Something the Philosophical Community Needs To Discuss As We Approach Global Conflict Once More
My friends, enemies, detractors, combatants, intellectual brothers, and fellow Conscious Humans,
We are, once again, on the brink of something terrible. The kind of brink that potentially means a great deal over the course of the next little while. A great deal like what we've never faced before if certain key events take place for which there will be no undoing once done. I think it's time we discuss the future of humanity as intellectual brethren within a world gone mad, even as enemies of views, and especially even. It's time to have the first convention of philosophers of the century in this year, 2022.
I know we all have opinions, deeply held, coherently established, correspondently reliant, religiously adored, and wistfully hoped for in achievement. And I know that almost none of us see eye to eye on the amazing philosophical concepts produced by thinking men and women of our beloved and majestic world for time immemorial; products of this great tradition of our kind, and for which I will forever love this species. But, the time has come that our duty as philosophers of the world, and holders of the ONLY salvation it has, this one tradition, this one Philosophy, to set aside the banter we enjoy and love, and spread to the world with a fervency beyond the reckoning of what the forces of evil know is possible, and is only possible through our kind; something humanity requires, that only we and those like us, have the ability to offer, lest the hour grow too late to give it. I'm talking about a Philosophical Principle that, if you truly search your minds and your hearts, and assess what is at stake in the unfolding of current events - remember the Somme, the Bulge, Treblinka, Hiroshima - you will not be able to dismiss, as it could mean the end of philosophy, and the reign of darkness and murder for years, perhaps even millennia, as in times past. This principle is one we can return to, if we are triumphant against the evil that faces human existence right now, to debate in full-force and as acrimoniously as you wish; and I will be honored and glad to join you, those who have spoken to me know this as characteristic of me already, even having been here only a short time. It has now come the time, the time is now upon us, we the thinking and living, that we must bring to those within our purview, and as far as that purview extends, the principle that reads thus:
The Inviolability of the Human Consciousness as the Sole Source and Indespensible Generator of All Ethical Conceptual Framework in the Known Universe.
It will not matter if you are a Christian, Jew, or Gentile.
It will not matter if you are Sunni, or Shia
It will not matter if you are Hindu, Sikhi
It will not matter if you are Atheist.
It will not matter if you are Socialist.
It will not matter if you are Capitalist.
It will not matter if you are Subjectivist.
It will not matter if you are Objectivist.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Laozi, Siddhartha, or Sun Tzu.
It will not matter if you are Republican.
It will not matter if you are Democrat.
It will not matter if you are Libertarian.
It will not matter if you are young and full of energy.
It will not matter if you are old and weary.
It will not matter if you are angry.
It will not matter if you are grieved.
It will not matter if you are at peace.
It will not matter who, or what, or why, or when, or where you are,
This principle can guide each of those philosophies as a base ethical metric with ease.
The only thing that matters, is that we love our own species enough to regard it as not-subject-for-destruction, enslavement, compulsion, manipulation, abuse, assault, rape, or any other violation that negates the Human Consciousness. That this one principle, upon which philosophy is now dependent, must hold its footing in the world, must stand strong against threat, must hold its line against that which would advance it.
I would invite you all to join me in doing what I do not believe philosophy has seen for sometime. I invite you to join with me to spread this message to the world in a love so unshakeable, so immovable, so implacable, and so forceful that it sends tremblings into the hearts of those you meet. That the people you spread this to detect the sound and fury of the philosophical might that has moved Humankind across the trenches of the Eastern Front to shake the hands of their enemies. Heard like the Thu'um of human Will that rang out down the himmelstrasse of Treblinka when a bald, naked, 15 year-old girl laughed maniacly in the faces of Nazi scum as they murdered her. Heard like the breathtaking beauty of a Slovensky orchestral symphony played in the key of "We rally round the family, with a pocket full of shells." Felt like a kiss on the cheek of the Grand Inquisitor from Jesus himself. Felt like it feels when someone you love just heard the news that their cancer has been cured. Recognized like it is when you look into the eyes of a newborn for the first time between the two of you, and you see that which is before you, but for which no explanation can be provided that can describe the truth of what you're seeing. I invite you to look back into those eyes and see the consciousness that you know you would kill to protect from being violated, and join me in recognizing that very same thing in the eyes looking back at you in the mirror, and across from you in conversation. The same Human Consciousness of Shakespeare, Slovensky, Darwin, Newton, Marx, Locke, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hugo, You, Me, and Everyone.
My friends, I'm asking you to join me in the explosive expression of philosophy every chance that you get, with every person you can, in whatever capacity open to you, in as much love for the human race as you can muster. We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. But, on the other side of that tunnel, there must remain a love for life, and for the humans who live it, and the will to defend it from violation if the need arises within our purview. I'm calling this preliminary convention to establish that specific paradigm, and to discuss with you all what should be done about properly spreading it, if for no other reason than for its survival in case of cataclysm. This may be the only place in the world something of this nature is occuring, but I don't care. If it can't start here, then I am on my own to spread myself. I don't see any reason why such would have to be the case, but I suppose I will know by the responses of this community.
So, what say you, Philosophers? Will you join me in this?
-G
We are, once again, on the brink of something terrible. The kind of brink that potentially means a great deal over the course of the next little while. A great deal like what we've never faced before if certain key events take place for which there will be no undoing once done. I think it's time we discuss the future of humanity as intellectual brethren within a world gone mad, even as enemies of views, and especially even. It's time to have the first convention of philosophers of the century in this year, 2022.
I know we all have opinions, deeply held, coherently established, correspondently reliant, religiously adored, and wistfully hoped for in achievement. And I know that almost none of us see eye to eye on the amazing philosophical concepts produced by thinking men and women of our beloved and majestic world for time immemorial; products of this great tradition of our kind, and for which I will forever love this species. But, the time has come that our duty as philosophers of the world, and holders of the ONLY salvation it has, this one tradition, this one Philosophy, to set aside the banter we enjoy and love, and spread to the world with a fervency beyond the reckoning of what the forces of evil know is possible, and is only possible through our kind; something humanity requires, that only we and those like us, have the ability to offer, lest the hour grow too late to give it. I'm talking about a Philosophical Principle that, if you truly search your minds and your hearts, and assess what is at stake in the unfolding of current events - remember the Somme, the Bulge, Treblinka, Hiroshima - you will not be able to dismiss, as it could mean the end of philosophy, and the reign of darkness and murder for years, perhaps even millennia, as in times past. This principle is one we can return to, if we are triumphant against the evil that faces human existence right now, to debate in full-force and as acrimoniously as you wish; and I will be honored and glad to join you, those who have spoken to me know this as characteristic of me already, even having been here only a short time. It has now come the time, the time is now upon us, we the thinking and living, that we must bring to those within our purview, and as far as that purview extends, the principle that reads thus:
The Inviolability of the Human Consciousness as the Sole Source and Indespensible Generator of All Ethical Conceptual Framework in the Known Universe.
It will not matter if you are a Christian, Jew, or Gentile.
It will not matter if you are Sunni, or Shia
It will not matter if you are Hindu, Sikhi
It will not matter if you are Atheist.
It will not matter if you are Socialist.
It will not matter if you are Capitalist.
It will not matter if you are Subjectivist.
It will not matter if you are Objectivist.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus.
It will not matter if the grandfather of your intellect is Laozi, Siddhartha, or Sun Tzu.
It will not matter if you are Republican.
It will not matter if you are Democrat.
It will not matter if you are Libertarian.
It will not matter if you are young and full of energy.
It will not matter if you are old and weary.
It will not matter if you are angry.
It will not matter if you are grieved.
It will not matter if you are at peace.
It will not matter who, or what, or why, or when, or where you are,
This principle can guide each of those philosophies as a base ethical metric with ease.
The only thing that matters, is that we love our own species enough to regard it as not-subject-for-destruction, enslavement, compulsion, manipulation, abuse, assault, rape, or any other violation that negates the Human Consciousness. That this one principle, upon which philosophy is now dependent, must hold its footing in the world, must stand strong against threat, must hold its line against that which would advance it.
I would invite you all to join me in doing what I do not believe philosophy has seen for sometime. I invite you to join with me to spread this message to the world in a love so unshakeable, so immovable, so implacable, and so forceful that it sends tremblings into the hearts of those you meet. That the people you spread this to detect the sound and fury of the philosophical might that has moved Humankind across the trenches of the Eastern Front to shake the hands of their enemies. Heard like the Thu'um of human Will that rang out down the himmelstrasse of Treblinka when a bald, naked, 15 year-old girl laughed maniacly in the faces of Nazi scum as they murdered her. Heard like the breathtaking beauty of a Slovensky orchestral symphony played in the key of "We rally round the family, with a pocket full of shells." Felt like a kiss on the cheek of the Grand Inquisitor from Jesus himself. Felt like it feels when someone you love just heard the news that their cancer has been cured. Recognized like it is when you look into the eyes of a newborn for the first time between the two of you, and you see that which is before you, but for which no explanation can be provided that can describe the truth of what you're seeing. I invite you to look back into those eyes and see the consciousness that you know you would kill to protect from being violated, and join me in recognizing that very same thing in the eyes looking back at you in the mirror, and across from you in conversation. The same Human Consciousness of Shakespeare, Slovensky, Darwin, Newton, Marx, Locke, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hugo, You, Me, and Everyone.
My friends, I'm asking you to join me in the explosive expression of philosophy every chance that you get, with every person you can, in whatever capacity open to you, in as much love for the human race as you can muster. We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. But, on the other side of that tunnel, there must remain a love for life, and for the humans who live it, and the will to defend it from violation if the need arises within our purview. I'm calling this preliminary convention to establish that specific paradigm, and to discuss with you all what should be done about properly spreading it, if for no other reason than for its survival in case of cataclysm. This may be the only place in the world something of this nature is occuring, but I don't care. If it can't start here, then I am on my own to spread myself. I don't see any reason why such would have to be the case, but I suppose I will know by the responses of this community.
So, what say you, Philosophers? Will you join me in this?
-G
Comments (37)
I should claim an exemption from this as I do not count myself a philosopher.
But I'd like to understand better what you are saying. The tone of the OP is grandiose and messianic. You ok? Can you summarize your idea in less apocalyptic language in a few dot points? I understand from this you want to set out key philosophic principles to help save the world from a coming crisis?
Hehah! Yes, I'm fine. Don't think it was messianic, I hate those.
Quoting Tom Storm
Sure, things aren't looking so good. With the world organized the way it is, and in such an unethical manner, the current events could be a cataclycsm of pretty great significance. Not saying it will, but just in case, it is best to see of the philosophical mind people of the world can at least begin the process of coalescing around the idea that humans are not subject for violation, so that if things go south, the philosophical tradition may have a better chance at producing societies that are ethical, in a manner greater than what we were able to expect after 1000 years of Christian horror.
Quoting Tom Storm
No, I want to set out to lay a solid foundation for what comes after the potential crisis on the horizon, so that future generations do not make our mistakes. The only way to do that, is to create societies predicated on the primacy of individual human consciousness. And I want see how many people I can start getting on board with this, and how many people reject it, which will give me a clearer idea of what we're actually dealing with here, ethically. As societies will never be predicated on such, if such is not valued, spread, and laid out in coherent terms that correspond to reality. That's the basic gist.
Quoting Garrett Travers
What are you thinking here?
I'm thinking along the lines of Epicurus, as from what I can tell, Epicurean societies are the most peaceful, happy, non-violent, societies I can find example of. A good way to imagine them are to compare them to modern-day Amish and Hutterite societies, which are direct adaptations of Epicurean societies that were usurped by the Christians after Constantine.
Have a look: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm
Of course, I'm not saying exactly identical or anything, but built on the basic idea that humans as individual entities are non-violable entities as a predicate for existing as a society itself.
Anyone who makes any effort in this direction is to me, part of the solution. But sure, yes, we all need to do more.
I don't however think this matches with your ideal of the Epicural commune, which to me matches a comment (copied below) that you made in another thread:
" the inviolability of the human, in the mind of the average person, no such thing will ever be possible, and our only hope will be to split into communities."
This does not match your clarion call for everyone to unite against madmen like Putin. Division into ever smaller communities (Epicurian or otherwise) would allow a F***wit like Putin to easily take over the planet.
United we stand, divided we fall This has been true since we came out of the wild.
If the current system of violation remains standing, this is what I mean. And yes, that's what seems to be the case. But, if we all can at least hold this standard, find some way to spread it like wildfire, the world could become an Epicurean Garden, and may been had not the been destroyed.
Quoting universeness
Yes. But, there can never be unity without the recognition of this one basic principle from whence all others come. Any system predicated on any violation of the source of ethics, is predicated on the violation of ethics itself, and is thereby upheld by the ethics of its oppressed individuals. And I see no alternative, but would ask of the philosophers of the world to consider spreading this message, while I compile it in formality and in literature. Maybe even write themselves on the subject.
Unfortunately I'm vaguely hoping we accidentally wipe ourselves out in some way that I can survive and father the next inbred human plague of cannibals and necrophiliacs. That's still a kind of love. Sorry Garrett.
Which knife edge of precocity are you most concerned about? Nuclear annihilation? Conventional world war? Global overheating? The Black Plague (or its equivalent)? Severe world-wide depression? Social collapse? Civil war?
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock shows 100 seconds before midnight. We are at 412 ppm of CO2, up 11% since 2000. Depression and social collapse are always just around the corner. Maybe Americans will get a second civil war -- Stephen Marche, The Coming Civil War, Dispatches from America's Future, thinks we are on the way.
So many problems, so little time. Or, altogether too much time. Don't know.
I wish there was a Grand Solution we could all get behind, but if wishes were gold bullion, we would all be rich.
My theory is that as soon as the electricity grid goes down, the batteries fail, and they've used up all the drugs and booze, they will turn to cannibalism. Of course they will. No internet, no social media, no streaming services, no phones, no same-day delivery! The people will be so angry, upset, and frustrated there will be no sufficient relief other than grabbing some live bodies and throwing them onto the barbecue. Necrophilia before or after dinner?
So Putin could crash our systems and Voila!
Hah! No worries. In the end, ethics is individual pursuit. I know there's no saving anything. I just wished more people valued what they really are. It's weird to know that we have the power for it all to be okay, and just nobody, will just do it. Not you, of course, I wouldn't know. I mean them, out there. I guess if I must walk the himmelstrasse myself for ethics, then I'll do it if it means I'm the only god damn one, and this will all have had meaning just for me. Because I fucking made it happen. Dig? Join me if you ever wish.
Thanks for taking a look, dude. It at least needed to be considered.
A little bit of all of it, really. There's something sick about all of this that we've all been detecting for sometime, blaming on things that are convenient. Logically, there are too many things to point to to say "see, knifes edge!!?" Systems don't operate like that. Nobody ever thought that a couple of bullets would ignite WWI, or democratically electing a German chancellor would ignite WWII, and every war they both caused there after. But, there's a bad moon rising, my friend, whatever it is. And I just want everyone to consider exactly what is at the rooot of it all. I've got it listed above in the lack of that principle in the world.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm with you there, brother. Thanks for having a look, nonetheless. Put some thought to what kind of society would be constituted by that principle being embodied.
Keep your eyes on China.
If we could rid the world of capitalism we would achieve 90% of what you are asking for, IMHO.
lol, there's no such thing. Never has been. Everything I'm talking about, and everything you could identify as an issue that you're talking about is caused by states and Dirigisme. Not Capitalism, and not Socialism. Also, to "get rid of Capitalism," in the sense that you're talking about, would be to directly violate the human consciousness. I'd go rethink your position.
Democratic systems that are systems defined by monopolized use of force, are precisely at fault for almost everything we're talking about. Russia's currently proving as much.
Quoting bert1
Systemic faults are found in systems that violate the primary principle listed above. No exceptions.
Quoting bert1
Which policies would states be willing to enforce, when it's the businesses they protect that are causing the ecological damage? Also, enforce? You mean, literally force human beings to do something? What is it you wish to force them to do, specifically?
Quoting bert1
Oh, buddy. You've got a lot to learn. You just identified the institutionalized source to every problem you wish to see fixed.... I don't fault you, though. Almost nobody seems to understand this.
Nothing to rethink, brother. Socialism is our only hope. We must unite.
Did you miss the part where everytime somebody attempts socialism from a state administrative level, millions of people get slaughtered? Maybe you should be informed of the person who founded socialism, actually founded it, and produced hundreds of thousands of communes over 500 years? Do you know who I'm talking about? The guy that was plagiarised to produce the socialism and communism as you're describing? If you really want to unite, you're gonna need to know that info, and to also understand that no such thing is possible from the state level. I can't take you seriously, intellectually speaking, unless you can explore these topics.
Russia invades the Ukraine. Unfortunate, but predictable. Certainly not the first such invasion, and not the last. Philosophers will not solve this. Mass extinction...might, but we won't be there to see it.
A completely fair assessment, my friend. However, a couple things. The only people the stand outside the purview of the paradigm I am suggesting, are those who violate the human consciousness itself, that would be your Mother-Fucker Tyrant Bitch Mommy's Boy Trudeu, and the rest of the Dirigists of the world who predicate their existence on such violations. They have not had the right to operate next to free men since the dawn of time, and for some reason people just can't mobilize around freedom of human consciousness and leave right there, the only place it belongs. As it happens, by the by, it is specifically philosophers who have established what small semblance of this standard that is recognized between all of us. However, if you feel you must decline, so be it. However, without this standard being applied both to oneself, as well as other people aren't violators of it, I'm afraid an ethical life is not possible.
In my opinion, these are the best, correct, and most hopeful words on this thread.
Got any historical examples of non-violatory socialism? You understand socialism is murderous when not predicated on the above stated primary principle required for human unity, right?
Every global national health service in existence.
Every welfare state system in existence.
Every free education system in existence.
Every revolt against slavery and oppression, including ones before Epicurus and the Greeks.
Every fight against the divine right of Kings.
The entire trade union movement.
Democracy
Freedom of speech and freedom of protest.
Almost every significant document relating to human rights/bill of rights/Magna Carta etc
I think your understanding of socialism is quite limited.
Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.
Quoting universeness
Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.
Quoting universeness
Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day.
Quoting universeness
That's not socialism. Socialism is : a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In other words, every nation on Earth, if you replace community with state, as you would clearly have me do.
Quoting universeness
Not socialism. Rebellion is rebellion.
Quoting universeness
Not socialism. Unions are an example of free trade of private property, which is Capitalistic. When not partnered with the state.
Quoting universeness
If you want to see the fate of democracy, turn your eyes to the East.
Quoting universeness
Those are recognitions of the ownership of the contents of one's mind and body, not the collective or state ownership of the means of production. The two aren't compatible. To violate my sole authority and sovreignty of my body, is to violate the property I accrue with it, or violate my freedom to not participate in your experiment. No state-socialist system in history, in other words.
Quoting universeness
Show me where, in the Bill of Rights, you see: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
And fuck the Magna Carta... ??
Quoting universeness
And I think you've never heard it in your entire life. You don't anything about it from even a basic level. Everything below the list you provided of services that are paid for by theft of labor (slavery), all have nothing to do with Socialism.
What utter nonsense! So in your head, a benevolent, national health service, free to all at the point of delivery was created by abusing a group of humans you pull out the air and call 'individual laborers' and the abuse of this group enabled a murderous government to create this benevolent medical care for all its participants. This is the logic you offer??
I hold most of the rest of your response above in a similar vein.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Ok, if you want to, even though your American constitution was strongly influenced by it along with the declaration of Arbroath. Anyway, I am not too interested in your choice of what you want to F***.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Blah blah blah! Just white noise and more utter nonsense!
If a governments which murder people every day steal money from laborers to fund programs, that's not benevolent. I didn't pull anything out of the air except your head. This is exactly the logic I offer you. Your governments are evil, and always have been.
Quoting universeness
Which is to say, you can't argue with it.
Quoting universeness
I don't really care, because the government has never fully abided by it. That's because governments are predicated on force, and nothing else.
Most governments dont murder those they represent and most governments don't 'steal' money from people. Most capitalists do but very few socialists do.
Paying national insurance through your wages is fair as long as currency is the main means of exchange. An NHS (like in the UK) is benevolent, to say otherwise is nonsense unless you think making profit from human ailment (like the US system) is ethical.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I am arguing with it I am suggesting it was nonsense. I have just given you some further reasons above.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Then work towards making future governments better and demand that their authority comes from the democratic consent of the majority of those they represent. Demand they fully abide by the content of humanist constitutions (if you don't like the label socialist, then let's use the label humanist). Demand change not by unhelpfully calling all politics and politicians evil but by demanding better politics and better politicians. Instead of trying to break the human race into tiny cooperatives which you claim will be able to live in harmony with each other based on the Epicurean commune model and such as your written guidelines on ethics, encourage all humans to unite as one species on one planet. No nations, no races (except the human race), no currencies. This has much more chance of success compared to your enormous collection of tiny cooperatives.
You keep complaining about governmental force Garret but you also state that you will protect your envisaged communities through the use of force if need be. Governments justify their use of force. Individuals justify their use of force. At the level of force, you offer nothing new!
On an earlier point,
I like Epicurus and Democritus as I have already stated. I accept Epicurus as a socialist but certainly not the first one or as the creator of such.
Was there no one in ancient China, the Mayan culture, the ancient Egyptians, all the early Mesopotamian civilisations who behaved like or could have been called socialists?
All these civilisations existed before the Greeks.
No socialists among them, is this your claim?
From wikipedia, Thales was around 650 BCE. But it also has stuff on ancient Egyptian philosophers such as:
"Ptahhotep. He served as vizier to the pharaoh in the late 25th, early 24th century BC. Ptahhotep is known for his comprehensive work on ethical behavior and moral philosophy, called The Maxims of Ptahhotep."
Wikipedia goes on to say:
"Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.
Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."
I am not claiming that this wikipedia article is evidence for socialism before Epicurus. I simply offer it as evidence of political thinking way before Epicurus and suggest that it is very likely that many such thinkers could have been called socialists or humanist (I don't see much difference between the two labels). Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is a central tenet of socialism but so is 'politics of, for and by the people,' 'basic human right to food, water, shelter, education, medical care and employment,'
None of these should be based on ability to pay or who your parents were or your ethnicity or creed.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need. These are only some of the basic socialist tenets.
No socialism earlier than Epicurus? No, I think there was socialism going back to the Cro-Magnums.
We need good politics and we need true socialism. We need to unite not divide.
I want Scottish Independence from England but mainly as a means of politically rejoining Europe.
One human species on one (pale blue dot) planet (at the moment).
Keep writing your stuff about ethics, it may help, but unless you change your political viewpoint, I suggest, with respect, that you stay out of politics.
This is so disrespectful it's not even to be reckoned with. Millions of bodies on the state-socialist roster in the past century alone and you can dare say something like this with seriousness. It's deplorable. What have these people done to your mind. Have you forgotten Soviet Russia? The Khmer Rouge? The Ba'ath Party? What the hell, dude.
Quoting universeness
Yes they do, and always have. This is ahistorical in every conceivable manner.
Quoting universeness
These aren't reasons, they're feelings that are completely fabricated.
Quoting universeness
Why would I trust a democratic consensus to make decisions about my life? Democracy has only ever led to Hitler being elected, Kim Il Sung being elected, Putin being elected, I could go on all day. Democracy is only sustainable as a system of productive orientation, not lethal monopoly.
Quoting universeness
I don't mind socialist. I mind forced socialism. Which means anti-capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are compatible as free systems. Dirigisme destroys every concept thereof regarding both, and that is what you support.
Quoting universeness
There is no evidence of such a thing. These communities existed in peace for a 500 years before a state slaughtered them. And then continued slaughtering people, just like states have always done and will forever do, for the next thousand years, and the trend continues this very day. You have no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Zero. You are fabricating your entire opinion.
Quoting universeness
We don't need anything new, at what you offer is just as old. I propose no institutional monopolies on force of any kind. Protection from violation, is not institutionalized monopoly on violation.
Quoting universeness
The first and only successful model to this day, yes.
Quoting universeness
Political thinking is pre-Babylonian. Irrelevant. And no, it isn't much different at all. The only thing that matters is the acceptance of the human consciousness as inviolable, everything else comes after. Any system that is not founded on that principle, or creates room for itself to violate it, will suffer the same sadistic fate as every state before it, be it humanist, or empire.
Quoting universeness
All failed ideas, and control of the means of production is anti-socialist. It is a perversion of Epicurean communism, and it violates the basic principle of the pursuit of individual pleasure and happiness upon which Epicurean communism was founded. And such is exactly why we have millions of bodies to show in this century for socialism, specifically.
Quoting universeness
Should is not a factor in what is. I don't agree with forcing things on people, but it will never be my duty to fix their problems. Just as when I was homeless for a year and eight months, I had to learn the true value of labor and property to earn my way out by my values.
Quoting universeness
No. From each according to his volition, to each according to his exchange of value. Marx's maxim is utterly violatory. No right will you ever have to determine for my consciousness what it will or will not do, and any desire to do so is an exercise in tyranny on your behalf. Luckily, if you spend ten minutes studying Epicurus, you'll see that Marx plagiarised, and perverted this concept with introduction of force to it. But, you'll actually need to read where he stole it from.
Quoting universeness
...... No. We had agrarian societies of food gathering wanderers. Epicureanism is a formalized way of life, with guidelines, principles, and values.
Quoting universeness
I agree. But, we can't do that while people believe in the use of force to tyrannize people into submission for the achievement of their own values. It cannot, and will not ever happen in that manner.
Quoting universeness
I plan to. I'm not completely duped by political sophists. You'll see in time. I guess Russia isn't enough of an example for you right now. But, you'll get it in time. Don't worry, ethics will remain with me, alive, even if I'm the only one willing to break from their desire for power over their fellow humans.
Yeah, the rarely seen honorable capitalist, as rare as a white rhino. A millionaire or billionaire that earned their wealth by completely fair means. Stock exchanges, which produce nothing but control the price of all goods and services. Capitalism is base and vile I don't disrespect it, I loathe it.
Do you approve of such characters from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch or influential families that were built on monies made from criminality, such as the bootlegging Kennedy's or fraudsters such as Trump?
Quoting Garrett Travers
Putin is an unelected totalitarian dictator and a theist, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot were also totalitarian dictators. As is Kim jung un, as was Stalin. Hitler was a fascist obsessed with the theosophic occult. He believed in the supernatural and his soldgers swore allegiance to god and Adolf Hitler and on the list goes. You ascribe the deaths they caused to socialism? Utter nonsense!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Again, right back at you. Panto chat is boring. You conflate and you come to wrong conclusions. You cant see a difference between totalitarianism and socialism. Using a label does not mean you are such. Is a pedo priest a Christian because they use the label? is a King divine because he demands you accept the label? I have already told you that one must demonstrate socialism if you use the label. If you don't then you are not socialist. None of the vile killer groups you mention are socialist.
Capitalist governments, historical monarchies, totalitarian regimes, autocracies, religious authorities, aristocratic regimes etc. These kill those they rule, socialism/humanist is benevolent.
Quoting Garrett Travers
If by forced socialism you mean one-party rule or totalitarianism then we agree. Socialism is by the democratic consent of the majority or else it is not socialism! There can never be forced socialism as a realpolitik. It can only be forced on very small minority to ensure the well-being of a majority. Yes, it is anti-capitalist but it's not anti-entrepreneur. It's anti-greed, anti-millionaire and billionaire but small private business is fine. I favour global socialism. I will work within street, village, town, city, state, national and international socialism, meantime.
The rest of what you typed is just your own opinions based on your own interpretations of your own readings and musings, nothing more. You have no powerful evidence for your political viewpoint at all.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Good, I hope you are successful with your musings and writings on ethics.
Quoting Garrett Travers
As I said before, blah blah blah, white noise, I am sure like most people, including me, it sounds good when you read such words back to yourself. As Rabbie Burns said:
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"
Being rich isn't genocide, genius. Snap out of it.
Quoting universeness
Most of them gained power through democratic channels. No, I ascribe it to state-socialism, which is a fact.
Quoting universeness
That's right, they're state-socialist, aren't reading what I say silly? The labels they give themselves matter. When's the last time you saw the label Capitalist, I mean as a loudly professed ideology with principles and strictures, committing genocide? This isn't an argument you're gonna get away with. If you want to chat with me about this, I want to see some denunciations, and not this half-assed "that wasn't socialism" shit you lefties have been spouting for 50 years. That's old and worn. Yes, it was, it was what socialism looks like when administered by the state, that's why they all look the same.
Quoting universeness
OKAY, there we go! That's more like it. You keep that mentality right there, and there's hope for you. It is essential that you differentiate the two forever, unlike most of your modern brethren, although I have met a few whom I've admired very much. The non-Realpolitik part, is in fucking dispensible. As in, the moment it enters the equation, you have an anti-human philosophy. Just like most philosophies with force as a value.
Quoting universeness
My friend..... (sigh)... This sentence and the statement above it are incompatible. Global socialism will require you to violate the consciousness of those who do not wish to participate in good faith. You'll get there, man. I know you will, you're a smart guy with good intentions. But, man, this kind of desire in the best of hands has proven disasterous. You have to understand that socialism must be voluntary. I swear to you, you will all gain followers faster than any Randian vision ever dreamed of. Have you explored the libertarian socialist vision?
Quoting universeness
hehahahe! You're alright, man.
No it's not, but genocide is normally perpetrated by brutalised, traumatised, often 'brain dead' soldiers, under orders from scared institutionalised officers in a scared and divided hierarchy which answers to an unelected political elite. Who stole power and are VERY VERY RICH!
But thanks for calling me a genius. I think you are a genius too Garrett, in exactly the same way.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah, Putin, who was appointed or 'inherited' his title from the moronic Boris Yeltsin. Any democratic channels you think were involved are of your imagination. These people gain power in the same way the leaders of the Mafia gain power or the same way old tribal leaders gained power. Its gangsta rools mate. Not democratic ones. Perhaps you need to 'snap out of it.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
Size does matter but not if true socialism is applied, which it never has been, including the time of Epicurus as true socialism has very little use for a 'leader of most significance.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
Of course they do, especially when they are totally false!
Quoting Garrett Travers
You need to be able to interpret such labels as 'Chinese chairman of the communist party' as the true labels 'Rich, powerful, Capitalist with genocidal tendencies.' or 'Socialist/communist leader of Mother Russia' or 'Greatest at everything, Capitalist leader of the FREE WORLD, Donald Trump' as in Truth
'Lunatic in voted in by the members of an asylum who has serious genocidal potential.'
You are looking behind the wrong curtains!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I'm sorry I can't participate in accordance with your rules. It's unfortunate you find the truth 'half-assed' and are upset by how long true socialists have been speaking truth. I can spend my whole life forcing everyone under my power to accept that they see three lights. I can call myself socialist while I do this or any other label which is popular amongst 'the people.' Saviour/Messiah/hero/chosen one/Trusted Philosopher/Ethical. It does not matter. Some of the people will fight on and tell the truth! There are only two lights. Real socialists will always say 'there are two lights, now let's live by truly socialist/humanist politics and create checks and balances to root out the nefarious.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don't get the 'surprise' your text above exclaims. The position I describe is fundamental in true socialism. It's just that you have been infected by American propaganda, regarding socialism. I have no brethren that would dilute true socialism. Flexibility and case by case is the Realpolitik of true socialism and you must be able to leave, (in the true Epicurean sense, if you prefer) without consequence. We will however secure by hand or by brain to protect our people. So force is a socialist tool of defense only, never attack, never to impose our politics on any outside group, such an act would mean disconnection to our socialism.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Now who's not reading who's words carefully Garrett?
I carefully said I FAVOUR IT as I think it is a benevolent system for all. I cannot impose it on others without consent, I would not be a socialist if I did so. That's the main difference between true socialism and dictatorial politics. I AM AGAINST DICTATORIAL POLITICS. If you can hear me that I ask you to stop comparing MY socialism with maniac totalitarians.
Quoting Garrett Travers
aarrrrrgggghhhh! I know!! I have been saying so all my political life.
I cannot impose my politics on anyone but I ask you to accept the complexity of getting the balance correct between being fair on a case by case basis with a dissenting voice whilst maintaining the main tenets of socialism and protecting the well-being of the majority of the people involved. That is the Realpolitik and it's difficult but as true socialist, we will ever strive towards achieving it. A good ethics philosopher could help by resisting the temptation or instinct to call us 'evil.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
I will listen to any labeled concept which will progress true socialism but I am not particularly familiar with the label combination you offer above.
Quoting Garrett Travers
In Truth, I like you to Garrett. Your knowledge and projections of philosophy remain very strong and I do feel that your intentions towards others are benevolent. I don't mind spats, even heated ones, especially if the final result is an improved understanding between both parties. Even if that improvement is tenuous and small, it's still progress for all involved.
This is true. 100%
Quoting universeness
You misunderstand, those channels don't save the country from tyrants. It is specifically the democratic channels that were manipulated to produce this outcome.
Quoting universeness
Which is why you and your people have work to do to make it tenable. As it has been known is disasterous.
Quoting universeness
I'm just seeing Dirigists, pal. The reason I brought that up is because socialism is an actual ideology, capitalism is just a model of private property. That's why they use the banner.
Quoting universeness
This still remains to be shown by anybody.
Quoting universeness
It's just, nobody calling themselves socialist have done this, they normally just declared everyone nefarious and killed them. That's kind of the issue.
Quoting universeness
OH, then we're allies. Welcome aboard, mate. Glad to have you here.
Quoting universeness
Yeah, I mean if the above statements are your disposition, we're on board 100%. That's straight up the key to socialst success, and it's crazy because it's been right there in front of all them, glaring them in the face. I'm sorry your predecessors have tainted the word, it isn't fair to you all in the modern world. But, we'll all make it through if this above is the vision.
If I misunderstood then we fundamentally agree but you blame 'manipulated democratic channels,' for being manipulated. Ok I accept and I have stated over and over again that true socialism will require powerful checks and balances so that such manipulations by nefarious individuals/groups cannot happen. But you are way off the mark when you blame socialism and democracy by those who misuse
these labels. Do you blame the doctrine of Christianity or the god fable for the actions of paedo priests?
I don't. Politics are not evil, people do evil things in the name of all sorts of 'labels of convenience.'
Your deadliest enemy can appear wearing the exact same ethics as you espouse. You know what intrigue is about. Stop blaming good people for the past/current evil acts of nefarious individuals because they appear the same as the good people. Watch what they do, not what they promise to do. You know this stuff!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yes, this is the true socialist responsibility. If true socialists can never demonstrate that we can be trusted to do what we say we will do, when a population gives us consent at the ballot box, to do so, then people like you and me will shout 'foul' very loudly and the checks and balances must be activated.
There are groups like 'momentum' in the UK who are trying to establish 'progressive alliances,' which may well relate to your label of 'Libertarian socialist vision.' They are trying to get people from any walk of politics to find common ground, to work together, use tactical voting, any techniques that will always stop extreme, nefarious, cult of personality type intentions from gaining political power. This is a start to the kind of checks and balances we need. We have to have worked out and have established very powerful checks and balances before we ever make a bid for power through the consent of a majority. We must have layers of protection. People groups who scrutinise what those in authority do and have the power to stop an unjust act or policy or law and can demand that authority must seek the consent of the majority on a particular issue. We cannot try for power until we can be easily removed if we don't do what we said we would do in the time we said we would do it. If there are legitimate reasons why we can't do it then we must explain and offer those we represent a list of alternatives/actions that they can choose from. This must always include removal from power, at any time. No guaranteed time frame.
The monitor groups will decide when we need to seek renewed consent. The monitor groups must also be scrutinised. It sounds complicated, but we don't want to repeat past mistakes so we have to get it right, if we can't then we can't ask for power. That's the prime directive.
Progress may be slow but it will be by consent and not by force.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yes they have, so many good people have tried and died trying. The rich and powerful narcissistic bas***** are not a weak force, they have proved that in history time and time again and continue to do so. They will use all the power they have to stop socialists like me. I would get a bullet in the head as soon as I was recognised. They will use their money and influence to divide and conquer, to infiltrate our groups and destroy them from within. They have already got good people like you calling everything we try to do 'evil' because the say 'look its the loony left again,' or they will show you pretty shiny objects to distract you or they will get you all tied up in celebrity worship and show you reality tv shows to distract you, while they consolidate their power bases and hoard wealth, materials, power.
This is an incredibly tough, ruthless enemy. It's very hard for true socialists to defeat them as its hard to be as ruthless as them and sometimes there is no other way to stop them. But we keep trying, we always have since we came out of the wilds, we have been slaughtered by the million. 10,000 years of tears!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Thanks, Garrett, I really appreciate your willingness to give people like me the benefit of the doubt.
If we cant unite then the bas***** will keep winning! 10,000 years of tears is enough. We must all do better. I have no particular need for the label socialist if it is just too damaged by the lies of others.
We will make new labels if we really need to but there is real power behind the socialism label.
I would like to clean it through demonstration of the good politics it can represent or at least join those who are trying to do so.
Let's try to maintain out unity brother/comrade/fellow earthing.
In union and in fellowship!
Let's try to maintain our unity brother/comrade/fellow Earthling
These are excellent points. You're right. It's something I let my emotions cloud sometimes. I'm not emotional about a lot, but I am in regards to the human mind being raped. Putin has started attacking civilian areas in Ukraine. The shit makes me tremble with fury. And I mean that to say quite a bit, nothing does this sort of thing to me. I'll try to take this into consideration. It's a bit difficult for me to detach Putin, and people like him, from politics altogether.
Quoting universeness
Yeah, I'm with you, brother. I know it better than most I've met. I'm glad you know it too.
Quoting universeness
You have an ally in me, friend. I'm an Epicurean, a Neuroethicist, an Objectivist, a philosopher, and a comrade besides. I'll have you know the most intelligent human I ever met was a Libertarian Socialist who helped me see the things we've discussed here. He helped me understand that the only path forward was the one that valued the human at its core, no matter the belief structure someone had adopted. He didn't know it quite like I do, but he could feel it. I love humanity, comrade. We'll fix it together, all of us.
All power to the people of the Ukraine! :heart:
Chat to ya, out on the treads Garrett!