Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:48 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:15 pm The trouble with power hierarchies ruling modern social democracies is although theoretically the electorate can change them at regular intervals, the intervals are not short enough.

I think that analysis is wrong. I think Jordan Peterson's is right, instead.

Today, at least in the West, social hierarchy is not an expression of power, but of competence. The competent rise to the top, regardless of their "race" or "gender" or even their moral proclivities.

Now, political hierarchy, that's more an expression of power...and propaganda. But hierarchies within society, say, business, trade, medicine or education, are driven by competence not by power. The smart and able, not the merely powerful, tend to rise to the top.

Individualism was a response to technological advances and subsequent splintering of traditional communities and their values. It was neither good not bad, but depended on circumstances. However it seems to be here to stay so we should build on its good points.

Individualism (which, as you note, has good and bad aspects) is also a luxury.

It's an expression of the fact that so many social and personal problems have been solved, and we all have so much financial well-being and so many options that we can afford to be individualistic, and don't have to huddle in desperate tribes in order to survive at all...which is what has happened in most of human history, and certainly was the case prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Within limits it is true that western democracies are meritocratic.

Limits to Meritocracy in Western Democracies


Sexism
Racism
Ageism
Inherited wealth
Corruption among the very rich
Private ownership of communications media
Unbridled capitalism

The Effects of the Industrial Revolution
Industrial revolution in England followed on from agricultural revolution and they have this in common; that in each case untiring machines dictated work load and there was less paid work.

Urbanisation which for a long duration was unlegislated as to building standards, engineering infrastructure, health and safety in work places, and public health. Also the fracturing of real family relationships in rural villages with ensuing sadness and deprivation of the fit young. This pattern is like what is happening with urbanisation in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also similarities such as early workers' friendly societies which were prototype trade unions.
-----------------------------------

It's true that rural life and work was never idyllic, but for a while the feudal system did work after its fashion. (I used to live in an English village where there are still remnants of feudalism and mostly quite happy).Also the traditional capitalist industry (notably sheep) , hospitality, and charitable activities of the RC Church did well to help learning, prosperity, the disabled, and travellers on long journeys.

I concede to your right wing point of view that the building of urban churches gave a centre for social life and distribution of charity. Also true that industrial revolution eventually helped workers to get previously undreamt -of luxuries such as textiles with patterns on them.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:28 am I do not recall dragging in personalities EVER. But, if ANY one thinks that I have, then please feel free to point out and show where.

Never said you did. My post was to Henry, not you, and you are the personality he addressed.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:03 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:51 pm

Is it possible to you that God could exist?

If no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

But if no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

Your Honest answer and clarification here will be much appreciated.

God is equivalent to Gandalf except Gandalf's character is far more consistent, since it is authored by one being.
Gandalf is literally and figuratively more authentic.

So, if God, to you, is a fictional character, then OBVIOUSLY it could NOT exist, as a REAL thing. Therefore, your Honest answer would have been a 'No'.

Now, WHY do you even have discussions with "others" about fictional characters in regards to them existingbor not?

This, well to me anyway, appears to on the very edge of complete absurdity AND insanity.

Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am ...Besides all of this you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT from answering my CLARIFYING QUESTION specifically AND FULLY.

I answered it. You didn't understand the answer.

I can't help you. It's like trying to reason with Greta Thunberg, it seems.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:36 pm I concede to your right wing point of view that the building of urban churches gave a centre for social life and distribution of charity.

I'm just curious as to why you want to put words in my mouth...words I never wrote...and then indict them as "right wing". It seems to me if I were saying anything like that, you wouldn't need to make it up.

And I'm curious that you feel the need to. Apparently, you can't find enough to object to in what I DO say, so have to misrepresent to make me seem, as you say, "right wing."

Not honest.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:31 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:36 pm I concede to your right wing point of view that the building of urban churches gave a centre for social life and distribution of charity.

I'm just curious as to why you want to put words in my mouth...words I never wrote...and then indict them as "right wing". It seems to me if I were saying anything like that, you wouldn't need to make it up.

And I'm curious that you feel the need to. Apparently, you can't find enough to object to in what I DO say, so have to misrepresent to make me seem, as you say, "right wing."

Not honest.

I said "your right wing point of view". Do you deny you are right wing? What is the normal usage of "right wing"?

You don't need to be fearful of dishonesty from me, as I respect your scriptural knowledge, and your hands-on experience among poor people in Africa.You can hardly expect more support than that!

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 pm Do you deny you are right wing? What is the normal usage of "right wing"?

I think people on the Left tend to use it for "something we don't agree with."

It's pretty much the same way they use words like "Trumpist" or "Nazi." They don't bother to think about whether or not it applies, because all they want is a pejorative to justify condeming the speaker and not having to listen to whatever he said.

But it's not the "right wing" tag I'm pointing out -- because that sort of tawdry ruse isn't worth addressing at all -- anybody with an ounce of sense sees what it really is, and dismisses it immediately. And those without sense...well, nothing can be done for them.

I'm just curious that you actually add whole sentences that I never said, and then say that I said them. That seems awfully deliberate.

You don't need to be fearful...

Fear was nowehere near me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:21 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am ...Besides all of this you are just 'trying to' DEFLECT from answering my CLARIFYING QUESTION specifically AND FULLY.

I answered it. You didn't understand the answer.

I can't help you. It's like trying to reason with Greta Thunberg, it seems.

By Henry Quirk:

“
owl- He can choose to be where he likes but if He is all there is, He is where He is.

Henry: if He is all there is. And if He's not?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Then what in your estimation is the balance of what is: a vacuum, another God, a demon, etc. and where did that come from?

You have to explain what you mean by: “And if He’s not.” Fill in the blanks.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:04 pm By Henry Quirk:

“
owl- He can choose to be where he likes but if He is all there is, He is where He is.

Henry: if He is all there is. And if He's not?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Then what in your estimation is the balance of what is: a vacuum, another God, a demon, etc. and where did that come from?

You have to explain what you mean by: “And if He’s not.” Fill in the blanks.

You keep insistin' God only had His own substance to work with, and, becuz of this, He's inextricably caught up in, or is mixed in with, or is part of, or is Reality.

Me: I keep sayin', God, bein' God, willed Reality into being without self-cannibalizin'. Borrowin' from the Book: Let there be light not Let me light up one of my divine farts.

I just ain't seein' why God, bein' God, is limited, as we are, to only what He can scrounge up.

But, even if He were limited in such a way, I'm not seein' why -- like DeSade in the movie -- He couldn't use His own substance to make sumthin' new and apart from Himself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 pm What is the normal usage of "right wing"?

I think people on the Left tend to use it for "something we don't agree with."

But it's not the "right wing" tag I'm pointing out -- because that sort of tawdry ruse isn't worth addressing at all -- anybody with an ounce of sense sees what it really is, and dismisses it immediately. And those without sense...well, nothing can be done for them.

Does the same apply to people 'on the Right' who refer to "left wing" and "leftists"?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:18 pm Does the same apply to people 'on the Right' who refer to "left wing" and "leftists"?

The Left does exist. It's the Marxist-Socialist ideological wing.

The "right wing"? Where is it, today? Today, it's really just a convenient label for the Leftists to use for "centrist" or "classical liberal," or even for "a weak leftist, one insufficiently committed to our dogma."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:32 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:18 pm Does the same apply to people 'on the Right' who refer to "left wing" and "leftists"?

The Left does exist. It's the Marxist-Socialist ideological wing.

The "right wing"? Where is it, today? Today, it's really just a convenient label for the Leftists to use for "centrist" or "classical liberal," or even for "a weak leftist, one insufficiently committed to our dogma."

So you claim and must believe because your enemies must be as real as your god. They are essential for your story, as is your own righteousness. And that's what you're all about: your story. It's interesting observing the adamant desperation with which you paint it. Truth wouldn't need to skew things in such a way, would it?

By Henry Quirk:

“ just ain't seein' why God, bein' God, is limited, as we are, to only what He can scrounge up.

But, even if He were limited in such a way, I'm not seein' why -- like DeSade in the movie -- He couldn't use His own substance to make sumthin' new and apart from Himself.”

……………………………………………..

We have reached an impasse. My view is that of course he could create an expression of Himself that would be new but not other.

We have reached an impasse.

Pistols, at dawn?