PlanetVampire.com Forum

General Category => Off Topic => Topic started by: Aurelian on January 27, 2019, 08:12:39 PM

Title: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on January 27, 2019, 08:12:39 PM
Good evening, my fellow kindred. My apologies for disrupting any business or interfering with prior engagements you may have had this evening.

It has occurred several times to me that I digress from various subjects we debate in various threads in favor of political and philosophical debate. I suspect this is fundamentally natural, for the Kindred should be well invested in the matters of politics, faith and philosophy. Therefore, I have decided to create this thread so that it may be a gathering place for all those who wish to discuss the matters of politics, philosophy and religion.

I shall start by commenting on comment by a fellow user Deicide.

My original comment was this: 
Quote
The society or the nation that is unified by language, culture, values, religion and ethnicity is far more harder to infiltrate and subvert from within. Which nations are more vulnerable to subversion? Japan, Poland, Russia, Vietnam and Ethiopia or America, Sweden, Bosnia, Syria, Lebanon and India?

But I bring nothing new to the table, for this has been known since the times of Plato and Aristotle. Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun wrote numerous books on rise and fall of societies.

To which Deicide replied:
Quote
It's a quite a necromancy, but I think that religion should be excluded from this list. Religion, by design, is open to interpretation, don't even get me started on ambiguous and often self-contradicting religious texts that could be read in any way that one pleases. Therefore, it's easily corruptible, the "divide and conquer" tactic in regards of religion was employed multiple times over the course of history. Religion always was the one of the most popular reasons to start a war or conflict. In a society with a sole religion, a schism inside it will certainly pack quite a punch. On the other hand, in a multireligious society it does not play any role of importance, otherwise it would've fallen apart already, without any vampire influence. If such a society survived, it means it's tolerant towards different religions and branches, so setting up a divide would achieve nothing but just another branch of yet another religion.
For these reasons, I will prefer a society that united by anything but it.


While I am a agnostic, it often strikes me that people vastly underestimate the binding power of religion in creating high-trust compact societies. Herodotus defined ethnic identity for his age, and I still see those same parameters as relevant today as they were in his time. Shared descent, language, customs and faith. Those 4 parameters are the cornerstones of a ethnic group. Faith is not self realizing: it's the background, the framework upon we paint of lives. What fulfills in this earthly life of ours is our jobs, our families, our children, our passions, our arts, our entertainment. The societal coherence that you dream of, or wish for, can be achieved in many ways.

Religion is just very efficient at managing large communities in a short span of time.
Eternal damnation has that component of immediacy that organizes people rapidly. But fear is a depletable resource.
But the mechanisms of society are much simpler than that. Apes of all kinds don't have any religion that we're aware of, and they manage just fine. Furthermore, coherence can sometimes be an inherent weakness. Islam, for instance, styles itself as a world religion, with an universalist claim, but it's not coherent at any scale; beyond the Shahada, lays a vast field of profound disagreements. It's not even internally consistent. Thus we see today many regions of the Islamic world in the fires, and the strife is not between a Muslim and a follower of a another religion, but between a Muslim and a Muslim.

Coherence and strong compact society lets you conquer half the Mediterranean coasts and large pieces of European land in a few decades. But it quickly dissolves in a myriad of smaller, competing, kingdoms. On that note: so is the nation. Church, culture, nations... can and do build large societies. And they all have a natural tendency to remain through large swats of time in the common conscience even after they hold no dominion or jurisdiction. We managed to eject religion from the state. Perhaps more importantly, it's only in the last few decades that we even have the knowledge (game theory) to assess and discuss how societies work internally. Whether the decision to eject religion from the state was a wise one or not still remains to be seen.







Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on January 28, 2019, 06:10:54 PM
A wonderful topic indeed.

My view on the topic is that religion should function as a strengthening and defining factor behind a single society, utterly apart from the affairs of the state and the actual executive power of various government bureaus. Religion has a place of its own in a single society, defining the nature of many nationalities and allowing the individual to feel a dosage of comfort, because science cannot explain everything (here I like to embrace the theory of Kant who actually made a sort of barrier for science explaining what it can and cannot discern and/or explain).

I tend to think of science as a faulty mechanism for certain things, because everything created by man is essentially flawed like its creator: some machines are extremely precise or efficient, but expensive to acquire and/or maintain while others require a tremendous amount of resources and wealth to manufacture in the first place and later on only a certain percentage of people is able and wealthy enough to acquire it. This is what I like about religion - it is universal and all-inclusive so to speak, for its rules apply to all and all have equal chance to enter heaven or hell. Sure, the religion of today has been institutionalized and altered, but the core principles or more precisely the dogma should be the focus of the believers not how the priest dresses, for in the end, only faith matters.   
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on January 28, 2019, 09:50:13 PM
We're entering a subject which I personally quite love, the rise and the fall of societies. Why do societies, especially complex societies collapse?

So one such theory of complex societies collapsing is proposed by Joseph A. Tainter which serves to explain the development of complex societies and how they tend to fall. Complexity is defined as both, Diversification in function, specialization in structure and behavioral roles, and increasing integration and control of behavior. So in effect societies develop more parts and more different types of parts within themselves. More over you develop mechanisms of power which bind those parts as a whole functional unit. Societies grow in complexity both by adding complexity but managing that complexity into a functional machine, otherwise you just have a box of useless parts so to speak.

Complexity has a drawback however, mainly as societies grow more complex they run into various key problems. Tainter’s theory, to simplify things is that as societies grow they become more complex, slapping on layer after layer of institutions, regulations and customs to deal with challenges (and, I suspect, to facilitate the ruling classes’ extracting resources from the ruled). Over time, these layers grow more and more rigid and take more and more of the society’s resources. It’s hard to change them because every layer of complexity represents some group’s livelihood or claim on power. Eventually, the society is devoting almost all its resources to maintaining these institutions and has very little reserve left to deal with the unexpected. The result is that challenges that it would have weathered easily in the past are now sufficient to bring it to an end.

Political solutions are not always capable of solving such crisis'. Political leaders’ chief concern is their own power and position, they’re willing to do almost anything to stave off a collapse, except reduce their own power and position. Kicking the can down the road usually just makes the problem worse in the end, but politicians would rather do that than make any sacrifice up front.

To summarize, there are two opposing tendencies at work here: the compulsion to control everything and the nature of an endlessly complexifying system that by its nature becomes uncontrollable. The end result is a sort of "heat death" where infinite resources are required to exercise an infinite degree of control, resulting in an avalanche of unintended consequences.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on January 28, 2019, 10:17:56 PM
I don't believe in philosophy. Or any religions.  :razz:
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on January 29, 2019, 11:01:49 AM
I don't believe in philosophy. Or any religions.  :razz:

There is certain controversy in such statements from nihilists and atheists - cultivation of the belief in nothing and no one. That still qualifies as a belief system or a trace of it for the lack of a better term, yet I would like to know what do they gain from denying the existence of anything that is not corporeal or definable - bowing down to the cruel majesty known as logic or reason invites the death of many things that are not explainable and in my personal opinion, it is a poor perception mechanism indeed: I cannot see or measure air, but it is still there and necessary to the entire humankind.

To me, especially in the contemporary era, science and logic are just means to deconstruct and nullify the value existence in favor of knowing every bit of something which is in most cases useless. Using the rationale of the atheists and nihilists, there is no point in having a life - then I propose a question to them, why live if everything is in vain and there is no value save the material? I am not simplifying their stances, but it comes down to that in the end: why live in a corporate world where I slave from 9 to 5 or longer and disperse into dust when I die, where every emotion is reduced to a barely comprehensible set of attributes (anger bad, lust good) and I deny everything simply because I do not understand it? So I am fully within my rights when I deny the existence of astrophysics simply because I cannot understand it or see it.

There is more to human existence than a simple cycle of birth, reproducing and death. We live in a visual world, where the humankind takes everything and everyone for granted and at face value: when I say that I believe in God, people automatically assume a whole lot with it, such as bowing down to the word of the clergy, disregarding of science etc. Throughout history, there were many who perished in the name of something spiritual and religious, and people today would call them deluded idiots even if their deeds were righteous and essentially good. For example, during the Black Plague in Europe, many priests and nuns have given their lives trying to find to cure or ease the suffering of those afflicted - I am supposed to diminish the value of their sacrifice by claiming that their faith had been a hoax?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on January 29, 2019, 11:14:17 PM
Honestly I dropped it as a joke but seriously my kind of autism blocks my understanding of philosophy. It's like being deaf, I cannot feel it but I trust you when you says it exists. And regarding religion I'm actually agnostic in the sense I recognize the limits of human mind to know if any kind of superior beings exists or not (and specially if it's as religions childishly pretend it is). We cannot know and/or understand how this is (and if) for now so I don't see the point of trying to understand it for now, at a professional level at least. Ok, if others want to try to I won't argue (but still I feel it useless as trying to read the Gilgamesh in the original language without any knoledge of sumerian language and culture).
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on January 29, 2019, 11:31:07 PM
Philosophy isn't about feelings at all, quite the contrary. It's an Ouroboros, ways of thinking of ways thinking. To put it short, an understanding of one's ways of thinking, that's all. I'm sure that you're actually indulged in philosophy many times without even realising how it's called.

I would not take autism or anything else seriously, these diagnoses aren't based on real science or related to actual CNS peculiarites, but purely on subjective opinion of one shrink or another. Autism has almost the same description as Sociopathy, though these are considered polar opposites. How could it be?
Broadly speaking, both are limited "emotional range". Is there a standard for an emotional range or scientific definition of "emotion"? Nope.

I can assure you that the lack of emotion isn't an obstacle for understanding any possible concept, since an emotion is just an aspect of a thought. Not to say, the most of human emotions are as fake as a wedding cake (c), since they exist for the sake of feeling an emotion itself.

By the way, greetings from Slytherin to Gryffindor, though I'm no Harry Pothead fan, if you know what I mean.

To Raving_Neonate, it seems that you have a misunderstanding of science, atheism and nihilism.

The science does not have a license on reality. For example, physics is an incomplete mathematical model, nothing more. And which physics exactly? Ancient? Newtonian? Einsteinian? Corpuscular theory? Wave theory? Anything in between? Any of alternative ones that did not receive any funding thus ended up in permanent underdevelopment limbo? There are no "laws" of physics in strict sense, so, theorectically, anything is possible. Anything that seemingly does not fit the model is "unknown", not "impossible".

Likewise, atheism or nihilism has nothing to do with corporealilty and materialsim. In short, atheism = "there's no need in the idea of god", nihilism = "nothing is real". Both of these points of view does not deny the existense of non-corporeal, supernatural, life after death and reincarnation, nor otherwise.
In fact, there are mainstream religions with Nihilism as a philosophical basis, namely Buddhism. Everything is an illusion (c).
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on January 30, 2019, 10:16:58 AM
To Deicide, I do not have a misunderstanding, I just observe it from another angle or perspective if you wish.

In theory, science has no license on reality indeed, but every person reacts more concretely and favorably if a matter is backed by science or scientific proof and/or analysis - if I run a poll regarding the quality of bottled water, no one will take my word for my findings until I present them with a sort of proof or statistic, hence the importance of science and its "judicial" power. It does not run a monopoly per se, but its clout is palpable in any debate, analysis or research and is worth more than a mere human word no matter how persuasive you are. Science by itself is not worth much (plain theory I mean) - only in its application through various vessels/devices etc we can see the magnitude of its gargantuan sway over the majority of populace/target group or however you define the number of persons that it hits with a particular subject.

My post above was just an example; like I mentioned I know that there is far more than simple denial to these two stances, but denial by itself and a sort of prejudice against a particular element is really a poor mechanism - I will combat or dispute the existence of God by denying that he exists - it is really a faulty stance. For example, I don't believe in democracy and liberalism, so I can deny their existence even if there are countries with that term in their name and many societies strive to have that kind of system. I believe in concrete arguments rather than outright denial of anything, be it God or reality.

On Buddhism - what is the purpose of life if I shall suffer constantly, if everything is an illusion and if everything is without purpose, aimless? I should score points for afterlife in this reincarnation, so the next one can botch it up and so on and on, repeat the cycle indefinitely.


Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on January 30, 2019, 10:34:04 AM
About Buddhism, it was a random example that nihilism isn't an antithesis to religion. Myself not into it, but I assume that means that one should create the purporse of life for oneself and, ultimately, either attain Nirvana or build a world in which there will be no need in it.
In other words, if you're screwing people around you, you will reap the consequences in the next life. Conversely, by making the world a better place, you're building a future for yourself, becoming closer to Nirvana aka complete fulfillment, which ends life-rebirth cycle.

Of science, than we're talking not about science, but people's understanding of it. To me, it's useful enough, which justifies its existence. If someone perceives it as a word of god, so much the worse for them.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on January 30, 2019, 12:17:24 PM
About Buddhism, it was a random example that nihilism isn't an antithesis to religion. Myself not into it, but I assume that means that one should create the purporse of life for oneself and, ultimately, either attain Nirvana or build a world in which there will be no need in it.
In other words, if you're screwing people around you, you will reap the consequences in the next life. Conversely, by making the world a better place, you're building a future for yourself, becoming closer to Nirvana aka complete fulfillment, which ends life-rebirth cycle.

Of science, than we're talking not about science, but people's understanding of it. To me, it's useful enough, which justifies its existence. If someone perceives it as a word of god, so much the worse for them.

To Deicide - I apologize if my post has sounded hostile, it was not meant to be. I agree with your final sentence completely, since the two are polar opposites in my humble opinion.

A funny tidbit about Buddhism - it was a philosophy originally that only later on acquired religious traits and codified a comprehensible dogma. Ever since its inception, it had to face off the powerful and rather merciless Hinduism to which it lost in its native, Indian soil so a lot of religious elements that came into Buddhism was originally from Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism respectively (deities, saints and the concept of afterlife). The major strongholds of religious Buddhism is China, Mongolia and south-eastern Asia rather than its native India.

One peculiar thing I noticed about most major religions that would be in my opinion worthy of debate - the "original sin" and its enforcement upon the descendants. I never liked that particular notion of having the majority suffer for the transgressions of the few over a long time period. The best example would be that of Adam and Eve: why should people be forced to suffer for their fault... I never saw a particular redeeming reason for it. That original sin and the inherent taint or susceptibility to corruption from the judeo-christian tradition is oddly similar to the Nirvana concept in Buddhism, but the Buddhist one is in my opinion unfair as much as the former is too cruel or rigid - for example, if one of my previous existences was a murderer or extortionist, no matter how much I strive to live a good life, I am destined to pay for the transgressions of someone else, of an existence that I am unaware of in my current state/existence.

Personally, I would really like to find a religion where ONLY the person who makes a transgression is held responsible and not the entire humankind or other incarnations of the person in question - a religious or spiritual system where there is no enforced original sin or a point-based system that my other incarnation would inherit if I was either too good or bad in this life.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on January 30, 2019, 12:40:09 PM
The Karma concept in Buddhism is vastly different to Hinduism (though the name is the same and symbolism was borrowed from the latter). For all intents and purposes the next incarnation is a new person who does not carry anything from previous life. Metaphors aside, all it means that one will (probably) face the consequences of the previous person actions, since the next will inhabit the same world.
Indeed, Karma in Buddhism isn't deterministic, what was literal in Hinduism has become non-literal. It means, you may (if unlucky) or may not face these consequences, besides it could depend from your actions, in short, it's possible to avoid it.

A really rough example, someone was a really crappy parent who turned children's life into a hell. He may be unlucky enough to end up as his own grandson, or simply run into this person. Still, these children may or may not become the same assholes as he.

To sum it up, Buddhism isn't about "hidden karma points" like Hinduism, but long-term consequences of one's actions, especially those which cause a chain reaction / butterfly effect. The more crap you left behind, the more chance you will bump into it later.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on January 30, 2019, 01:27:21 PM
Autism exists, of course not in the hollywodian conception. Simply it's a term to describe a wide range of types of minds. Very probably our current knowledge isn't right on every aspects but at least we know  something like this actually exists.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on January 30, 2019, 02:14:48 PM
Of course, if you prefer it that way. Human variance is so great that there's no mind like each other. So, there's no point nor in Hollywoodian labels nor in ones from DSM any version, nor in Encyclopaedia Dramatica memes.
For example, you may call me a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder), bipolar (manic-depressive), or yandere and tsundere in one bottle with the same success, but each label will say exactly nothing.

Should I bought any of this, I would've indeed acted like a character from a shrink textbook or yandere from tvtropes, that's your call.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on January 30, 2019, 05:32:48 PM
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
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on January 30, 2019, 07:48:46 PM
To Deicide and Raving_Neonate

Personally, I greatly detest Buddhism and the philosophy that Buddha laid down. He saw suffering and conflict as inherently evil, a view that I think is utterly short-sighted if one takes a grand view of the history of our species. So, I think humans require, and are embettered by, overcoming conflict and suffering. In this sense, we are a stubborn, violent, foolish, dogmatic race - more akin in some aspects to Orks than the Humans of fantasy / sci-fi. However, the reason why conflict is so beneficial for us - is also because we are such a stubborn, foolish, and violent race.

When we ram our heads together - whether in war or ideology or angry forum rants - we are too stubborn to lose gracefully, too foolish to collaborate or compromise, too violent to communicate. The result? The ocean of blood that is human history. Conflicts only end when both sides mutually, but usually without communication, identify a collaborative superior solution - or someone invents a technology or ideology which resolves first the conflict, and then the violence.

This is why it is not conflict itself that drives humanity forward, it is innovation, but conflict forces us to innovate. Or rather, it begins killing us off until we do. The efforts of the survivors become devoted to the conflict - a conflict draws all of our attention - and getting humanity to focus is what gets shit done: partially through intelligence but mostly through the sheer computing power of millions of our fancy brains operating in parallel.

If we were not so violent, it would not capture our attention. If we were not so stubborn, it would be easier to compromise or collaborate. If we were not so foolish, it would be easier to anticipate the outcome of failing to compromise. If we were not so dogmatic, it would be easier to collaborate. The worst traits of humanity survive because they each play a role in creating the environment to steer our entire species toward our best trait (innovation).
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian 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.

Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian 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?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate 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.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on February 03, 2019, 08:21:10 PM

When I see what kind of disturbing trends are festering in the West

Could you elaborate, which trends do you find disturbing?

Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on February 03, 2019, 08:34:13 PM

When I see what kind of disturbing trends are festering in the West

Could you elaborate, which trends do you find disturbing?

Political correctness.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on February 03, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
Political correctness.

That means various things to various people. To some it is merely: be polite in conversation. To others, it is something else.


Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on February 05, 2019, 07:01:00 AM
I don't mean to interrupt, but to me, political correctness has nothing to do with politeness. Political correctness is an enforced usage of euphemisms that mask an underlying problem, like calling someone braindead alternatively gifted. To put it differently, it's prohibition of calling a spade a spade. It doesn't make a conversation any more polite.
In a real polite conversation, participants won't use slur words anyway.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on February 05, 2019, 07:41:34 PM
Deicide, my friend, do interrupt. This is how we can get the debate rolling. I was hoping more users would jump in this thread. It is a politics and philosophy general, so any subject can be interesting. 
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on February 05, 2019, 08:11:16 PM
What I meant, in a polite conversation, not only slurs aren't used, but potentially offensive words are used in the literal sense. Like, "black", if skin color has any relevance. If not, why the hell mention it at all? Conversely, "african american" could be a cynical insult (and yeah, politically correct) in context, drop-in replacement for "nigger" or the rhetorical device to make an insult more biting. There's nothing polite in political correctness.
More so, these "terms" are so awkward, convoluted and artificial, they sound like veiled insults even it wasn't meant. Seems like a device to turn people against each other.

For these reasons, so-called political correctness trend is disturbing indeed. Spoken thought is a lie (c) Is it that surprising that a language itself was always, intentionally or not, manipulated in favor of one social group or another, from classes to whole nations, as means of twisting one's mindset in a certain way?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on February 06, 2019, 07:45:45 AM
In my opinion, both modern liberalism and political correctness are trying to impose is the "state of exception" in more ways than one. The chosen few (the actual scale does not matter, if it is a golf club or an entire society) will enjoy the benefits of it all while all others are forced to subject their views or stances to theirs - the few will utilize the production of either "chaos" or the forging evidence against the majority to present them as the supreme force or as the one that will dictate what is right and what is wrong. Using the "state of exception" like this leads this group of people into some kind of "ultra martyr saints" that shall employ their "victim" status to impose their own values.

This is very dangerous in my opinion, I would even say anti-human, because the consequences of their idiocy let loose will impact the future generations in ways that can be summarized with a single word: fatal.

Just a quick edit to respond to Deicide: yes, the subjugation of language (especially through legislation or imposed trends) is not just oppression, but outright denial of free will (for those who believe in it) and the freedom of speech (also, for those who believe in it) while warping the mindset of the individual with a certain melange of artificial value that has been hand-picked by a certain group/individual, pertaining that the individual in question rejects everything that he has acquired for himself, his own impressions, values and experiences.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on February 06, 2019, 01:28:32 PM
From this point of view, feminism is far worse than mentioned, since target audience is bigger, and this is a kind of "struggle" that could go on forever, so unlike suffragette movement, that had clear objectives and self-dissolved upon accomplishing them.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on February 08, 2019, 06:08:54 PM
From this point of view, feminism is far worse than mentioned, since target audience is bigger, and this is a kind of "struggle" that could go on forever, so unlike suffragette movement, that had clear objectives and self-dissolved upon accomplishing them.

Contemporary feminism is a trade-union organization - tilting the table in their favor as much as possible, avoiding the biological truth that between the genders there will be always differences and shunning responsibilities - imagine military draft for women, the feminism idea would die overnight.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on February 09, 2019, 02:16:04 AM
Well, if we're talking Israeli, it's already there to some extent, but I could only imagine how (un)fun it would be in American or, better, Russian army. Bullying rookies isn't a transgression, it's a duty (c).
I don't think there's enough biological difference to warrant legislative and social, one could be turned into another quite easily, one way at least. But feminism isn't about eliminating differences, it's about exploiting them, gaining privileges and squeezing the most out of the current status. So, feminists aren't suffragettes' successors, they're polar opposites de facto.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on February 10, 2019, 10:46:52 PM
Well, if we're talking Israeli,

Israel is a specific case, as their demography was created by vast influx of Jews from the entire planet. Therefore, they needed to find a way to create a cohesive society. Israeli political elites are usually among the most intelligent on the planet, they truly do care about their people. Military draft is a powerful social tool to create strong bonds between people. Not to mention that they are surrounded by a sea of Arabs.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on February 11, 2019, 03:27:05 AM
Which is a fine example of a necessity, the mother of invention, and a conflict that drives mankind forward.

The biological truth, biological (as opposed to genetic) gender, up to neurochemistry, is malleable, it's nothing but the matter of a few hormones. It needed, it could be altered for real, sans some details. So, one could even experimentally determine if woman's brains yield any different result for 2+2 if feeling Tzimisce enough. Guess, this will be a little excessive, though.
Personally, I won't care if my girlfriend is taller than me or if she punches faces better than me. In the latter case, I will bring her along if up to some violence. To put it differently, if someone is for equality, I'm into it, it means the social load will be distributed more evenly, and an access to previously female dominated areas as well. But, both parties does not seem to be interested.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 09, 2019, 11:22:08 AM
Speaking about the unifying role of religion, I cannot but mention the damn Princess Olga (aka Helga) of Kiev who had brought Christianity to Kievan Rus and her (in)famous grandson, Prince Vladimir the Great who converted the entire polytheistic (or, in a slur Christian word, pagan) federation into it. By the way, it was very tolerant toward different religions even by modern standards, otherwise Olga would've lost not only her lifetime kvlt staus, but a mere respect of her nation.
Apparently, the latter considered monotheistic religion a good idea for cementing his centralized power. Interestingly enough, it did not cause much of backslash then, he was too greatly respected by people. And indeed, it worked as intended... for a time. All it took is two generations for a disaster. Hypocritical Christian morality which caused moral decline. Glorifiyng of misery, masochism as way to live in a few words. Religious conflicts. Alienation towards each other. It played not the last role in the downfall of Kievan Rus.
We, Slavs, badly needed that Jewish-Roman shit mixed with broken glass and nine inch nails, that's for certain.

For these reasons, I have nothing but scorn for these two greatly venerated rulers.

As for Olga, her reasons for conversion were, actually, very tragic. Without any doubt, she sought to restore her faith in humanity after her husband, Prince Igor, was killed by Drevlians, since she converted in a year of two after his gruesome death, ~945 AD. Striving to be a good ruler while harboring such a hatred towards her own people was unbearable. The concept of all-forgiveness is exactly what attracted her to Christianity.
While I can understand that, she really should've kept it strictly personal instead of spreading this plague thus fvcking everyone over.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on March 10, 2019, 08:36:47 AM
Perhaps I will be judged for this, but us Slavs always had and will have a higher propensity for inner quarrels, divisions and schism on every possible scale and by every conceivable category - as if we never moved on from the ancient tribal mindset. Fighting over trivial things that are not worthy of blood shedding and profound inherent spite, weltering in the past that stretches 500 years back and being quick to judge is one thing that really bothers me. While everyone moves forward, we are intent on staying as much as we can back. That is why the Balkans are the way they are: chaotic and divided, both by domestic forces and foreign alike, both determined to persist in this chaos that ruins hundreds of lives on the daily basis.

I can't help but to express extreme scorn for all those responsible: I really do hope they suffer in the most exclusive of Dante's Inferno's circles because they bear responsibly for much bloodshed.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 10, 2019, 09:23:28 AM
This is exactly why Christianity was such a horrible idea - introducing a nation as prone to infighting as Slavs to the religion as viral, cancerous, fundamentally broken and self-contradictory is like giving a nitroglycerine bomb loaded with shrapnel disguised as a toy to a pack of unruly children.
This religion seems more like a deliberately designed instrument of corruption, something that Setites might came up with, save Setites' trademark chance to get a gain with a proper use, than an actual religion.

Also, a fine example of an ancient self-fulfilling prophecy irony: she did something much worse than what she was trying to avert. Guess we would've forgotten of a yet another unstable Princess in a generation, not so about Christianity and a s(aint) one.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Raving_Neonate on March 10, 2019, 07:43:11 PM
I don't have any problems with Christianity, since most of its fundamental moral principles resonate with me such as compassion, virtue and sacrifice.

The problem I do have with it though, is its focusing on the enforcement of "guilt" through the primordial sin mechanic and the insistence on the concept of free will. The latter does not exist (it has been proven that your decision regarding various things had been already made for you, either during your time of birth or just a few seconds before you move the bottle to the right) and no matter what anyone says, there are always predeterminers that will make the choice for you whether you like it or not.

The primordial sin is the most excellent tool for control that I have ever seen, but the most frightening if you look into it deeper aspect of it is the actual length of hate: why would the creator punish his own creations for the acts of his own faulty creation, treating the humans as mere collateral damage in the war between heaven and hell. The more I looked into it, the more disturbing it got in my eyes, forcing me to question a lot I believed in.

As a creator myself, I had been appalled at the decision that befell Adam and Eve: I know what disappointment feels like, but to force billions to suffer just for the transgression of the few is dreadful. I don't know why, but it forces me to make a parallel with the words of Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."... somehow this frightens me if it really is true.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 11, 2019, 11:35:08 AM
The problem I do have with it though, is its focusing on the enforcement of "guilt" through the primordial sin mechanic and the insistence on the concept of free will. The latter does not exist (it has been proven that your decision regarding various things had been already made for you, either during your time of birth or just a few seconds before you move the bottle to the right) and no matter what anyone says, there are always predeterminers that will make the choice for you whether you like it or not.
Sure, this faux free will self-contradiction is the one (just one) of consequences of the fundamental Chrhistianity flaw. Not the flaw itself, though, it's much, much deeper. If your decisions were already made for you, it means that you're free to commit any atrocity, you're going to be forgiven by your all-loving creator in the end if you really believe.
This means it not rejects, but violates (corrupts in a word) the most important human principles, the logic and the cause-effect. In Christianity, cause-effect both exists and does not. In means it encourages people to act like stereotypical schizoprenics (self-contradiction as the modus operandi!), to put it short. It's of no coincedence it's so popular among the certain contingent of madhouses, I mean, murderous and pointlessly violent. Or, ironically, treacherous people with a chronic backstabbing disorder (c), despite betrayal being the worst one can do in Christianity. Judas is, in a way, the Christ of betrayers who absolved their sins like Christ absolved everyone, for the reason that his actions and willing eternal damnation (because of the suicide) were absolutely neccessary for the plan to succeed. The most devoted JC fan indeed.

These moral principles matter not if their philosophical basis, and your logic along with it is corrupted (I guess, purposefully) anyway, quite the contrary, it invites you to violate them, everyting is cool as long as you have them itselves. For example, free to kill, and damn, even betray as long as you truly feel remorse for such acts.
And please note, Compassion is a double-edged sword, it a necessary basis for sadism as well. Indeed, being a real sadist absolutely requires a developed sense of compassion, otherwise one won't get a kick out of someone's else suffering. Without a strong ethical spine to back it up, cultivation of compassion leads to active sadism or passive forms of it, savoring of misery. In the least malevolent form, empty acts of compassion without an actual intent to help people for real, i.e. using one's compassion as a drug.

Which is one of the reasons it has so great a potential to turn any person who's conflict-prone (who isn't?), treacherous or plain unstable (or not entirely stable, who is?) into a walking ticking bomb, and, mind you, a contagious one, by cultivating the importance of undeserved misery both yours and everyone else by original sin (sadism-masochism), irrational sense of shame of guilt (for the acts you're responsive AND not responsive for, exactly like a creator), also illogical, hypocritical and self-contradicting behavior. To put it differently, amplifies, compounds and brings to the surface any human imperfectness in a vicious cycle. Seems like a perfect bioweapon of mind-destruction to me.

I'm dazzled that someone who did not fail to see this contradiction at the some does not have any problem with it. It seems so... Christian to me.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 13, 2019, 05:55:48 AM
To add on gender topic, in newfound DPR (Donetsk People's Republic) there is no military draft for women, still, they aren't only allowed, but encouraged to join military. Those who do, tend to be quite good in this job.
Guess they aren't in the situation that calls for stereotypes and prejudices. By the way, there's no actual military conflict between Ukraine and DPR (and it never was a full-blown one to begin with), both sides are deliberately dragging out the theatrics by unofficial aggreement, Ukrainian goverment as an excuse to suck everyone's money by inflation for embezzling, pardon, military purposes, DPR in order to retain their financial backing from Russia.
Even more ridiculous that economical relations aren't only preserved, they're in fact, improved. There's more wares from now DPR regions on Ukrainian wholesale marketpaces than ever in Ukrainian history, at usual, nominally from neighbour regions, sometimes blatantly from Donetsk. Although, the same cannot be said about today Crimea, it's economicaly divorced from Ukraine. Even more ridiculous that the bulk of Ukrainians still did not get it.
I think it explains why I'm not particularly fond of this nation. The people as blind, deaf and braindead aren't fit for anything but slaves and pawns. Well, technically, "my" nation, but I'm not fond of any other either, not even of humanity itself, to say the least.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on March 19, 2019, 12:00:05 PM
Perhaps I will be judged for this, but us Slavs always had and will have a higher propensity for inner quarrels, divisions and schism on every possible scale and by every conceivable category - as if we never moved on from the ancient tribal mindset.

This is such a strange statement. History does not support it in any shape or form, unless your historical time frame is the last 40 years. On the contrary, Slavic people had far less violence between them when compared with the bloody history of Western Europeans. Hell, Western Europeans removed entire civilizations from existence in the Americas. Balkan 90s wars and current war in Ukraine is a picnic in the park when compared to Thirty Years' War.

Quote
That is why the Balkans are the way they are: chaotic and divided, both by domestic forces and foreign alike, both determined to persist in this chaos that ruins hundreds of lives on the daily basis.

Balkans are that way because of its geography and the disastrous legacy of Ottoman imperialism. Serbian imperialism is a problem since the Turks left, but I do not wish to taint the forums with our historical and current relations.


Deicide

Even if we Slavic people never converted to Christianity, that itself would neither help or hinder any violence between us. That is a another strange sentiment.

Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 19, 2019, 01:42:11 PM
Used infighting in a broad sense, not prone to in-violence indeed, still they were anything but collectivistic. Individualistic and highly independent I would say. Even these rare princes who managed to more or less unite the nation, did so by gaining popularity and respect in a struggle against external enemies or otherwise showcasing their effectiveness and convincing others to join their lead, not much by force.

As for Christianity, if these points I've brought aren't any convincing, I'm not gonna play agent Mulder here. You aren't convinced, and that is that. Myself convinced that if the religion encourages its follower to be a voyeur of misery and utter destruction, the lack of mentioned would have helped. Not determinally, maybe. Not on the scale of nation, but individual, living standards would'be been higher. After all, a successful nation means exactly nothing without a successful individual. You won, you're moron (c). Not about you, of course.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on March 19, 2019, 05:34:49 PM
Christianity and Islam have erased tens of thousands of other religions from existence. They are breaching into India, East and South East Asia, the last bastions of non-Abrahamic faiths. What does that tell you, Deicide? Then again I see religions as living and breathing organisms, fighting over territory.

Christianity and Islam, the children of Abraham have conquered the world.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 19, 2019, 06:05:49 PM
This is a fine illustration of Christianity's contagious and cancerous nature. It not only feeds on followers' misery, but thrives on the very stuff thrown at it. It's useless to forbid it, moreso, it's a recipe for disaster, it exactly what they want, since nothing is cooler for them than martyrdom, the more it oppressed, the stronger it becomes. Bulgakov told pretty much everything about this certain peculiarity in M&M sub-novel about Yeshua in the most upfront fashion.
He deserves an extra respect for explaining the parasitic its nature and the main struggle method so simply even average Jane or Joe could easily get it.

To sum it up, the best method to deal with Christianity: it feeds off darkside. Never use anything darkside against a Christian. Never ever attack or critique them. Be extremely careful with public critique even before non-Christian audience, never do that if it doesn't have a potential to understand. Don't take them seriously, and, the most importantly, use their own weapon again them, show them some Christian compassion no matter the situation, even if they attack you. Parlicularly if they do. To put it differently, an advice from a renegade Sith Lord, against Christians, use light side only.
Such an irony, the religion of light that fueled by darkside.

Islam has very little in common with Christianity, sure, they borrowed a part of its mythology and characters, but the philosophical basis is completely done from scratch and adopted material was repurposed. I would say, it's the least Abrahamic from Abrahamic religions, it's fairly simple and upfront Order worship at the core so unlike others. If not the plagiarism, it won't even qualify as Abrahamic. Pretty much like Judaism has very little to do with Greek polytheism, despite Azrael being a rebranded Greek goth dude Hades and so on. I would treat Islam as a whole new religion with familiar names in order to ease the conversion from Christianity.
In Islam, if you live by Quaran (a set of fairly unambiguous rules), you will be granted heaven, it's that simple.
It's aggressive indeed, very openly so and completely lack the aforementioned Christian peculiarity. It's a sword against a bioweapon.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on March 19, 2019, 11:46:50 PM
Deicide, so what is your faith?

Sublime emptiness?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on March 20, 2019, 07:59:26 AM
The concept of faith is alien to me, not to say I consider its very existence redunant. That's quite a stretch, but you could approximate it by saying that I believe in what I'm utterly convinced in. Make no mistake, conviction and faith are different matters, but, I guess, one could pass for another for certain purposes.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on March 20, 2019, 06:49:56 PM
That's quite a stretch, but you could approximate it by saying that I believe in what I'm utterly convinced in.

In what are you utterly convinced?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on April 05, 2019, 12:10:03 PM
To revive this thread a bit, I was recently forwarded this which I found quite interesting. It is about Mueller investigation into the possible Trump-Putin collusion. I will quote Glenn Greenwald on this Mueller business. I would really love to hear the opinions of our American users on this.

"The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero. Compare what cable hosts (let's leave them unnamed) & Democratic operatives spent two years claiming this would lead to - the imprisonment of Don, Jr., Jared, even Trump on conspiracy-with-Russia charges - to what it actually produced. A huge media reckoning is owed. Don't even try to pretend the point of the Mueller investigation from the start wasn't to obtain prosecutions of Americans guilty of conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the election or that Putin controlled Trump through blackmail. Nobody will believe your denials. Are we now ready to rid ourselves of the thrilling espionage fantasy that Trump is controlled by Putin and the Kremlin using blackmail? There's no way Robert Mueller would have gone 18 months without telling anyone about this if it were true, right? How could that be justified? Perhaps now we can focus on the actually consequential actions the Trump administration is taking and finally move past the deranged conspiracy theories that have drowned US discourse for 2+ years. A side benefit will be not ratcheting up tension between 2 nuclear-armed powers. Giving up these exciting conspiracy theories about international blackmail & convening panels to decipher all the genius hidden maneuvers of Mueller will be bad for cable ratings, book sales & the Patreon accounts of online charlatans. But it'll be very healthy in all other ways.

The desperate attempts to salvage something from this debacle by the Mueller dead-enders are just sad. Yes, the public hasn't read the Mueller report. But we *know* he ended his investigation without indicting a single American for conspiring with Russia to influence the election. Trump, Jr. testified for hours and hours before Congress, including about the Trump Tower meeting. If he lied there, or to Mueller, why didn't Mueller indict him for perjury, lying to Congress or obstruction? Same questions for Kushner. Stop embarrassing yourselves. If Mueller found evidence that Putin controls Trump & forces him to act against US interests & in favor of Russia - not just with a pee-pee tape but with financial blackmail - what could possibly justify keeping that a secret through the end of the investigation? It's ludicrous. US discourse has been drowned for 2+ years with conspiratorial, unhinged, but highly inflammatory and unhinged idiocy - playing games with two nuclear-armed powers because of anger over the 2016 election. It's time to stop. Mueller ended his work. We see the public indictments."


Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 08, 2019, 01:04:24 PM
Bulgakov told pretty much everything about this certain peculiarity in M&M sub-novel about Yeshua in the most upfront fashion.
In the case anyone will be interested, I should also clarify on this, as on religion as a whole. Bulgakov did not portray Yeshua in a negative way: quite the contrary, as a pacifist, a dreamer, who had nothing with what was attributed to him, and the most definitely did not preach anything. Unfortunately, he had happened in the wrong time in the wrong place becaming thus the symbol of Christianity as we know it.

Every religion has something positive, but also a potential for abuse and boils down to the lowest common denominator in the worst case. Buddhism emphasises cause-effect, but it's often being interpreted as non-action and conflict avoidance, for Christianity it's care for others, but an excuse (all-forgiveness) for any deed on the other side, for Islam - upfrontness and order, alternatively, an excuse for violence against another group (interpretation of infidels).

Some are broken by design more than others (Christianity, I did not even scratch its surface, but this does not matter in this case). As I said, all of this does not matter at all as long as all of them are broken. Like, today Islamic Jihad is yesterday Christian Conquista. Nothing was changed, nothing will ever change. Any ill-intentioned group will readily use their religion as an excuse, no matter which. Alternative interpretations would be labelled as heresy, so it's quite pointless excercise to ask followers around about a correct one.

Since the worst case determines system's reliability, any religion is a horrible idea for cementing the system, i.e. the society.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Highwayman667 on April 10, 2019, 02:57:01 AM
In Islam, if you live by Quaran (a set of fairly unambiguous rules), you will be granted heaven, it's that simple. It's aggressive indeed, very openly so and completely lack the aforementioned Christian peculiarity. It's a sword against a bioweapon.

I'm not sure if you're making this argument, but whenever people want to say "Islam is worse", they always do so in reference to contexts where mechanisms that separate government and religion aren't very clear. Christianity has insane beliefs that are just as dangerous as the ones found in Islam, but you'll never see a christian terrorist group in the US with influence and numbers because the government has the ability to crack down and disable such groups.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Radical21 on April 10, 2019, 04:24:19 AM
In Islam, if you live by Quaran (a set of fairly unambiguous rules), you will be granted heaven, it's that simple. It's aggressive indeed, very openly so and completely lack the aforementioned Christian peculiarity. It's a sword against a bioweapon.

I'm not sure if you're making this argument, but whenever people want to say "Islam is worse", they always do so in reference to contexts where mechanisms that separate government and religion aren't very clear. Christianity has insane beliefs that are just as dangerous as the ones found in Islam, but you'll never see a christian terrorist group in the US with influence and numbers because the government has the ability to crack down and disable such groups.

Every abrahamic-religion can be misinterpreted and twisted towards a terrorist agenda - the big proponent towards that is ironically the need of religions to scare their followers into assuming a controlled lifestyle as a sign of virtue , to separate sinners from saints- it is inevitable that someone eventually interpret things towards their own agenda. In my opinion that is why religious organisations were formed to begin with.

Take for example a chain of posts I've seen yesterday on a Facebook group: Where a guy tried to claim artists were channelling dark energy onto the world using their pagan-looking artwork and that is the cause of all shitstorm we see in the media. Prime WoD writing material, if that guy wasn't so insanely serious about it..   it doesn't matter what specific religion he was following, he would still have that mindset which is likely one step away from going out there and killing artists.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 10, 2019, 05:52:53 AM
...but you'll never see a christian terrorist group in the US with influence and numbers because the government has the ability to crack down and disable such groups.
Many of them could easily rival Islamic groups by degree of conviction, like an infamous Heaven's Gate (R.I.P.). Luckily, they were one of the few trve sects, so they did not use followers' funds in any way, even forbade the deduction of property in their favor. Funded themselves by working together in the professional web design area. Not to say, never commited any twisted stuff usually associated with a sect.

Every abrahamic-religion can be misinterpreted and twisted towards a terrorist agenda
I would generalize - every organized religion, not necessary abrahamic.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Oscar on April 10, 2019, 06:57:08 AM
I still can't wrap my head around the thought of someone actually believing in god.
Benefits of living in non-religious home I guess.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on April 10, 2019, 10:59:41 AM
I still can't wrap my head around the thought of someone actually believing in god.
Benefits of living in non-religious home I guess.

Personally I think as human beings our mind capability is not enough to understand if a something classifiable even tangentially as a god. Same issue with pretending one exists or even define how. Without even start the argument on how mostly churches on earth degenerated as the total opposite of what these should be and represent, as long a person doesn't use is faith to imposing and harming others (like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude) should be accepted in the limits of logic and respect. Otherwise feel free to be blasphemous.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 11, 2019, 02:39:42 AM
...like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude...
This is called personal religion as opposed to organized.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on April 11, 2019, 04:57:01 AM
...like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude...
This is called personal religion as opposed to organized.

It's just an example. I can continue to expand it, but the nutshell is how any person of faith abuse the liberty of others (or technically in absence of faith but that's heavily debatable on the contexts....)
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Oscar on April 12, 2019, 09:15:00 PM
...like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude...
This is called personal religion as opposed to organized.

It’s called too lazy to go out and socialize.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on April 12, 2019, 11:13:13 PM
...like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude...
This is called personal religion as opposed to organized.

It’s called too lazy to go out and socialize.

Or being abandoned by sons and relatives, having fear to go outside, seeing once in a while some neighborhoods but nothing more, .... Situations like this, sadly still a reality in these days
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 13, 2019, 02:09:39 AM
I should also add that the often overlooked difference between personal and organized religion is the main source of mutual grudges between religious and anti-religious people. The devil is in the detail (c).
Should you present my interpretation to any good Christian, he would be disgusted and, probably, horrified. He would say that I got it wrong, that I'm ignorant, maybe, willingly so. And he would be completely right, in a way, because he would be judging from a personal perspective, while I was talking about organized. This is the difference between Christianity as it should be and Christianity as it would be, Bulgakov's Yeshua and his unsolicited followers, an individual and a crowd, Jekyll and Hyde of religion.
If one keeps religion personal, he has a chance to get the best case of it... and more, no matter how fvcked up it is, while organized religion (a system) eventually hits its bottom (the worst case) in a long term. Have I mentioned that system's reliablility is determined by its worst case?
Personal Christianity might very well be not unlike Yeshua's Christianity, organized Christianity will always degenerate into something like Marilyn Manson's Christianity.

The worst case of Islam is a license to kill.
Of Buddhism - a license not to act.
Of Christianity - a license to anything.
Analysis above. Therefore, Christianity is the worst organized religion of the trio, probably, the worst mainstream organized religion ever. As for personal, there are no winners or losers.

By the way, that novel, The Master and Margarita aka M&M was a kvlt among the Russian intelligentsia, many of them were Christians, and the sub-novel about Yeshua was mostly considered Christian rather than otherwise.
The novel itself I strongly recommend to everyone who is into anything dark and gothic, as it contains the one of the most noteworthy portrayals of the Devil in literature/poetry. It's as an essential a reading on this topic as Faust and Lost Paradise.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Oscar on April 13, 2019, 11:17:22 PM
...like an old woman who needs a god as confort for her solitude...
This is called personal religion as opposed to organized.

It’s called too lazy to go out and socialize.

Or being abandoned by sons and relatives, having fear to go outside, seeing once in a while some neighborhoods but nothing more, .... Situations like this, sadly still a reality in these days

I know. But you can go to knitting club or something. I’ve heard from senior citizen customers that you have to be active. You can alienate tourself even if you are young. It’s a choice.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Ghanima_Atreides on April 14, 2019, 01:44:01 PM
Just jumping in (although I've been following the thread for some time) to point out that not every country/area has such organised social activities for seniors (for example, in my own, such things are pretty much unheard of, especially in smaller cities let alone rural areas), and even if they were available, not everyone is comfortable socialising with strangers or is even interested in "traditional" activities like that. There are people who are introverted, or suffer from other issues, and in the case of seniors, it can even be an issue of mobility. They may not even have any close friends left, either because they have lost touch or have passed away.  It's not as simple as "go out and socialise more", and this goes for younger "alienated" people too.

On the topic of religion itself, I am an atheist and generally dislike organised religion (especially since in my country it is a huge front for illegal activity and has long ago lost any semblance of true faith on the part of the upper echelons of the Church), but I can respect someone's personal religion. I have a friend (a young woman) who has such a personal belief in God without necessarily agreeing with the practices of the Church (which she actually often criticizes). I don't share her beliefs but they seem to bring her comfort and impose a certain recognisable pattern on the world for her, which I don't see harm in.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Radical21 on April 14, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
I should also add that the often overlooked difference between personal and organized religion is the main source of mutual grudges between religious and anti-religious people. The devil is in the detail (c).
Should you present my interpretation to any good Christian, he would be disgusted and, probably, horrified. He would say that I got it wrong, that I'm ignorant, maybe, willingly so. And he would be completely right, in a way, because he would be judging from a personal perspective, while I was talking about organized. This is the difference between Christianity as it should be and Christianity as it would be, Bulgakov's Yeshua and his unsolicited followers, an individual and a crowd, Jekyll and Hyde of religion.
If one keeps religion personal, he has a chance to get the best case of it... and more, no matter how fvcked up it is, while organized religion (a system) eventually hits its bottom (the worst case) in a long term. Have I mentioned that system's reliablility is determined by its worst case?
Personal Christianity might very well be not unlike Yeshua's Christianity, organized Christianity will always degenerate into something like Marilyn Manson's Christianity.

The worst case of Islam is a license to kill.
Of Buddhism - a license not to act.
Of Christianity - a license to anything.
Analysis above. Therefore, Christianity is the worst organized religion of the trio, probably, the worst mainstream organized religion ever. As for personal, there are no winners or losers.

By the way, that novel, The Master and Margarita aka M&M was a kvlt among the Russian intelligentsia, many of them were Christians, and the sub-novel about Yeshua was mostly considered Christian rather than otherwise.
The novel itself I strongly recommend to everyone who is into anything dark and gothic, as it contains the one of the most noteworthy portrayals of the Devil in literature/poetry. It's as an essential a reading on this topic as Faust and Lost Paradise.

Organised religion is just a control structure , trying to rank them from worst to best or so on , I think it doesn't matter.  Regardless  they all have a goal of turning a person into a controllable unit, a sheep, a sure vote when election comes, a verified consumer, a loyal solider who won't ask questions etc.
I'm not saying all are fanatics, but as an organisation they can easily spot and pick the ones who are and use them accordingly.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 15, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
From geopolitical perspective, it does matter which one is the best mass brainwashing tool, has less undesirable side effects and the most maintainable in a long term.
To me, organized religion itself is a horribly outdated and a nigh unmaintainable tool, I would avoid its usage like a hell, still those in power today don't share my opinion, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Radical21 on April 15, 2019, 12:45:49 PM
Even nationalism is a legacy feature , yet people stick to it because others around them use that tool.

So as a creative exercise , if you had to come up with an alternative artificial control structure, what would it be?
for instance Hunger games had us in some kind of isolated world that was lightly influenced by the iron curtain and feudalism : no view of the outside and  populations were separated into small industrial fiefdoms with the hunger games being used to distract the population from seeing the whole picture
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: El_Gostro on April 15, 2019, 03:03:51 PM
So as a creative exercise , if you had to come up with an alternative artificial control structure,

The idea from the stoned caller to Deb of night involving the introduction of pizzas in the bomb cargo still holds solid to this day.  :chinscratch:

Alternatively: Vat grown enforcers with spliced sea cucumber genes.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 15, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
So as a creative exercise , if you had to come up with an alternative artificial control structure, what would it be?
You need no look very far: psychiatry and its obfuscatingly harmless facade, psychology. Free them from some bloat, give some basis in genetics and neurobiology, a little extra authority, and you'll need only Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime for a fitting soundtrack. To be fair, even that is redunant, an anti-utopia is already here, if we're talking post-USSR and USA at least.

By the way, the border between an organized and personal religion is not set on stone. If a follower isn't critical enough or lacks some personal qualities, the former inevitably leaks into the latter. It's challenging to keep your own neat Christianity from the corrupting influence of outside Christianity.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: El_Gostro on April 15, 2019, 07:27:02 PM
Is the world so sad and bad and definitely not rad?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Azrael on April 15, 2019, 10:17:53 PM
All I'm saying is that if, somehow, everyone on earth had the best sex of their life tonight, we'd have peace among nations and religions tomorrow.

"So, Ahmed, shall we continue with our Jihad today?"

"Eh, I was thinking brunch instead. Or maybe I could make pancakes? Whatever let's lay in bed a while longer."
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Barabbah on April 16, 2019, 04:53:30 AM
All I'm saying is that if, somehow, everyone on earth had the best sex of their life tonight, we'd have peace among nations and religions tomorrow.

I had to leave for a week and I miss the big orgy. Typical.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 16, 2019, 09:42:55 AM
Is the world so sad and bad and definitely not rad?
The line that separates the world from underworld, the world mundane from the world noir is thin. You might very well walk on the edge the whole life without ever knowing... unless one of your toes happen to be a hair longer than allowed by the unwritten rules of the society.

You were hiking around USA, right? I believe you know the score then.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: El_Gostro on April 16, 2019, 11:48:18 AM
If anything it made me appreciate life much more than before.

Pain , vice, misery and insanity abounded and yet amongst their mire many a shining beacon of generosity, kindness and selflessness did I find from the most unthinkable sources in the darkest depths of my twisted brambled path.
The fear of death by man or beast gave the light of day and the warmth of shelter a new intensity.
The liberty of the silvine and the relative safety of the constructed on new meaning for my lost spirit.

It's solidified fermented lactic substance but kind of what I got from it, I guess!


Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on April 18, 2019, 10:35:56 AM
Although mine wasn't even remotely as distant, it certainly wasn't shorter. I did not find good on my path, but wise, eternal and beautiful for sure, as well as lost the false kindness that worse than malice.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Highwayman667 on April 20, 2019, 01:34:13 AM
"Eh, I was thinking brunch instead. Or maybe I could make pancakes? Whatever let's lay in bed a while longer."

No IHOPs in Syria though.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Radical21 on April 20, 2019, 05:19:17 PM
If anything it made me appreciate life much more than before.

Pain , vice, misery and insanity abounded and yet amongst their mire many a shining beacon of generosity, kindness and selflessness did I find from the most unthinkable sources in the darkest depths of my twisted brambled path.
The fear of death by man or beast gave the light of day and the warmth of shelter a new intensity.
The liberty of the silvine and the relative safety of the constructed on new meaning for my lost spirit.

It's solidified fermented lactic substance but kind of what I got from it, I guess!

when you wax on Malkavcian lyrics from the comforts of an asylum cell ,  One must wonder if you yourself gleaned meaning from what you write?
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: Azrael on April 20, 2019, 08:58:06 PM
"Eh, I was thinking brunch instead. Or maybe I could make pancakes? Whatever let's lay in bed a while longer."

No IHOPs in Syria though.

Close enough. It is, after all, The INTERNATIONAL House of Pancakes .

https://www.alshaya.com/en/brand/ihop/kingdom-of-saudi-arabia/
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: El_Gostro on April 25, 2019, 12:30:44 PM
If anything it made me appreciate life much more than before.

Pain , vice, misery and insanity abounded and yet amongst their mire many a shining beacon of generosity, kindness and selflessness did I find from the most unthinkable sources in the darkest depths of my twisted brambled path.
The fear of death by man or beast gave the light of day and the warmth of shelter a new intensity.
The liberty of the silvine and the relative safety of the constructed on new meaning for my lost spirit.

It's solidified fermented lactic substance but kind of what I got from it, I guess!

when you wax on Malkavcian lyrics from the comforts of an asylum cell ,  One must wonder if you yourself gleaned meaning from what you write?

Unlikely not...
Perhaps!
Who knows?
I am just another lost soul in this magnificent masquerade we all partake in.


I was not aware at the time I sought external trappings to fill the void brought on by youth, but the so called "malk-speech" presented by the writer/s of bloodlines presented a linguistic challenge for the use of synonyms and allegory: Something like a bastardized form of skaldic poetry presented in twenty first century English.

As for life lessons... those seem to be as varied and unique as the lives that experience them or something...!
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: deicide on May 18, 2019, 05:39:35 AM
I remember I mentioned not even touching the actual philosophical basis of Christianity (because it isn't necessary to analyze the worst case aka Christianity as an organized religion), I mean not concepts such as "compassion" or "forgiveness", but truly fundamental ones like "existence".

From all branches, Catholicism emphasizes this fundamental meaning the most, it's, roughly, more like "let's celebrate the unity / it's cool to be here", while the Orthodox is way too much focused on acceptance of misery and the Protestant on personal success. Such an irony, the most corrupt as an organization, the merriest by itself.

What's the most fun about it, it ultimately means that one does not need Christianity, more so, the religion itself, any kind of, to be with Christian god. I won't spoil it here, but in the case that someone's interested, will explain.

Another major philosophical flaw is negative self-definition, or defining yourself through the sins you're not, or the Devil in a word. It's impossible to define oneself this way accurately, or, strictly speaking, define at all. Prohibitory rules are either too permissive to work or too obstructive thus create unintended obstacles in adjacent areas and impossible to uphold realistically.
For example, the statement "I don't start my parties with with drugs as you do" speaks next to nothing about you without said another person, a sinner, not to say, "drugs" also need definition, and some of them, like caffeine or turkey (contains IMAO), could end up in the grey area. There's a ton of mental effort with very little result, not to say, instead of thinking what to do, you're spending time thinking about the suff that you weren't supposed to even think about to begin with. There are taboos, vices, sinners, grey areas and guilt when approaching them, a fine nutrient medium for hypocrisy.
If you want to be yourself, say or think how you do start parties, that will be a little more productive.

Of course, this flaw isnt exclusive to Christianity, every Abrahamic religion and the most of others also have the similar concept. An opposite example would be Buddhism, to its credit it use positive self-definition.
Title: Re: Politics and philosophy
Post by: DarkProphet on June 05, 2019, 08:18:21 PM
All I'm saying is that if, somehow, everyone on earth had the best sex of their life tonight, we'd have peace among nations and religions tomorrow.

"So, Ahmed, shall we continue with our Jihad today?"

"Eh, I was thinking brunch instead. Or maybe I could make pancakes? Whatever let's lay in bed a while longer."

Deb of Night: "Just say no, dude. Next caller!"