Philosophy Now Forum

Slogans
Slogans are in essence minimalist statements designed to rouse feelings. As such they are always potentially dangerous. Sensibly, they need to be divided into two categories, epitomised by Ban the Bomb, and Fighting for Freedom. The one concerns a material object while the other concerns a moral value or state of being. We may ban the bomb for what it does, and fight for peace for what it is, Banning the bomb is merely part of what may need to be done to achieve peace. Both of the slogans could be related more closely by equating the bomb with war itself, and banning that. But achieving peace is merely an absence of war, which the bare slogan of fighting for peace can so easily be. War equates to social chaos, and its destruction. But peace is merely a negative, or question mark for society, as to what moral-social values are to be chosen or imposed. Peace is not a single form of society, or even a set of ‘good’ forms of society. What is ‘good’ depends on the values we adopt and those we therefore oppose. Most obviously and traditionally we can adopt the security of the state, and its authority, in which case there must be a at least a fair degree of servile obedience, however ‘liberal’ the state may be otherwise. If we adopt outright personal liberalism then there will be minimal obedience to the state and responsibility to corporate society, which must be very fragile. If we adopt corporate society – not corporate organizations imposing their will, but whole and holistic communities of individuals and families - then both the ego of the state and the individual will be minimised. But in any case there is no conceivable ‘perfect’ society involving self willed individuals. If there were a supreme being reigning over the universe, then the best possible structure for society might then be imparted to us, or not, but would we all recognise it. As matters stand the answer may well be provided by AI, empowering the state and corporate business, so that no individuals need to think for themselves or be able to.

Slay all Slogans!

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is truth

communism saves

-Imp

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am Slogans
Slogans are in essence minimalist statements designed to rouse feelings. As such they are always potentially dangerous.

How, EXACTLY, does it 'logically follow' that if a small or little sentence rouses an 'internal feeling', or 'emotion', then those sentences are ALWAYS 'potentially DANGEROUS'?

Is it NOT possible that ANY sentence, which is designed to rouse emotions, could ALWAYS be potentially 'dangerous' or potentially COMPLETELY 'harmless'?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am Sensibly, they need to be divided into two categories, epitomised by Ban the Bomb, and Fighting for Freedom. The one concerns a material object while the other concerns a moral value or state of being.

So, BOTH revolve around the NON harm of ANY one. Therefore, BOTH are in the SAME category.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am We may ban the bomb for what it does, and fight for peace for what it is, Banning the bomb is merely part of what may need to be done to achieve peace. Both of the slogans could be related more closely by equating the bomb with war itself, and banning that. But achieving peace is merely an absence of war, which the bare slogan of fighting for peace can so easily be. War equates to social chaos, and its destruction. But peace is merely a negative, or question mark for society, as to what moral-social values are to be chosen or imposed.

Why do you have such a NARROW or CLOSED VIEW of what 'peace' is, exactly?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am Peace is not a single form of society, or even a set of ‘good’ forms of society. What is ‘good’ depends on the values we adopt and those we therefore oppose. Most obviously and traditionally we can adopt the security of the state, and its authority, in which case there must be a at least a fair degree of servile obedience, however ‘liberal’ the state may be otherwise. If we adopt outright personal liberalism then there will be minimal obedience to the state and responsibility to corporate society, which must be very fragile.

There is NOT A SINGLE human being that has or owes ANY responsibility to 'corporate society', and it would be a MUCH BETTER WORLD if NO one BELIEVES that ANY human being has to be or should be 'obedient' TO 'corporate society'.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am
If we adopt corporate society – not corporate organizations imposing their will, but whole and holistic communities of individuals and families - then both the ego of the state and the individual will be minimised.

Why not instead of USING the 'corporate' word, which has particular connotations, and just say and write, 'whole and holistic community of individuals and families', which is what you ACTUALLY MEAN anyway, right?

But, if 'that' is 'to wordy', then why not just say something like, 'community', only, instead?

'I', for One, would VERY WILLING ADOPT A 'community', but NEVER A 'corporate society'. Again because of the underlying first connotation that comes with or arises with the words 'corporate', 'corporations', and/or 'corporate organizations'.

Adopting a 'co-operative community', or a 'cooperative society', would, however, be some thing that I would embrace.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am But in any case there is no conceivable ‘perfect’ society involving self willed individuals.

But, 'the world', or 'the society', which actually leads to and brings EVERY one together towards A PERFECT society/world is, in fact, the 'self-governing' society and world.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am If there were a supreme being reigning over the universe, then the best possible structure for society might then be imparted to us, or not, but would we all recognise it.

YES. For the very simple Fact that 'it' would be what EVERY one WANTED, or DESIRED, and what EVERY one AGREED WITH, and ACCEPTED, absolutely VOLUNTARILY, anyway.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 9:36 am As matters stand the answer may well be provided by AI, empowering the state and corporate business, so that no individuals need to think for themselves or be able to.

As matters ACTUALLY STAND those with the BIGGEST 'love-of-money', who coincidentally WANT, and DESIRE, TO HAVE CONTROL OF and OVER things, like you human beings, and MACHINES and BUSINESSES, are ENDEAVORING TO, and ARE ACTUALLY DOING IN SOME WAYS, HAVE CONTROL OVER the THOUGHTS and THINKING, ALREADY, and AS WELL.

Age for president!

Occam's Razor, simply put, this is an opinion. Peace has many meanings. Freedom has many meanings. Good is a subjective term. What do you want, Thomas Hobbes

State of War?

If thinking for yourself is so hard, then use AI. Just remember epistemological infallibilism of possibilities of the 'argument from ignorance'. Knowing, just requires believing that something is possible. The burden of proof claims that knowledge nobody disproved the existence of ghosts, but that is not evidence for their existence. You assume to much in your rant of the term slogan. Remember your opinion does not have to be justified. Just explain your terms, then please not in a biased way. The Full Competency Requirement: Propositions are self-evidently true. Peace is, also, a term in Islam. Freedom is free will 'the ability to do otherwise'. Subjective is a feeling that one cannot be possibly be wrong. Be a philosopher a 'sceptic' and investigate, like Aristocles put it 'infer the assertion about the nature of things'. 'Keep an open mind' because as Descartes' 'If we can doubt, then not knowledge'.

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:33 am Occam's Razor, simply put, this is an opinion. Peace has many meanings. Freedom has many meanings. Good is a subjective term. What do you want, Thomas Hobbes

State of War?

If thinking for yourself is so hard, then use AI. Just remember epistemological infallibilism of possibilities of the 'argument from ignorance'. Knowing, just requires believing that something is possible.

HOW does 'this' LOGICALLY FOLLOW, EXACTLY?

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:33 am The burden of proof claims that knowledge nobody disproved the existence of ghosts, but that is not evidence for their existence. You assume to much in your rant of the term slogan. Remember your opinion does not have to be justified. Just explain your terms, then please not in a biased way. The Full Competency Requirement: Propositions are self-evidently true. Peace is, also, a term in Islam. Freedom is free will 'the ability to do otherwise'.

AGAIN, it is 'this' INTERPRETATION WHY 'this ALREADY SOLVED 'problem' STILL EXISTS, for some.

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:33 am Subjective is a feeling that one cannot be possibly be wrong.

WHY do you HAVE and/or HOLD this INTERPRETATION and/or BELIEF?

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:33 am Be a philosopher a 'sceptic' and investigate, like Aristocles put it 'infer the assertion about the nature of things'. 'Keep an open mind' because as Descartes' 'If we can doubt, then not knowledge'.

Logic is normative. This rant was not an essay with a thesis. Truth is whatever is the case. It was written in grammatical sentences and not logic, no validity. What should follow is so and so were true. Use simple logic like Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens. Philosophy uses logic as its tool. Logic means truth. Doubt is considered impossible. Being, sceptical is questioning the possibility of knowledge. If knowledge, then a JTB. Beliefs are subjective - adequacy - truth is objective? Gettier challenged the JTB, but he had no interest in scepticism. Adequacy: The role of chance in acquiring knowledge. Chance is uncertain or random and not a reliable process, according to Gettier. A concept is the mere contemplation of things offered to our minds, without affirming or denying anything concerning them; an idea. This is written in grammatical sentences, not validity of logic, this is evaluative. The right to use the concept is in the answer. Epistemology is knowledge possible? We want to know the difference, again, between knowledge and opinion.

To Protect and To Serve

- The slogan doesn’t satisfy all assumptions.
- Protect whom, or what? Serve whom, or what?

Comment: The government police have no legal obligation to protect the citizenry, which apparently gets them off the hook for depraved indifference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_C ... ._Gonzales

My life is based on reason, there is no doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYxw8mXLtUE