Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 4:53 am Perhaps you should 'identify' as young then. That will make you young again. Guaranteed

K: I am far too old to play games.... I couldn't pass for being young
if I tried and B. my body, my body is way too gone to pretend I am
young... some days, walking is tough for me... but that is the gig
of growing old... and you will find that out soon enough.....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:06 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 4:53 am Perhaps you should 'identify' as young then. That will make you young again. Guaranteed

K: I am far too old to play games.... I couldn't pass for being young
if I tried and B. my body, my body is way too gone to pretend I am
young... some days, walking is tough for me... but that is the gig
of growing old... and you will find that out soon enough.....

Kropotkin

Sure you could. A penis doesn't get in the way of men being women, so what's a few wrinkles and lost brain cells?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 2:51 pm what is to stop him from being dictator for life?

Kropotkin

He's running on his record of a successful presidency. He was not a dictator then, there is no reason to think he will be in the future, other than fantasy propaganda by the Left that folks who come to see what they want to see, swallow whole.

Trump is a deal maker. He even wrote about making deals, because he is an expert. Dictators are not deal makers.

Biden, on the other hand, is the worst president in the history of the country.

Biden can't run on his record because it sucks. All he can do is trash Trump, with lies.

For instance, Biden's platform is that Trump will be a dictator, and that he thinks Nazis are good people. Both are lies, and he's an idiot for thinking that folks will believe them. Well ... maybe he's an idiot for other reasons since folks apparently do believe in Biden's lies.

Obviously, Biden is too horribly demented to be the president, and the Republican Part is lax for not sending him out to pasture.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 2:38 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 8:14 pm
That seems obviously wrong. When a baby is born, the doctor doesn't say, "Let's make this one female," and the parents, if theyy have a "sex-reveal" party, don't say, "Well, it was born with a penis, but we're declaring it female." It is whatever it is.

And the same is true of Jenner. Why do you think he so fervently insists he has to "become" a woman? One never has to "become" what one already is. "Becoming a woman" is moving from the reality of being a man, in an attempt to declare that one was "really" a woman all along.

Nothing's "constructed" there, except the ideology of transing.

Okay, you don't agree with me, but you could at least thank me for letting you use me as an excuse to vent your feelings about this Jenner dude.

Actually, the only "feeling" I have about him is mild pity. He seems a singularly miserable, confused and lost person. But I wish him well.

I don't have any feelings about him at all, which probably accounts for my lack of interest in him.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:

IC wrote:That is, indeed, a big problem for your theory. To be a Subjectivist means that you simply cannot believe that anything in reality corresponds to morality. It has to be entirely imaginary.

It's not a problem.

It is, because by your own account, nobody even has to agree with you. So that's a problem.

Nobody has to agree with anybody's moral view. If that's a problem, then you also have a problem.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:

IC wrote:Some things are like that. There's no "shading" between something existing and the same thing not existing. Either biological sex exists as a real thing, or it does not really exist at all. One cannot simultaneously sing the song both ways.

But the issue involves much more than biological sex...

What "issue"? What one is, sexually, is entirely determined by biology. Your own physiology will tell you that much.

Men and women aren't just physically different. They are psychologically different, and it seems that sometimes people are born with a mismatch between the two. I can't imagine how awful it must be to have the physical form of one sex and the internal feelings of the other.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I've already said that biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sport.

Why not? If sex is "constructed," then as soon as some man wants to "reconstruct" himself as a woman, what's your rationale for stopping him, if biology doesn't count?

I only have a rationale for stopping him on the basis that biology does count, so I can't answer your question.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I don't know what you mean. He might be a genuine woman as far as he is concerned, but that's his perceived reality, not mine.

That's not how the Wokies see things. They think it's your moral duty to "affirm" his new sex.

Why should I be interested in how the "Wokies" see things? I see no moral duty to affirm his sex, as you put it, but I think there is a moral case for not adding to his problems by imposing unnecessary constraints on him.

And if you don't, you're "oppressing" and "deadnaming" him.

I would be oppressing him if I tried to prevent him from living the life he wants to live within the limits of social practicality. Why can't we just try to accommodate him without giving into any unreasonable demands he might have?

Yes, it's lunatic: but that's the logical consequence of what they claim is true, namely that sex is merely a "construct."

Religious "truth" is merely a construct, but I daresay you expect to be allowed to live your life on the basis of its being reality.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:06 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 4:53 am Perhaps you should 'identify' as young then. That will make you young again. Guaranteed

K: I am far too old to play games.... I couldn't pass for being young
if I tried and B. my body, my body is way too gone to pretend I am
young... some days, walking is tough for me... but that is the gig
of growing old... and you will find that out soon enough.....

Kropotkin

Forgetfulness
BY BILLY COLLINS

The name of the author is the first to go
followed obediently by the title, the plot,
the heartbreaking conclusion, the entire novel
which suddenly becomes one you have never read, never even heard of,

as if, one by one, the memories you used to harbor
decided to retire to the southern hemisphere of the brain,
to a little fishing village where there are no phones.

Long ago you kissed the names of the nine muses goodbye
and watched the quadratic equation pack its bag,
and even now as you memorize the order of the planets,

something else is slipping away, a state flower perhaps,
the address of an uncle, the capital of Paraguay.

Whatever it is you are struggling to remember,
it is not poised on the tip of your tongue
or even lurking in some obscure corner of your spleen.

It has floated away down a dark mythological river
whose name begins with an L as far as you can recall

well on your own way to oblivion where you will join those
who have even forgotten how to swim and how to ride a bicycle.

No wonder you rise in the middle of the night
to look up the date of a famous battle in a book on war.
No wonder the moon in the window seems to have drifted
out of a love poem that you used to know by heart.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 3:59 am

No amount of cosmetc butchery can change what is genomic.

Insanity, in context, is denying what is in favor of what is not and can never be.

America has racists, yes, but America is not inherently, systemically, institutionally, racist.

Individuals transacting freely with individuals is moral, freeing, and natural.

A syndicate, extorting a protection fee, is not civilizing.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 3:48 am"Then the gods of the market tumbled, and their smooth tongued wizards withdrew...."

I think you might misunderstand what Kipling means with the Gods of the Market Place.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 2:29 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 8:48 pm

What's your basis for thinking he's wrong? Those wars didn't exist when he was president, and maybe he could stop them, for all we know. Isn't that something you want? Biden won't stop them...and clearly can't.

He can stop lots of wars as president. For example, by not supporting the NATO allies when they are attacked - forcing them to surrender.

Do you think that's actually what he'd do? What are you basing that on?

Trump is an isolationist and he is buddy-buddy with Putin and other tyrants.

And of course there are his statements :

Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would "encourage" Russia to attack any NATO member country that didn’t meet its financial obligations to the defense alliance, in remarks that the White House repudiated as "appalling and unhinged."

There have been growing worries in Europe over the reliability of the decades-old U.S. commitment to European security — highlighted by the partisan gridlock in Washington over a crucial aid package to U.S. ally Ukraine — but Trump's words are forcing Europeans to seriously consider an end to the transatlantic alliance.

"These are the words of a serious candidate for president so they should be treated seriously," Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Paweł Zalewski told POLITICO. "If we do that, then it means a change to the logic of the U.S. presence in NATO. It is very worrying. He correctly calls on member countries to spend more on defense, but he also calls on Russia to attack. This is completely incomprehensible."

Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina, Trump said that while president he told NATO leaders that he would “encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to alliance members that are "delinquent" in meeting the group’s spending targets.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?'” Trump recalled during the rally. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent.’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

The remarks seem to suggest that Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, might not abide by NATO’s collective-defense clause for members that haven't paid enough.

Trump's comments were roundly criticized by officials across Europe.

"Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said. "I expect the U.S. to remain a strong and devoted ally of NATO, whoever wins the presidential election."

European Council President Charles Michel called Trump's remarks "reckless" and said they "serve only Putin’s interest." Germany's foreign ministry said: "‘One for all and all for one’ — This NATO creed keeps more than 950 million people safe."

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-s ... ay-enough/

Au contraire, he created the famed Abraham Accords, which came close to providing the first basis of peace in living memory. Did you not know that?

The Abraham Accords didn't do anything for Palestinians.

Where's the evidence for that?

Does anyone here read the articles and links I post?

Did you not know that "Christ" is literally the Greek translation of "Messiah"? Both simply mean "Anointed One." So yeah, he did; for he spoke in Aramaic, and it was recorded in Greek. So the exact word Christ used would have been "Messiah."

Jesus never used the words "messiah" or "christ". Check your bible.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 4:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 3:59 am...and it does him the favour of returning his attention to reality, instead of to fancies he's deceiving himself with. So you're not only not denying him anything he can ever actually have, but you're therapeutic for him if you contribut to the defeating of his delusions.

This is true, yes, but, honestly, I don't care. I don't care if the faux-woman ever wises up. He can wallow in his crazy. My concern is denying him my approval of, my participation in, my submission to, his whackadoodlism.

Kropotkin’s question: What is to stop Trump from being dictator for life?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 8:02 am He's running on his record of a successful presidency. He was not a dictator then, …

There’s Walker’s inability to understand a simple question on full display again. Do you think he’s really that stupid, or is he actually just that dishonest?

lol You be the judge!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 11:41 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 3:48 am"Then the gods of the market tumbled, and their smooth tongued wizards withdrew...."

I think you might misunderstand what Kipling means with the Gods of the Market Place.

The God's of the Marketplace clearly are contrasted with those of the copybook headings. So they suggest a modern belief system rather than a traditional one. Nonetheless, the market" also means "the capitalist economic systen", which was (and is) often at odds with the copybook headings. Remember: rampant Capitalism was relatively new in Kipling's time, so the two meanings are compatible.

"Taxation is theft" is clearly a maxim from the gods of the market whichever meaning we prefer. It is a modern meme and one that seems to deem property a natural, inalienable right. This is silly. Without property law, regulated and enforced with tax dollars, there would be no property. When Jesus says to the sheep. "When I was hungry, you fed me", (Matthew 25) that could be a "copybook heading" with which taxation is theft is in disagreement. So could the "if you don't work you die* from the poem.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 11:01 pmIf one "roots around" on the internet, one can find support for all sorts of preposterous and unlikely conspiracy theories. Are these sources more reliable than the mainstream media? Nope. Unless one simply wants to confirm preconceived notions.

Let's see. Perhaps the "total silence" surrounding the probable role of Mossad in Kennedy's assassination results from nobody thinking it happened (except Unz and Jacobi). I'm amazed there's near-total silence about the moon being made of green cheese, these days, too. It must be a conspiracy!

This morning I was thinking over what we have recently been discussing and had a few thoughts.

First, it should be interesting to all to notice how our views of contemporary politics and social-ideological conflicts seem always to take shape through polarized positions. These positions mirror the differences that play out in contemporary society. The conversation becomes interesting when the bases of political and ideological positions are examined *philosophically* but boring when conversation falls apart and into the typical *bickering* positions.

The recent event -- and what an event it was! -- of the terrible failure of President Biden before a national and world audience seems to me an event of tremendous consequence. My view is that IC has done a very good job at expounding how the MSM has supported and propagated a set of untruths and lies which, and this is my impression, now seem to be on the verge of collapse. Let me give my impression of how this has come about. My impression about *what is happening* at large in our culture now is that a turning has begun.

To put it in simple terms I say that many people feel and believe that *things have gone too far*. I could reference, say, James Lindsay's activist discourse on the topic as a base-point for a sociological and ideological analysis of where things and how things have *gone off the rails*, but doing that -- who among the opposition (here) would be convinced? My reference points -- any reference to what is normal -- would be challenged by those with more radical social and ideological positions. Take for example Kropotkin who, though logorrheaic, certainly does attempt to define and defend (what I understand to be) the general social trend of the Left-Progressive faction in America. I mention him because I seek a figure who could be said to be representative of this social and ideological trend which I believe cannot be seen except as a form of radicalism.

But with that said I wanted to make some comments about another trend that is taking shape. It is perhaps hard to define it exactly so one must approach it in stages. First, I think we have to clarify that we indeed live in a Liberal culture. If anything defines America it is that. But when I say that people believe that *things have gone too far* I would need to modify the word Liberal into *Hyper-Liberal* or *Over-Liberal*. I have quoted Tomislav Sunic's view that "Communism rotted the body but Liberalism rots the soul".

"Liberalism rots the soul"-- What does this mean? What can it mean?

But if I declare that American Liberalism is *rotted* won't it happen that all the defenders, including you Alexiev, will rally to assert that I must certainly be some sort of Nazi lunatic interested in destroying all our fine traditions of liberty? Isn't that how the argument always goes?

I have to make it plain -- really in fairness to anyone reading what I write -- that I have consciously and intentionally studied the ideological positions of people on the far side of Conservatism. I would have to say radical and even revolutionary Conservatism. But I must also make it plain that I have also investigated the very opposite of these positions, and as a reference-point I would refer to Noam Chomsky. But for the revolutionary Conservatives consider René Guénon, Julius Evola, and others within this category.

What interested me about your comment: "If one "roots around" on the internet, one can find support for all sorts of preposterous and unlikely conspiracy theories" is that, while it is true in one real sense, I was not proposing access to bizarre, ungrounded, largely lunatic, wild and overheated interpretive positions. I was referring to thoughtful intellectuals or historians who have undertaken a project of review of the established narratives that inform our thinking. This does bring me to my main point: and that is that we are in a time of tremendous revision of the standard historical and interpretive models that have and that do inform our perspectives.

So if I say: The MSM is the engine, or the main purveyor of positions of this established sort, but that really I have to make reference to the Academy and the formulation of perspectives, and as well to another interesting idea: America's civil religion -- by doing so I separate myself from it to a degree that makes it possible to examine *it* from a philosophical distance. Is that legitimate or is it rather comparable to thoughtcrime?

Here I want to reference what you wrote on another thread:

"Liberal" has become a dirty word in the U.S. In Canada and the U.K, it has become associated with a political party (often an unsuccessful one). But in the U.S, the right wingers castigate "libtards" and the progressives think liberals are weak, mamby pambies with no convictions.

I disagree. "Progressive" has always smacked of a doctrinaire, authoritative view of "progress". We must all see "progress" in the same way, and toe the line when it comes to the methods of achieving it. The word (if not the movement) makes me envision jack boots, progressing in unison toward the glowing goal.

"Liberal", on the other hand, implies an open-minded generosity (based on the meaning of the word). Why liberals have been bullied into avoiding the term escapes me.

I think I have some insight into why the word is contaminated. I will try to explain. In my own view it is that we have progressed from Liberalism grounded on a sane foundation to what I refer to as Hyper-Liberalism. It is a perversion of the realistic and grounded idea of Liberalism. And people, standing before outrageous and offensive excesses, root around for alternative bases for an ideological position upon which to construct a modus for the living of their lives. The word *root* is the operative one. Because you have to define a platform that is rooted and grounded in a sound ideological position.

I think that many who are Progressive Radicals or simple Progressive Liberals do not understand what is going on and what has gone on intellectually and ideologically among theorists of a radical Conservative sort. I do not mean so-called Cuckservatives, I mean theorists of actual radical Conservatism.

So my point is really this: What seems to be happening is that there is a movement that questions a great deal, and perhaps even everything, pertinent to the *present dispensation*. It seems to me that if this is clarified it will help everyone to better understand *what is going on today*.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 2:46 pm

The copybook gods are eternal truths; the marketplace gods are fictions we sell ourselves or allow to be sold to us, like a man can be a woman.

The piece is not about capitalism.

You have a natural right to, a moral claim on, your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property: this is eternal truth.

"Without property law, regulated and enforced with tax dollars, there would be no property": this is fiction.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 3:31 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 2:46 pm

The copybook gods are eternal truths; the marketplace gods are fictions we sell ourselves or allow to be sold to us, like a man can be a woman.

The piece is not about capitalism.

You have a natural right to, a moral claim on, your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property: this is eternal truth.

"Without property law, regulated and enforced with tax dollars, there would be no property": this is fiction.

The "eternal truths" in the copybooks did nor include the new, capitalist adages like, "Taxation is theft". The "moral claim" to property is far from "eternal". Instead, it changes like the marketplace truths to which Kipling refers. Land, for example, was traditionally doled out by the king, who had a "divine righr" to it.

Nobody has a legal right to property unless he pays taxes. This is obvious and indisputable.