Streetlight, I don't know who you are or what you are. All I know about you is what you say. My entire idea of you is based on what you say. I'm here to discuss ideas, not people.

Ok, by identifying different ideologies and watching them argue and favoring one side over the other I was playing idpol. I admit my guilt. I was rooting for you, Streetlight.

I'm not playing idpol here. My idpol is mild at best, if you want serious idpol look to who you were arguing with earlier. It's one thing to discuss ideology and differences in ideas and to put people in relative ideological camps, it's another to view the entire world as essentially a struggle between ethnic groups or classes or sex. I do the former. You won't see me doing the latter. That's real idpol.

Ideologue.

Half a second with SLX should tell you which side of that fence he stands on. It was just an interesting dialogue to me because there are plenty of Americans who feel the system is beyond reform, yet are still being told to basically shut up and vote Biden. I personally don't have a dog in this fight but I did feel sympathetic towards SLX despite us warring a little previously.

I wasn't talking about NOS, I was talking about Streetlight. It's just interesting to me because Streetlight is definitely on the left, but he's certainly not mainstream left.

Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX

The scorn heaped upon Trump's personal (rather than political) behaviour had always had a humongous element of classism built into it. Trump does not act like how we want our rich people to act. He acts - shockingly - like a 'tasteless', that is to say poor man, with all the table manners of a prole. Liberals - who don't give a rats ass about politics so long as everyone is polite - cannot stand this. His base love that fact. His unique appeal is a function of class dynamics, and he trades on it like few others can.

I've been reading through this thread a bit and I just gotta say these post were :fire: :fire: :fire:

In any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden here. Good American liberals when push comes to shove gotta shut up and get in line, no other way about it.

What is your plan when it comes to nuclear proliferation? What kinds of positions would you like philosophers to push to the public? I'm interested to hear. We never discussed nuclear proliferation in any of my philosophy courses. You might want to just pitch your ideas to a different crowd instead of philosophers - maybe nuclear scientists or international relations experts from the way you were describing things in your post above.

As someone who has spent a bit of time in academic philosophy, I wouldn't expect a group of philosophers to be able to give great insight into nuclear proliferation. I think you'd have better luck with maybe those with a background in international relations or even game theory, possibly. Philosophers, especially academic philosophers, largely shut themselves off from the world to place exclusive focus on theoretic rationality. With an issue like nuclear proliferation I think you'd need to be able to talk about practical enforcement mechanisms and oversight... something which I wouldn't expect philosophers to have much of an idea about.

We should teach them that, generally speaking, philosophy is a largely irrational activity which has little relevance to their future lives — Hippyhead

In my view, it's that good philosophy is too rational, and in that sense it has little to no relevance to their a messy, irrational world. Just because something makes sense does not make it real. I think a lot of philosophy is bullshit, but good philosophy is generally too rational and abstract to have much of relevance to a child's future in a world where history is anything but rational.

I think the anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-being. And by being I just mean the way or ways that humans or other non-human animals experience and interact with reality. But we're talking mainly about humans here.

In the anti-natalism thread I asked Schopenhauer whether he'd still be an anti-natalist if all of societies problems (hunger, disease, war, etc) were solved, and he still said yes. If I'm understanding anti-natalism correctly it's an extreme sensitivity to life's inevitabilities. Nobody is fully in control of their life and the anti-natalist is extremely sensitive and opposed to that. I think anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-religious in the Judeo-Christian sense because in Genesis God describes his creation, including mankind, as "good" while the anti-natalist contradicts this.

I'm not trying to argue with you here. We've already agreed that being inherently involves "suffering" and certainly the individual being subject to forces beyond their control (i.e. non-consensual forces), you're just much more sensitive to it than me.

I'm not trying to justify procreation here. I'm not sure if I need to.

However, there is a necessary deprivation to being- that doesn't go away. — schopenhauer1

Oh yeah if you're talking about the "suffering" or whatever you want to call that is inherent in being (i.e. the way that humans experience the world) that's not going away anytime soon. If you want to be hyper sensitive to it that's on you. I hate to say it but you're free to enter into non-being at any point and regardless we'll all be spending billions upon billions of years in non-being after we die (assuming no reincarnation or afterlife) so if non-being is the preferable state then things are probably looking pretty good in your view given the time spent in both states.

Actually, I still think it would be bad to a certain extent as the way this often works is that more "refined" versions of suffering will simply become the biggest forms of suffering and be the new "standard" for suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I feel like you're talking about a utopia/perfect society that is very far removed from our current understanding of society. What you're saying kind of reminds me of that scene in one of the Matrix movies where Neo goes into the "real world" and he discovers the humans are housed unconscious in these gel pods living out their own virtual reality elsewhere. But on second thought maybe they could still suffer in that virtual reality, who knows.

I am content to hear that even if, for all intents and purposes the problems in our society were eliminated you'd still hold to your position. It shows that we're both on the same page that the anti-natalism objection is less to do with society and more to do with just a general objection to being.

Yeah, and this sums up exactly what I'm saying. You're not compelled by unassailable logic to look at things the way you do. Absolutely every single one of your arguments proceeds from some unusual axiom which you have simply chosen to hold despite being free to choose otherwise There are any of a dozen different ways to interpret that silly 'life on Mars' intuition, for example. You've chosen a set of frames which leads you to the annihilation if the human race as an answer. Anyone in their right mind would see that as a sign they might have taken a wrong turn somewhere. — Isaac

I think you're right on the money here, Isaac. I've always been a little suspicious of people who espouse views that they can't (or refuse to) actually live out. If someone really thinks that non-existence is the preferable state of being they're free to kill themselves (not that I am suggesting this.)

Even if society was perfect and we had eliminated war, poverty, and disease humans would still be subject to terrible, non-consensual forces outside of their control, like having to wake up from a pleasant sleep or go to the bathroom. We solve these problems by destroying humanity. /s.

Maybe it's new in its current form, but the entire idea of seeing the world in black and white - oppressed vs. oppressor, good vs. evil, is quite ancient. Identity politics and taking one's racial/ethnic/class identity to be a core component of oneself is again nothing new. I always thought Nietzsche totally did away with the supposed connection between "oppressed" and "good" but it hasn't reached the woke crowd yet. I actually have less of a problem with identity politics than the strong moral, manichaean implications that wokeism has attached to it.

I've been thinking about this for a bit and the funny thing about anti-natalism, is that even if we envisioned a world with absolutely no pain we still have a multitude of conditions "imposed" on us by nature. For instance no one "consents" to waking up tired or wanting to go back to sleep. If I have to walk to my drawer or refrigerator to get food I'm going to need to do that or just get hungry so really there's no way to win.

Non-existence can't be flawed after all according to the anti-natalist and if in even the most perfect universe or society imaginable we'd still be de facto non-consenting to annoyances (say when it comes to waking up or having to walk somewhere) so non-existence is clearly preferable. Of course no one actually acts this out and kills themselves because of this, nor should they. It's just a nice thought experiment predicated on being super critical of everything.

What this means is that while an infant's mind is different from a child's and a child's different from an adolescent's and an adolescent's different from an adult's, there's, to my surprise, no difference between the minds of a 40 year old adult and a 70 year old adult i.e. the mind doesn't, is believed not to, age after reaching adulthood. — TheMadFool

I'd question this. I'm not a neuroscientist or anything, but I'd wager that there are differences between, say a 30 year olds brain and a 70 year olds. For instance, if you look at top chess players they tend to reach their peak at around 30ish. You can still have strong chess players who are older, but especially after 80 that decline is sharp. I'll link the chart below.

https://imgur.com/X7Ijsyl

Obviously chess isn't the end-all-be-all of intelligence, it's just one mental activity, and older people will have life experiences and lessons that the younger just don't have. Brains do age, it seems to me that you get better at some mental activities and perhaps worse at others with age.

rsgkh is not right here, does it really make sense that an organization would just give impoverished drug addicts $300 just for promising to get sterilized? vice did a 10 minute piece on this that you can find on youtube and i can assure you they're not that dumb.

Please don't think that I am trying to outlaw anyone's opinions but I am just wondering what is happening in philosophy if these are the new aspirations? Is philosophy itself collapsing into chaos? — Jack Cummins

I think it's more just a reflection of the forum than of philosophy itself. There are some members who are very into anti-natalism, and, I think as you put it "destruction as an ideal." I'd chalk this up to some of the members on the forum, but I just personally tend to avoid these topics because I've already had these types of discussions and I'm done with them now. I'm not going to entertain a pro-murder argument so I just avoid the thread.

I'll spell it out for you a little clearer: You're somebody's right-wing extremist, Streetlight.

You need to support identity politics to be a true left-winger over here in the States, so sorry to say but you'd be considered regressive in some circles and possibly racist.

The way I see it the libertarians and the right (conservatives) often vote along the same lines, but they are definitely not the same. Atheistic capitalist libertarians and conservative, traditionalist republicans (often communitarian) might vote for the same party but these are two substantially different camps with very different core values.

I did a bit more research on McVeigh though and it does seem that he's on the right so I recant a little of what I said earlier. I do think he's more libertarian than he is right though so.... in any case it's just interesting and kind of strange to me that all libertarians and christian conservatives just get thrown under the same umbrella (that it "the right".) I still do consider left-libertarians a version of libertarianism though and even if it's not so popular in the US (I'd be interested to see the numbers) it must have support elsewhere in the world.

Maybe we have a different conception of what McVeigh believed and why did what he did? My understanding of McVeigh was that he was motivated by his hatred of the US government and what he saw as its encroaching, expanding power. Given this account, he just seems like an extreme, violent libertarian - or at least in that camp ideologically. I don't think he was a follower or admirer of an authoritarian right wing regime. I've never heard him say anything positive about capitalism or socialism for that matter. It seems weird for me to call him "right." I usually associate the right with conservativism or a belief in traditionalism.

They were probably Bernie supporters who just wanted to give her free health care. No idea either why anyone would associate gun-toting Dem-hating liberty freak militias with the right wing. — Baden

They're gun-toting government hating liberty freak militias. At least one of them posted anti-Trump content. Would you consider Timothy McVeigh a right wing extremist?

As far as I can tell the plotters of the kidnapping were just anti-government extremists. I haven't found any evidence that they were either far right or far left, and according to the Detroit Free Press the Whitmer kidnapping was part of a wider plot to attack cops and try to start a civil war:

"The Wolverine Watchmen militia group didn't just plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but they were on a mission to attack the state Capitol and target police officers at their homes as part of a broader mission to instigate a civil war, authorities said Thursday in announcing felony charges against 13 militia members accused in a sensational case of domestic terrorism."

As far as I can tell these guys were just violent anti-government radicals and while its fine for law enforcement to keep tabs on these groups I don't really know what else can be done because the right to a well regulated militia is a guaranteed in the Constitution.

So I suppose that we agree in a need for ever-vigilant suspicion and support for racial justice. — praxis

here's the thing: virtually everyone values justice. if we just consider racial justice or social justice or any type of group justice a sub-category of justice then it follows that (almost) everyone supports those categories, at least in the abstract.

my main concern here is that if we're not using phrases or words how they're actually used today then we run the risk of confusing people or being out of touch with the discourse today.

it's like if someone were to me if i'm an anti-fascist, i would answer something along the lines of "in theory, yes - i am certainly not a fascist and i don't support fascism, but the anti-fascist movement as it exists today is not one that i support due to their violence and rioting against random local businesses." in other words, i think both the traditional meanings of the words but also the way they're being used in discourse today matter when addressing an issue or a concept like that.

edit: if you were to ask me if i were an anti-fascist and it were 1936 i would give an unqualified "yes."

I think in order for Trump to win, he cannot win by just a narrow margin, but decisively, or else they are going to contest the election, demand recounts etc.

In other words expect a shit-show worse than 2000. — NOS4A2

I think if Trump were to win decisively it would be very suspicious and we'd hear calls of Russian interference/some type of voting fraud. It's already unlikely that he wins, but if he were to win by a large margin I would be quite suspicious. For him to win decisively he'd have to win states like Wisconsin which have around a 6-7% gap in favor of Biden.

Does this mean that you're a science denier? — praxis

no.

I don't think that you can win over a racist with reason. Their sense of fairness has to overcome the privileges of being part of the majority, if nothing else. — praxis

sure, but couldn't a racist be part of a minority as well? a minority could even be in power in a country as they were in south africa.

It sounds like you're more concerned with ideology than with extensions of the conception of justice or sub-categories of justice. If concerned with fair and equal justice, and a belief that that is a goal worth pursuing, it's easy to see how some approaches may be better than others, or that some approaches may even be corrupt. If an ideology doesn't value fair and equal justice then it may well consider the whole enterprise suspect. — praxis

it's not about ideology, it's about the actual modern usage of the term. it's not 1960. we're not discussing whether one group ought to have the right to attend integrated public schools or be able to vote. the discussion is simply no longer about equal rights under the law.

if you want to understand the discourse today look to ibram kendi and robin diangelo, both have widely read books on the subject and routinely lecture as educator. that is where we are today with discourse. the modern issues we are discussing including affirmative action, reparations, and other concrete proposals to help narrow the achievement gap - the article i mentioned above explicitly mentioned that term and it's a common one.

the traditional conception of justice in the western world is blind - s/he doesn't care whether someone is poor or rich, what race or class they are, while this version is justice is quite visual so i see the two as categorically different. justice can apply to individuals, when it applies to entire groups it is more suspect.

Well I'm living in Massachusetts so a Trump yard sign or bumper sticker is a rare sight here. I actually bet on Trump with a friend last election and I was able to get 10:1 on it which worked out nicely. No one expected him to win but if someone's giving me those kind of odds who am I refuse?

It's surprising to me that the odds across betting sites are only 65-35 in favor of Biden. FiveThirtyEight has a pretty clear projection of Biden winning and while it seems Trump could win he seemingly has no margin of error and needs to win in basically all the swing states. In any case 65-35 is not a sure bet at all. For the poker players out there that's basically the equivalent of getting it all in against a flush draw. Hillary was around a 70% favorite if I could recall. People just see "favorite" and they think it's a sure thing but people are bad with probabilities.

That's what I found remarkable. But I didn't look into the case so I can't do anything but speculate. — praxis

Equal justice is generally suspect? How so? — praxis

This sounds like a strawman, but I may be misinterpreting you. — praxis

I think what's happening here is that you're regarding "racial justice" as a sub-category of justice and I'm regarding the term more in its modern social usage. Racial justice in its modern usage generally refers to redressing historical wrongs through perks or advantages today that apply to only one group, e.g. reparations and affirmative action. Easier grading for minorities could easily fall into this category.

Of course I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
so in that sense I obviously support "racial justice" or "social justice." But the actual meanings of these terms today are quite different from just an extension of the conception of justice.

I don't think that our fundamental values differ much, actually. We just suppress or promote the values that are in accord with whatever tribe we belong to. A dedicated atheist can have a sense of the sacred, for instance, it's just that they revere something different than the theist. — praxis

Oh yeah I wasn't talking about you and me in particular not being able to have discussions because our fundamental values vary so much. I was talking more in a general sense. I personally find it nearly impossible to carry on fruitful discussions with strong identitarians either on the left or the right. If someone is willing to prioritize their own ethnic group before justice/fairness then I just find it impossible.

And I agree with you about how atheists can still have a sense of the sacred. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the environmentalism/conservation debates today are at its core clashing conception of the "sacred."

It's remarkable that you think this could be considered racial justice. Offhand, to me it sounds like the school is simply doctoring the numbers to look good or meet some standard. They're cheating (the minority kids most of all), in other words. — praxis

I never committed myself to a position as to whether that policy would constitute racial justice. I think the concept of racial justice is a suspect one in general, but if I were to accept it as a valid goal then blatant academic favoritism is not out of the question.

In any case my broader point was more just about how difficult discussion can be when the fundamental vales of two individuals can be very much at odds.

I think many people value truth privately, but in public the ego blow from being wrong is just too much in this heavily partisan environment.

I think it comes down to what people fundamentally value. For instance it's fine if someone values racial justice, but if they place that as their top concern it's going to conflict with others who take a broader, more traditional view of justice. For example there was an article in the WSJ today about a school in Chicago which was pushing teachers to grant minority students artificially higher grades in the name of decreasing the achievement gap. Maybe this is racial justice, who knows, but it's not justice in the traditional sense.

Why can't you post something more relevant and useful, like which type of baseball bat is best at breaking a political opponent's legs? Why are we talking when we could be fighting?

I think philosophy can be self-taught really because there is so much literature available, ranging from introductions to books by the importance authors. — Jack Cummins

I think good reasoning and writing skills can be self taught, but if you're going to get into the weeds with academic philosophy you're probably going to need a PhD near you who can help you navigate some of these thinkers. You can trust a professor in the field to know what's going on, especially when they're dealing with their specialty, and the field really requires a precision with language. I hate to say it, but I'm suspicious of a lot of non-academic philosophy just because I can't entirely trust these writers to fully understand some philosophers or arguments. Until it's been approved by peer review or comes from someone within academic I'm suspicious.

I don't really know what I thought I would do after my studies but I do think that if I could go back I would have studied more with a view to a career and have kept my interest in philosophy as a part time, personal interest instead. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, I think studying philosophy while not being entirely sure what field you're going to go into is a common experience - it happened with me too. I just kind of fell in love with the subject and closed myself off to the outside world, and when the 4 years of that degree were up I was kind of left empty handed.

But in the current employment crisis it is hard to know whether formal education should be more or less career orientated or less so. — Jack Cummins

Personally, I tend to lean towards it being more career oriented. A college education is an investment - often a 6 figure one - that lasts 4 years here in the states and I think the entire education model needs to be reworked because it's becoming unsustainable. For one, you're asking 19-20 year old kids who have no experience in the outside world to choose what their field of study will be and many just choose what seems most fun or intellectually stimulating. I think I choose philosophy at the time because I was interested in whether objective morality existed and maybe the major could help me reach an answer. When you have no bills to pay why not choose a major based on that?

what i am asking here is, should i study philosophy at school. or just learn from my self as a hooby — ramo

You should learn it as a hobby unless you want to study law (not advised) or go into academic philosophy (DEFINITELY not advised.) Learn a useful skill or study something useful. Your bank account will thank you later. Of course people on a philosophy forum are going to tell you to study it, and in a vacuum of course studying philosophy is fine, but if you're preparing to enter the workforce then there are better choices. You can study it all you want after you have a decent job.

I'm not suggesting killing anyone. — Xtrix

Sure, you just want them to die and don't care if they suffer or not - understood. After all it's for the good of humanity.

I have to say, I'm more in favor of him dying. I don't care whether he suffers. Sounds terrible, yes, but from my point of view it would (possibly) benefit the future of the human species. I feel the same way about Americans who continually vote for him - their dying off is a good thing in general. — Xtrix

You might as well support offing the libertarians as well you wouldn't want those kind of ideas floating around.

So when can you wish someone were dead? If there are circumstances where it's OK to kill someone, then there certainly must be a lot more circumstances where its OK to wish someone were dead. — Benkei

That's a good question. I don't have an immediate answer. If we're just going to wish leaders dead every time they do something suspect or enforce a policy that we don't like or believe something that we consider offensive then all leaders are to be wished dead. This would go very well beyond Trump.

If Trump is indeed either committing treason or something along those lines I'd rather see him on trial though.

You can't be tolerant towards the intolerant, that's just your basic Karl Popper /s. Next logical step is hoping all your political opponents choke on their own vomit or come down with AIDS because they're like basically Nazis. I mean besides conservatives like don't even care about black people or whatever.

Trust me it's all good philosophy.