My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity. — Questioner

I also think some are born that way. For others I have my doubts, and wonder if they haven't been influenced by culture to some extend. That's why I don't have an issue with helping transgenders, but at the same time do have some reservations about the way it has been dealt with culturally.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not necessarily promoting the Christian institution of marriage here... it was just an example of how one could view this issue from another perspective.

This is probably where we don't agree:

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender. — Questioner

Earlier I said the following:

We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think anyone needs to be coerced into being transgender for it to have an effect on people, because I think people tend to copy things they see. That's why advertising works. People will opt more readily for marriage and take it seriously if they feel that is the 'normal' thing to do, if they see other famous and succesfull people do the same.

Just by virtue of normalising a whole host of other kinds of relations and genderroles, you will influence some people following these other models. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think you effectively alter society in a way a Christian or Muslim might object to given the way he views the world and the kind of society he would prefer.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim.

What kind of traditions are you talking about? — Questioner

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition.

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights. — Questioner

What is the justification for it? Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma, whereas for everything else we demand reasons?

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

The idea that we should emancipate people from and critique traditions continuously is itself part of a tradition, set in motion with the onset of the enlightenment.

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country? — Questioner

It's not the human rights themselves that erode those attachments. Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract.

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining. — Questioner

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer.

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition." — Questioner

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional.

No society no matter what tradition will ever be perfectly free from oppression. If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights.

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me. — Questioner

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. The Chinese tradition for instance never develloped this notion of individual rights, but allways kept viewing things from a more societal point of view.

It's really the historical event of the belief in Christ that shifted the Western tradition from viewing things in terms of tribal/group consciousness to the individual. That's not the result of reason, but a shift in basic values.

And I do think there are a lot of issues with the concept of human rights. To name a few, 1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. And 2) the idea that we, 'the west', should universally impose a notion that is alien to other civilisations is also rather problematic.

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting" — Questioner

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

I don't know, it's an experiment like I said, and the jury is still out it seems to me, whereas we do have 'evidence' that heterosexual mariage as a norm worked reasonably well just by virtue of the fact that we are the descendants of a culture that had that norm.

This opens the door to harm done to others. — Questioner

Sure, but I don't think preventing harm is the only factor morals should be evaluated by, I'm not a utilitarian.

is this meant to discredit it? — Questioner

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions.

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — Questioner

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it.

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society. — Questioner

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010).

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself. — Questioner

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, and historically a pretty unusual one at that.

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society.

The issue is not the percentage of the total population, but the concentration in the cities. The immigrants are not integrating, have more kids than the natives and the natives are leaving the cities. That essentially means that what used to be the local cultural centres are turning into another culture... more and more visibly so.

Immigration policies may have changed over the last couple of years, but I don't see how you stop this ongoing process without measures most would rather avoid. And wherever one may fall on this issue, I think it is pretty save to say it will cause a lot of problems down the road.

In my view, the basic problem is that populism emphasizes the "us-them" dichotomy, increases political polarization and basically opposes democracy. Why?Accusing a certain group of people being The argumentation is that democracy has lead to "the elite" to control, and this can be only replaced by strong leaders and a new elite made up by the populists themselves. Hence political corruption isn't fought against transparency and reinforcing the institutions, but with a populist takeover lead by a strong leader. — ssu

Ok but it has been the case for decades now that democracy hasn't delivered governments that align with the will of the people on key issues, immigration of course being the prime example.

And then if this keeps happening over and over, if the institutions of the system don't seem to deliver, you will get a call for populists to take over and dismantle the institutions because they are perceived to be a part of the problem.

The underlying problem seems to be that institutions don't seem to work anymore and that there doesn't seem to be another way to deal with that.

I take on board your criticism, I don’t normally get involved in tit for tat comments, although in this occasion this did happen after I pointed out to Tzeentch that I perceive a clear anti European bias. — Punshhh

Don't take it to personally, it was as much me wanting to make a point about current discourse more generally, than criticising anyone in particular.

The EU and Europe are not one and the same. Anti-EU doesn't necessarily mean anti-Europe, though Putin and Trump being specifically disparaging of the EU and its associated elites does complicate things further.

It's tempting to view this merely as cynical power plays of authoritarian leaders to further their authoritarian causes... divide et impera. And then the natural response would seem to be that we have to unite and defend the EU.

But aside from geo-political interests there's also a deeper ideological battle going on for what the future direction of 'the West' should be. It think it would be a shame if we pigeonholed ourselves into merely defending the current system when there might be good reasons to criticize it.

What then has changed? — ssu

What has changed is that we feel less secure in our ideals now. And additionally the challenge to the establishment isn't coming from the left this time. After WWII certain factions from the right have always been systematically excluded from public debate and political power.

Yet when two large countries basically make it policy to be against the EU and intervene in matters of the union members, it's noteworthy and shouldn't be disregarded. And likely the outcome is different than they anticipated. Europe has to stand up against this. It doesn't stand up if it does what the bullies want it to do. — ssu

Here is how I think this plays out.

Russia does want to dissolve the EU and is actively supporting various people in our societies to further their goals.

Since we are, if not directly at war with Russia, at least supporting the party that is at war with Russia, Russia is perceived to be the enemy. And since they are the enemy, supporting a goal that is aligned with the goals of Russia is often perceived as a kind of treason.

This is how group dynamics work, if there is a perceived threat to the group, you get cries to rally around a flag that is in opposition to that threat. This dynamic then get used to silence those who might support goals that are aligned with a goal of the enemies.... propaganda on both sides.

What this does is you effectively push those opinions that don't necessarily have anything to do with being pro-Russia underground, and risk radicalising them to the point that might eventually end up being pro-Russia, or at least more anti-establishment.

This also prevent any further public discussion on the merits of the EU itself or the war in Ukraine, effectively preventing people from forming a more secure reasoned-out position on these issues... it mostly becomes a matter of supporting the group then.

If people would have a more secure position on these issues, Russian propaganda would become less effective in swaying opinions. If opinions are mostly a matter of supporting the group Russian propaganda has to potential to flip people to their side if they manage to pierce through some of the half-truth that are promoted by the West.

People have favourable views on the EU now partly because the cries to rally around the flag, but that could change pretty quick if they are based on nothing more substantial.

Anyway, Russia wanting something is in my opinion not a good reason for just doing the opposite. It's reactive, narrowly defined in opposition, and I think It's better to look to be proactive, and look at things in their whole context.

I object to the framing that anyone who wants to get rid of the EU is one the side of Putin. The fact that Putin or Trump happen to want a similar thing shouldn't prevent us from evaluating something on its own merits.

This is a tactic that has been shown to been dangerous and contra-productive, for instance in the case of immigration where any discussion of the topic has for the longest time been made virtually impossible because of various accusations of racism, fascism or Nazism and the like as soon as the issue was brought up.

You should know better.

Well sure, like I said I don't disagree generally, the question is what kind of arrangement we do want.

I don't think a lot of them are doing that great to be honest. And those that are doing fine, have other supra-national organisations or agreements, like say ASEAN.

I don't disagree generally, but it's maybe a bit simplistic to just do away with the EU. There's some things that probably are to our benefit, like the single market to name one. I don't see how you stay competitive for instance if you simply fall back to the nation state of old... the world has changed you know.

Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares? — ssu

Ok I agree that it would be difficult to find a good formula, but it's not as if nation states have more sovereignty by remaining subservient to an unelected bureaucracy.

It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision. — ssu

Coalition of the willing will always be reactive. There's no way to project power proactively like that, and so you will effectively be at the mercy of other great powers. The choice is not between sovereignty or Brussels, but between Brussels or Washington... or Peking or Moscow.

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity. — ssu

No, older generations have left the younger generations without perspective.

He also explains well just why US prosperity is dependent on the dollar being the reserve currency (and why this is related to the Superpower status that the US held) and how the NSS is chipping this away. — ssu

Things change. Percentage of world GDP goes down, debts go up... the US was already in the process of losing its position of global hegemon. At some point you have to face reality, the longer you deny it, the harder the fall.

Perhaps the problem is that the whole structure of EU is a bit difficult to grasp: — ssu

The important thing to realise is that the Commission has the initiative for legislation. Before things get to Parliament and the Council of leaders, there's a whole proces where draft legislation get discussed with the administrations of the different member states. When there is eventually a final draft this get sent to the Council and Parliament for approval. In practice this means that the Commission sets the agenda and largely get to decide what the legislation consists of. Because of the byzantine nature of the proces and complexity of the legislation usually the Council and parliament just approve things. It's a bit like with congress in the US, where de facto the president and his administration gets to decide for the most part and congress just approves things. The difference is that the president in the US is elected whereas the Commission is not.

This is to illustrate the essential bureaucratic nature of the EU. I would rather have an elected excecutive because that has more democratic legitimacy.

A monetary union is 100% monetary policy. It's totally different thing from a risk point for a foreign investor to buy a Greek loan in Drachmas (with the threat of devaluation) than giving a loan to German with the Bundesbank behind the Deutsche Mark. This was the thinking when the monetary union happened and that lowered the interest rates considerably. That is something every person feels.

Yes, Poland has gotten aid, just as have the Southern countries. — ssu

The aid was not the most important part, it's the access to the free market that was very beneficial for them.

EU member states are independent sovereign states with their own history, culture and sense of patriotism. You simply cannot deny this. EU will be, always, really a confederacy, not a federalist union. Sorry, but Finns will be Finns, Swedes will be Swedes and the French will be the French.

If we just assume we can replace this fact, we are lying to ourselves. — ssu

I'm more than fine to respect the cultural heritage and sovereignity of the states where that makes sense. But I don't think it does make a lot of sense on foreign policy, certainly not when it pertains to geo-politics or international trade, because de facto the security and intelligence is already organisated on the supra-national level of NATO, or for trade in larger European trade-agreements.

If we think we can still have an effective foreign policy on the level of the member states, while the states have very little competencies left that are related to that, I think we are lying to ourselves.

I agree with you. The real problem is that Brussels has copied the French way of bureaucracy. Basically the US administration would be far more transparent and open (now with Trump isn't). There are things to improve in the EU, but in my view these problems aren't so large that we have to do away with the EU altogether. — ssu

Sure, it needs to be reformed ideally. But maybe it can't be reformed because of the forces that resist that or lack of consensus, and then it will probably have to go. My main issue is that the Commission has to much power, it should be under the Council and the Parliament which are more accountable to the people.

Yet joining the EU has done wonders to some countries. The perfect example was the economic growth of Poland compared to Ukraine as both countries started from a similar level once the Soviet system collapsed. — ssu

Ok but this has very little to do with the monetary policies it seems to me. Poland and other eastern European countries did receive a lot of development funds from the EU for one. And second their workers and companies had a competitive advantage on the internal market because they had a lower standard of living and lower wages. All of sudden a lot of building and similar jobs in Western Europe were done by Poles who came here to earn money to ultimately take it back to Poland where they invested it. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that, good for Poland, but it did undercut workers and companies here and wasn't necessarily on average a good thing for Western Europe.

I think Europe simply underestimates how much leverage it has, because seldom it acts as a solid block.

It's the classic quote from Kissinger: "If I want to talk to Europe, where do I call?".

In security issue it has been actually Washington. But now I guess Trump is disgusted to speak on the phone about European issues. — ssu

Maybe Europe could have more leverage, but this only proofs my point that there are serious problems with its organisation no? Foreign policy was for the longest time not a European competency, but a competency of the members states, but then security and intelligence are for the most part dealt with within NATO etc. Again this is the point, that everything is splintered and spread over different levels of government while these things are related and should inform each other. The end result is that you basically just don't have a proactive and unified foreign policy.

I think the US has a lot of it too, actually. — ssu

That's probably true, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Bureaucracy, especially because of its lack of accountability, tends to grow over time and develop its own internal logic and goals that aren't aligned with what benefits the people of the countries.

Basically the euro acts in the euro zone as a gold standard. If you have a poor economy that performs badly, you get shafted as you cannot devalue your currency. Yet the ability of devaluation supports only a segment of the economy, those in the export industries. Usually the inflation devaluation creates eats the positive effects quickly away. — ssu

I'm not sure you disagree with me here. The issue is that it takes away agency from countries to make their own policies so that they can react to their specific circumstances. For instance the austerity policy we had after the 2008 crisis was probably really bad for a lot of countries, it maybe really only made sense from a German perspective.

One can argue that perhaps the EU has been too lax in giving US firms this playground of ours freely. Usually any European company trying to get into the US market will face the "not invented here, not from here" treatment. Especially now they will feel the wrath of Trump.

Yet the whole 400 million people single market and union is not at all anything similar to the 300+ million US market. First of all, there is the language barrier, even if we talk as a second language (at least) English. Then, moving from Finland to Spain isn't something like moving from Minnesota to Florida (even if Minnesotans and Floridians might think otherwise). The European single market is still a divided market based on totally natural issues. It isn't the language barrier, it's also the culture barrier. We are independent sovereign countries with their own cultures and history. That isn't going anywhere. — ssu

It think the issue is we had this dogmatic free market ideology being pushed on member states where all barriers needed to be torn down, also to companies outside of the EU, and a lot of state aid from countries for their industries became illegal. But then the EU didn't really put something in place of that on a European level. We don't have European financing and investment banks for instance. Meanwhile China, but also the US, did subsidize their industries heavily or did have capital investment structures.... and that basically created an uneven playingfield for European companies.

So this is kind of a recurring theme. We take some measures to unify some or another policy domain, but then don't go all the way, or only take care of one side of the equation... and end up with a system that doesn't really work. If you're going to take away agency from the states, you have to make sure you organise that agency effectively on a European level.

The fact is that our prosperity today is based on globalization. How utterly dependent are we of other countries? Utterly dependent is my answer. The real answer here is just to be independent ENOUGH for the time when that pandemic / war / asteroid strike / supervolcano eruption hits and erases the global trade system for a while.

The idea of total self-dependence sounds reasonable at first for the ignorant, but is a huge disaster if really taken as economic policy. — ssu

Yeah I fundamentally disagree with this. It only works, especially for strategic sectors and resources, if you assume everything will go well for the rest of time and countries will keep having good enough relations going forward. It's fragile and temporary.

And I think it's naïve to think that would be the case, because we know from history that geo-politics is a ruthless game that won't go away.

Maybe some amount of interdependence is unavoidable, I would agree with that, but the issue is that the balance is totally skewed so that the US and China have a lot of leverage over us while we have little leverage over them.

Immigration-policy had been a problem, but it's not only that right. There are major structural and organisational problem too. The decision process is very slow and cumbersome, and also lacks democratic accountability. It grew to fast to wide without deeper integration of the EU-states that were already in it and without the necessary structural reform to various decision processes. Because of this it seems especially ill-equipped to deal with a fast changing world.

Another 'mistake' is the monetary union that took away the power from the states to have their own monetary policies that suited their situation, and was very bad for the likes of Greece for instance.

And look, the biggest selling point, aside from it being a force for peace within Europe, was its free internal market and the economic prosperity that would bring. Maybe that was true for some time, but now we have to conclude that the European economy isn't doing that great. We basically missed the whole digitalisation/AI train, aren't creating any new companies that can compete on the world stage, and are even loosing more and more existing industries we used to be world-leaders in.

If you find yourself utterly dependent on other countries for your security, for your energy and natural resources, and more and more for basically most of your goods production and digital services, then something has gone wrong right?

Europe will likely stick to the rules based international order and liberalism, hence it will be an ideological nemesis towards American right-wing populism of the MAGA-movement. Hence it's no wonder that the Trump administration is so eager to get right-wing populist into power in Europe to dismantle the EU. I believe that Trump, as the ignorant idiot he is, truly thinks that the EU was formed to compete with the US. This ignorant view I guess can be popular in the US and the real reason, the two absolutely catastrophic World Wars that killed tens of millions of Europeans, is totally sidelined. Yet when you actually read the history, the actual reasons are obvious. Think just why the integration process in the Shuman declaration, was started from steel and coal production. — ssu

The union was successful in preventing intra-European war, and that was a fine idea at the time, but its disfunctions and those of liberalism become clearer with the day.

For Trump getting rid of the EU and the global liberal elites that come with it, makes sense from a domestic politics point of view, because it weakens his political adversaries.

I don't think this particular rules based order can survive the most powerful country and architect of it, leaving it behind. And the EU can't maintain it on its own, and so will be forced to adapt sooner or later.

I wish Europeans weren't so slow in realising where this is going.

Do you have any proof of this? What seems to be the case isn't the erosion of gender roles, its the enrichment of society vs the cost of having children combined with birth control. Many people opt out of having kids because they value their luxury time more as well. Some men stay at home and take care of the kids now while their wives work, which is an erosion of gender roles. I'm just not seeing evidence that the decision to not have kids is because of the removal of gender roles in marriage. — Philosophim

There certainly is evidence that the religious have more children. But sure, it's one of those things that is very difficult to isolate from other factors to study it in isolation... still I think it makes sense that it would have an influence. If women have many other possibilities, like say careers, or are otherwise not encouraged to have children, it seems reasonable to presume that they would feel less of a need to have children.

But maybe I'm missing something. I'm curious to see what other people think. — Philosophim

I think you are missing that genderroles were part of a culture that got us to where we are now. And that every modern society where they are being eroded, seem to be experiencing problems replacing itself with a next generation.

It think this runs a lot deeper ideologically than people think. For a number of reasons that may be a bit much to expand on here, liberalism is waning and will continue to do so. The US will not get back to 'normal', this process will only get more pronounced as the younger generations come of age and come into power.

It seems to me if anything Europe will follow the same direction with a couple of years delay, and the EU will fracture or will be drastically reformed.

But what do you think?
Is the Trans-Atlantic link now permanently eroding? I think it will limp onwards, because there's still too much invested in the relationship. Even if you think this isn't worth commenting, I really urge to take the time a read what the Trump administration seriously thinks the guidelines ought to be for US security policy. — ssu

It will erode if Europe sticks to liberalism and the current form of the EU.

Good point. But when we say that perceptual or felt experience is pre-conceptual, this doesn’t have to indicate there is no ideal component to it. Rather, conceptuality understood as formal, representational predication is a derivative modification of the more primary idealizing process of sense-making. — Joshs

I probably agree, though I'm not sure what you exactly mean with 'ideal' or 'idealizing'. I think there's a directional or agentic component to it, but not necessarily a conscious one.

I think you missed my point or you're using this paradox "without context".
My issue is not that I haven't found a way to control my feelings. My issue is that they are illusionary because they were built upon a worldview others forced me to undoubtedly accept. It's not that I reject their existence. It's that they were manipulated because I was told when and how to feel them. Thus, I'm looking for something that will allow me to feel them as something honest, transcendent, coherent and "real"...like pain does, as I argued in the first discussion.

I used this paradox to explain how reality stripped away this "box of thought". I used to show how it uncovered the fake. How my hate derived from this idea "i'm perfect", in short, interfered it with the real which is me feeling and being actually lonely, which is painful. And pain felt real because it showed me this "hate" was justified by a fake worldview. — GreekSkeptic

Ok I've read you first post now, and I think I understand it better now.

If you're asking for philosophers who might have something relevant to say here, the first one I though about is Nietzsche. When he speaks about philosophising with the hammer, he means a tuning hammer to sound out ideals and whether or not the are "real"... he found many of the conventional ideals we hold dear to be empty. His whole philosophy is essentially an attempt at re-evaluation of values.

If you're talking of pain showing you what is real, he also did view suffering as something necessary for life, from the Gay science :

"Only great pain is the ultimate liberator of the spirit…. I doubt that such pain makes us ‘better’; but I know that it makes us more profound." — Gay Science

"Better" in quotes I think is to indicate to what is conventionally deemed as better, but not necessarily what he would consider better.

And then if you talk about stripping away the "boxes of thought", Nietzsche also has a lot to say about that. It's a bit much to expand on here, but that was basicly his issue with Socrates/Plato who started putting the conceptual first to the detriment of the tragic view on life that came before (where the Dionysian was fundamental).

Dostojevski has similar psychological insights as Nietzsche but takes it in another direction, one that might interest you perhaps more as you say that helping other people was one of the things that felt the most real to you. I hope you don't mind me saying but the way you discribe it, it did made me think of the orginal teachings of Christ (not necessarily the institutionalised variety of the Church). Anyway a lot of Dostojevskis protagonists, like for instance in Crime and punishment, go through similar fever dream/unreal episodes where they are being let astray by 'fake ideas' to ultimately end up - typically after a lot of hardship - turning to Christ.

And Kierkegaard is another one in a similar vein I suppose, though i'm not all that familiar with his philosophy.

Here's the paradox. I was governed by two illogical premises. The first was that I was too perfect to hangout with anybody. The second was that I deserved human company and affection. I felt extremely lonely and extremely good-for-everything to be with anyone. The simultaneous hypocrisy was that there were people I'd name "friends", people I hanged out and did everything together. And in the mean time I thought all of the above while with them. — GreekSkeptic

They are not illogical because they stem from feelings... feelings just are and they can direct you in different conflicting directions, but are not illogical themselves, but a-logical.

What the one tells you is that you have a drive to aim high, that you are ambitious. That is not necessarily bad if you don't take it to far to the detriment of everything else.

What the other tells you is that you do have a need to be with other people, which is also perfectly fine by itself as long as you don't feel entitled to it. This need not be in contradiction with a healthy amount of ambition.

The trick is to align your drives into a more coherent whole, because they will probably stay with you in some way or another.

Also, being humbled by life is to some extend to be expected and necessarily for personal growth, don't sweat it to much.

The issue only arises if you put language first, as something properly basic. We have experiences of the world, feeling and intuitions etc that are pre-conceptual. And those don't come neatly pre-packaged in fixed conceptual boxes.

The X in X=X is already an abstraction from the world we perceive because nothing remains the same from one moment to the next. If we take that pre-linguistic understanding to things like logic, truth and the law of non-contradiction, then its easy to see why these would have limits.

If someone questions truth or the law of non-contradiction, they are not looking to make a statement that can be evaluated by the very tools they are questioning... they are looking to make an evidentiary statement about how truth and logic seems to relate to the world they experience.

Historically in most mythologies around the world Chaos (Nun,Tiamat, etc) seem to have came before order (Logos, Maat, dharma etc).

As sedentary civilisations and writing gradually became the norm, Chaos starts to disappear in these mythologies and notions of order become more primary.

The most straightforward explanation for that historical evolution seems to me simply that ideologies evolved in tandem with changes in the societal organisation, from oral nomadic groups based around movement to the more static hierarchical organisation of civilisations.

For those interested I got this from Thomas Nail who is writing a book on the subject:

I’m tempted to get into a rational, nitpicky non-Taoist discussion of the intricacies of what Taoism means, e.g. The human world is not part of the Tao because the Tao doesn’t have parts. All
I can tell you is it doesn’t feel that way to me. There is the Taoist idea of return. The Tao continually manifests as the 10,000 things—the multiplicity of the human world—which then continually returns to the Tao. It’s all happening over and over again all the time.

I don’t think I’m really disagreeing with what you said though. — T Clark

I don't think we disagree either, it's just difficult to speak about. Language fails to some extend, hence that what can be named is not etc...

About the human world being a part, I was looking for the right words, but I'm not necessarily committed to it being an actual quote unquote 'part' of it. What I think I would commit to is that the Tao is ontologically prior to our conceptions of it.

The idea of returning to "the source" is important IMO, that is to some extend what is missing it seems to me in Western tradition where we get hung up on fixed conceptions without returning.

I don’t know enough about the Socratic or Christian view of life to make an intelligent comment on this. — T Clark

That's fine, it's basically Nietzsches idea of how nihilism was already inherent in the Greek and Christian root of the Western tradition and the reason why we eventually ended up with the "dead of God". It do think he's onto something, though it's probably only part of the story.

On the other hand, Taoism is full of seeming contradictions and paradoxes. This is from Verses 25 and from Mitchell’s translation.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness…

Mystery and manifestations—as I understand it, the Tao and human conceptualized reality—come from the same place. The Tao it’s not above or better than the human world, they arise and return together. — T Clark

I wouldn't say the Tao is above or better than human conceptualisation of it in a directly valuative sense, but prior ontologically... the human world is part of it. And insofar conceptualisation is only partial/perspectival, and presumably can lead us astray for that reason, maybe it is a reason to put a little less stock in it.

EDIT: To make the point a bit more salient for this discussion maybe, that is the issue with the Socratic view on Life, and Christianity consequently, that it presumes that it can box in Chaos, conceptualise the whole of it and make life entirely predictable and planable on the basis of these fixed conceptions.

From revelations, 2.1

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea (read 'no more Chaos'). 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”


Blinded by the light!

UFC has certainly been on the rise the past couple of years. I don't know if we'd see a show where actual lifes are put on the line because human life is still a core value of Western Christian tradition, and things perhaps don't change that fast, but maybe if it's about lifes that aren't considered part of the group. MAGA Christianity for instance seems to be develloping a pagan heresy where Christian universality is questioned.

The current conversation isn't about morally black (bad) people, but about morally gray people. That is, those who live entirely outside the good/bad paradigm. The phenomenon I'm talking about has a somewhat different nature. These heroes seem bad, but they are a reflection of us—they're just like us, with everyday problems. And we no longer know whether they're bad or not, or whether we can justify them (because we're all a bit like Walter White). — Astorre

Won't this usher in a "moral decline" we can't even imagine? — Astorre

That's presumably exactly what will happen over time... gradually from one generation to the next.

They are a reflection of the world that has created them, and is creating us... The subtext of the series is that the world is an a-moral place, and therefore Walter White's actions seem justifiable to some extend, or at least an improvement on being a moral do good guy everybody takes advantage of.

It's not that different from ancient Greece. Plato also saw the necessity to curb the influence of the poets, and advocated for a turn to rationality to anchor morals anew. In Nietzsche's analysis that turn to rationality was not an improvement on what came before, but a symptom of the Greeks desperately trying to ward off a decadence that had already set in.

I certainly don’t want to go back to the pre-enlightenment world, the world of the divine right of Kings. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize some of the issues you highlight. I have made the argument here a number of times in several different contexts that man is the measure of all things. That’s right at the center of my understanding of what Lao Tzu has to tell us. Taoism recognizes both the human and non-human worlds without conflict. As I sometimes put it—the world is 1/2 human.

So, do we reform rationalism? I am not at all sure that’s possible. On the other hand, I don’t want to go back to the values of the old way, as if we could. — T Clark

Isn't one of the first things the Dao de jing tells us that 'the Dao that can be named is not the real or eternal Dao', essentially indicating that logos or reason cannot be primary.

You have similar ideas in most of the oldest creation myths where the formless, the indeterminate Chaos, often symbolised by the sea (for instance Tiamat), almost uniformely comes before order.

With Greek philosophy and later Christianity the West took another turn, where the eternal forms and the logos became primary.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

It seems to me that Descartes and the enlightenment is merely downstream from this essential (mis)valuation.

And so a 'reform of rationalism' would come from putting it in it's propper place, a recognition that reason is not the be all, end all.

Opium for the people... crowd control.

We might take that as something unequivocally bad, like Marx for instance... or as something that is a part of a society, but not necessarily for everybody, like Nietzsche.

Yes the greening-effect of CO2 by itself is real enough, but it doesn't seem like it will compensate for the other negative effects of climate change, i.e. the more extreme temperatures and droughts etc.

There is also concern about the opposite issue: data from orbiting satellites indicates that the earth is getting greener, probably due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans don't do well in the kind of hot, humid conditions that will prevail in some areas, and that's because of microorganisms and parasites. I think it's actually easier to live in semi-desert conditions than in a jungle. I live in an area where parasites are becoming more of a problem because they don't die out in the winter anymore. — frank

The greening effect is interesting, I'm not sure how it interacts and combines with all the other changes, but it certainly is a factor.

What we’re doing to insects in particular is striking. It’s not all due to climate change, of course — but it’s a very serious issue that is exacerbated by it. — Mikie

Yes this is I think one of the most underestimated risks we face. People seems largely uninformed on this particular issue and kindof assume we stand apart from nature and will be able to insulate ourselves from it's deterioration... but that seems very optimistic to me.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? It seems to there's to much uncertainty of what all the consequence could to be to make such definite statements with any confidence.
— ChatteringMonkey

I think this. But the failure of climate models to-date (and Antarctic ice recession) gives me hope. — AmadeusD

What failure are you pointing to exactly? Aren't they generally a bit conservative in their estimates in that they don't really account for the complexity of feedbacks and such (which seem more likely to be positive than negative)?