collapse

Author Topic: Politics and philosophy  (Read 2197 times)

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2019, 12:12:31 AM »
That's one of the reasons why I'm not into it, not to say, it's, like any religion, full of redunancy and rubbish that piled up in ages. Myself certainly don't think this is what they meant, the conflict is the root of all evil, still it tends to be interpreted in the way that favors conflict avoidance as valid a modus operandi indeed.
Many concepts had become so esoterically obfuscated, that it's easier to reinvent them than decipher, if this is possible at all. However, I'm sure that they got cause-effect and action-consequences part right, as well as the lack of inherent meaning of life.

Thinking myself as this gives me a reason to explain some of my aspects. I know of people who suffered knowing they have mental issues but not exactly what, it made difficullt explain their issues but alsoaccept themself
The problem, it isn't just a broad term, it's quite a specific description. A ready-to-use suit, tailored by someone(s) with unknown agenda. By thinking in its terms, one unintentionally tries it on and eventually becomes that suit instead of whom one really wants to be. From that point of view, for example, yandere or pop culture sociopathy are paradoxically less damaging than APD from actual DSM, since these cliches are more spontaneous and not meant to be taken seriously, thus less strings attached.
Therefore, I prefer something different. Thought of mythological parallels or something in that vein?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 02:55:38 PM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2019, 12:47:03 PM »
Sorting out what is true and valid from a huge heap of various apocrypha that has accumulated over the years is what doomed contemporary religion in the eyes of the many - not to mention the violent resurgence of fundamentalism and the questionable acts/deeds/edicts of the clergy across the world. That is the "human" part of religion how I like to call it - the view on it as an institution with a certain hierarchy and influence over a large portion of culture or national identities. Various double-dealings and dubious compromises have exposed and endangered this "part" of the religion that subsequently led the believers to lose faith or question it. Honestly, I amazed how much people put value into this particular part of religion, its "earthly" part - it seems like favoring a copy instead of an original.

To give an example - I favor the Christian concept of compassion and sympathy, but I am not interested in the slightest how someone codifies it and interprets it, especially if that certain someone coerces me to adopt his view. That is borderline (if not outright) forced conversion.

A few words on Buddhism. From my studies, I have spotted several intricacies about Buddhism and its impact on the society and philosophy at large. Buddhism has not had a large impact on the societies it had entered, mostly because the present philosophical/theological systems that existed had already established a strong power base, so Buddhism could only adjust: in China, Buddhism had to make a stance on both Taoism and Confucianism, embracing in the meantime a lot from those two such as a distinct philosophy system, iconography and an entire theogony that only underwent slight changes. To me, Buddhism is only an esoteric philosophy that emphasizes the concept of emptiness and nothing more - whereas other monotheistic religions had begun as such, Buddhism acquired various traits as it went so to make a clear comparison with Islam or Christianity would be a bit inadequate in my opinion.

What is my personal "beef" with Buddhism is basically its treatment of human emotion and the human condition as a whole like an assembly line toy soldier series - they consider human emotions, attributes and outlooks as something faulty, fleeting and unstable. So like miniatures, the stripping of those will solve a problem, but when asked what to replace it with, we are offered a vague concept of something that they perceive as salvation. No emotion is inherently evil or redundant, it is the very application or usage of it that counts: violence, stubbornness, cunning etc. they all have a positive usage too, such is fights for independence, preserving your own heritage or devising a plan to further your business etc. Think outside the box, basically.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline Aurelian

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2019, 03:06:43 PM »
I often approach any religion or ideology from a utilitarian point of view. I believe religions operate at the quite similar level as ideologies do.  Communism has eschatological elements in it, creating some sort of a atheist religion, belief in the inevitable march of history and creation of a communist society as the end goal. This eschatological quality stems from Hegelian dialectics that Marx implemented in his class analysis.

Personally, I see the ideology of modern liberalism as fundamentally self-destructive. Its central tenant is the freedom of a individual, which creates a society filled with atomized individuals who compete against each other. The religions and ideologies that foster collectivism win out long term. To elaborate further, within a society, where both competitive and collective people exist, the competitive people will slowly leech off the 'good will' of the collective efforts, while also benefiting from their own competitive victories. Within a society, the competitive people will always, inexorably, 'win' over the collectivists.

This is because the collectivists are not trying to compete against their own collective. The competitive ones are playing a game (competition), where the collectivists do not know they are participating/competing. However, when you look at the effect of societies vs. societies, a collectivist society will, inexorably, beat a competitive society. They are able to act as a larger 'whole' unit, where the competitive society acts at best for their single society, but often only for those who hold the reins within their competitive society.

This is because since all arrangements are some type of negotiated balance (whether communicated or not), a collectivist society will lean toward choices which, on the net of all their society considered - has the greatest total benefit to their citizens. While a competitive society, which not only competes against the collectivists, but also against one another, is more likely to only consider the benefit to the controlling the negotiated outcome (whether the Merchant-Princes doing the trade negotiations, or the Generals doing the hostile negotiations).

The identified equilibrium of the negotiation is skewed by their competitive perspective: inexorably, this is what causes collectivist societies to gain more out of each negotiation than competitive ones. A deal which puts greater burden on the peasants of the competitive society is permissible for the competitive upper class because it is not usually accounted for, but it is not permissible or at least not without recompense for the collectivist society. Meanwhile the advantage of a competitive individual does not scale to the societal level because societies are aware they are in competition with one another.


Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2019, 05:03:31 PM »
It comes down to a simple sentence: "too much freedom results in anarchy." Liberalism is precisely out of those reasons self-destructive, for it basically allows even flaws and negative trends to become tolerable and accepted under the Trojan horse of "diversity".

History has proven, time and time again, that there cannot be more than a single army or religion within a single country and in this modern day and age of complex societies it goes double: across Europe you have basically independent enclaves, hostile to the parent history and culture that demand special treatment which will inevitably end in a violent schism. Liberalism accepts those under the umbrella motto of "strength in diversity" - every person that has any relevant knowledge of the way a certain society works can see the fault in this statement and that diversification breeds only more discontent, inequality and possible pitfalls.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2019, 07:51:59 AM »
Liberalism offers a choice between playing competitively or collaboratively. The problem, most people are either oblivious to or do not care about long-term consequences, so it's not hard to imagine which one they will pick. The more dominant competitive tactic becomes, the less viable the other option. Eventually the whole society does nothing but compete against itself.
So, it's not liberalism itself is the problem, but the people who have no idea about implications of their actions. For this reason it does not work like intended. In the case of clueless participants (which is exactly the case today), collectivism wins indeed. However, what exactly it wins is a whole another question.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 08:31:41 AM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2019, 10:22:31 AM »
Liberalism offers a choice between playing competitively or collaboratively. The problem, most people are either oblivious to or do not care about long-term consequences, so it's not hard to imagine which one they will pick. The more dominant competitive tactic becomes, the less viable the other option. Eventually the whole society does nothing but compete against itself.
So, it's not liberalism itself is the problem, but the people who have no idea about implications of their actions. For this reason it does not work like intended. In the case of clueless participants (which is exactly the case today), collectivism wins indeed. However, what exactly it wins is a whole another question.

The very notion of liberalism being either open or self-destructive comes down to your perception of human kind and the elites who codify the trends in the society at a time. I have a Machiavellian stance on humanity, thus my perception of liberalism coming off as destructive is somehow natural. Maybe you have a different stance on the subject based on your personal experience, but my own beliefs and the overall state of mankind around me have convinced me that liberalism is just a breeding ground for controversy, debauchery in many forms that shall end up imploding.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2019, 10:40:32 AM »
Myself consider mankind self-destructive by design, so it's pointless to blame a certain model for this. There are better and worse implementations, sure, but, unless participants are aware what game they're playing and acting responsibly, this is only the matter is time. Pure liberalism, anarchy and fascism exist only in theory. In practice, no implementation is like each other, each one could be considered a hybrid. There is a set of values on the altar, not only one.
In the end, it does not matter if it's labelled liberalism or fascism, it only matters how much competition there are between participants.

While a collectivist society wins, under the same conditions it can be considered only a technical win, because with participants as clueless, collaboration is not voluntary and conscious, it should be enforced by some means be it power, conditioning or manipulation. In long term, that results in a society that does not exist for the benefit of its members, but members for society. It does not fall apart, as fast at least, but does do anything useful either.

It's not necessary to re-read "Brave New World" or any other dystopian novel in order to get an example, since every society could be thought as of a superset of smaller ones, and contains both examples: competition and enforced collaboration. It's all already here, happening right now before our eyes, some elements end up in flames, some in ice (staleness). Death and life no better than death.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 07:48:49 PM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2019, 07:51:29 PM »
Myself consider mankind self-destructive by design, so it's pointless to blame a certain model for this. There are better and worse implementations, sure, but, unless participants are aware what game they're playing and acting responsibly, this is only the matter is time. Pure liberalism, anarchy and fascism exist only in theory. In practice, no implementation is like each other, each one could be considered a hybrid. There is a set of values on the altar, not only one.
In the end, it does not matter if it's labelled liberalism or fascism, it only matters how much competition there are between participants.

While a collectivist society wins, under the same conditions it can be considered only a technical win, because with participants as clueless, collaboration is not voluntary and conscious, it should be enforced by some means be it power, conditioning or manipulation. In long term, that results in a society that does not exist for the benefit of its members, but members for society. It does not fall apart, as fast at least, but does do anything useful either.

It's not necessary to re-read "Brave New World" in order to get an example, since every society could be though as of a superset of smaller ones, and contains both examples: competition and enforced collaboration. It's all already here, happening before our eyes, some elements end up in flames, some in ice (staleness).

An excellent observation.
The most hilarious theme that keeps repeating itself is the failed lesson from the French revolution and that is the definition of a nation (by extension and society) existing for the benefit of its members not the other way around, since many wealthy or influential members can manipulate the  postulates of the society to view them as the focal point or as the core of the system with their values in the middle. The ideologies, be it fascism or anything else, can only hinder or facilitate the transition.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2019, 09:51:18 PM »
American society provides an example of hybrid between liberalism and fascism, collectivism and individualism. Their high class is higlhy collectivistic, if you're belong to it, you cannot do what you want in life, but must be a part of the crowd and follow a certain route. It's so obnoxious, stale and gerontocratic, they even do not benefit much from the system they supposingly head, at least the most of them. Depression among high class is even more common than others.
As for low and mid, education, mortgages and medical insurance (that beats Anti-Parasite Law in USSR) anyone? While initially mostly liberalistic, nowadays that does not even qualify as liberalism.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 09:55:13 PM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2019, 09:10:41 AM »
American society provides an example of hybrid between liberalism and fascism, collectivism and individualism. Their high class is higlhy collectivistic, if you're belong to it, you cannot do what you want in life, but must be a part of the crowd and follow a certain route. It's so obnoxious, stale and gerontocratic, they even do not benefit much from the system they supposingly head, at least the most of them. Depression among high class is even more common than others.
As for low and mid, education, mortgages and medical insurance (that beats Anti-Parasite Law in USSR) anyone? While initially mostly liberalistic, nowadays that does not even qualify as liberalism.

I am not particularly informed on the state of the American society (like they aren't on ours), but I would not call them a hybrid one. They are somehow an example of exclusive liberalism with tons of inequalities breeding among their citizens where the amount of cash dictates what you can and cannot do. Definitively, the differences among the people are further exacerbated with those rigid levels, but like I said, this is just my point of view and I am not informed the best on their current state. What I know for sure is the introduction of SJW ideals that is abundant and will eventually ruin them.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2019, 10:27:34 AM »
Would not take SJW at their face value, this movement is not much more than pawns, a smoke screen and an embezzling rack. They aren't numerous enough to divert too much actual resources or split the society apart for real, but noisy enough to distract from actual problems and create a false appearance of struggle for liberal-democratic ideals. They are the part of ongoing "republicans vs democrats" show, and, guess what, Trump plays a current villain there.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 12:21:20 PM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Aurelian

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2019, 11:26:19 PM »
It is a certainty that our modern notion of the individual, the main foundation upon which the liberal and the Western order rests, comes from John Locke. Locke grounds his theory in a concept self-ownership.

In his Second Treatise, Locke writes that “every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.” Locke believes that the individual is the sole owner of his or her personhood that distinguishes themselves from that which is not themselves. Note that, although Locke acknowledged that human beings receive their existence and natural powers from a God, he defined divine authority negatively. Locke understood it to be merely that which is left over at the end of self-ownership. In this way, Locke endorses an individual’s radical sovereignty over themselves, his/her right to total self-creation. A massive break from earlier notions of fate, destiny and the ordination of God.

But in what does this personhood consist? Crucially, Locke’s personhood depends on the individual’s cognitive and rational capacities, specifically the ability to engage in self-reflection. This comes out of Locke’s definitions of substance, a person, a self, which are found in his Second Treatise. A person, for Locke, is a thinking intelligent being that is conscious. That person becomes a self when he or she gains awareness of themselves as a conscious and reflective person. For Locke, then, human beings become unique and actualized persons entirely on their own. The person and the self created self or self aware merely as a product of the activity of an individual human being, and belong exclusively to the ownership of that individual. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke summarizes it thus: the person is:

Quote
That with which the consciousness of this present thinking thing can join itself, makes the same person, and is one self with it, and with nothing else; and so attributes to itself, and owns all the actions of that thing, as its own, as far as that consciousness reaches, and no farther; as every one who reflects will perceive.

Thus, Locke’s theory of the person celebrates individualism and autonomous development. But is there an alternative view? Perhaps on that resembles older notions of what a person is? After all, how is it possible that all of mankind got it wrong until Locke came along. Is there a view of the Human Person based on vulnerability and on a dependence on others for our development and flourishing?

In line with this insight, Charles Taylor presents a particularly valuable alternative to Locke in his Sources of the Self. In this work, Taylor attacks the “neutral” self, the idea that the self arises independently through mere self-reflection on one’s state of consciousness. Instead, Taylor argues that the self is one’s core being, that aspect with the requisite depth and complexity to have an identity. Such a being is necessarily embedded in an existing moral framework or space, for this person must have an orientation toward questions about the good according to which this person can interpret themselves. Perhaps most importantly, this person grows in this self-awareness through relationships and interactions with others. In Taylor’s view, one cannot abstract away from this web of relationships and interactions.

One could argue that a human is only a human in the context of other humans, otherwise, we are feral and a pure human separate from all others isn't really a person. So which sounds more true to you?

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2019, 11:37:26 AM »
Despite my firm opposition to liberalism gone wild, I must embrace Locke's stance on this matter simply because I detest the influence of others, especially if they want to coerce me into believing into their set of values or to follow their rules. The influence of others invites abuse, dominance and distortion of the person they target and that sheer notion of autonomy over oneself is what I unquestionably support as well as the principle of reflection - to require other people so you could find your place or discover your own set of values renders you dependant and lacking of confidence. When you think about it the contemporary society works that way - always some kind of expectations, counseling for this and that, shunning all that are not sociable on their own crooked scale... it forces you to be dependant on their own set of apocryphal values otherwise you will not be accepted in the cool kids' club, yet humans are wretched creatures. This rigged system, despite how much they would like to deny it, exists in every liberalist society. You are free indeed... to a degree.
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"

Offline deicide

  • Drug Fiend
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2019, 02:09:29 PM »
Taylor is contradicting himself. Following his logic, nor society nor personhood would have never existed, since person solely is a product of society, not the other way around. How society itself come into existence in the first place then, if there were no other persons to validate oneself against?
One could agree with Locke or not, but at least his theory is self-sufficient and does not require any third party in order to resolve such a contradiction.

Myself too, lean towards opinion that the most of today people, no matter the type of society, tend to define themselves through others. Like, sense of self-worth that based on comparison against competitors. So, ironically, in supposingly liberalist world an average individual is rather a Taylor's individual than Locke's.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 02:31:22 PM by deicide »
The patient was a young lady whom I was loath to disfigure (c)

Offline Raving_Neonate

  • Rave.Period.
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Raving somewhere....
Re: Politics and philosophy
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2019, 05:11:21 PM »
Taylor is contradicting himself. Following his logic, nor society nor personhood would have never existed, since person solely is a product of society, not the other way around. How society itself come into existence in the first place then, if there were no other persons to validate oneself against?
One could agree with Locke or not, but at least his theory is self-sufficient and does not require any third party in order to resolve such a contradiction.

Myself too, lean towards opinion that the most of today people, no matter the type of society, tend to define themselves through others. Like, sense of self-worth that based on comparison against competitors. So, ironically, in supposingly liberalist world an average individual is rather a Taylor's individual than Locke's.

A perfect system of oppression if you ask me. When I see what kind of disturbing trends are festering in the West and the control of the East, I think that true individualism and liberty can be found only on Madagascar, growing coconuts and simply being away from the "cancer of the civilization". So much insecurity and tolerance is really disturbing on the long run - no matter the society type or the ideology that (dis)graces it, humans will always have a "lynch mob" mentality as long as there is an influential person to lead them (based on the power source that gives him that authority).

Just a quick edit: this reminds me of the Azadi in Dreamfall Chapters with their ghettos for Magicals. Dunno why, but it is awfully reminiscent.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 05:13:34 PM by Raving_Neonate »
Me: "I love lollipops!"
WoD ST: "We don't allow lollipops, because we are too dark!"