• CallMeDirac
    72
    I dont know why I wrote this but enjoy.


    For millennia humans have fought, weather over land, resources, power, or most commonly, ideology. And even now humans still find reasons to fight, we can live over a century and cure nearly every disease, yet we still fight over such shallow things as race and ideology. As one who is sympathetic to the anarchist cause I am in full support in the abolishment of corrupt institutions.These institutions are the greatest cause of subjugation of the human race. This will be much shorter than any manifesto before seen. And while the previous few topics i've just mentioned are disjointed; all will make sense in due time. We, as people can rarely agree on anything, however most would agree that the betterment of the human race is an important goal. The process in which this can happen is highly disagreed upon. Personally, as i've said, i am sympathetic to the anarchist movement however we disagree on what institutions are corrupt enough to constitute abolishment. I agree with the anarchists that our government needs to be fixed, however corruption is not inherent to the system but is instead inherent to humans as a whole. Democracy is one of the best made systems for government. And the American system is a better made one of checks and balances. This tangent must end now: Back to the topic of ideology. We are more separated by political ideology and religious ideology thea
    n ever. We are also more separated by such ideology than any seperation by class or race or gender e.t.c.

    Only one such ideology, or group of ideologies rather, match both the definitions of ideology and institution. That is religion. I am not wholly against the beliefs that constitute a religion. I am, whoever, against the central system of unchecked power that is inherent to religion. These power systems include those of the papacy and the position of the dalai lama. Now the Dalai llama isnt so bad, hes generally a good person so its not nearly as bad as the papacy. In the modern day the issue of central power isnt nearly as bad as the issue of division. However while the issue of power of religion is no longer as prevalent i will momentarily touch on the issue.

    The papacy was the center of nearly all power in the medieval and renaissance eras. This lead to thousands dying simply because they had been told to by the pope. While there never was a papal empire, the papacy was just as powerful as one. This also led to the holy roman empire and its constant issues with power and land. But mostly its political fights with the papacy.

    As I said all will make sense in due time. This is hopefully where it will do so. The abolishment of corrupt institutions must start with religion. Religion is possibly the worst invention of humankind and it has lasted longer than any other. It is about time we finally put it to the wayside with all the other outdated ideas and inventions. As I also previously stated how we go about this is heavily debated. Some of the anarchist causes are in support of a violent abolishment, however I think we should put that off ‘til later. But lets not discount it as an option, mainly because violence is both fun and effective. Personally I am more in favor of applying social pressure through the conversion of those capable of critical thought first, then those related and so on until religion becomes a minority. This can be done through education and debates, but these so far have failed. We must not stay in the minority for any longer and must RISE UP AND TAKE POWER. While that may sound extreme it is the simplest way to state my position.

    Now people are being converted to critical thinking and open-mindedness at an unprecedented rate. I am fully aware that the way that was stated is fallacious but again it is the simplest way of putting it.[/s]
  • CallMeDirac
    72
    I am so sorry it looks like that
  • CallMeDirac
    72
    Also, sorry for the tangents: I typed it as I wrote, I have ADHD and am prone to going off topic both in speech and in thought
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Religion is possibly the worst invention of humankind and it has lasted longer than any other.CallMeDirac

    That sounds oddly religious... You want an atheist inquisition?
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    I later said that was an idea to save for a rainy day.
    But you do raise a good point so, yes, I think we should start a social movement
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Atheists don't agree among themselves about much. They (we) have no positive identity, no credo, by definition. I personally think that religion is fine most of the times.
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    I am fine with belief, however the separation caused by religion is the issue.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    As I said all will make sense in due time. This is hopefully where it will do so. The abolishment of corrupt institutions must start with religion. Religion is possibly the worst invention of humankind and it has lasted longer than any other
    @CallMeDirac

    Do not forget the State. They both are leviathans. I guess one cannot live without the other. If you think how much power they have it is even scary

    This can be done through education and debates, but these so far have failed. We must not stay in the minority for any longer and must RISE UP AND TAKE POWER

    Revolution in this era? Sorry millennials love live so easily in Instagram or Twitter. Does not matter how much the world is tumbling down.
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    Furthermore it is not an issue within atheists, rather with anti-theists
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    I was hoping the poorer more technology obssessed youth would be the forefront.....
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    the separation caused by religion is the issue.CallMeDirac

    The separation from what?
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    between people.
    In order to fix other issues such as poverty and climate change we need to be working together
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    Free/secularism education
  • BC
    13.6k
    Mother always warned us to not discuss politics or religion at the table when we had company. Not talk about politics or religion--what else is there?

    Theism per se isn't the problem--it's the people who believe in it. Same goes for politics, literature, art, science, technology, etc. It's all possibly splendid at one end of the continuum, a shit hole at the other end. Religious experience can be sublime or supremely tedious--it all depends on who.

    No matter how you slice it, we primates are the problem. Had we stayed in the trees, a great deal of trouble could have been avoided.

    Abolish theism if you want -- our clever sapient selves will cook up a replacement.
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    tis the sad reality of us humans
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    between people.
    In order to fix other issues such as poverty and climate change we need to be working together
    CallMeDirac

    Climate change is the direct consequence of the industrial revolution, itself made possible by scientific, technological and economic developments, a historical process that demonstrably happened during a certain period (18-19th century) and in a certain place (Europe). It's not a problem caused by religion at all, but by capitalism and positivism.

    Maybe religions can help solve it but it's an unreasonable expectation in my view.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    It's a good job you crossed it out. It's mostly wrong. For starters anarchy is not freedom. It's slavery, because that is the underlying condition of man. There's been slavery forever all around the world until the west developed philosophies on the rights of man, and the philosophy, politics and economics of liberty. Without institutions to insist upon freedom we would quickly revert to a state of subjugation. If you would argue that we are slaves to capitalism anyway, I would only counter that ours is at least, a productive state of subjugation - with, in theory, minimalist impositions upon individual freedom.

    What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that to love freedom so much you would revert to the barter system is taking it too far. Freedom is not absence of government. People are much free-er for the sake of legitimate institutions!
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    I am so sorry it looks like thatCallMeDirac

    You've applied the strikethrough attribute to all the text. If you remove that attribute, then it will no longer appear that way. If you rectify the formatting error, I might read it.

    And also, I think it's pretty bent to appropriate the name of a famous scientists, so while you're at it, why not change your screen name also, you can do that once on this forum software.

    Until then, au revoir.
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    I stated I was only sympathetic to the abolishing of corrupt institutions. Also I didn't cross it out, though I know that's a joke.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    I am forced to disagree with your assertion:

    Climate change is the direct consequence of the industrial revolution, itself made possible by scientific, technological and economic developments, a historical process that demonstrably happened during a certain period (18-19th century) and in a certain place (Europe). It's not a problem caused by religion at all, but by capitalism and positivism.Olivier5

    Science was not afforded moral worth or authority by the religiously justified power structures of the time; indeed, quite the opposite. Science was branded heresy from the trial of Galileo onward, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution, science was cast as godless and learning discouraged among the peasantry as irreligious.

    Consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in this context; the first in a long line of mad scientists portrayed in fiction. Science is under constant attack; and has been since Galileo. If science had the epistemic authority it deserves, for the amazing things it can do - and if science itself had any real input into the uses to which technology is put, we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Science is devoid of authority by design. It's understandable, but it's a mistake. If we correct this error, we can claim the functional validity of science and technology to promote human and environmental welfare; recognise science as a 'truth' worthy of our respect, and so create a rationale for the application of technology, as suggested by science. In scientific terms, I believe the first, most advisable technology to apply is to harness the virtually limitless heat energy of the earth itself, to power human civilisation.

    Everything comes down to energy, and we need lots more of it, not less - if the future is going to be worth living in. I don't want my future powered by some poxy windmill, now sadly neglected - creaking around for 28 years - and costing as much to decommission as it took to build; they will stand testament to the fact we tried, but never really understood what a scientific understanding of reality even looks like!
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    He's a hero, I'm paying homage, not impersonating. Although the CallMe part might mislead you. I'll fix the strikethrough part real quick

    The "CallMe" is just copying the youtube trope*
  • counterpunch
    1.6k


    I stated I was only sympathetic to the abolishing of corrupt institutions.CallMeDirac

    Certainly we can agree that legitimate institutions are preferable. Perhaps anarchism seems wildly romantic until you ask, how would that work? How would people be fed, clothed and housed? How would food be produced and distributed? Maybe you just want to bring about the purge! Who knows? But corrupt institutions? Okay. Which one's are those? And who would legitimately take their place? You should consider what happened in Iraq after Saddam was removed; a brutal dictator - and danger to the region, no doubt, but his removal was almost worse than his rule.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Freedom is not absence of government. People are much free-er for the sake of legitimate institutions!
    @counterpunch

    Well it depends a lot of the quality of government we are talking about. I respect your point of view but is so optimistic and positive towards the leviathan. If we are "free" (nobody actually can say is free since the moment you are thought with a status quo as a child) is due to the level of ethics from the individuals not the government. Governors are just there to increase their personal profit not the common.
    It is true in some part that anarchy and some system without the leviathan is flawed because we the humans need an authority to control us. But... That authority in the most of cases are even worse than the human selfishness. I guess we just overrated the modern states since Westfalia peace. It looks like we don't have any other solution... Why not?
  • counterpunch
    1.6k


    I'm not optimistic. As a function of entropy, it is inherently unlikely humankind will survive. We need to do the right things to survive, and we are not doing those things. So, in that sense - governments are illegitimate, but at the same time, if there is any hope that the right things will be done, it will be by governmental and economic institutions; and in the meantime - life is not that bad! In scientific and technological terms it's not difficult; it's blindingly clear what we need to do - and the sooner the better; plug into the planet. Tap that virtually limitless source of high grade heat energy to keep things going, much the same as they are I expect, and it's almost as if, what do the petty corruptions of faceless bureaucrats matter? It matters a great deal if you take the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, tax this, stop that, cycle to work and eat grass approach to sustainability. Then, corrupt government would really matter because they would be corrupt people with the moral authority to interfere in every aspect of industry and people's lives. That would be a disaster. Fortunately freedom can strike the winning blow; and apply the magma energy technology to afford our way of life.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    Yes. So government suck but at least with them we are not still eating in the gass and being slaves to others. Agree, you are right in this point. Somehow it is evolved to provide us security, freedom, equality, etc... (well it depends which government we are talking about go to Brazil or Myanmar...) but it does not get the pass they deserve. They (aka government/leviathan) instructed us that literally without them it is impossible to live in standards. Well I am somehow disagree. If you go to some villages or folks in USA or Canada they live happily despite they do not afford all of our rights/development.
    so I guess the problem along the government is the mass which is uncontrollable.

    As @Tzeentch said in another thread:

    I would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    Government as a necessary evil, in face of a boat load of incoming evil. Exactly what I'm trying to convey.
  • CallMeDirac
    72

    if youd read the post youd not be stating this. I explained exactly that. I support having a govt.
  • T Clark
    13.9k


    Your plan for action, if it were realized, would lead to wars, massacres, torture, and genocide. All the worst things you want to stop. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    politics or religion--what else is there?Bitter Crank

    Come on BC, you know this - sex, philosophy, and sports.
  • Banno
    25k
    Children write the funniest things.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.