Maybe you should make a seperate cope thread.

Genuinely, who cares?

Presidents that preceded him ruined entire countries, aided and abetted war crimes, constructed torture facilities, went to war on false pretenses, etc.

What Trump did doesn't even register on the same scale.

Individualism and the concept of civil rights is hundreds of years old, and in the West it has served as a model for relations between states and citizens for a very long time as well.

Atomization is a recent phenomenon.

I think that's indication enough that the relation you're suggesting exists between atomization and individualism is unsubstantiated and not obvious at all.

Who?

I wouldn't necessarily say this attack on traditional values is the product of communism, but I get where the association comes from since it seems to feature this same intention of reshaping identities and destroying old ones.

It also has the same outcome: atomization, nihilism, etc. - the desastrous effects of which you can still see in countries which were formerly communist.


Cultures used to be a product of an authentic process that spanned hundreds of years of shared history.

Those tended to be quite homogeneous, but not collectivist. It didn't have as its specific purpose to instrumentalize the individual for the benefit of the state.

Collectivism and the idea that people's identities could be artificially reshaped to suit the state's needs really only found practical success with the advent of mass media (propaganda and mass manipulation), with its most egregious examples being fascism and communism, which are basically two sides of the same coin; communism being fascism for ethnically diverse nations that could not forge a national identity around racial superiority.


Do note that these types of processes can happen alongside natural processes by which a society changes and reflects upon its customs. Whether we are currently looking at something natural or artificial is up for debate, but I lean towards the latter.

'Hyper-individualism' is a bit of a confused term.

What I assume means is atomization: a situation in which social bonds break down and people are increasingly isolated from each other mentally and emotionally.

Calling it 'hyper-individualism' suggests that this is a trend that people desire and actively pursue - an effect of an Ayn Randian political movement that puts the individual on a pedestal (or something like that). The reality is that atomization is pretty much categorically experienced as negative.

If individuals are left to their own devices without interference of the state, they will continue to create and seek out community. It's a fundamental human need.

Therefore the frame of atomization being an effect of individualism is unsubtantiated.

Blaming "individualism" for this indeed looks a bit like the type of scapegoating one finds within collectivist enterprises, who will happily use it as an excuse to start interfering more in people's private lives. But I doubt that was the direction Benkei was thinking in.

The thread could use a little clarification and direction.

How can hyper-individualism be collectivist? — Hanover

The breaking down of traditional, cultural and national identities in favor of the communist 'identity' of total uniformity is commonplace historically.

Notice that this breakdown is often sold to people under the banner of 'independence' or emancipation, when in actual fact it trades dependency on social structures for dependency on the state.

Atomization also makes people isolated, fearful, anxious, etc. - susceptible to the worst types of human tendencies, which make them more likely to accept arbitrary use of power and power centralization as long as it promises solutions.

People will tend to see themselves as individuals vis-a-vis the state, but also vis-a-vis religion, race, class, sex, geographic locale, and even sexual preference/orientation. — Leontiskos

The first part is individualism, the second is liberalism.

A small nitpick; individualism inherently is about the relation between states and citizens. In my view, the type of problems in the OP have more to do with a cultural trend of extreme liberalism, perhaps even nihilism, and the resulting atomization.


The problems named are of course very recognizable.

In the western world, cultural values and a sense of shared history have been under attack for decades. Despite all the criticism no replacement for this has been offered (and all attempts at constructing an artificial sense of common identity have historically failed).

So people young and old are left to figure things out on their own, and predictably they will do so via the internet, which is a problematic medium for various reasons.

Nowhere does the echo chamber effect appear to be so great as on the internet, and as such it has a tendency to amplify trends on an individual and societal level. Moreover, age groups are largely seperated (with older generations not even using the internet), meaning the younger generations grow up without the guidance of older generations.

Young people grow up feeling confused, resentful and isolated, carrying teenage themes into adulthood for which they were offered no solutions. It's all quite understandable, but understanding and wisdom are sparse on the internet, so instead you see all kinds of equally dysfunctional counter-reactions.


The fact that people are starting to make all sorts of strange leaps in attempts to break out of this situation I view only as a symptom of the deeper problem which is a trend of cultural repression, which has clear precedents in history. The communist episodes in the Soviet Union and Maoist China left entire generations lost, and both Russia and China are putting efforts into restoring their links to the past.


At any rate, I don't think any of it is spontaneous. The destruction of culture historically has had the purpose of either pacifying unruly populations (for example repression of Hungarian culture in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and/or forging a wider sense of unity by destroying subcultures (various communist regimes).

In my view, this isn't a natural human trend, nor is it healthy.

I think it's safer to assume that whatever filth one side is accusing the other of, the accusing side is guilty of too.

For instance, I would imagine that many Platonists (capital P) would deny that anything has the sort of "mind-independent" existence that some contemporary philosophers would take them to be arguing for. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is because they believed 'mind' (nous, if memory serves me right) emanates from the One, and it is through participation in this quality that we are able to gain an understanding of matters that goes beyond sense perception. The quality must exist as some form of emanation from the One for us to be able to participate in it.

Plato and certainly Neoplatonists like Plotinus were quite mystical in their beliefs, where they believed experiences of higher realities were possible, but exceedingly difficult to describe because they encompassed qualities that preceded nous or the intellect, and were, literally, unintelligible.

In a nutshell, 'mathematical platonism' would suggest people have experienced these higher realities and found mathematics to be existing within them.

However, it does seem like you have made "objective knowledge" apply to essentially nothing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is essentially platonic, and that's exactly my objection to people using the term 'mathematical platonism'.

I'm not rejecting platonism. I'm pointing out that it's being misappropriated here.

Yet this is just assuming the conclusion. At best you've argued for a sort of nescience on this question, but skepticism and agnosticism are not the same thing as rejecting a thesis. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Didn't I just tell you that what I am doing is expressing skepticism, and not making claims about what does and doesn't objectively exist?

Ok, why can't this involve numbers, which are essential to modern science? Can we infer what biology and evolution tells us about how our sense organs work in some way corresponds to reality, but not that the math that underpins these finding does? Why is that? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Our sense organs do not show us the whole picture, and the same thing appears to be true for math and science.

They're tools that help us model reality.

Your position seems far more similar to Locke, Hume, Kant, etc. To be sure, Plato acknowledges a distinction between reality and appearances, but he does not suppose that reality is some sort of noumenal "reality as divorced from all appearances." Indeed, his supposition is that threeness, circles, etc. are more real than the world of sensible appearances because they are more intelligible/necessary/what-they-are. This is, in an important sense, the exact opposite of supposing that reality is the world with all appearances (including intelligibility) somehow pumped out of it or abstracted away. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plato's objective reality is 'the One' - an indivisible, all-encompassing unity.

Hm. But how would one substantiate this idea that numbers exist in this different way?

And why would numbers be able to exist in this way, and not flying spaghetti monsters?

You certainly seem to be. Your claim is that, for something to be properly "real" it must exist wholly outside appearances. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's not what I'm asserting, because how would I know?

The core of what I'm saying is that, as Plato argued, it is very difficult to even access the reality that underlies our world of sense experience, let alone make statements about this reality.

So rather I am expressing skepticism towards those who would claim mathematics is 'objectively real', and also pointing out the contradiction in the term 'mathematical platonism'.

Does that make sense?

Do you think making a statue of a fictional character makes them real? I don't. Yet is chess fictional? Is world history fiction? Temperature? Dates?

Scientific theories and paradigms are human creations. Yet if these are thereby fictions, then your appeal to "inferring reality from science" would amount to "inferring what is real from fiction." — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the context of a philosophical debate, I would argue all of those things are indeed human 'fictions', that serve a purpose for our human needs.

Note that I am not saying that science shows us what is real, rather it seems to heavily suggest the existence of an underlying reality because it is able to make models of how that reality works to a degree that is at least accurate enough for our human endeavors.

Shouldn't the usefulness of mathematics in science lead us to "infer" that it says something about reality? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They're both tools for modeling an inferred underlying reality. But they themselves are human creations, accurate enough for our human purposes.

They're useful because they're accurate enough. But it would be a mistake to believe they convey the objective nature of reality.

He does not make a distinction between appearances as "subjectivity," and reality as the "objective/noumenal" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Neither am I, as far as I am aware.

Presumably, the latter is an intentional fiction created to critique religion. It is one thing to claim that Homer's Achilles is a "fictional character." It is another to claim that the Iliad doesn't "really exist" because Homer wrote it. Do airplanes also not exist because they are the invention of man? States? World history? Chess? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If someone were to create a gigantic effigy of a flying spaghetti monster, would that suddenly make the flying spaghetti monster real?

I'd argue all of those things you named are human creations, and therefore not 'real' in the sense that we are talking about right now.

Obviously, we can make all sorts of practical concessions in what we colloquially refer to as 'real'.

Have you looked on both sides to see if the veil itself is real? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is inferred that there exists our world of sense experience, and a reality underlies it. Science has gone a long way in confirming this, showing how our senses mislead us, and only show us the tip of the iceberg.

At least, Plato himself would reject such a cleavage in reality, — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is pretty much the central theme of Plato. It's not that reality is cleaved, but that we do not experience reality - only a reflection of it. That's the cave.

But presumably it tells us something about the reality of chess. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the word 'reality' is a misnomer here. Chess is something we made up. Would you accept it if people were arguing for the reality of the flying spaghetti monster?

You would not know whether equations describe true things. Maybe the universe does not work according to such rules, but we can make equations accurate enough to 'do the job' for our human purposes?

I think knowledge here refers to absolute certainty, or objective knowledge, and the platonists were highly skeptical of that.

Well, my turn to ask for a definition: what does "objective" mean here? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Objective in the platonic sense refers to the reality that underlies our 'reality' of sense experience.

We infer its existence, because we are able to consistently predict outcomes accurately enough for human endeavors. Mathematics and science help us do so.

As a follow-up, I would tend to think that the game of chess does not exist independently from the human mind. Chess depends on us; we created it. However, are the rules of chess thus not objective? Are there no objective facts about what constitutes a valid move in chess? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm.. I'm inclined to say that there are indeed no objective facts related to chess. Chess tells us nothing about this underlying reality.

But isn't the follow up question: "why is it useful?" Not all of our inventions end up being useful. In virtue of what is mathematics so useful? Depending on our answer, the platonist might be able to appeal to Occam's razor too. A (relatively) straight-forward explanation for "why is math useful?" is "because mathematical objects are real and instantiated in the world." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Math is a very useful way of describing relations and ratios between things.

Claiming things are real runs into all sorts of prickly problems, though. Have you peeked beyond the veil and seen it was so?

Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. — Michael

I'm actually kind of curious what passages of Plato this refers to.

:up:

Isn't it easier then to accept that mathematics does not exist objectively, and is simply a very useful tool conceived by the human mind?

Tying it back to the OP, who cares if infinitesimals exist objectively, as long as they are useful in creating more accurate models of reality?

As far as my understanding of platonism goes, it argues that ultimate reality can be accessed (with great difficulty) via mystical experiences which go beyond the intellect, and are thus unintelligible?

So platonic mathematics implies someone had a mystical experience and discovered math still exists 'beyond the veil'?

I think this is a very interesting subject. I had a similar discussion not too long ago.

When you say 'exist in a platonic sense', what exactly do you mean?

I am inclined to argue that maths do not 'exist' in any objective sense.

Math is a product of the human mind, and a very useful for modeling reality for human purposes. It's a way of describing ratios and relations between things. The actual objective nature of such relations seems inaccessible to humans though.

That news site is satire, but who can tell the difference these days really?

Ah yes, Mike Tyson. That paragon of moral philosophy. How could we forget about him?

Let's see what other gems this treasure trove of wisdom has to offer:

“I want to rip out his heart and feed it to him. I want to kill people. I want to rip their stomachs out and eat their children.” — Mike Tyson

Ok, that'll do Mikey. That'll do.

Usually whenever some US foreign policy debacle is unfolding, they start rolling out stories of UFOs, spy balloons, and now drones, apparently.

It's easy to get caught up in the news slop claiming this is 'totally important', only for it to be forgotten a week later.

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good? — Hanover

Well, capital G 'Good' is a big word. Probably not that. It's not an example I would seek to emulate, or want others to emulate.

But when people play stupid games they win stupid prizes. Both people involved seemed to have won their stupid prize.

Maybe they can both serve as an example.

It reminds me a little of how societies used to round up and behead monarchs who misbehaved.

Obviously that was extrajudicial, but at the same time, perhaps it is good that powerful people are reminded every once in a while that there a limits to how far one can push innocent people.

Admittedly, this is assuming the CEO was a crook. Maybe he wasn't, and this killer was just some deranged person. But that wouldn't make for an interesting philosophical discussion.

Health execs reckon with patient outrage after UnitedHealthcare killing

You know the underlying psychological process is [...] — Benkei

Psychologizing is easy, and so is projecting.

I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and it's awful too, but perhaps that's just a question of who bears final responsibility.

Like I said, I don't know the details of this case. If the CEO was some form of paragon who did nothing to deserve such a grizzly end, then it's a shame.

Somehow I doubt that, though.

If one sets up an enterprise that's meant to ensure people's health, and one does a shitty job at it, one is destroying lives, and then someone might come along and destroy yours in revenge.

That's karma.

It's beyond obvious that something went down between Turkey, Israel and the US, who are now starting to fight over the scraps.

Let's not fool ourselves here.

I know next to nothing about the CEO, but would I be right in assuming he probably bears responsibility for a fair few lives destroyed?

Now someone came along and destroyed his.

It's obviously not justice. It's what happens to people who play dangerous games.

Mhm. A lovely history lesson, but none of those were defeated without a fight.

For anyone who desires to look beyond surface level appearances:

Except of course the Syrian army has been willing to fight for years, and did so successfully in the face of much more pressure than the handful of rebels that now took over the country with barely a shot fired.

This is obviously not normal, nor a spontaneous 'uprising'.

Even Reuters joined in the white-washing. :lol:

By running Aleppo, Syrian rebels seek to show they are alternative to Assad

And the BBC:

From Syrian jihadist leader to rebel politician: How Abu Mohammed al-Jolani reinvented himself

:rofl:

A few short years ago he was beheading people and setting them on fire for kicks, now he donates to children's hospitals. Who is this dark, tall and enigmatic man?

The Syrian army was a formidable fighting force, even without the Russians or the Iranians.

I'm not saying that they may have stopped this eventual outcome, but rather I'm questioning why it crumbled like a crouton, which is ahistorical - armies don't just evaporate under normal wartime circumstances.

Is anyone else slightly alarmed by the way the legacy media is now trying to white-wash the image of the leader of the Syrian rebels - formerly Al-Qaeda and IS, and having ruled his little slice of Syria with an iron fist since he came to power?

It's just whimsical to say that a guy that has now since the start of the war said how Ukraine is collapsing and how victorious the Russians are would be something other than a shill. — ssu

On the other end of that argument you would be disqualifying the entire western media. :lol:

At some point you'll have to accept that when people have a different opinion it doesn't automatically makes them a shill for the other side - that's called growing up.

At the end of the day you're just unable to cope with the fact that various Europeans and Americans are criticizing their own system for all its faults.

You apparently have no lens to view self-criticism by the system you are a part of as anything other than shilling for the other side.

You are clearly stuck in a tribal mindset.

I've actually followed Mercouris for quite a while, and the idea that he never criticizes Putin is simply untrue.

This is just the umpteenth attempt at disqualifying opinions that disagree with your own by accusing others of partisanship.

It has become a bit of a pattern with you.

The immediate jump to accusations of partisanship again? I really don't understand what has gotten into you.