Today in shit I wish they taught in school...
When people say today is the most peaceful period in human history... it's insane to think just how much worse it was within my parent's life time, in the country my (adopted) father fled from and then fought against when it was Hitler's, and then was powerless to watch it be raped and oppressed by the Soviets and Stalin.
If anything, watching this has just hardened my resolve that we cannot give into fear of the "others", or hatred of them, because it could both be so much worse and it also leads to situations exactly like this.
(Though I will say it makes it even harder to not hate Putin's Russia, particularly knowing he was part of the KGB in East Germany)... but I understand the average Russian really has no power against Putin or his regime.
Wait, you mean that we shouldn't want to get along great with Putin and Russia the way Old Donny boy wants us to? After all, we can take him for his word..
Yeah, things can be much worse than they are now and when I hear people say that we should trust Russia because Trump does it becomes a real head scratcher.. The history revisionists are hard at work trying to rewrite the whole bloody mess to be just a little booboo..
Here's an interesting site written by a woman who grew up in Ukraine under the Soviet regime. http://www.sras.org/once_upon_a_time_in_eastern_europe_memoirs_of_a_soviet_child
It's not so much political as it is her memories as a child..
I think we now have a troubling world where the Russian Govt is autocratic (President for Life) Putin, the Chinese govt is autocratic (they just eliminated term limits so Xi Jinping is President for Life, and Trump wants to follow their pattern by being a US Autocrat for 8 years (at least).
Quote from: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 01:38:00 AM
I think we now have a troubling world where the Russian Govt is autocratic (President for Life) Putin, the Chinese govt is autocratic (they just eliminated term limits so Xi Jinping is President for Life, and Trump wants to follow their pattern by being a US Autocrat for 8 years (at least).
Kennedy family, Bush family, Clinton family shows that we are the USSA.
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 08:25:07 AM
Kennedy family, Bush family, Clinton family shows that we are the USSA.
No individual Kennedy, Bush or Clinton ever tried for a third term nor would have gotten one. And none ever suggested being "President For Life. Trump, however, referred to Putin and China's Xi Jinping as "good examples"
"He's now president for life. President for life. And he's great," Trump said, according to a recording obtained by CNN (and broadcast on Fox News). "I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot someday."
If you think that is a great idea, say so.
Exactly. And Trump did just say that. So are we being trolled by Trump or not? The Elite aren't like you or me, they consider themselves CEOs of Planet Inc. Globalism will end in tears, that much pr126 is right about. Megalomania always ends in tears.
QuoteMegalomania always ends in tears.
And mountains of corpses.
Quote from: pr126 on March 05, 2018, 05:59:56 AM
And mountains of corpses.
You have to break a few eggs, and heads to make a megalomaniac omelette. Only a crazy person wants to be a national leader (so why do we vote for them?).
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 05:57:05 AM
Globalism will end in tears, that much pr126 is right about.
As we went from families to clans, to tribes, to villages to cities to city-states everyone decried the change as "The end of civilization as we know it". Well it was, but that doesn't mean things got worse. Died of measles or smallpox lately? Starved to death? Got killed by a lion? Seen a WW lately? You get the point, I hope. Globalism betters all slowly...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 04:51:46 PM
As we went from families to clans, to tribes, to villages to cities to city-states everyone decried the change as "The end of civilization as we know it". Well it was, but that doesn't mean things got worse. Died of measles or smallpox lately? Starved to death? Got killed by a lion? Seen a WW lately? You get the point, I hope. Globalism betters all slowly...
I wish you were right. I used to believe that. But my estimate of human nature has ... crashed.
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 10:12:42 PM
I wish you were right. I used to believe that. But my estimate of human nature has ... crashed.
I don't think the "era of peace" that we are now in is all that unique. Mankind must of had other generations of peace from time to time. Sure there were skirmishes and mini wars, just like we see during every administration today. I don't think a century of so called "peace" is enough to establish a historical pattern, and while I have lived my short life through very good times, at least in my part of the world, I certainly don't get any impression things are getting better. As it says on your quarterly stock prospectus, "Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results." While it might be peaceful today, the last century has experienced more violence and devastation than ever before. Historians can argue that with me, and they might be right, but I'll never be convinced that worse things have happened than what we went through a mere 70 years ago, that's one lifetime, part of which I can actually remember, and there is nothing about the period of wound licking I've seen in the last 70 years that makes believe it will lead to more peace. We are poised for disaster, and too many people yearn for it, and the rest of us aren't clever enough to stop it.
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 10:12:42 PM
I wish you were right. I used to believe that. But my estimate of human nature has ... crashed.
Yes that is obvious from most everything you post. You are convinced "the end times" have come and God is the only way out to salvation. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... But I don't agree. We "apes" as you like to call us are the best survivors so far and we aren't going to die off all that easily, in spite of what your beliefs desire.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:56:37 AM
Yes that is obvious from most everything you post. You are convinced "the end times" have come and God is the only way out to salvation. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... But I don't agree. We "apes" as you like to call us are the best survivors so far and we aren't going to die off all that easily, in spite of what your beliefs desire.
Sorry, Agenda 21 and Club of Rome are ... globalist agendas. I will leave organized destruction of civilization to them. And no, you project. I don't envisage any redemption of mankind. We are irredeemable by nature. There is no after-life either. Just Sheol (the grave) for us individually and collectively. Human history will in the end, prove to be a total waste of time.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
Sorry, Agenda 21 and Club of Rome are ... globalist agendas. I will leave organized destruction of civilization to them. And no, you project. I don't envisage any redemption of mankind. We are irredeemable by nature. There is no after-life either. Just Sheol (the grave) for us individually and collectively. Human history will in the end, prove to be a total waste of time.
Your conspiracy theories are bothe boring and unfactual.
Aside from that, I feel sorry for you regarding "we are irredeemable by nature". I have hope in the resilience of us "apes" (as you like to refer to humans). Too many philosophers have predicted the end of human civilization in the past and been wrong.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 01:14:32 AM
Your conspiracy theories are bothe boring and unfactual.
Aside from that, I feel sorry for you regarding "we are irredeemable by nature". I have hope in the resilience of us "apes" (as you like to refer to humans). Too many philosophers have predicted the end of human civilization in the past and been wrong.
Well, a prediction of extinction will be wrong, until the day after it happens. And redemption is a religious idea, not a secular idea.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 01:37:43 AM
Well, a prediction of extinction will be wrong, until the day after it happens. And redemption is a religious idea, not a secular idea.
In case you forgot, you are the one who claimed "we are irredeemable by nature".
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 01:41:30 AM
In case you forgot, you are the one who claimed "we are irredeemable by nature".
Well, I wouldn't say .. irredeemable by divine fiat, now would I?
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 01:52:10 AM
Well, I wouldn't say .. irredeemable by divine fiat, now would I?
I suspect with the right argument, you would. You believe in a deity of SOME sort. That deity makes decisions. An enforceable decision is a fiat. QED.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:37:53 AM
I suspect with the right argument, you would. You believe in a deity of SOME sort. That deity makes decisions. An enforceable decision is a fiat. QED.
Actually not quite. If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly. Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary. Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially). We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind). In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:58:51 AM
Actually not quite. If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly. Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary. Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially). We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind). In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.
So there is no god and no religious basis for morality. We developed ethics ourselves through hard-won experience of what is good for society and what is not.
Congratulations for finally understanding our side.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 08:19:55 AM
So there is no god and no religious basis for morality. We developed ethics ourselves through hard-won experience of what is good for society and what is not.
Congratulations for finally understanding our side.
There is no America, just rebels against King and Church ;-) People have no ethics, so nothing develops, other than virtue signaling.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:58:51 AM
Actually not quite. If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly. Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary. Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially). We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind). In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.
These terms I've underlined... I do not understand your use of them. Every potential I understand to be true is the consequence of some actual circumstances, ergo to have any potential, there must be an actual scenario that corresponds to it. Therefore, something that is only potential cannot exist in any form or sense. A god that is potentiality must have some form of actuality and therefore must exist in some sense, but the only sense I know god to exist as is an idea, a social construct, like the value of (fiat) money.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 12, 2018, 06:51:00 PM
These terms I've underlined... I do not understand your use of them. Every potential I understand to be true is the consequence of some actual circumstances, ergo to have any potential, there must be an actual scenario that corresponds to it. Therefore, something that is only potential cannot exist in any form or sense. A god that is potentiality must have some form of actuality and therefore must exist in some sense, but the only sense I know god to exist as is an idea, a social construct, like the value of (fiat) money.
If you have an argument from advanced statistics, I will listen. But no, most English words have more than one definition, and even if only one, it is nuanced. And then poets and philosophers put in their two bits. Your etymological dictatorship is .. rejected.
And I understand if you don't support metaphysical ideas in general. Logical Positivists don't (Rudolf Carnap). But then that was a 20s-30s philosophical movement that died out decades ago ... like its predecessor Positivism (August Comte).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Heisenberg's comments on Positivism in this article are telling!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Basically some folks first tried to apply Newtonian science to philosophy and failed. Later some other folks tried to apply post-Newtonian science to philosophy (including Darwin) to philosophy and failed. Of course maybe philosophy is meant to be a failure anyway ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 07:32:15 PM
If you have an argument from advanced statistics, I will listen. But no, most English words have more than one definition, and even if only one, it is nuanced. And then poets and philosophers put in their two bits. Your etymological dictatorship is .. rejected.
I'm just asking to explain yourself, not necessarily "dictate" to you. Arguing the way you do makes you seem evasive. I hate that.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 07:32:15 PM
And I understand if you don't support metaphysical ideas in general. Logical Positivists don't (Rudolf Carnap). But then that was a 20s-30s philosophical movement that died out decades ago ... like its predecessor Positivism (August Comte).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Heisenberg's comments on Positivism in this article are telling!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I am not necessarily a logical positivist. I am a no-bullshit-ist. It does not seem to be possible that something without an actuality can have a potential. After all, what something can do (its potential) depends on what it is (its actual, its nature). If you want to argue that god is pure potential, fine, explain how that's a coherent idea. If you want to argue that god is of some nature, fine, explain how you know that nature.
What you spewed is just gobbledygook. It stinks of language intending more to obscure than explain.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 07:32:15 PM
Basically some folks first tried to apply Newtonian science to philosophy and failed. Later some other folks tried to apply post-Newtonian science to philosophy (including Darwin) to philosophy and failed. Of course maybe philosophy is meant to be a failure anyway ;-)
Well, it does seem that philosophers are asking questions that don't seem to have satisfactory answers for millennia. That's usually is indicative of defective questions.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 12, 2018, 11:55:52 PM
Arguing the way you do makes you seem evasive. I hate that.
All theists argue that way.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 12, 2018, 11:55:52 PM
I am not necessarily a logical positivist. I am a no-bullshit-ist.
It seems to me the two are the same. Baruch just adds straw man baggage to logical positivism, so he can degrade it.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 12, 2018, 11:55:52 PM
What you spewed is just gobbledygook.
language intending more to obscure than explain.
...defective questions.
Theism
Theism
Theism
Of course, Positivists or Logical Positivists ... don't get criticism of their POV (same as any other philosophy or ideology).
I happen to agree that good questions are golden ... but don't limit yourself to questions you already think you have the answer to (confirmation bias).
Science (natural philosophy) doesn't come up with answers, it comes up with better questions. Surprisingly, unlike most philosophy, these improved questions are actually pragmatically useful.
Well, since any philosophical argument, devolves into "my word definition is right, and yours is wrong" ... we can probably end things here. You asked, I answered. Same as when I answered Cavebears question (responding with Judeo-Arabic studies of Medieval Spain).
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.
Quote from: SGOS on March 13, 2018, 05:08:00 PM
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.
I know. I read a blog by a prominent senior US philosopher (of law) and those academics rape each other (verbally of course). Philosophers of science (armchair scientists) argue about that the meaning of things are that the actual scientists do. Scientists are the natural philosophers .. philosophers of science are meta-natural-philosophers.
Quote from: SGOS on March 13, 2018, 05:08:00 PM
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.
I've never seen a modern era philosopher debate that WASN'T about semantics. They mostly seem to be arguing which end of a hard-cooked egg to peel first. I asked my Intro To Philosophy Grad Assistant if the arguments ever made more sense, and he said "no". Which didn't surprise me.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 15, 2018, 02:53:10 AM
I've never seen a modern era philosopher debate that WASN'T about semantics. They mostly seem to be arguing which end of a hard-cooked egg to peel first. I asked my Intro To Philosophy Grad Assistant if the arguments ever made more sense, and he said "no". Which didn't surprise me.
Blame Wittgenstein (second period). He said there were no possible arguments, except over semantics ... because outside of language, thought and argument were impossible. Zen denies the validity of thought and argument however.