a new understanding of today, time and space.

[Peter Kropotkin]

the great achievement of Socrates is simple, to engage in
an understanding of who we are... know thyself.....

this is the beginning of all wisdom, all philosophy,
all attempts to understand the world.....

one must know thyself to become who you are....

self deception and the delusions we hold about ourselves is
the modern problem.....

and the modern world makes it easy to wallow in our self deceptions...

it is easy to hold to the indoctrinations of childhood... we can simple
hold fast to the ism's and ideologies of our childhood that say man/human beings
is evil or greedy... for what is the very basis of capitalism? it is the ideology
that proclaims that the very greed of man/human beings is the basis of
all society.... recall Gordon Gekko who made greed the center piece of
American society.....

but have you ever wondered if this is in fact, true?

have you ever tried to understand human beings through the lens
of greed? basic greed as the key to life fails to describe the myriad
of human behaviors in life.... We cannot base any part of human actions
upon greed....... ok, let us try the family unit as based upon greed..
does the family unit work by basing all behavior within the family
upon greed? no, in fact, the basic mode of the family unit isn't greed,
but the basis of the family is love... that is the driver of the family unit,
not greed.... and how do use greed to explain the basic drives
of human behavior? for example, it has been said, the philosophy
began because of wonder.... that isn't greed....and let us take the
family teachings of Jesus... I don't recall any mention of greed and its
primacy in human behavior in the bible... no, I have read of love as
a primary motivator in both god and human beings in the bible, but not greed.....

so the theory of capitalism that greed is the primary motivator of human behavior
is simply wrong and we have ample examples of this.. look into your own life..
now is greed a factor among many, yes, but it is only one among many....

to apply just one factor to this complex thing we call life, to simplify life,
is to reduce life to one motivation is simply ludicrous....

but we can hold to our self deception and denial by holding unto one thought
such as greed as the primary motivator in life....

or to use existentialist language, by holding unto greed as the primary
motivator, we are acting in bad faith, trying to hide behind the use of
greed to escape any inquiry into who we really are.....

if we simply accept greed as being the primary motivation of human behavior
we can escape this call of Socrates to "know thyself"...…

if who we are is already implanted via the childhood indoctrinations,
then we don't need to spend any time investigating who we are,
we don't need to begin the very important project of learning
who we are, of "Knowing thyself"... we have been indoctrinated
into thinking that we human beings are as the ism's and ideologies
portray us as being, greedy or fearful or compliant.....

recall, I have already stated that the greatest crime of the modern era
is to be insubordinate, to question our authorities.... that is the great crime
of the bible, Adam and eve great crime was insubordination to god...
and for that, they got tossed out of Eden...
and all our childhood indoctrinations are meant to train us, to teach us
to obey any and all authorities...recall your childhood indoctrinations,
the greatest punishment was reserved for insubordination, for questioning
authority...…..

but the only path to Socrates axiom, know thyself, is by questioning oneself
and the questioning of authorities....

to engage in the obedience demanded by society/state is to conform
to the demands of the society/state...……

we work, we travel to Disneyland, we own cars and TV's and couches,
we consume and we produce, we are "good" citizens and good Americans
and we conform to the norms of our society by not questioning, by not
committing insubordination....we are docile and passive and most importantly,
we conform...….but we don't engage in any attempt to understand who we are,
at no point do we engage in Socrates dictum, to know thyself....
because self examination might prove to mean we aren't what society
demands us to be...and society demands we are compliant, docile, and never questioning....

to engage in a self examination, of some attempt to discover who we are is a
radical, revolutionary, subversive attack upon the society/state....
to know thyself is to commit insurrection upon society...
to know thyself is a crime...… because we might find we are in opposition to
the ism's and ideologies of our time... we might, might become anarchist,
and by anarchist, I mean to stand in opposition to the prevailing wisdom,
the prevailing assumptions of the society/state.....
and an anarchist will attempt to stand against the prevailing wisdom of
the age... an anarchist in the true sense of the word..... fighting for
the right of human beings to become who they are.... and all of this
is only possible when we begin the very difficult task of knowing thyself...

in today's black and white world, you are either for or you are against
the modern world and its ism's and ideologies....

the very demand of society/state to the compliance of the society/state
also means we cannot be half way between the two.. either you are
for the state or you are committing the greatest crime in the world,
and that crime is insubordination...….

we have self deceptions and delusions about ourselves which
prevent us from gaining an understanding of who we really are,
our self deceptions prevent us from beginning the project of
knowing thyself...…. which is the beginning of the understanding
of who we are and how we become who we are.....

and it all begins with the simply call of Socrates... know thyself....

can you know yourself without any self deception or delusions
about yourself?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

this question of discovering who we are can only begin once
we have committed the greatest sin in the modern world,
insubordination to the authorities....questioning the authorites...

and that occurs once we have doubted and challenged our
childhood indoctrinations....if we accept our childhood indoctrinations
of what a human being is, be it greed or be it martial or being it
belligerent, then we still haven't begun the process of becoming
who we are, of knowing thyself.....

society/state has declared that "man is......." and until we
begin the process of knowing thyself, the statement "man is...."
becomes the standard by which we know ourselves,
we cannot know what is possible for us human beings.....

it is about discovering what is possible for human beings, not
already knowing our possibilties... for that is what happens when
the society/state proclaims "we are...." it implictly denies any other
possibilities for human beings......

so when we state that "greed is good" we proclaim the
rightness of capitalism, the correctness of capitalism....

there is no possibility for growth in understanding if
we simply accept the society/state version of
what human beings are and are not.....

hence the denial of anarchism as a legitimate possibility for
human beings and the denial of communism as a legitimate
possibility of what human beings can be.. for those ism's
do not fit into the current understanding of human beings
as proclaimed by our reigning religion, capitalism....which
proclaims greed as the one and only possibility for human beings....

to accept capitalism as our god, we explicitly deny any other
possibility for human beings... hence we deny love and hope
and charity and justice as possibilities for human beings....

only those values which fit into capitalism is allowed, accepted....
and denial of those capitalistic values is insubordination, the great
modern crime...…...and to deny capitalism is heresy and traitorous and
un-American and un-patriotic... for capitalism leaves only one choice
as a possibility for human beings, greed....

and it is far easier to go down in finding our possibilities then going up,
thus reaching for negative values of greed and hate and anger and lust
is far easier to reach then the positive values of love, hope, charity, justice
and so capitalism seeks the lower values of being a human being...…

to destroy is much easier then to create and so we hold those
negative values higher because it is easier to destroy then to build
and/or create...…

in other words, nihilism is far easier to achieve then positive values...
and we are a nihilistic society/state.... positive values are hard to
reach, hard to achieve, hard to emulate... who holds positive values?

why the great creators of art and science and philosophy...…

that is why Goethe is valued... because he is against negative
values, against nihilism and that is why positive writers are valued...
because they don't negate.....so who preaches, teaches, values
positive values that are against the sign of our times, nihilism?

anyone who can say yes and mean it...…
that is why Nietzsche is valued and why
Spinoza is valued and why Marx is valued...
not because they said no, but they also said yes....

and this is why we value Gandhi and MLK and
other modern anti-nihilist..... like Da Vinci and Goethe,
Michelangelo and Van Gogh and Raphael.....for they
proclaimed yes, and created and engaged in finding their
possibilities.....it is the yes they pursued..... not the negative,
the nihilism of their times....the ism's and ideologies that
demanded nihilism as the cost of belonging to society...…

we human beings are social creatures and we want to belong,
even if it cost us our souls... and that is often the cost of
being social beings, we sign away our souls in exchange for
a sense of belonging to the group/society.....

we accept the current nihilistic ism's and ideologies that
negate and deny who we are... and negate our values
and we accept in hopes of belonging.. to escape
any disconnect, any alienation we might have toward society/state....
to belong is often a greater driver of our actions then any specific
value we might know......such as greed or hate.....

for what has been inbreed and indoctrinated in us since the beginning of time,
conform, integrate, obey, don't rock the boat, play the game... and if we don't do so,
then we risk the possibility of not belonging any more... becoming alienated,
disconnected from society/the state.....

and there is no greater risk for a human being, then to be disconnected from
or alienated from society/state.....

to begin the process of knowing who we are, of knowing thyself, risk
the possibility of becoming alienated from or disconnected from society...

and that for social creatures like ourselves... is the most dangerous thing
possible...……...so, it is a risk to know thyself.... but I believe the risk
is greater if we don't make that attempt to know ourselves...…..

to awaken to what is our childhood indoctrinations is a risk
but if we don't risk knowing ourselves, our true selves, we risk
something greater, a failure to become who are are.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

I think I have a solution....
you may be able to see the problem......

I have been accused of not bringing my solutions to the ground.....
I am weaving theories in the air and not being aware of the
I am not engaging in a particular context, a particular set of
conflicting goods.....in other words, say gun control or abortion,
what are my "solutions" given the current reality of modern day America?

It is suggested that I bring this "general description" assessment of "values"
down to earth and explain how my "values" is worked out in the "real" world.....

the problem as I see it isn't about "working" out my values in the real world....
the problem is discovering what my values are.....

for example, if I act without any recourse to my values, my actions are
mindless, "ad hoc" (ad hoc means "for this", "for this situation" it is used
to describe something that has been formed or used for a specical and immediate
purpose without prior planning... ad hoc means temporary, improvised, makeshift)

and we cannot hold ourselves to such actions as gun control or abortions using
ad hoc thinking.... we must engage in such thinking with something more permanent,
something that is useful today and tomorrow..........

in thinking about abortions or gun control, I must base my actions about
such matters based upon the values I hold.... if I call myself "pro-life"
and hold that all life is sacred, then my actions in regards to abortions
becomes quite clear....if I instead belief in a woman's right to choose,
then my actions become also quite clear....the actions we take
are dictated by the values we hold...….

the values you accept dictates the actions you take.....

it is really that simple...…

it isn't enough to engage in some discussion about what to do about
gun control or abortion, we must hold to some values before we can even
hold a discussion about any actions we are to engage in......

to take the discussion of values out of the clouds must mean we first
engage in the discussion about our values and then and only then can
we discuss the conflicting goods of abortion or gun control.....

to act without any understanding of values is to act "ad hoc"
makeshift and improvised with no thought to time, past, present or
future...… whereas values give us some manner to act past, present
and future.....it is by values that we can begin to discuss those actions
we are to take on the ground...… some understanding of values
means that sometimes a meeting of the minds on specific actions
like abortion or gun control, cannot be achieved... if you are inflexible
and dam and determined that abortion is flouting god's laws, then
there is really no room for engagement between two opposing viewpoints...
there can be no agreement between opposing and conflicting viewpoints.....

in my long life, I have seen two sides dig in on the question of values
and no possibility of rapprochement or reconciliation existed....it happens....
is this the case in modern America today? the two sides of the left and right
have dug in and have different values about such idea's as abortion and
gun control and education and voter rights and with such digging in, no
possibility of reconciliation exists.... now what?

that is the true question of our modern age...…..
we have dug in about our values and there doesn't seem to
be any middle ground...….. now what?

and from this comes the rather silly idea of breaking America apart into
different countries or breaking a state like California apart....that isn't
the answer, but what is the answer?

I can't say... all I can say is we must engage in an understanding
of our values before we can engage in any actions.....

the truth is really simple in this regards....

the values you accept dictate the actions you take...….

that is the only thing I know for sure...….I cannot speak to the rest.....

the conflicting goods or conflicting values that exists in America
cannot be solved by violence or separating the country...
we must engage in some dialogue between the two sides.....

more then likely it will be the left that brings about the peace because
the left is about dialogue, consensus building, tolerance.....
so it would seem to me, that any solution must come from the left.....

but and this is important, it cannot come from the left forsaking their values
any more then it can come from the right forsaking their values...
to abandoned our values is to abandoned what makes us human
as I have engaged in an understanding of what it means to be human
and the negative and positive discussion of what it means to be human
cannot be dismissed.....are we to rise above to become more human,
or are we to lower ourselves to become human/animal?

that is the basic distinction between the left and the right...
do we rise to become human, more human or do we lower ourselves
to become more instinctual, more animal?

our engagement with values is one way we can rise to become human,
all too human...… we cannot become too engaged with actions until
we have worked out our values for "the values you accept, dictate
the actions you take"

so before we begin discussions between the left and right and before
we decide on any actions, we must be clear about what our values are....
we must be, within ourselves, clear about what values are we to engage with
and what those values mean?

so as in any journey, we must begin within ourselves...……

so, what the values that are going to drive your actions?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and here is the second idea or thought I have been working on....

what makes Goethe a great human being is his range of exploring his
possibilities...…

in other words, he was a writer, a playwright, a scientist, a statesmen,
painter, a poet, diplomat, biologist, meteorologist, geologist and a physicist.....

he was exploring all of his possibilities as a human being... that is what makes
Goethe so great...….not in any one of his understanding of what is possible,
but in his overall exploration of what is possible for him...……

what is possible? that is the human question.... what is possible for us to
engage in? might we be able to engage in all our possibilities instead of
the one or two we "moderns" engage in right now....

as the values dictate our actions, if we accept that we have possibilities
beyond just being a worker, or a consumer as modern society dictates,
then we can see the failure of capitalism... it doesn't allow us humans to
achieve our various possibilities..... that is the strength of communism
as thought about by Marx.. not lenin or stalin, but Marx...…

to be a writer in the morning and a scientist in the afternoon
or to be a gardener in the morning and a bridge builder in the
afternoon was the goal of Marx... to achieve our possibilities
that exist within the human being...….

and that is the failure of modern ism's and ideologies, the nihilism
that exists within the modern age... nihilism denies, negates
whereas the positive says yes.... who said yes?

Goethe and da Vinci and MLK and Gandhi and
van Gogh and Michelangelo and Raphael among others...…

that is the goal of those who deny nihilism...

for nihilism denies and negates, whereas the positive ones,
they say yes.... the Renaissance was a time period when
people said yes to their possibilities and the ancient Greeks,
especially the Athenians, who engaged in their possibilities
within the arts, politics, war, drama, history...…

the opposite of being a nihilist is one who says, yes,
the one who explores their possibilities of being human...
just as Goethe and da Vinci and Raphael did...…

engage in what is possibly for you and you are engaging in the positive,
you are not being limited, which is nihilism...… to limit,
to say, you are one thing and only one thing is to engage in nihilism...
to negate human beings and their values..... to negate, to say no..
that is nihilism.....

you want to be anti-nihilist... then engage in your possibilities
and allow others to engage in their possibilities.....that is why
the right wing is nihilistic, they deny other people their possibilities....
the right believes in saying no, no, you cannot have abortions,
no, you cannot love others whom I don't approve of, no,
you cannot be free, no, the right acts upon and approves of
the word, no...….

the belief that security is more important then freedom is to say,
no, to freedom.. ...… and the very act of
engaging in security is nihilism because it denies our possibilities....

who should be our role models?

those who have said yes, yes to all the possibilities of being human....
Goethe and da Vinci and Gandhi and any artist who has explored their
own possibilities.....the act of creation is the act of the positive
and anti-nihilist...……..create and see what is possible...…


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

that I have rejected metaphysics... is not a mystery...

I have proclaimed this early and often.....

but why reject metaphysics?

because it negates, denies the possibilities of being human
of pursuing the possibilities that exists in human beings....
to pursue the metaphysics, the beyond the physical,
means we negate, reject our current and future possibilities
for some human dogma that doesn't even exists...…

I fight for the here and now, not for some unproven possibility
that might exist in the future...…

I can become, I can enjoy the possibilities of being human, by
engaging in writing, thinking, reading, being, and in such engagement
with the possibilities of philosophy and history and economics and psychology.....
becoming who we are.... but if we engage in metaphysics, we reject those
current and future possibilities of human beings...…
if we put our engagement in joining god, then we must reject what
is possible for us as human beings...…… it is one or the other type of thing...…

all or nothing as it might be understood...…

I reject being only one possibility which is to be the child of god,
I would rather be the one who engages in the possibilities of being human.....

Goethe didn't engage in trying to be "saved"
he engaged in trying out his possibilities of being human...
as a writer and playwright and poet and scientist and thinker
among the other possibilities he tried......

he wasn't interested in the possibility of going to heaven and being saved
and he would have been wasted as a human being in engaging in that possibility....

just as we human beings are wasted in engaging in saving our souls and trying to
get to heaven...….. let us engage in something positive and engage in
becoming who we are... which means we attempt to find our possibilities
in writing and thinking and poems and reading and expanding what it means
to be human by being a writer in the morning and a bridge builder in the afternoon.....

by following Marx instead of jesus and by not attempting to be saved but
by finding our possibilities in an engagement with finding out what is possible
for us in the realm of human activities, in our engagement with actions
and doings that allow us to discover what are our possibilities.....

be it writer or thinker or doer or poet or playwright or philosopher...…

be like Goethe... and find your possibilities....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

that I have rejected capitalism as nihilism isn't a mystery...

but why do I consider capitalism, nihilism?

it is because we have only one possibility under capitalism,
that to make profits/money.....

and any other human possibilities such as love or justice or peace
is rejected by capitalism because those values don't make money....
either I am a produce or I am a consumer....according to capitalism.....

no other possibilities exist for me under capitalism.....

for pursuing love and justice and hope and charity are rejected
under capitalism because it doesn't further the cause of making profits/money....

I reject capitalism because it's only possibilities is for human beings is to
make money/profits...

just as the metaphysics only possibility is to become religious
and go to heaven, one choice, capitalism offers us one choice
and as a human being infused with possibilities, I demand
to engage in my own possibilities be it as a writer or thinker
or poet or gardener or bridge builder.....or of becoming all or
some of those possibilities.....

the ism's and ideologies limits what it means to be human....

I have no limits... all is possible for me, if I so choose....
now I may not be good at it, but it is possible for me...

and that is the point of being human.... having all possibilities
available to us... not limited as we are by such ism's and ideologies
as capitalism and Catholicism, where we are limited in our possibilities...
of making money/profits or of going to heaven or not...…

what does it mean to be human?

to find out what is possible for us as human beings.....

Kropotkin

[Meno_]

that I have rejected capitalism as nihilism isn't a mystery...J

but why do I consider capitalism, nihilism?

it is because we have only one possibility under capitalism,
that to make profits/money.....

and any other human possibilities such as love or justice or peace
is rejected by capitalism because those values don't make money....
either I am a produce or I am a consumer....according to capitalism.....

no other possibilities exist for me under capitalism.....

for pursuing love and justice and hope and charity are rejected
under capitalism because it doesn't further the cause of making profits/money....

I reject capitalism because it's only possibilities is for human beings is to
make money/profits...

just as the metaphysics only possibility is to become religious
and go to heaven, one choice, capitalism offers us one choice
and as a human being infused with possibilities, I demand
to engage in my own possibilities be it as a writer or thinker
or poet or gardener or bridge builder.....or of becoming all or
some of those possibilities.....

the ism's and ideologies limits what it means to be human....

I have no limits... all is possible for me, if I so choose....
now I may not be good at it, but it is possible for me...

and that is the point of being human.... having all possibilities
available to us... not limited as we are by such ism's and ideologies
as capitalism and Catholicism, where we are limited in our possibilities...
of making money/profits or of going to heaven or not...…

what does it mean to be human?

to find out what is possible for us as human beings.....

Kropotkin

I totally agree. It is an absolute either/or.
But how does Jesus' pronouncements effect attitude?

Sure, give unto God what is due to Him, and give unto Caesar his due, but then how can the edict of following this cross play into it?
Like Siddharta, can an abandonment of family and responsibility as a moral edict be justified?

Capitalism won years of conflict between capital and social concern, yet, the third behemoth-national socialism, the center, brought havoc up in and trampled any form of human dignity and rights.

This conflict is much more than any human being can handle .It is reprehensible.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I have also rejected metaphysical attempts to explain life,
in terms of suffering, of being saved, of reaching heaven......

we own nothing to god, just as I own nothing to my own father....

we don't have to explain the world in terms of the religious...

we must explain the world in terms of our possibilities
as human beings...... what is possible for me?

I don't need to be saved nor do I need to go to heaven to
find my possibilities... I don't need to be a good worker or
a good consumer or create profits/money to find my possibilities....

if I create or build or wonder or doubt, I am exploring my
possibilities as a human being.......


and as part of my possibilities, lie suffering and pain and agony
and despair.... these are part of what make us human and we must
not deny or try to escape these possibilities.........

that is my problem with Buddhism for example, it makes suffering
and the escape of suffering as the sole possibility of life..... it isn't....

suffering is certainly a part of life, but just a part......

and no matter what we suffer from, it is temporary, transient,
impermanent.....we only need to think about that which is permanent,
and what exactly is permanent? our possibilities of being human..
because that is what has existed since time begin, for humans anyway,
what is possible for us humans? that is the only question that matters....

and the only question we need to engage in.... what is/are my possibilities as
a human being?

everything else is bullshit.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

if as the conservative believe, that the modern search is for security,
then that rejects the search for our possibilities.... we must have freedom
to seek our possibilities, not security...…….if given a choice, between
freedom or security.... always take the choice of freedom...…. that
allows us to seek our possibilities.. which requires freedom, not security....


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the Greeks understood the value of inquiry... which is the
basis of the words philosophy, history, sociology and other
such means of exploring what it takes to be human.....

if we take the route of security/certainty/ dogma...we are then
deter from the inquiry it takes to discover what it means to
be human......the goal is not to find certainty or security from inquiry,
the goal is overcome our childhood indoctrinations and to know thyself....
if we hold to security or to certainty, we can never know who we are,
or what is possible for us...….we must risk and that is scary for many.....
which is why many won't risk, take a chance on knowing oneself, because
what if we find we aren't what our self image demands us to be.....

the enemy to inquiry is self delusion and self deception....the holding onto
values even if they don't apply to us is because of the self deception we human
practice...…..if we practice certainty instead of inquiry, we fail to
understand who we are...… the existentialist denounced those who
engaged in self deception because it prevents an honest inquiry into who
we really are......who I really am......my self deception prevents me from
discovering who I really am.....

by self deception, we hold onto beliefs and fantasies about ourselves that
are better to be destroyed because they hold us in chains and deny
any possibilities for us...…..

if I am certain, I am not engaged in finding my possibilities....I am content
with those already given certainties......and I do not engage with me,
the real me, the me that hides from my eyes and the me that pretends to be there.....

we are victims of the ism's and ideologies and habits and prejudice and
biases from our childhood that prevents us from becoming who we are...

bring who you are into the light and expose the truth...
for it is light that brings us into truth.....

shine a light into who you are.... and learn to become that
which you are..... know thyself... and overcome those
childhood indoctrinations...….by learning which values are the values
that you are, that you truly are...………

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and I say unto you....

run away from valuations of certainty and faith.....

nationalism, bigotry, patriotism, religious, dogmatism,
sectarianism...… are all paths to ignorance and injustice.....

the world only has two types of people....

those who open their minds and those who close their minds...….

which one are you?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

philosophers have only two possibilities...…

one, philosophy is to teach something

two, philosophy is to awaken someone.....

so, do you read philosophy to learn something
or do you read philosophy to awaken yourself?

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

so, do you read philosophy to learn something
or do you read philosophy to awaken yourself?

these days i don't have a plan in advance when i set out on a philosophical adventure, probably because the vast majority of my reading no longer involves books. i no longer have any idea where i'll end up when i'm reading online. just earlier i was reading about the 'kripkenstein paradox' and trippin' out on the 'quus/plus' distinction in rule-following, and the next thing i know i'm reading about 'grue and bleen' in 'the new riddle of induction'.

now this isn't necessarily a good thing, because having this kind of online freedom of movement, as opposed to being restricted to a book, often results in an information overload; these kinds of subject matters are extensive and require you to either have a magnificent IQ (which i don't have), or enough time to delve fully into the matter and take the time to learn it, if you don't have a magnificent IQ.

and then it happens. it always happens. one part of me says 'there's something to this or else these philosophical geniuses wouldn't be going on about it', and the other part of me says 'you aren't a genius and it'll take you too long to figure all this shit out. besides, what difference would any of this make in your life, dude?'

but here's the thing. that last question is rather suspicious, is it not? could it be that i'm making an excuse, post-hoc, in assuring myself that it's not important only after i recognize how difficult it would be for me to learn the shit? i mean, how can i be sure 'it would make no difference in my life' until i know what the fuck it means?

see what just happened there, pete? let this be a testament to many a philosopher... especially the dumber ones who think they've got it all figured out. more often than not, the philostopher stops where he finds the limits of his understanding, and not only declares himself finished, but also that those things which he takes no query of, don't matter anyway. this is a remarkable vanity.

[Meno_]

so, do you read philosophy to learn something
or do you read philosophy to awaken yourself?

these days i don't have a plan in advance when i set out on a philosophical adventure, probably because the vast majority of my reading no longer involves books. i no longer have any idea where i'll end up when i'm reading online. just earlier i was reading about the 'kripkenstein paradox' and trippin' out on the 'quus/plus' distinction in rule-following, and the next thing i know i'm reading about 'grue and bleen' in 'the new riddle of induction'.

now this isn't necessarily a good thing, because having this kind of online freedom of movement, as opposed to being restricted to a book, often results in an information overload; these kinds of subject matters are extensive and require you to either have a magnificent IQ (which i don't have), or enough time to delve fully into the matter and take the time to learn it, if you don't have a magnificent IQ.

and then it happens. it always happens. one part of me says 'there's something to this or else these philosophical geniuses wouldn't be going on about it', and the other part of me says 'you aren't a genius and it'll take you too long to figure all this shit out. besides, what difference would any of this make in your life, dude?'

but here's the thing. that last question is rather suspicious, is it not? could it be that i'm making an excuse, post-hoc, in assuring myself that it's not important only after i recognize how difficult it would be for me to learn the shit? i mean, how can i be sure 'it would make no difference in my life' until i know what the fuck it means?

see what just happened there, pete? let this be a testament to many a philosopher... especially the dumber ones who think they've got it all figured out. more often than not, the philostopher stops where he finds the limits of his understanding, and not only declares himself finished, but also that those things which he takes no query of, don't matter anyway. this is a remarkable vanity.

And yet what some call vanity on a personal note, turns out to conflate with social vanity of the kind Schopenhauer considered it, and hard as he try Nietzsche could not completely overcome.
A little bit over the line prides them into suspicious askence.



Like he who laughs lasts

[iambiguous]

K: I wondered how long it would take for you to respond

my objections to religions is simple enough
that they promote nihilism...and once again,
I have defined nihilism as the negation of both
human beings and their values.....

it is plainly evident to me that religions and the belief in god,
negate, deny human beings and their values.....

if that it isn't evident to you, isn't really my problem....

Actually, my point is that what seems "evident" to objectivists in regard to such things as religion, morality and poitics, is this: that how they view any particular context is how it can only be viewed if others wish to be thought of as rational...as "one of us". The folks who are always right about God and ethics and political issues.

My point, instead, is that these value judgments are more the embodiment of how I have come to construe "I" in my three signature threads.

And, thus, that my own understanding of moral nihilism resolves around the assumption that there is No God. And, consequently, there is no transcending font for mere mortals to establish that, say, Trump's immigration policy is necessarily right or necessarily wrong.

if we put god first, then we put humans second..
and second in this context is a negation of us and our values.....

you have often complained of my "abstractions" in defining my
terms...… and yet, I only have abstractions to explain what I mean....

I cannot, cannot speak to what you or anyone else might think, feel or
believe.... to do so would be not much more then a guess.... is to assume
evidence/facts not in already presented in court..... as the courts might say..

I treat this as I would a court case... I am presenting evidence that
doesn't presume evidence that hasn't been introduced into court...

In fact, in a court of law, the evidence revolves around what can in fact be shown to be true. And in regard to a very particular context in which someone's behavior is deemed to in fact be either legal or illegal. The laws themselves however will invariably revolve around sets of behiviors that some deem moral [and worthy of reward] and others deem immoral [and worthy of punishment].

Had Jeffrey Epstein not committed suicide -- or been murdered? -- his trial would have revolved around the laws it is said that he broke. He either broke them or he did not. But a verdict of guilty would not have established that his behavior is necessarily immoral. That is the point raised by moral nihilists. That, in a No God world, things like individual proclivities relating to human sexuality are largely existential contraptions rooted historically, culturally and experientially in particular contexts understood by individuals in particular ways.

And that is why, sans God, narcissists and sociopaths, which Epstein might well have been, are able to rationalize any behaviors given the assumption that in a No God world, morality revolves solely around sustaining their own particular wants and needs. Which, in my view, are basically existential contraptions.

when I speak of justice, I cannot make justice a personal action...
I was treated justly when X occurred....I can only say, justice
is equality... thus treating justice as an abstract concept...

the concept of justice by its very nature is abstract... it can only
be reduced down to a certain point....and it cannot be reduced
any further....I cannot bring the concept of justice down to
the level of immediateness.... which is right here, right now...

Well, if that is actually how you have come to understand a discussion of human justice, then what is left for me to say? After all, could not those you share exactly the opposite of your own moral and political values, basically make the same argument?

Until and unless someone is willing to take those "noble sounding" words and situate them out in the world of actual conflicting goods, I see no point in continuing on.

I read stuff like this...

in the clouds is where certain concepts exists because of their
nature..... but one might argue that by allowing justice to remain
in the clouds, we can get a much better sense of justice....

for example, we can get a better sense of things by getting a birds eye
view instead of being in the midst of things..... I can see my condo on its own level,
but by getting a birds eye view, I have a better sense of how my condo looks
and how it fits into the area...….

we get up in our own vantage point, our own viewpoint whereas if we
can separate ourselves from our own viewpoint, we can get a
better sense of where we stand.....

I see how my viewpoint limits me, but if I can get a wider vision of
where I stand, I can better understand where I fit....for example,
I have a sense of justice... but in order to better grasp how
I understand justice, I must compare/contrast justice from others who
have given justice some thought to it......so, I study Plato, for example,
and by comparing and contrasting his thought with mine, I can get a better
sense of what my understanding of justice is.. or if I compare/contrast justice
with, say Rawls, I better understand what justice is.... this understanding is
best served by keeping its distance from me, a birds eye view as it were...

trying to bring justice out of the clouds and bringing it back to
specific human actions is ok, but it fails on so many levels to
properly understand what justice is because of the fact that
all systems are by their nature incomplete... we have an incomplete
understanding of our beliefs because we are so close to them....

...and my mind glazes over. What on earth does any of that mean in regard to an actual context in which conflicting value judgments precipitate conflicting behaviors.

Instead, I make the assumption that when the objectivists confront folks like me, they often stay up in the clouds of abstraction. Only when folks like you do battle with folks like Wendy do the arguments come down to earth. But: only in assuming that the specific points raised [about Trump or anything else] are not just political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein but reflect the essential oblgation of all rational and virtuous people.

Kierkegaard believed that "in the crowd lies untruth" that truth can only
exists within the individual... but I have found over the years that
we humans are best served by a crowd... by that I mean, it is in
a group setting that we uncover the truth....

What this suggests to me is that those who place the emphasis on "we" [historically, liberals and socialists] are convinced that they are being more reasonable and virtuous that those who place the emphasis on "I" [conservatives and capitalists].

But then I always come back to this: In what particular context out in what particular world based on what particular set of assumptions about human interactions?

Moral and political advocates will either go there and address the components of my own moral and political philosophy -- dasein, conflicting goods, political economy -- or they won't.

you want something that I cannot deliver... specific, grounded actionable
thinking..... I don't do that... I exist and think in birds eye vision....

it doesn't make me right or wrong, just as it doesn't make you right or wrong....

Indeed, the irony here of course is that I share many of your own political prejudices. But, again, my own understanding of that is now more or less embodied in the points I raised in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

We just think about these things differently. And I would certainly not argue here that your way of thinking is less reasonable than mine. Instead, in being down my own wretched "hole", I have come to conclude that, re the is/ought world, there does not appear to way in which to determine this at all.

And, yes, the whole point for many in coming to a conclusion about God and religion and morality and political issues is in the coming to a conclusion itself. As you note, your way of thinking "works" for you.

My only suggestion is that it works for the objectivist because the whole point is to think oneself into believing that the right conclusions can in fact be derived here. Why? Because they have in fact already come to embody them themselves.

And, thus, that this is largely a reflection of human psychology embedded in the points that I noted on these threads:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

This works here for you:

I almost never begin by creating an end thought where I must create
a path to that specific ending... my thoughts have no specific ending in mind...
I simply work it out until I have no more to go and that becomes my ending...…

it all sounds very vague and imprecise and obscure what I say... but it works for
me... I have no agenda when I write.. I simply write and see where it takes me....
which can be very problematic... I am ok with problematic as I am ok with
chaos and disorder and uncertainty...…….

It just doesn't work for me. Or not anymore. These "general description" "intellectual contraptions" are precisely the sort of philosophy I wish to steer the discipline away from. At least in regard to the is/ought world.

Sure, establish certain technical parameters, define your terms, try to give as precise a meaning to the words in your argument as you can.

Then bring all of that out into the world of actual human interactions in conflict.

[promethean75]

What on earth does any of that mean

You see that? He said it again. 'what on earth'.

*eyelid twitch*

damn you, biggs. damn you to hell.

[iambiguous]

What on earth does any of that mean

You see that? He said it again. 'what on earth'.

*eyelid twitch*

damn you, biggs. damn you to hell.

My apologies to Peter, of course, but I have already addressed this elsewhere:

"Sorry, no can do.

Long ago, as zinnat13 correctly pointed out, I became hopelessly -- rather pathetically -- addicted to and reliant upon what he called 'groots'.

There are certain expressions and arguments that I feel more or less obligated to include in every post. It has now become the very embodiment of the existential contraption I will call, say, dasein?

Unless of course I'm wrong."

[promethean75]

What on earth is a 'groots'?

[promethean75]

Google doesn't even know what a groots is, so where did zinnat get the word? Is this some kind of Indian neologism?

[iambiguous]

What on earth is a 'groots'?

zinnat introduced them [to me] on the Fallacy Of Subjectivity thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190059&p=2605013&hilit=zinnat+groot#p2605013

From wiki:

"Since his film premiere and animated series debut, Groot has become a pop culture icon, with his repeated line 'I am Groot' becoming an Internet meme."

And folks at ILP can quite readily point to my own repeated lines on this thread and on so many others. It's just common knowledge here. I've been thumped with that accusation over and over and over again. And it ain't wrong.

But, uh, maybe we should take this to another thread?

Edit:

Actually, it goes back to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190236&p=2602174&hilit=groot#p2602174

[promethean75]

Oh that groot. Yeah I knew who groot was and saw the movies, but I couldn't make the connection between the iambiguous glossary of words and phrases and the character.

[Peter Kropotkin]

from prior post: I think I have a solution....
you may be able to see the problem......

I have been accused of not bringing my solutions to the ground.....
I am weaving theories in the air and not being aware of the
I am not engaging in a particular context, a particular set of
conflicting goods.....in other words, say gun control or abortion,
what are my "solutions" given the current reality of modern day America?

It is suggested that I bring this "general description" assessment of "values"
down to earth and explain how my "values" is worked out in the "real" world.....

the problem as I see it isn't about "working" out my values in the real world....
the problem is discovering what my values are.....

for example, if I act without any recourse to my values, my actions are
mindless, "ad hoc" (ad hoc means "for this", "for this situation" it is used
to describe something that has been formed or used for a specical and immediate
purpose without prior planning... ad hoc means temporary, improvised, makeshift)

and we cannot hold ourselves to such actions as gun control or abortions using
ad hoc thinking.... we must engage in such thinking with something more permanent,
something that is useful today and tomorrow..........

in thinking about abortions or gun control, I must base my actions about
such matters based upon the values I hold.... if I call myself "pro-life"
and hold that all life is sacred, then my actions in regards to abortions
becomes quite clear....if I instead belief in a woman's right to choose,
then my actions become also quite clear....the actions we take
are dictated by the values we hold...….

the values you accept dictates the actions you take.....

it is really that simple...…

it isn't enough to engage in some discussion about what to do about
gun control or abortion, we must hold to some values before we can even
hold a discussion about any actions we are to engage in......

to take the discussion of values out of the clouds must mean we first
engage in the discussion about our values and then and only then can
we discuss the conflicting goods of abortion or gun control.....

to act without any understanding of values is to act "ad hoc"
makeshift and improvised with no thought to time, past, present or
future...… whereas values give us some manner to act past, present
and future.....it is by values that we can begin to discuss those actions
we are to take on the ground...… some understanding of values
means that sometimes a meeting of the minds on specific actions
like abortion or gun control, cannot be achieved... if you are inflexible
and dam and determined that abortion is flouting god's laws, then
there is really no room for engagement between two opposing viewpoints...
there can be no agreement between opposing and conflicting viewpoints.....

in my long life, I have seen two sides dig in on the question of values
and no possibility of rapprochement or reconciliation existed....it happens....
is this the case in modern America today? the two sides of the left and right
have dug in and have different values about such idea's as abortion and
gun control and education and voter rights and with such digging in, no
possibility of reconciliation exists.... now what?

that is the true question of our modern age...…..
we have dug in about our values and there doesn't seem to
be any middle ground...….. now what?

and from this comes the rather silly idea of breaking America apart into
different countries or breaking a state like California apart....that isn't
the answer, but what is the answer?

I can't say... all I can say is we must engage in an understanding
of our values before we can engage in any actions.....

the truth is really simple in this regards....

the values you accept dictate the actions you take...….

that is the only thing I know for sure...….I cannot speak to the rest.....

the conflicting goods or conflicting values that exists in America
cannot be solved by violence or separating the country...
we must engage in some dialogue between the two sides.....

more then likely it will be the left that brings about the peace because
the left is about dialogue, consensus building, tolerance.....
so it would seem to me, that any solution must come from the left.....

but and this is important, it cannot come from the left forsaking their values
any more then it can come from the right forsaking their values...
to abandoned our values is to abandoned what makes us human
as I have engaged in an understanding of what it means to be human
and the negative and positive discussion of what it means to be human
cannot be dismissed.....are we to rise above to become more human,
or are we to lower ourselves to become human/animal?

that is the basic distinction between the left and the right...
do we rise to become human, more human or do we lower ourselves
to become more instinctual, more animal?

our engagement with values is one way we can rise to become human,
all too human...… we cannot become too engaged with actions until
we have worked out our values for "the values you accept, dictate
the actions you take"

so before we begin discussions between the left and right and before
we decide on any actions, we must be clear about what our values are....
we must be, within ourselves, clear about what values are we to engage with
and what those values mean?

so as in any journey, we must begin within ourselves...……

so, what the values that are going to drive your actions?

so, ask yourself, in regards to say, gun control, what actions should I take?

and the answer comes from the values we choose....

but then one might ask, why those values and not another?

values are simply another way of asking ourselves what is important?

I value justice, I value freedom...I accept those values as values worth
holding on to......and one might again ask, why those values and not other values?

because I think that human beings do better with those values instead of
the security values.. but Kropotkin, why?

and that is how we go down the rabbit hole..... doubting every single
choice and decision we make... it is kinda like the dog chasing its tail....

yes, we could doubt ourselves until the cows come home, but at some point,
you think to yourselve, I am comfortable with certain values..and I will stick
with them.... but Kropotkin, that isn't very philosophical?

No, no it isn't....but it is human....the world isn't black and white,
or right or wrong or good or evil..... it is various shades of gray....
and the choices we make need to reflect that gray in our lives....

sometimes, we have to just pick an area and run... it may not
be logical or rational or philosophical, but it is, what it is....

we humans live in that messy gray area where sometimes logic
and rational thought and philosophical thought isn't going to
solve our questions....

love for example... it is messy and exists in that gray area
where logic and rational thought and philosophical thought
isn't going to help one to understand love...

and yet, love maybe one of the most important aspects of being human...
and yet we cannot define it, we cannot measure it, we cannot
time it or weigh it or number it.... it just is...…..and to
measure it or weigh it or be scientific about love isn't going to
help one find out what love is or solve our questions about love....
you just have to go through it.... leap as it were into love...…

you cannot be logical or rational or philosophical about love...…

and you can't be logical or rational or philosophical about certain parts
of our human lives...….

but Kropotkin, you have punted on some of the most important questions
of being human.... no, no I haven't....I simply accept that for us human beings,
sometimes logic and rational thought and philosophical thought isn't enough
to solve our very messy questions of existence.... sometimes the answer to
existence is found within that existence... simply by being, we find answers
we weren't looking for....

but Kropotkin, you don't make any sense... perhaps, perhaps... perhaps
I will make sense once you reach a certain point in your life, perhaps not.....

sometimes, there are no answers to our questions...… that isn't logical or rational
or philosophical but it is true...…..


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

as I alluded to earlier, perhaps some of our questions of existence is
answered during existence and can only be answered during our existence...…

we cannot define love or rationally explain love or weigh love
or time love.... but we can experience love.. I have loved
the same woman for over 25 years and I believe she has loved
me for 25 years..... but we cannot logically or rationally explain
our love or why it has lasted for such a long time........ it is...
and that has to be enough for us.....our being in love is its own
explanation.......we might suggest that existence is its own
explanation..... we exist and we can't explain it any further....perhaps....

so where does that leave us?

with an understanding that some parts of our lives, some aspects are
beyond analysis, beyond understanding, beyond any possible explanation....

and only in existence with those parts, those questions like love,
can we begin to offer up a vague solution or a vague answers.....

but how can we know what questions are outside of our range of understanding
and what questions are within range? all we can do is push all questions until
we decide what questions can only be answered by experience itself...…
or what questions we can answer logically, rationally, philosophically.....

in other words, all questions are on the table until shown to be otherwise,
to be unable to answer logically, rationally, philosophically puts those
questions off the table... for the moment.... perhaps later we might
be able to answer these questions without having to experience them.....

What is life?

Is that a question we can answer logically, rationally,
philosophically? perhaps the best way to answer the question of "what is life"
is to experience life, to engage in life as best as we can...….to live, to love,
to challenge, to experience is the only way we can "know" life or to explain life.....

as we each experience life differently, this is why we explain life differently?

as we love differently, that is why we explain love differently?

as our experiences in life is different, our questions are different...
perhaps that is why IMP and I understand the questions of life
differently.....perhaps that is why we answer the question of life
differently?

because my experience with love is different then some people,
that is why I see or understand love differently...…..

in one sense, all answers about life is right and in another sense,
all answers about life is wrong...….because our experiences are different,
our answers are bound to be different.... but that doesn't make them wrong,
just different... and in that difference we must apply the value of tolerance
because we cannot outright say, he is wrong about love or he is wrong about life
because life and love offers us different experiences and thus we understand love
and life differently..... I cannot tell you for sure if that difference is wrong,
I can only say it is different.... and thus we must be tolerant of others
in their explanation of life or of love... we cannot in all honesty, say that
if they love someone, anyone, that is wrong....we cannot justify intolerance
in who people fall in love with.... again, consensual and above 18...for rather
obvious reasons...….but I cannot use my experience in life or in love to
judge another persons experience in life or in love.....my experience is
my experience and their experience is their experience...…

this is why the "liberal" viewpoint of tolerance and forgiveness is better
suited for people....because we cannot honestly say one way is better then
another in regards to love... and we cannot honestly say one life choice
is better then another in isolation....but and this is important, we don't live
in isolation... we exists with each other...… and we cannot be so tolerant
that we allow others to murder or to harm another, verbally or physically....
that isn't right either...……….

in other words, we travel a line that often gets twisted and misshapen...

what is right and wrong often gets twisted in our desire to reach our
goal of happiness..... if we better understood what really makes us
happy, a lot of the world's misery would go away..... but that is a post
for another day...……….

Kropotkin

[Meno_]

as I alluded to earlier, perhaps some of our questions of existence is
answered during existence and can only be answered during our existence...…

we cannot define love or rationally explain love or weigh love
or time love.... but we can experience love.. I have loved
the same woman for over 25 years and I believe she has loved
me for 25 years..... but we cannot logically or rationally explain
our love or why it has lasted for such a long time........ it is...
and that has to be enough for us.....our being in love is its own
explanation.......we might suggest that existence is its own
explanation..... we exist and we can't explain it any further....perhaps....

so where does that leave us?

with an understanding that some parts of our lives, some aspects are
beyond analysis, beyond understanding, beyond any possible explanation....

and only in existence with those parts, those questions like love,
can we begin to offer up a vague solution or a vague answers.....

but how can we know what questions are outside of our range of understanding
and what questions are within range? all we can do is push all questions until
we decide what questions can only be answered by experience itself...…
or what questions we can answer logically, rationally, philosophically.....

in other words, all questions are on the table until shown to be otherwise,
to be unable to answer logically, rationally, philosophically puts those
questions off the table... for the moment.... perhaps later we might
be able to answer these questions without having to experience them.....

What is life?

Is that a question we can answer logically, rationally,
philosophically? perhaps the best way to answer the question of "what is life"
is to experience life, to engage in life as best as we can...….to live, to love,
to challenge, to experience is the only way we can "know" life or to explain life.....

as we each experience life differently, this is why we explain life differently?

as we love differently, that is why we explain love differently?

as our experiences in life is different, our questions are different...
perhaps that is why IMP and I understand the questions of life
differently.....perhaps that is why we answer the question of life
differently?

because my experience with love is different then some people,
that is why I see or understand love differently...…..

in one sense, all answers about life is right and in another sense,
all answers about life is wrong...….because our experiences are different,
our answers are bound to be different.... but that doesn't make them wrong,
just different... and in that difference we must apply the value of tolerance
because we cannot outright say, he is wrong about love or he is wrong about life
because life and love offers us different experiences and thus we understand love
and life differently..... I cannot tell you for sure if that difference is wrong,
I can only say it is different.... and thus we must be tolerant of others
in their explanation of life or of love... we cannot in all honesty, say that
if they love someone, anyone, that is wrong....we cannot justify intolerance
in who people fall in love with.... again, consensual and above 18...for rather
obvious reasons...….but I cannot use my experience in life or in love to
judge another persons experience in life or in love.....my experience is
my experience and their experience is their experience...…

this is why the "liberal" viewpoint of tolerance and forgiveness is better
suited for people....because we cannot honestly say one way is better then
another in regards to love... and we cannot honestly say one life choice
is better then another in isolation....but and this is important, we don't live
in isolation... we exists with each other...… and we cannot be so tolerant
that we allow others to murder or to harm another, verbally or physically....
that isn't right either...……….

in other words, we travel a line that often gets twisted and misshapen...

what is right and wrong often gets twisted in our desire to reach our
goal of happiness..... if we better understood what really makes us
happy, a lot of the world's misery would go away..... but that is a post
for another day...……….

Kropotkin

Second that notion.
I do not see am other option for man kind , with the wrong side of the double edged of sword of Damocles hanging over us, with increasing certainty.

[Peter Kropotkin]

M: Second that notion.
I do not see am other option for man kind , with the wrong side of the double edged of sword of Damocles hanging over us, with increasing certainty."


K: the real question is the one unspoken question, what is the "real"
relationship between the "individual" and "society"?

Kierkegaard and Ibsen thought about the one, the "individual" whereas Marx
and Hegel thought about the many, the society/group.....

but we haven't resolved that question and therein lies much of
society/state problems...… when I wrote about our search for
our individual happiness, how we search for love, that search
is an individual search... but we are social creatures... we,
by evolution, exists as social creatures, we must, must reside
within a group or society.. we cannot physically, mentally, emotionally,
exist by ourselves...…. and within that framework, we must search for
our individual happiness.... so within that framework, society's system,
we search for love..... and if our love disrupts or decreases the system's
energy, we must deny that love....so for instance, adults loving children,
pederasty damages society and so must be banned upon that grounds....

so the real question is the relationship between the individual and society....

and so our modern quest to understand the relationship between the one and
society goes on...….

Kropotkin