Where is the part where they start asking you for money to join?…

It has the makings of a cult playing on the current climate of fears.

Edit: Classic end of days stuff

Yep, I agree. I might even say that some far-right wackos, perhaps even fascists, are wearing some interesting labels nowadays. What would a WPF badge signify to you? Is there a philosophical brinkmanship being currently championed? For good and bad purposes? Has this always been so?
Do you have fav philosophers that liked to take people to a brink of thought? Is Jordan Peterson a good example? Did Dan Dennet try to warn against such brinkmanship with his term deepities?

That website is obviously run by an unhinged nutter or a collection of nutters.

Not sure what you mean by the brink word and too many pointless questions there.

Philosophical brinkmanship! Sounds dangerous and being rational, being a truthseeker, comes with risks to life and limb. How many people have laid down their lives for logos (reason) and veritas (truth)? More than you can count surely! Remember Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, was executed! Aristotle fled Athens saying he wouldn't allow Athens to sin twice against philosophy (by being put to death as well).

Atheism, a philosophical movement grounded in logic and skepticism has its own list of martyrs, comparable to religion's own.

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth. — Plato

Remember Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, was executed! — Agent Smith

So, are these examples of philosophers who played the brinkmanship game and lost? or did they actually win due to a martyrdom card? You, for example have accepted the title of 'the father of western philosophy,' even though we have no actual writings from Socrates.
Would you call a character like Jordan Peterson a philosopher who likes to use brinkmanship?
He seems to suggest concepts like 'If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.' (line from a well-known Manic Street Preachers song.) Whereas, Sam Harris, Steve Pinker etc, not so much.
Is philosophical brinkmanship the only way to attract the majority?

No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth. — Plato

But how do we stop, 'truth is a question of who has the biggest stick!'

Not sure what you mean by the brink word and too many pointless questions there. — Deus

I corrected some of the language errors I initially made, did that help? If not, what do you mean 'pointless questions?' Do you mean you don't understand the questions? or you don't think they are worth answering?

Not worth answering pandering to my opinion of what I think of such and such a personality is a waste of time.

Fair enough!

Philosophical brinkmanship happens, in my humble opinion, when someone commits to a creed and becomes its strong proponent, willing to fight to the death to win supporters.

While I mentioned philosophical martyrs in my previous post, the kind of people who I mention im the previous paragraph aren't exactly them. A philosophical shaheed is one who sacrifices himself for truth/reason while a philosophical fanatic is simply someone who has consecrated his life to a system of philosophical beliefs whether it's true or reasonable.

As for might is right, this is an unfortunate state of affairs we have to simply put up with at the moment. Philosophical martyrs will, at one point or another, tackle it effectively.

You remain non-committal Mr Smith. You seem to agree that philosophical brinkmanship is a valid term but is it merely a blunt tool to 'inflame' the masses and it often backfires and often becomes the cause of your own demise? Or is it essential if you want to cause significant change as quickly as possible?
A line from the Prince song 'sign o the times'
"A man ain't happy Unless a man truly dies.'
I always took this as a line about brinkmanship.
Is this what humans always need? Brinkmanship? before they change their ways?
Otherwise, they become apathetic and change only happens at much slower than a snail's pace.
Is this the philosophical/psychiatric reason why voters in so many countries seem to be choosing 'extreme,' 'wacky,' 'colourful,' 'slightly mad,' leaders?

Well, it is what it is, oui mon ami? Do you know the student syndrome? Assignments are postponed until the 11^th hour! It's part of our psychology it seems to not act until a situation becomes critical.

Surely it is wiser to see the car coming from a great distance away and then you have plenty of time to plan how to avoid getting killed by it.
Even the recent Nasa effort to divert asteroids from hitting the Earth by crashing a satellite into it etc is a good idea. 'Future proofing,' is the best response. A clear and present danger may require some kind of brinkmanship when there is no time to do anything else. But philosophical brinkmanship is in general, a bad approach in my opinion. People should pay attention to what is going on and educate themselves, socially, politically and historically. The fact that far too many people, are still so easy to manipulate and dupe, is the problem. Philosophical brinkmanship is still far too powerful a weapon imo.
It's unbelievable that "More than 120 football fans have reportedly died after chaos and violence erupted following an Indonesian league football match." and "If Bolsonaro does not win then there might be civil unrest in Brazil," Etc The rest of the world should be screaming at them instead of merely shaking their heads. 'SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE OF BRAZIL AND INDONESIA!"

The closest thing I can think of are "ontological commitments," in metaphysics. It's normally along the lines of "don't go down X road of accepting Y, because if you do you'll be logically forced to accept Z!" This happens in ethics too. It's the same sort of idea of telling someone that if they cross a given line there will be all these follow on consequences.

But definitely not quite the same thing. I don't think the game theory of brinkmanship comes up much in the actual arguments of philosophy, maybe in university politics though.

Keeping oneself well-informed isn't easy at all.

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed. — Mark Twain

Yeah, but my focus is more about what makes people 'commit' themselves today to a particular point of view.
Okay, so we have ontology as a method of categorisation and of listing propositional logic scenarios such as x ⇒ you accept y ⇒ you must accept z. You also exemplified a personal choice scenario by typing 'don't go down x.'
So, if a person who deserves the title philosopher either due to academic qualifications or through personal publishing's decides to 'manipulate' (either positively or negatively) by offering the example you suggest in a brinkmanship style such as x ⇒ you accept y ⇒ you must accept z, where x, y, z.
power ⇒ responsibility ⇒ consequences.
Brinkmanship scenarios seem to be, employed a lot today.
How do you counter those who employ such brinkmanship philosophy?
Surely philosophers must have discussed this in depth.
Is rule by fear/threat/terror a legitimate philosophy? Basic Nazi philosophy for beginners.
Take people to the brink of their fears! That's the way to get them to live as you dictate.
Does that philosophy work?
Promise people anything they want until you get power! Take them to the brink of their desires!
Does that philosophy work?
Do these approaches only work for so long but ultimately fall.
Gandi said that all tyrants eventually fall. History suggests that he was correct but the 'we are on the brink' approach, still seems to have a great deal of power and attracts so many into knee-jerk voting such as in the elections of Trump, Bo Jo, Bolsonaro etc

Yep, I agree, too much to know and not enough personal brain space to store it nor time to assimilate it.
Maybe that's part of the problem, we have so much getting thrown at us that it's tough to even know where the real threats are coming from.

Yep, I agree, too much to know and not enough personal brain space to store it nor time to assimilate it.
Maybe that's part of the problem, we have so much getting thrown at us that it's tough to even know where the real threats are coming from. — universeness

Aye! Like I once said, true/not, we're, each one of us, the best we can be given our circumstances. So if someone doesn't give a flyin' f**k about the truth or reason or ethics then we shouldn't hold that against that someone. He can't help but be the way he is; nature and nurture conspired to make him like that. Am I being too kind, too soft, too Dr. Pangloss when I adop this attitude?

I try to judge others on a case-by-case basis. I will accept mitigating circumstances, sure but there are very definite levels of personal responsibility that cannot be shirked even when considering every aspect of the circumstances you find yourself in. Again, I am reminded of the muse song I posted on another thread. How many people could be made into the following and for how long?

:up: My point was we shouldn't take the moral high ground because luck/chance has a significant role in our ethical lives.

My point was we shouldn't take the moral high ground because luck/chance has a significant role in our ethical lives. — Agent Smith

But there has to BE a moral high ground or else what do we aspire to? If we present a moral high ground then it has to be 'occupied,' otherwise it becomes farcical.
In a classroom, would you, as an adult, speak out against the use of any recreational drug or underage drinking etc, even if you did not follow such guidelines yourself, when you were their age?
You may be a judge, who truly feels that all paedophile's should simply be shot in the head in the local public square or burned at the stake and the local children allowed to watch whilst eating free popcorn.
We all have to listen very carefully to the 'better angels of our nature,' or else we all turn back into jungle style ferrule creatures. You can't build a good and progressive society based on personal instincts.

I see what you're getting at. Nevertheless, philosophers have been thinking about (moral) luck.

I think that examples like:

Urgent notice!
Humanity is closer than never to the overall self-annihilation after mutual nuclear strikes!
All inhabitants of the Earth, be ready!
Now you have a good chance to fly to Heaven at any moment,
or, most likely, because of your total civil ignorance and social dementia - to Hell!
Most of Humanity has gone mad and is ready to die for nothing, therefore
WPF activity and guidance are intended only for those people, who still want to LIVE on this planet!
WPF invites such humans to join our universal community of Earth citizens,
aimed to live in the new, better World Order! — universeness

From a website called The World Philosophical Forum is much more akin to a term like philosophical brinkmanship than it is akin to a concept like '(moral) luck' but perhaps, it was not your intention to compare the two and you were merely offering your view about what the current philosophy community is discussing and offering their listeners.

I don't know where you're going with this.

Philosophical brinkmanship as in calling for change/belief ... at any cost? That would be terrible indeed!

Okay, I will try to explain myself a little better.
Brinkmanship is being used a great deal nowadays, agree?
Many doomsters try to convince the majority of others, to live their life as if they are on the brink. On the eve of the destruction of themselves and their species. Theism certainly employs this tactic as do anti-lifers and general pessimists/doomsters. Threats from madmen such as Putin and political rhetoric from vile characters such as Trump, Bolsonaro, right wing supremists etc seem to confirm this approach.
In my OP, I was asking the 'philosophers' here, (the academic ones and those who have studied the topic in-depth,) how philosophy/philosophers would respond to my 'philosophical brinkmanship,' term. @Count Timothy von Icarus for example offered 'ontological commitment,' and suggested (I think) that the concept of 'philosophical brinkmanship' was not something discussed much amongst philosophers. You seemed to suggest that there was some validity to the phrase.

Philosophical brinkmanship as in calling for change/belief ... at any cost? That would be terrible indeed! — Agent Smith

So, amongst the ancient philosophers, who do you think most employed the brinkmanship approach?
Who used fear, threat, etc. A kind of "Listen, we are all utterly doomed, if you don't listen to me!' approach, as their 'philosophy,' when trying to communicate with the masses.
Which of the now dead philosophers used this approach and why do you think they chose to.
Which of the current philosophers use this and why do they choose to? (I think Jordan Peterson does, for example).
My final question on this is again, a why question.
Is brinkmanship used because if you win, you win big? but if you lose, you lose big?
Is it the 'all in' poker game?
If a person/group/movement wants to change things for what they think would be better.
Let's say I want to establish a humanist/socialist global system.
Is the most successful approach, likely to be, the application of a philosophy of brinkmanship.
You will get your system established much quicker and embed it much deeper and make sure it lasts much longer if you convince the people that all alternatives will result in their destruction.
Are there many 'philosophers' that support that approach? As opposed to those who would suggest that 'reasoned argument,' and 'convincing the people through honest discourse,' is the best way to get them to trust you and give your system a trial period?

Einstein wrote on a piece of paper "A calm and modest life brings more happiness than the pursuit of success combined with constant restlessness."

There's no doubt in our mental gymnastics, we consider the extremes. I believe it helps us feel opinionated and helps derive meaning to come to important decisions. However the maturity of thinking appears to be something more modest and universally pragmatic.

I certainly consider extremes, but I don't choose to fully exist there.
Do you feel that the powers that be, the media and perhaps many 'philosophers' seem determined to push us all in the direction of focusing on extreme scenario's?

No doubt the powers that be have a vested interest in pushing extreme philosophies. At the risk of starting a fight, I won't throw any of the obvious (to me) extreme philosophies under the bus. But maybe capitalism is a favorite whipping post that does drive a lot of our thinking.

But to your statement, yeah, it's ok to pass through extreme philosophies, but not "exist there".

Is there an agenda to drive us to extreme philosophies... I'm going to vote "yes". I don't think any form of government on earth in history has arrived at the utopia they claim to push to achieve. Not that we should be dismissive of good ideas and lessons learned. That would suggest then that historically we were driven to extremes and collapse was the result.

I certainly consider extremes, but I don't choose to fully exist there.
Do you feel that the powers that be, the media and perhaps many 'philosophers' seem determined to push us all in the direction of focusing on extreme scenario's? — universeness

The mainstream media is nothing compared to GB News. Their narrative, day after day, is that there's a war for the heart and soul of the country against the politically correct, woke, lefties. They and a large proportion of Britain are angrier than the left, despite the right being in power for over a decade, and the current government being the furthest to the right. Practically everything in politics has gone in their favour and they still find things to be the end of the world.

I include Jordan Peterson as a right wing drama queen.

A (true) philosopher wouldn't resort to brinkmanship - it's out of character.

I broadly agree.