been revised!

henry quirk wrote:Bill O's downfall has way more to do with his popularity and the popularity of FOX than with his supposed harassing behavior.

If FOX were small potatoes, if Bill O just a blip (or if he were a big commie on MSNBC) not a soul would give two shits if he hit on the ladies.

Who is Bill O'Reilly?

attofishpi wrote:I do think moral fibre is depleting the more secularised our society becomes. As more people snigger and think its common sense that there is NO God, the less they feel any burden of guilt as they conspire to rape and murder etc... Ultimately, its them i feel sorry for from what i have been witness to regarding God.

I don't think people are sniggering at the fact that there is no God, I think they are angry at what others do in the name of a God who seems only present in heartfelt interpretations of others, who describe themselves as witnesses. What has God done to prevent death or disaster, that wipes out, not just the guilty, but those innocent of sin?

'Moral fibre' decreases as a result of values changing within society, whether it is religious or not. You think the Inquisition was highly moral? Or a despicable manifestation of what men do in the name of a God, only they are witness to? There is morality in secularity. It's just all up for grabs depending who's in power, and making the rules, at any given time, which ever side of the 'witness' fence you sit on.

I was in Pakistan for a short time in the Eighties. It was a time when Zia-ul-Haq had assumed power and imposed martial law after the more decadent Bhutto years. A huge casino being built in Karachi was stopped before completion and there was talk about turning it into a mosque. Religion was being reinvoked. I met a young man who told me that brothels existed for the rich and the poor but not the middle classes. The rich could have what they want, he told me, the poor cannot afford TV sets, so they have explicitly more affordable brothels for entertainment. It's economic. The middle classes suffered at the hands of morality and the trappings of their modest economic success. If they approached a poor mans brothel, he told me, the brothel keeper would deny that it is a brothel. They were locked out of the system.

The fact that there is a moral laxity in the current time is reflective of a world post Gordon Gekko's 'Greed is Good' message. You can have what you want, just grab it. You can do what you want, if you don't get caught. You can do what you want if you have enough money to buy your way into legitimising it or buying your way out.

This has always been the case but prior to the Sixties it felt like it was more silent, behind closed doors. The economic climate of Eighties brought it right out into the open, suggested 'anything goes' more than it ever did in the roaring Twenties. Post several economic recessions, whilst the finances may not be there to support the economic vices of the Eighties, it still feels like morality has yet to heal. We are openly witness to corporate and political corruption and left feeling 'why on earth should we be good, if those in power can't?', which opens up the question, 'Why be moral if it doesn't benefit you as an individual and you can get away with not being moral?''

Conscience. Secular or religious, there's conscience. That's all we have... and conscience develops with upbringing.