Philosophy Now Forum

it has been clear since Socrates, that the real movement
in our understanding has been done by those who go
against the flow of their time and their society...
the one who have made progress have done so in
opposition to the values and beliefs of their time/society....
recall that Socrates was executed as was Jesus,
and MLK and Gandhi were assassinated, and Descartes
and Spinoza feared being tried and convicted by the church/state
in their times...Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for years
and Einstein was chased out of Germany....

the record for those who stand oppose to their times is a
reminding of the price they paid for their opposition to
the values, beliefs, ism's and ideologies of their times....

and today, today, we can see how the human question has
been advanced by those who stand in opposition to the values
and beliefs of their times.... ok, so, that leads us to this question,
if we want to be true innovators of our times, in philosophy,
history, economics, justice... we have to stand in opposition to
to the values and beliefs of our times.. so what are we today
going to stand in opposition to? what values and beliefs do
we stand in opposition to, to bring about new values and beliefs?

Just as the American founding fathers stood in opposition to
the historical precedent that had existed since the beginning of time,
what values and beliefs are we going to stand in opposition to?

what values and beliefs are the currency of our times,
and what values and beliefs would we hold in opposition to those
values and beliefs?

Kropotkin

so we cannot know what we are fighting for if we don't
know what we are fighting against....

many believe they are fighting against "government overreach"...
while ignoring the real battle, that of the economic in which
the real danger to our lives and beliefs lie in the corporate
takeover of our lives...every aspect of our lives is dominated
by economic interests, not governmental aspects...
and even the government itself has been bought by our
corporate overlords...behold how the various state governments
have been bought by the Kock brothers...including Kansas, Wisconsin,
and North Dakota...

or said another way, attacking government as being the enemy,
is old school and behind the times...the past, where the conservatives
love to live in... so, to stand in opposition to our times requires us to
stand in opposition to the economic side of our existence, not our
political side of our existence....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:30 pm many believe they are fighting against "government overreach"...
while ignoring the real battle, that of the economic in which
the real danger to our lives and beliefs lie in the corporate
takeover of our lives...every aspect of our lives is dominated
by economic interests, not governmental aspects...
and even the government itself has been bought by our
corporate overlords...

If government has been bought by our corporate overlords then being concerned about the government makes perfect sense. The old left managed to be concerned about both government and corporate misuse of power and saw the way they worked together in many ways.

But now everyone is so set on not being on the evil team, the other team, they have to present every fucking issue as binary with one right answer.

Instead of trying to find common ground around the abuse of power, no now the right approach for PK is to say that if you think government is the problem then you are bad and if you think corporations are bad then you are good. Which utterly thrills those in power who are much more concerned about people on the right and left who realize both are dangerous, collaborating and merged.

This question can be answered easily by those with a keen sense observation. Alas, I'm not among them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:50 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:30 pm many believe they are fighting against "government overreach"...
while ignoring the real battle, that of the economic in which
the real danger to our lives and beliefs lie in the corporate
takeover of our lives...every aspect of our lives is dominated
by economic interests, not governmental aspects...
and even the government itself has been bought by our
corporate overlords...

If government has been bought by our corporate overlords then being concerned about the government makes perfect sense. The old left managed to be concerned about both government and corporate misuse of power and saw the way they worked together in many ways.

But now everyone is so set on not being on the evil team, the other team, they have to present every fucking issue as binary with one right answer.

Instead of trying to find common ground around the abuse of power, no now the right approach for PK is to say that if you think government is the problem then you are bad and if you think corporations are bad then you are good. Which utterly thrills those in power who are much more concerned about people on the right and left who realize both are dangerous, collaborating and merged.

K: and completely not answering the question of the op, which is, in
this time, state, civilization, culture and society has values, beliefs,
prejudices and superstitions.. which ones do you oppose?
my government answer was an attempt to get one to think
about such things...

so, given progress is made by those who exists in opposition to
the established order, which values or beliefs do you oppose?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:27 am K: and completely not answering the question of the op,

Really? You couldn't tell one of the things I stand against from what I wrote there? Read it again or see below.

which is, in
this time, state, civilization, culture and society has values, beliefs,
prejudices and superstitions.. which ones do you oppose?
my government answer was an attempt to get one to think
about such things...

And mine was: oversimplistic binary schemas that foster the splits between people and aid those in power stay in power and abuse.

so, given progress is made by those who exists in opposition to
the established order, which values or beliefs do you oppose?

1) The belief that current media generally report things as they are.
2) The belief that aiming hatred at people who generally lack power will help move things in the right direction? (iow yes corporations and banks (let's not forget banks and wall st). in general are very problematic, but two things: government is not separate from these organizations and instead of repeatedly in most of your threads aiming hatred at concervatives, finding common ground against power and not playing into the way the media ((read: monied interests)) love it when we think in binary terms about each other). And if you can't read between the lines: most conservatives along with most liberals play this corporate/wall st. friendly game, because their analysis is media driven.
3) The belief that we are surface. There has been a long trend of media pedagogy that we are a surface. That what is inside us is not what we are but that our looks, activities, self-brand are who we are. Of course shallowness has been in play my whole life. But given the nature of current media like facebook, instagram, etc. and their use of the best cognitive scientists to create addictive formats, people see themselves as surfaces to be marketed. And so we have the proliferation of the selfie, plastic surgery has been normalized, people focus on the presentation of themselves and their lives via photos and so on.
4) The belief that the US is a democracy.
5) The belief that science is politically neutral and uses scientific methodology these days. And that what scientists find is accurately accounted for in media.If this is read as me criticizing the scientific method, the reader needs to relook at their own assumptions and needs.
6) That government oversight is the slightest bit independent from the industries it is supposed to monitor.
7) That emotions and the emotional are the problem.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:57 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:27 am K: and completely not answering the question of the op,

Really? You couldn't tell one of the things I stand against from what I wrote there? Read it again or see below.

which is, in
this time, state, civilization, culture and society has values, beliefs,
prejudices and superstitions.. which ones do you oppose?
my government answer was an attempt to get one to think
about such things...

And mine was: oversimplistic binary schemas that foster the splits between people and aid those in power stay in power and abuse.

so, given progress is made by those who exists in opposition to
the established order, which values or beliefs do you oppose?

1) The belief that current media generally report things as they are.
2) The belief that aiming hatred at people who generally lack power will help move things in the right direction? (iow yes corporations and banks (let's not forget banks and wall st). in general are very problematic, but two things: government is not separate from these organizations and instead of repeatedly in most of your threads aiming hatred at concervatives, finding common ground against power and not playing into the way the media ((read: monied interests)) love it when we think in binary terms about each other). And if you can't read between the lines: most conservatives along with most liberals play this corporate/wall st. friendly game, because their analysis is media driven.
3) The belief that we are surface. There has been a long trend of media pedagogy that we are a surface. That what is inside us is not what we are but that our looks, activities, self-brand are who we are. Of course shallowness has been in play my whole life. But given the nature of current media like facebook, instagram, etc. and their use of the best cognitive scientists to create addictive formats, people see themselves as surfaces to be marketed. And so we have the proliferation of the selfie, plastic surgery has been normalized, people focus on the presentation of themselves and their lives via photos and so on.
4) The belief that the US is a democracy.
5) The belief that science is politically neutral and uses scientific methodology these days. And that what scientists find is accurately accounted for in media.If this is read as me criticizing the scientific method, the reader needs to relook at their own assumptions and needs.
6) That government oversight is the slightest bit independent from the industries it is supposed to monitor.
7) That emotions and the emotional are the problem.

K: excellent, but as I always say, now what?

for example, your statement on #4.. that the U.S is a democracy...
I am assuming that to mean that the U.S is not a democracy? if that
is the case, then I agree with you....but that leaves us with
many questions... for example, if the U.S is not a democracy,
then what exactly is it? and why isn't the U.S a democracy?
(now I am not specifically attacking your positions, I am
using them as examples for what I have in mind... don't take
it personally for it is not meant to be personal, I would have
used whomever statements as examples)

now as I have mentioned before, part of the "modern" failure lies
in the fact that we use our belief, "America is a democracy" as
intellectual statement, it is nothing upon that which we can
use as a "way of life" statement.... you can state this and not
have it impact your day in any way, shape or form...it is simply
a statement that doesn't change a thing.. America is (or not)a democracy,
I am having chicken for lunch, the giants are on TV tonight,
lets take a walk... each of these statements have the exact
same value and meaning...with no impact on us... or said another
way, you can't turn any of these statements into a ''way of life"....
they are "ad hoc" statements.. of the moment... with no connection
to past, present or future.. or any connection to any other statement
you made...for example, you say in 1. the belief that the current media
generally reports things as they are.... that is another "ad hoc" statement
that is not connected to any other statement you made.. and how is one
suppose to live out this statement as a "way of life?"
or even what one should do about this in regard to the media?
and I haven't even engaged in the question about the reality of
this statement...is it true? at this point the truth or reality of
this question isn't even that important...what does it mean to
us if, if the media reports are true or made up? what does it matter?
in an "ad hoc" statement, whether or not a statement is true or false,
isn't that relevant.. and we haven't even gotten into how one gets
that statement.. is it an indoctrination from your past, from family,
or schooling or the media itself, or did you come upon this belief
within your own examination of values in which you, you decided
what values or beliefs you hold...not what values or beliefs that
were given to you....( as for me, I am a child of the media as my
dad owned a newspaper and worked in newspapers for decades.. I grew
up in that milieu and know it well) once again, it is not enough to
make a statement, the media reports the news as it is, but we
have to respond to this in some manner or way...we should
be engaged in our own statements.. not just as spectators...
but as "a way of life".... the media reports the news as it is,
and so we ask ourselves, now what?

Now what? that is the question everyone should be asking,
"America is or (is not) a democracy" Now what?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:49 pm
K: excellent, but as I always say, now what?

for example, your statement on #4.. that the U.S is a democracy...
I am assuming that to mean that the U.S is not a democracy?

Correct.

is the case, then I agree with you....but that leaves us with
many questions... for example, if the U.S is not a democracy,
then what exactly is it?

In one sense it is an oligarchy. In another sense it's not really a country anymore. We have international corporations and banks that do not respect borders and that make decisions.

and why isn't the U.S a democracy?

Because of the money in campaigns, because you need a vital media, because of lobbying, because there isn't governmental oversight - the people are not represented - because any person running for president needs Wall st. approval or is a billionaire. That's a start. There are other reasons.

now as I have mentioned before, part of the "modern" failure lies
in the fact that we use our belief, "America is a democracy" as
intellectual statement, it is nothing upon that which we can
use as a "way of life" statement.... you can state this and not
have it impact your day in any way, shape or form...it is simply
a statement that doesn't change a thing.. America is (or not)a democracy,
I am having chicken for lunch, the giants are on TV tonight,
lets take a walk... each of these statements have the exact
same value and meaning...with no impact on us... or said another
way, you can't turn any of these statements into a ''way of life"....
they are "ad hoc" statements.. of the moment... with no connection
to past, present or future.. or any connection to any other statement
you made...for example, you say in 1. the belief that the current media
generally reports things as they are.... that is another "ad hoc" statement
that is not connected to any other statement you made..

The concepts are connected in my mind. I was asked to give some beliefs I am against (or think are not true and also when held as true are damaging). A lack of an independent media is a real problem for a democracy.

and how is one
suppose to live out this statement as a "way of life?"
or even what one should do about this in regard to the media?

That depends a lot on your skill set, resources and personality.

and I haven't even engaged in the question about the reality of
this statement...is it true? at this point the truth or reality of
this question isn't even that important...what does it mean to
us if, if the media reports are true or made up? what does it matter?
in an "ad hoc" statement, whether or not a statement is true or false,
isn't that relevant.. and we haven't even gotten into how one gets
that statement.. is it an indoctrination from your past, from family,
or schooling or the media itself, or did you come upon this belief
within your own examination of values

By examining media, not by examining my values.

in which you, you decided
what values or beliefs you hold...not what values or beliefs that
were given to you...

I grew up in a large diverse US city with two quite different parents and a number of quite different schools with a very diverse set of friends. I was given an enormous batch of beliefs and a very diverse set of tools to find out stuff. This was not easy in some ways, but I lacked the problems of people raised in monocultures where they get a narrower set of beliefs and tools and also tend to have less open contradictions mentioned or in your face.

.( as for me, I am a child of the media as my
dad owned a newspaper and worked in newspapers for decades.. I grew
up in that milieu and know it well) once again, it is not enough to
make a statement, the media reports the news as it is, but we
have to respond to this in some manner or way...we should
be engaged in our own statements.. not just as spectators...
but as "a way of life".... the media reports the news as it is,
and so we ask ourselves, now what?

Not sure what you are saying here.

Now what? that is the question everyone should be asking,
"America is or (is not) a democracy" Now what?

Well, do you think it is or isn't? And then once you've made that clear. Now what?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:58 pm it has been clear since Socrates, that the real movement
in our understanding has been done by those who go
against the flow of their time and their society...
the one who have made progress have done so in
opposition to the values and beliefs of their time/society....
recall that Socrates was executed as was Jesus,
and MLK and Gandhi were assassinated, and Descartes
and Spinoza feared being tried and convicted by the church/state
in their times...Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for years
and Einstein was chased out of Germany....

the record for those who stand oppose to their times is a
reminding of the price they paid for their opposition to
the values, beliefs, ism's and ideologies of their times....

and today, today, we can see how the human question has
been advanced by those who stand in opposition to the values
and beliefs of their times.... ok, so, that leads us to this question,
if we want to be true innovators of our times, in philosophy,
history, economics, justice... we have to stand in opposition to
to the values and beliefs of our times.. so what are we today
going to stand in opposition to? what values and beliefs do
we stand in opposition to, to bring about new values and beliefs?

Just as the American founding fathers stood in opposition to
the historical precedent that had existed since the beginning of time,
what values and beliefs are we going to stand in opposition to?

what values and beliefs are the currency of our times,
and what values and beliefs would we hold in opposition to those
values and beliefs?

Kropotkin

I STAND AGAINST the BELIEF that 'you', human beings, HAVE TO and MUST have BELIEFS.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:30 pm so we cannot know what we are fighting for if we don't
know what we are fighting against....

I STAND FOR OPENNESS.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:30 pm many believe they are fighting against "government overreach"...
while ignoring the real battle, that of the economic in which
the real danger to our lives and beliefs lie in the corporate
takeover of our lives...every aspect of our lives is dominated
by economic interests, not governmental aspects...

BELIEVING that 'money' IS NECESSARY is some 'thing' that REALLY NEEDS FIGHTING AGAINST. BUT, when one is Truly OPEN, then they WILL LEARN and CLEARLY SEE HOW and WHY they came to HAVE that, and ALL of the other, DISTORTED BELIEFS.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:30 pm and even the government itself has been bought by our
corporate overlords...behold how the various state governments
have been bought by the Kock brothers...including Kansas, Wisconsin,
and North Dakota...

or said another way, attacking government as being the enemy,
is old school and behind the times...the past, where the conservatives
love to live in... so, to stand in opposition to our times requires us to
stand in opposition to the economic side of our existence, not our
political side of our existence....

Kropotkin

Sounds like you are 'trying to' BLAME some OTHER 'thing', other than 'you', adult human beings, for what was and is ULTIMATELY CAUSED by 'you', adult human beings.

If there is some 'thing' to STAND UP and AGAINST here, then it is ONLY 'you', adult human beings.

The words 'governments' and 'corporates' are just USED, by the 'owners/leaders' of those 'things' to DEFLECT and DISTRACT the general population from 'what', EXACTLY, is CAUSING and CREATING ALL ISSUES here.

Kropotkin: and I haven't even engaged in the question about the reality of
this statement...is it true? at this point the truth or reality of
this question isn't even that important...what does it mean to
us if, if the media reports are true or made up? what does it matter?
in an "ad hoc" statement, whether or not a statement is true or false,
isn't that relevant.. and we haven't even gotten into how one gets
that statement.. is it an indoctrination from your past, from family,
or schooling or the media itself, or did you come upon this belief
within your own examination of values"

Iwannaplato: By examining media, not by examining my values.

K: and this sentence lies at the heart of my statements...

Examine the media.. or examine your values.. that is the question...
and answer is actually an examination of values...
for as I have noted before, all is interpretations... I see a tree
and what I think, see, feel or know about that tree is an
interpretation.... our knowledge of the tree is an interpretation...
for we don't know anything about tree unless we are told information
about it....think about little kids.. as a father, I have some
familiarity with this... that a child, every single child, has to
be told what everything, everyone and every event is... we don't
know anything "a priori" before experience...experience is
the basis of all knowledge that we have as human beings....
education is simple the act of teaching us what others have
experienced...I may not have seen the statue of Liberty, but
others have seen it and I get the benefit of their experience of it...
but the fact is, unless we ourselves actually experience the statue
of Liberty, we can't "Know" it....

ok, now back to the media... what I know of the media is actually
my interpretation of the media...and because my experience of the
media is based on direct family experience with the media, my
interpretation of the media is going to be different than your
interpretation of the media... everything we think we know
is based strictly on our interpretations of, well everything...

my knowledge of love and my understanding of baseball
and my understanding of physics, are all based on interpretations of,
or direct knowledge of, which is still an interpretation of those
events, actions, or knowledge....
The philosophical school of phenomenology is based on bracketing
or isolating knowledge...you isolate an event and you "study" it...
without reference to anything else...but that simple ignores the
reality of how we know things...
without a reference point, we can't know anything...

I am walking down the street one day and I find a medium sized,
metal object.. I can't tell from it shape, what its exact function is...
I can compare and contrast this metal object with my knowledge
of other metal objects in hopes of making a comparison of
this object to other known objects...scientists get involved,
and discover that this object is made of a metal not found
on earth...and now what? this metal object may be extraterrestrial
in nature.. but that still doesn't tell me what that object is...
now I might be able to guess what that object is, but that is all
I am doing, guessing...

how are we to figure out what that object is without any type
of experience with something similar? and one day, earth is visited
by extraterrestrials who are looking for the wrench they dropped while
making repairs one day.. that metal object is a wrench..
but we can't even tell that without some sort of understanding
of how aliens fix their ships...or what that wrench is for....

this is the human situation... we are constantly making
interpretations of people, events, objects, places...
and even the media must be understood by interpretation...
is the media good or bad? that depends on what we compare
and contrast the media to...if we just looked at a newspaper,
can we by just looking at it, know or understand what
a newspaper does or where it stands, liberal or conservative?
Not at all... it takes comparisons and contrasts to make sense of
what newspapers are and what they stand for..
and that comparison and contrasts, are just interpretations
of what we know.....
we cannot know anything by just looking at it.. we must,
in some fashion, interpret information and/or contrasts/compare
information for it to be of use.....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:19 pm Kropotkin: and I haven't even engaged in the question about the reality of
this statement...is it true? at this point the truth or reality of
this question isn't even that important...what does it mean to
us if, if the media reports are true or made up? what does it matter?
in an "ad hoc" statement, whether or not a statement is true or false,
isn't that relevant.. and we haven't even gotten into how one gets
that statement.. is it an indoctrination from your past, from family,
or schooling or the media itself, or did you come upon this belief
within your own examination of values"

Iwannaplato: By examining media, not by examining my values.

K: and this sentence lies at the heart of my statements...]Examine the media.. or examine your values..

It's not an either or situation. My values have changed and I examine them. But when I am trying to determine something about media, I look at media.

ok, now back to the media... what I know of the media is actually
my interpretation of the media...and because my experience of the
media is based on direct family experience with the media, my
interpretation of the media is going to be different than your
interpretation of the media... everything we think we know
is based strictly on our interpretations of, well everything...

Sure. And if you change the way you interpret things, you may end up with better interpretations or worse ones.

this is the human situation... we are constantly making
interpretations of people, events, objects, places...
and even the media must be understood by interpretation...
is the media good or bad?

There are other criteria on can have before drawing a value-based conclusion such as the media is good or bad. You can do what Chomsky did in the Manufacturing of Consent and look at how stories are chosen and how certain ideas are marginalized. Even someone who agrees with the values doing this can do this. Then you can decide, based on your values, if the way the news is skewed is good or bad. You could even decide that while you like the way the news is skewed, you don't think it should be skewed. That book made an excellent case that media was skewed in favor of certain interests, and in part due to the consolidation of media in less corporations. Well....The consolidation of power in the media, what Chomsky and Herman considered part of the problem, is orders of magnitude worse.

And yes, we are fallible humans, and our interpretations may not be correct.
Though much of your argument depends on what we know about nervous systems and perception and other conclusions drawn by, yes, fallible humans.

that depends on what we compare
and contrast the media to...if we just looked at a newspaper,
can we by just looking at it, know or understand what
a newspaper does or where it stands, liberal or conservative?
Not at all... it takes comparisons and contrasts to make sense of
what newspapers are and what they stand for..
and that comparison and contrasts, are just interpretations
of what we know.....
we cannot know anything by just looking at it.. we must,
in some fashion, interpret information and/or contrasts/compare
information for it to be of use.....

So, how did you decide whatever it is you decided about media?