How is it that you deny what is before you?

This sentence is in English — Banno

Nah — Thorongil

Sometimes fear trumps reason. But I really will leave it at that.

[DELETED]

I wrote a long impassioned response here, but - forget about it. I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off. — Wayfarer

Okay I see. I did manage to read your post before you deleted though, but I will not go over all the points since you have removed it, something that I think was a good thing!

Suffice to say that there are some points which you mentioned with which I agree regarding Trump, and some that I disagree with. The biggest one I disagree with is that Trump lies worse than other politicians. He doesn't. If anything, I'd say he's more honest, even if it ends up badly for him. You have yet to show me that Trump says whatever it takes to get elected, to be popular, etc.

The problem with saying Trump lies is that the media is nit picking. For example, they say he lied about Mexico paying for the wall. No he didn't. He just changed from saying Mexico will pay to Mexico will reimburse the US for it. So what? His intention remains the same, at least as he voices it, that Mexico will pay. That's not lying in my mind. Lying would be to be like "Nah, Mexico ain't gonna pay anymore, it will be all on us!"

The other point that I wanted to address is that you suggested I have a hang up with authority, and I fear that order will dissolve. Well, I have very little to fear, because as far as I'm concerned order has already - long ago - dissolved. Probably order has dissolved more than 100 years ago already!! We've really got nothing to lose by this point. This is all an effort to restore order, with - I will give you that - a low probability of success.

As for my hang up with authority being due to coming from a more authoritarian regime which has dissolved, that's false since I hold it that Communist rule was worse than post-communist rule, and in fact Communist rule is responsible for the troubles that Eastern European countries face today.

As for the fact that you noticed that I'm against democracy, well that's no secret. Democracy is the worst system of government, with the sole exception of tyranny which is indeed worse. In fact, democracy is also a tyranny - it's called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can only ever be average - thus democracy is a force that pulls society towards the average, the mediocre. The behaviour of the mediocre, their way of life - that is what gets promoted in democracy, that is what is valued. A spiritual person can only be opposed to democracy - this nefarious system of government that has killed both Jesus and Socrates. "Who do you want?" - "Uhhh we want Barabbas, we want Barabbas!" say the stupid masses - "And what shall I do with Jesus whom they call Christ?" - "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!"

The masses are animals, who have never understood the enlightened man. In fact, they have tried to kill him. Spinoza was stabbed and isolated. Schopenhauer could not find his entire life a true kindred soul. All the wise men of history have been forced to live in caves and in isolation. The masses are a danger to the wise man, and they have to be ruled, as Spinoza said, through hope and fear.

A spiritual person cannot be a democrat. That would be a contradiction in terms.

You wrote:

I think this is actually a serious misunderstanding of the gravity of our modern situation. I think Alasdair MacIntyre was right in his book After Virtue that we, as a society, no longer have the tools and the means required to settle moral disputes.

What tools and means would those be - that we once had but no longer do?

You wrote:

You presuppose that the atheist, agnostic and so on so on (to adopt a Zizek line) can become friends, but this is already to presuppose the victory of the atheist. The real problem of course is that these are very different ways of life, which are mutually contradictory. When you say we can all get along, you are effectively doing harm to non-atheistic (I'm using atheist in a very loose sense here) ways of life. It is what the atheist always promotes - toleration - but toleration means the destruction of beliefs that disagree with his.

I presuppose nothing. To quite the contrary, I'm reporting upon what I've witnessed and/or actively been a part of myself.

It's not about a 'victory' for the atheist.

Religions are not at all equivalent to a way of life.

The problem isn't that 'these are very different ways of life'. The problem is that they're misunderstood as such.

Getting along doesn't necessitate the destruction of any belief other than those which make it impossible to get along. There are people who claim to be from every religion that harbor those.

It's not about religion... exclusively.

You wrote:

Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal.

Affirming the consequent? That is precisely what need argued for.

What makes ethical statements different to other statements is that they are supposedly what everyone ought do. — Banno

Indeed, and everyone ought to do them because if they don't, then the particular way of life that the ethics sustains becomes impossible.

Agustino's Hindu, Muslim and Catholic might agree in their condemnation of the atheist, but once the atheist is gone that agreement will break as they take to each other. — Banno

That is indeed possible, and that was the case in the past. However, one would hope that we have reached sufficient enlightenment to realize that all religions strive to reach after truth, even if some may reach higher than others.

A fascist accepts that fascists may use coercion; Islamists accept that muslims can use coercion; but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno

We need to define our terms here. In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. I am against that kind of coercion. Morality must be freely chosen.

OF course there are liberals who coerce; that's a problem. But the proper liberal response is to protest and reject coercion in the name of liberalism. — Banno

But liberalism is a problem, not a solution. Liberalism seems to presuppose that my freedom can be conceived independently from yours. Each individual is seen as an atom, separate but relating with the others. Whereas I think the reality is that people are more like links in a chain, we're intimately related one with the other, such that my freedom must always be conceived also in terms of your freedom. That is why you say:

but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno

This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. For example, take abortion. The liberal argues that the woman should be able to choose what she does with her body - in this case whether she has sex and whether she chooses to keep the baby or not. But this is not at all the case - because in reality her freedom to decide impacts both the baby's freedom (by killing him/her it is taken away) and also her partner (who may have wanted to keep the baby). Thus it is not at all clear that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". It may be possible that what is going on inside your nose affects me, and limits my freedom - and you OUGHT to take this into account, even if you ultimately have to decide. If you become a totalitarian now and say "it's none of your business, it's my decision, bla bla" you have oppressed me. If you refuse to take into account other people who may be affected by your actions on account of your freedom, then you have oppressed. And most self-styled liberals today do exactly this. And you have done so under the magic of an illusion (a false conception of freedom).

A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente. — Banno

I don't think so. I think quite the contrary, the liberal framework intensifies conflict by putting a rug over it and covering it up under a set of assumptions (such as the conception of freedom) which does not reflect reality. It is nothing but magic.

What tools and means would those be - that we once had but no longer do? — creativesoul

A rational moral framework. Rational discourse.

To quite the contrary, I'm reporting upon what I've witnessed and/or actively been a part of myself. — creativesoul

Yes, I've witnessed this too, but the religious people who did that came on the losing end.

Religions are not at all equivalent to a way of life. — creativesoul

They are. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious thing that the ways of life of religious people are different, then there's not much I can do.

Getting along doesn't necessitate the destruction of any belief other than those which make it impossible to get along. There are people who claim to be from every religion that harbor those. — creativesoul

Okay, so if I maintain that abortion is immoral and you maintain that it's not, how are we going to get along when we as a society have to act one way or the other? :s

People from the same religion have different ways of life.

We still have rational moral frameworks. It's less about tolerance and more about beginning by virtue of valuing another human, first and foremost, because they are human. We are much more alike than unalike. All religious belief is subject to familial, historical, and cultural particulars. That's not the end of an argument, it's the beginning of rational moral frameworks.

You should have a look at After Virtue to see what I'm talking about when I say rational moral framework...

:D @Agustino, for some reason I picture you as some combination of opportunist, evolution-denier, anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier, conspiracy theorist, proud supernaturalist, wannabe rebel, arrogant troll, misogynist, non-empathetic mental barbarian, with imaginary friends in higher places.

A spiritual person cannot be a democrat. That would be a contradiction in terms — Agustino

This is where I think you tend towards fascism. You have a real hang-up about authority and control. Banno raises the 'tradition of liberalism', and you answer 'what about abortion?' Who is talking about 'having abortions'? What has that got to do with the discussion?

I agree with you that the decline of spiritual principles is the cause of moral and social decay. But you simply can't assert that your way - whatever that way is - is the only way. That's what you're saying here. The idea of 'principled opposition' is basic to democracy, yet you don't seem to understand it.

The problem with saying Trump lies is that the media is nit picking. For example, they say he lied about Mexico paying for the wall. No he didn't. He just changed from saying Mexico will pay to Mexico will reimburse the US for it. So what? His intention remains the same, at least as he voices it, that Mexico will pay. That's not lying in my mind. Lying would be to be like "Nah, Mexico ain't gonna pay anymore, it will be all on us!" — Agustino

Trump demonstrably tells untruths, all the time - sometimes outright lies, other times distortions or half-truths, and other times falsehoods out of ignorance. This is documented. The media is not 'nit-picking' - the list of those lies is here, and these have been exhaustively fact-checked by large teams of people. The fact that Trump lies more than Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or any other US President or Presidential candidate. This is a rolled-gold, 100% solid, verifiable and indisputable fact, and to doubt it is to either be deceived or to be party to it. It's all there black and white, read the list.

I know that CNN, NY Times and Washington Post have their own biases and blinkers on, but they have teams of journalists working on this material, and if you believe they're all engaged in a conspiracy, then really I do think that your mind has been stolen by Internet memes.

You also must understand, with Trump it is not 'conservative vs liberal or 'republican vs democrat'. There are many Republicans and conservatives, who think that Trump has hijacked their party, who are deeply furious with his lies and lack of principle. There are formal groups called "Republicans Against Trump'. By all means, be conservative, support the Republican Party, but you need to understand that Trump hates the Republican party. He routinely belittles and derides its leadership, trashes its policies and undermines its ability to get its legislation passed. And this is what you're defending.

Democracy is the least worst option. It often totally sucks, but how is the alternative NOT some form of tyranny? The only thing that is between Trump and martial law, are the democratic institutions and the press.

And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. It's only that I do detect an element of actual philosophical insight, that causes me to bother persisting with you.

And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. It's only that I do detect an element of actual philosophical insight, that causes me to bother persisting with you. — Wayfarer

My spider-sense gave me the impression of an "any means to my end" sentiment. Agustino would possibly go for some specific theocracy over democracy.

:D Agustino, for some reason I picture you as some combination of opportunist, evolution-denier, anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier, conspiracy theorist, proud supernaturalist, wannabe rebel, arrogant troll, misogynist, non-empathetic mental barbarian, with imaginary friends in higher places. — jorndoe

A vomit of insults - sometimes one needs to vomit to get the poison out. Feel better now? ;)

Next time, try not to drink so much my friend.

This is where I think you tend towards fascism. You have a real hang-up about authority and control. — Wayfarer

I don't think it's a hang up at all. It's absolutely important. Democracy has in fact killed some of the most enlightened people who have ever lived. It's just a fact. That is also why Plato for example spoke so badly about democracy. In fact, most of the world's greatest thinkers in history have been opposed to democracy. Authority and control are absolutely essential, and there's nothing about fascism here. Fascism is the imposition of morality by physical force, I'm not talking about that kind of illegitimate authority. I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy.

Banno raises the 'tradition of liberalism', and you answer 'what about abortion?' Who is talking about 'having abortions'? What has that got to do with the discussion? — Wayfarer

The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account.

The idea of 'principled opposition' is basic to democracy, yet you don't seem to understand it. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is basic to democracy, but I have already said I don't have much of a high opinion about democracy. So you should start out by telling me why I should reconsider democracy first of all. To tell me that "principled opposition" is basic to democracy is irrelevant granted that I don't consider democracy a valid system of government.

I agree with you that the decline of spiritual principles is the cause of moral and social decay. But you simply can't assert that your way - whatever that way is - is the only way. That's what you're saying here. — Wayfarer

Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"?

Trump demonstrably tells untruths, all the time - sometimes outright lies, other times distortions or half-truths, and other times falsehoods out of ignorance. This is documented. The media is not 'nit-picking' - the list of those lies is here, and these have been exhaustively fact-checked by large teams of people. — Wayfarer

I will look through that list. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician.

he fact that Trump lies more than Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or any other US President or Presidential candidate. This is a rolled-gold, 100% solid, verifiable and indisputable fact, and to doubt it is to either be deceived or to be party to it. It's all there black and white, read the list. — Wayfarer

I disagree about this as of now.

I know that CNN, NY Times and Washington Post have their own biases and blinkers on, but they have teams of journalists working on this material, and if you believe they're all engaged in a conspiracy, then really I do think that your mind has been stolen by Internet memes. — Wayfarer

I never claimed they're engaged in a conspiracy. Oh no, that would be far too absurd. They're doing it unconsciously - they're driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. How have they internalised it? By living in a society governed by the values that Hollywood promotes. Now anything that is threatening to their ideology, they perceive as dangerous, and seek to destroy. They cannot see the world straight. That is the problem.

Again, it is almost impossible to find a conservative at these media agencies. You think Don Lemon, etc. are conservatives? :s Why not? Because of the peer pressure and culture of the place which shapes people into what they have to be in order to work there. It's quite an unconscious thing.

You also must understand, with Trump it is not 'conservative vs liberal or 'republican vs democrat'. There are many Republicans and conservatives, who think that Trump has hijacked their party, who are deeply furious with his lies and lack of principle. There are formal groups called "Republicans Against Trump'. By all means, be conservative, support the Republican Party, but you need to understand that Trump hates the Republican party. He routinely belittles and derides its leadership, trashes its policies and undermines its ability to get its legislation passed. And this is what you're defending. — Wayfarer

I am not a Republican. My support for Trump is above the support for the Republican Party. It is a party full of cronies and profiteering monkeys, I would not support them. I may support individual people from within the Republican Party, but not the party as such. So I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done.

You think for example I supported George W. Bush? :s

Democracy is the least worst option. It often totally sucks, but how is the alternative NOT some form of tyranny? The only thing that is between Trump and martial law, are the democratic institutions and the press. — Wayfarer

Well, to begin with, there are other non-democratic systems that are not tyrannical. Tyranny means irrational authority. But a constitutional monarchy for example would be a rational form of authority, and therefore good. I much agree with Plato - society should be ruled by philosopher kings.

And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. — Wayfarer

Well, sorry to tell you but are you now suggesting that I am:

anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier — jorndoe

That is an outright lie.

JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)

Yes he made a tiny statement in answer to a question: "Are you for invading Iraq?" which he answered "Yeah, I guess so". That's not a lie. Give me a break. He never totally endorsed the war. As far as I'm concerned, he was still one of the first people to start opposing it. Anyone can make such a statement at first. He answered a casual question casually.

I really am perturbed that people can say that he lied about this. Absolutely perturbed. How is that even a lie?!

JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)

Yes, he said a falsehood, but it's not a lie. He thought it's an all-time record, and he was wrong. No big deal.

JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)

Reportedly he said this in November and he was pushing for an investigation on it. I agree that this is a lie.

JAN. 25 “Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)

Hyperbole and figure of speech. Truth is, it was a massive crowd. Not "biggest ever", but quite big.

JAN. 25 “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

Trump never said this, it was some of his associates which did.

Neither study Mr. Spicer apparently referred to supports Mr. Trump’s claim.

The first study was conducted in 2014 by professors at Old Dominion University and discussed on Monkey Cage, a blog hosted by The Washington Post. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the researchers found that 14 percent of noncitizens who responded to the survey in 2008 and 2010 said they were registered to vote.

The problem is that the study relied on flawed data and was roundly criticized by political scientists who said that a more careful examination of the data revealed no evidence that noncitizens had voted in recent elections.

The second study, conducted in 2012 by the Pew Center on the States, found that 24 million voter registrations were no longer valid or “significantly inaccurate”; that more than 1.8 million dead people were still listed on the voter rolls; and that almost three million were registered in multiple states, probably because they had moved from one state to another.

They didn't show actual voter fraud, but they showed it's very possible to commit voter fraud. So again, not a complete lie. There's quite a bit of truth in there.

JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)

We also found that 3.9 million people are now
covered through the state and federal marketplace—the socalled
insurance exchanges—and less than 1 million people
who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured
during the period in question

Using this estimate, our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA. Another 6 percent reported that their plan was cancelled for other reasons, and 75.4 percent reported that they did not receive a notice of cancellation (figure 1).

Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

When you investigate most of this shit-storm, most of it is empty air and nothing more (although there are some real lies, even in this small sample I bothered to check). Reporters are told "write a story on this, hurry quick quick!". They research for 5 minutes around, read a few words here and there, and then pull out a story. I've spoken with people who work in Newspapers - I know how this stuff happens, and how little care is given to it. And how do they pull out a story? By having a feel for what they should write.

Now, the audience was the biggest ever.

One of my friends also told me "you should come with me to XXX place, they have the best steak ever there!" -> is he a liar now, because there's some place in the world where there's better steak?! Of course not, I understand what he means by that. Same with Trump.

All of you blinded democracy lovers should listen to what people like this guy have to say:



It is really beyond reason that a spiritual person can consider democracy - the rule of the stupid masses - where rulers are temporary, and not in fact rulers at all, but rather thieves and abusers - as an acceptable system of government. Democracy is a disease, which very likely is close to the root of the loss of spiritual values. Democracy - whatsoever is immoral is the product of democracy. Debauchery is a very democratic affair afterall - it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine a non-democratic man in a night club.

Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.

This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia sounds EXACTLY like a description of our current society today.

First, I take back my endorsement of JornDoe's post and have removed that comment.

I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy. — Agustino

Right - so you might be reactionary, rather than fascist.

But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those? You're thinking - what - Tehran? Saudi Arabia?

Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"? — Agustino

Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent'. In your view, there can only be one true way. That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. Tell me if I'm wrong.

The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account. — Agustino

When Banno was talking about liberalism, he isn't talking about the 'conservative vs liberal' dichotomy in the US. 'Liberalism' is an over-arching political philosophy which allows for principled dissent. You give no indication that you understand what this means.

I will look through that list [of Trump's lies]. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician. — Agustino

Nonsense. There is nothing else remotely close. But it doesn't matter to you, because you're not actually interested in facts; you like Trump, because you like how he makes you feel. He projects what you interpret as authority and control, so you wave the placards and repeat the slogans, without actually necessarily being aware that's what you're doing.

[the media] driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. — Agustino

And you're not? You think I'm not capable of detecting the bias and agenda of the Washington Post, and somehow, you are?

I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done. — Agustino

But, he's not 'hammering away' because he has anything better to offer. He has no principles and no grasp of politics. But, never mind - placards and slogans, eh? 'Lock her up! Lock her up!'

This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia... — Agustino

Look this summary of a demagogue from the same source:

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader) or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

The irony of appealing to Plato in support of Trump is rich indeed.

In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. — Agustino

Meh. The only part I disagree with is your restricting coercion to what is legally permitted. One can coerce illegally. Moot point.

The other word we ought be clear about is oppression. Oppression is not being obliged to avoid coercing others.

This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. — Agustino

Let's be clear that "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is an injunction, not an observation.

If we agree, as you say, that morality must be freely chosen, then we need social injunctions such that all are free to so choose."My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is just that. My freedom is limited in that I ought, as far as possible, not subject you to coercion.

Yes, we are intimately related, and in such a way that the tip of your nose ought place limits on my freedom. Not to follow this injunction will lead to true oppression.

I think I can see why fear trumps reason so easily. It has to do with Edward Bernays, focus groups, messaging and political persuasion. There is a sophisticated industry that has grown up around this, and its whole aim is to disseminate memes.

Let's be clear that "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is an injunction, not an observation. — Banno

Also nicely expressed by The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Right - so you might be reactionary, rather than fascist. — Wayfarer

Why so? If you think I'm a reactionary, then democrats are also reactionaries - they've taken us back to Ancient Greece! But of course, I'd make no such claim, because today's democracy is different than Greek democracy, just as today's constitutional monarchy would be different than yesterday's constitutional monarchy.

But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those? — Wayfarer

I know what you'll do here. You'll ask me for examples from today's world, I won't be able to give any, and then you'll claim that therefore democracy is the only real possibility. The problem with this argument is that of course since democracy is the dominating system it will make it seem like it is the only real alternative. That's what always is the case with political systems - when one system dominates, it seems like the only real alternative (that's part of the condition it needs to meet in order to dominate and not be replaced). Furthermore, a proposed better system will always be different than the "real" options currently existing by default.

You're thinking - what - Tehran? Saudi Arabia? — Wayfarer

No, none of the two. I said constitutional monarchy - Tehran is a theocracy, and Saudi is an absolute monarchy. There's differences between those three systems of government. Labelling non-democratic people as fascist is of course an attempt to deny other alternatives and affirm democracy as the only "real" possibility, but that's precisely what we should be investigating.

In your view, there can only be one true way. — Wayfarer

In what way though? I think there's generally multiple ways to find out the answer to a technical problem - such as how tall is a building - but I don't think you're intending to refer to this.

That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. — Wayfarer

Ah, so it's just about authority, democracy and spirituality. Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. There isn't only "one way" in politics, but there can be a way which is better than the others - some of the time, not in all matters though.

With regards to spirituality, there are multiple ways and paths (represented by the multiple religions). So each way or path is useful as far as it goes. But there is one way which reaches farther than the others.

Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent' — Wayfarer

I think people are allowed to dissent (speak out against something) provided they do this in a reasonable manner and without the use of violence. They should be respected for that.

'Liberalism' is an over-arching political philosophy which allows for principled dissent. You give no indication that you understand what this means. — Wayfarer

I wouldn't say principled dissent is the core principle of liberalism. Liberalism is the over-arching political philosophy of today that wants to claim that it is the only legitimate way, which is a problem. That's why the most "liberalist" nation, the US, has so frequently invaded other parts of the world - in order to bring liberation, since only liberation is legitimate. Of course, this has been just a coverup for imposing their own way of life on other people, and depriving them of any actual freedom.

Nonsense. There is nothing else remotely close. But it doesn't matter to you, because you're not actually interested in facts; you like Trump, because you like how he makes you feel. — Wayfarer

Well I am interested in the facts, my problem with many of those lies is that they're not factual and they're misinterpreted and twisted around. You keep talking as if Trump was my ideal President, and of course he's not, in fact I made it clear from long ago that I support Trump only as a way to destroy the system.

He projects what you interpret as authority and control — Wayfarer

I don't think it's this. Rather many of his actions are good. Attacking the media, attacking the Republican Party, bringing back the notion of protecting heritage and not taking down the statues, encouraging respect of law and order, including the sovereignty of a country, and so on so forth. This is true even if his intentions are wrong.

And you're not? You think I'm not capable of detecting the bias and agenda of the Washington Post, and somehow, you are? — Wayfarer

I never said you're incapable and I'm capable. The sentence you quoted was simply justification for why the media is biased. It's not because there is a massive conspiracy (as you suggested in our previous exchange that I would believe). But rather because:

[the media] driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. — Agustino

But, he's not 'hammering away' because he has anything better to offer. — Wayfarer

Yes, in many cases this is true.

He has no principles and no grasp of politics. — Wayfarer

I think he actually does have some principles, maybe not consciously, but he has some ingrained in him. Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? It wasn't politically expedient for him to do so, was it? Quite the contrary, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. But he stood up to speak against it. This suggests to me that there are some other drives inside of him. The ego is important, but the ego can be taken over by such principles, because, for example, he'll want to think about himself as the big someone who stops these thugs from destroying American heritage.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader) or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Sure, but I have been saying this for a very long time. And I've been very badly criticised because of it. How dare I say that we as a society really value "pussy-grabbing" and the like? How dare I say Trump really represents the majority as they are, not as they'd like to pretend to be?

Oppression is not being obliged to avoid coercing others. — Banno

Sure.

If we agree, as you say, that morality must be freely chosen, then we need social injunctions such that all are free to so choose. — Banno

I think it's a fact that all are free to choose, rather you might mean that their freedom to choose should be protected.

My freedom is limited in that I ought, as far as possible, not subject you to coercion. — Banno

Ah, it would be great if in practice freedom was so limited! But this is often not taken into account, often quite the contrary, coercing me is taken to be your freedom. You must be aware that what is deemed to be one's freedom is very often exactly that which harms another. For example, pro-choice people view it as the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body, but this is precisely that which harms the baby.

The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” — Banno

The dictionary finally catching up to reality, thousands of years later. :)

But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those?
— Wayfarer
I know what you'll do here. — Agustino

I'll ask you a question, and you will evade the answer.

Democracy is not 'a system'. Democracy is the opportunity to suggest 'a system'. You still don't get that.

Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. — Agustino

Without saying what they are.

With regards to spirituality, there are multiple ways and paths (represented by the multiple religions). So each way or path is useful as far as it goes. But there is one way which reaches farther than the others. — Agustino

Which is yours, right?

Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? I — Agustino

Because he hasn't got an f*ing clue what they mean, but that it would appeal to the racists and nazis that support him.

Democracy is not 'a system'. Democracy is the opportunity to suggest 'a system'. You still don't get that. — Wayfarer

Democracy is not the opportunity to suggest the system, it's the opportunity to suggest someone to be in charge of particular functions within an already pre-established system. This difference is very important to understand.

Without saying what they are. — Wayfarer

I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. How am I not saying what they are? What would you want me to tell you that is missing?

Which is yours, right? — Wayfarer

I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable.

Likewise if you don't think Buddhism is the right path, or that it goes further than other paths, why are you even a Buddhist? :s

Because he hasn't got an f*ing clue what they mean, but that it would appeal to the racists and nazis that support him. — Wayfarer

How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion?

Furthermore, how many racists and neo-nazis are there? Let's say 50,000 in the whole of the US. Would anyone bother to appeal to 50,000 people for political support if they are a (smart) opportunist looking to win elections while risking alienating millions?! 63 million people voted for Donald Trump. That's his base, and most of them aren't neo-nazis, KKK, etc. So either Trump is stupid and trying to appeal to groups that have no influence whatsoever, OR he has a personal sentiment that taking down the statues is destroying the heritage of the US. I'm inclined to believe the latter. And I have no reason to believe that he has no clue what the statues mean.

Furthermore, how many racists and neo-nazis are there? Let's say 50,000 in the whole of the US. Would anyone bother to appeal to 50,000 people for political support if they are a (smart) opportunist looking to win elections while risking alienating millions?! 63 million people voted for Donald Trump

There may be a few unregistered racists in the US.

I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. — Agustino

Good luck with that.

I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable. — Agustino

That's not the point. The point is that democracy enables principled opposition. When you say that democracy ought to be abolished, and that it is impossible to be 'spiritual and democratic', then what you're recommending is some form of authoritarianism, where divergence of views is not tolerated. However, you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're saying. I think you yourself don't understand the implications of your arguments, because they're being driven by your emotions, not by rational analysis and certainly not by any credible political philosophy.

How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion? — Agustino

The fact that Trump is notoriously clueless, doesn't read anything, doesn't remember anything. They have to his official papers with his name so he bothers reading them.


Listen, Agostino - this thread is about post-truth, and Trump's role in it. I presented a list of more than a thousand falsehoods, spoken by Trump, published and on the record, and you couldn't even be bothered to respond to it. You just waved it away. The fact of Trump's lies doesn't matter to you, because you're not interested in facts, which anyone reading this thread can see. Over and out.

Good luck with that. — Wayfarer

Hmm well you say good luck with that, but until now you were saying that I made no suggestions, while in truth I had made them. So why is it suddenly that you don't want to talk about them anymore?

The point is that democracy enables principled opposition. — Wayfarer

It doesn't pertain to the essence of democracy to enable principled opposition. Constitutional monarchy can also enable principled opposition.

When you say that democracy ought to be abolished, and that it is impossible to be 'spiritual and democratic', then what you're recommending is some form of authoritarianism, where divergence of views is not tolerated. — Wayfarer

This is not at all true. If democracy isn't appropriate, it doesn't follow that authoritarianism (or tyranny) is the answer. This makes it very difficult to argue with you because you're effectively giving me false alternatives - either democracy, or Nazis (or some dictatorial/authoritarian equivalent of them). That's not at all the case.

The fact that Trump is notoriously clueless, doesn't read anything, doesn't remember anything. They have to his official papers with his name so he bothers reading them. — Wayfarer

You do realise this is ALL speculation. So you're going to invent whether Trump has a clue or not about the statues, and then you're going to attack his comments based on that. Sorry, that's actually post-truth.

I presented a list of more than a thousand falsehoods, spoken by Trump, published and on the record, and you couldn't even be bothered to respond to it. — Wayfarer

?? I did respond to it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/100318

You just waved it away. — Wayfarer

No I didn't. I've read through the list and I've analysed a few of the so-called lies myself. Not all that are listed there are actually lies. I hope you realise that. Just because a journalist calls them lies, and says so and so about them, doesn't mean they're actually lies. You have to listen to or read the original sources and make up your own mind about them. Yes, some of them are no doubt lies, but others, probably more than 50% aren't.

I don't read the newspapers with regards to the US. My opinion about Trump is based mostly on primary sources alone. I listen to what he says, and I've listened to what he said for a long time. Including to his political opponents, like Hillary Clinton. I don't visit Trump loving websites on the internet, or anywhere else. My opinion isn't influenced by New York Times, or whatever other newspaper, because I never read the political sections of those news sources. My opinion about Trump isn't through the prism of some media or another - I just don't engage with them. I read mostly primary sources to get my news, I don't need it filtered through the heads of some journalists.

Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal.

That is not true.

Indeed, living together in the so-called modern Western society is being defeated and humiliated for a religious person.

If a religious person can live their lives according to their religious beliefs while not oppressing/coercing another, and they can, then how does that amount to being defeated and/or humiliated?

A Hindu and a Christian have more in common, and indeed can be friends, much better than a Christian and an atheist. There is after all not such a big divide between the Hindu and the Christian. The divide is superficial - different doctrines here and there, different theologies, and so on so forth. But fundamentally the Christian and the Hindu agree on the means of living in a community. We agree about the importance of respecting traditions, respecting authority, respecting one's family, sexual morality, how people should dress and so on so forth. There is a deep agreement that there exists a spiritual realm which is more important hierarchically than this material realm.

However, with the atheist, this is very different. The atheist cannot comprehend for example how sex has a spiritual meaning, and thus the atheist has a completely different understanding of sex. This understanding of it translates into his behaviour - and how he interprets the behaviours of others. We cannot have both his behaviour and my behaviour in society because they are mutually opposed. Indeed, if his behaviour is accepted, then mine is rejected. And I cannot allow that to happen. For example, he will interpret me teaching my daughter that it is immoral to have an abortion as oppression of women. Neither can the atheist allow his behaviour to be rejected. He cannot allow me to have my moral standard, because if I do, and I am successful, there is no place for his way of life, for his way of life will disappear since people will shun what is now viewed as immoral behaviour. Thus conflict is inevitable.

As I read through the above, I know that much of what is said about 'the atheist' quite simply isn't true.

Aside from that, it seems that this is skirting around something far more fundamental. The effects/affects that one's own thought/belief(worldview) has upon how s/he navigates the world.

Regarding your repeated concerns about abortion...

That argument was made long ago. No matter where you place it on a moral scale, if you value freedom, liberty, self-direction, the pursuit of one's own happiness, and you abhor coercion and/or oppression of these freedoms, then you must consider who has the right and/or authority to tell a woman what to do with her own body...

I say the woman, and in my saying that I honor both views, whereas if one opposes abortion, s/he is not honoring both views. Rather, s/he is forcing their own religious beliefs onto another.

As I read through the above, I know that much of what is said about 'the atheist' quite simply isn't true. — creativesoul

As I said, I used those classifications symbolically.

the pursuit of one's own happiness — creativesoul

No, I don't value this.

if you value freedom, liberty, self-direction — creativesoul

Yes, I think these are quite important.

then you must consider who has the right and/or authority to tell a woman what to do with her own body... — creativesoul

On my property and using my tools and my money? I do.

I say the woman, and in my saying that I honor both views, whereas if one opposes abortion, s/he is not honoring both views. Rather, s/he is forcing their own religious beliefs onto another. — creativesoul

I oppose abortion, and any woman interested to have it is free to have it with whoever agrees to it, but the government has no right to take my money and use it to fund abortions. Nor, if I am a doctor, does the government have any right to force me to give abortions to women if I don't want to. Both those would infringe my liberty and would be unacceptable.