After weeks of ''issues'', I am back....
think of Philosophy... what is philosophy and what is its value?
The most successful philosophy is the one that tells a story...
Plato for example, in his dialogues, tells us a story...and usually,
in a Platonic dialogue, there is no ending, no conclusion to them..
but they do convey a history within them..
a past, present and if lucky, a future within those stories...
Read the ''Republic" and within that work, lies a story of how to
build and maintain a state.. or if one likes to think of the ''Republic"
as an example of the human soul, as some think of it, one could still
use that as a story... a story of us....of human beings.... and that is
where we, as human beings, like to see our stories... about us... and
philosophy does address that question... what does it mean to be
human, what is our origin story, and where are we right now and,
just as importantly, where are we going?
a story should at least address a future....
''and they lived happily ever after''
is a common conclusion to a fairy tale...which is something about the future...
and for us today, our conclusion, rarely, rarely ever ends with
''and they lived happily ever after'''
most stories today, end with a dystopian future...
or how do we escape our modern society/state that is
dystopian or dysfunctional or overreaching?
Think of the ''story'' of German Nazism... think of how it was built
and how it was maintained and finally destroyed.... that is a story...
and think of how many MAGA types that want to rerun that story with
IQ45, replacing Hitler...but the rest of it, follows suit... down to the
concentration camps for ''undesirables" gays, liberals, communists,
and of course, the old reliable, Jews...
and that is the siren call of the conservative today... bring back the
concentration camps.....but the value of stories today is that they
can teach us something... and what is the lesson of the Holocaust today?
That the concentration camp as a solution to society's/state problems
doesn't work.....and the real story is that no matter how many millions
of people you send to concentration camps, for whatever reasons,
that the problem, the real problem lies within those, the problems
being the perceived state of a failed state/society, lies within those
who advocate concentrations camps....in other words, the reason for
the state/society failures lie with those who think the answer is
concentration camps...they are the carriers of the illness, not
the others like the gays or liberals or trans people...
one of the stories points is to show us which values are values worth
living for/by.... and those who promote the dictatorships and concentration
camps, are living within the wrong values..... hate as a value, offers us
nothing... for in hate, we can receive back nothing other than hate itself....
if you hate or practice bigotry, that is all you will receive back...
what you plant is what you will receive... if you plant hate and bigotry
and prejudice, that is all you will get back... which is why love and peace
and hope are the answers... in those values, we receive something more than
just the value in question..... when I love, I receive more than just love,
I receive something greater than love, I also meet my psychological needs...
in which love brings back to us, safety/security, esteem, a sense of belonging,
even the self-actualization need that we can fulfill with love....
when I love and am loved, I am also meeting my psychological needs..
but when I hate or practice bigotry, I don't meet those psychological needs...
and that is the story we receive when we think about what it takes
to become successful human beings...
Philosophy is about the story of what values should we engage with,
if we want to have full, successful lives....what values are values
that we need to exist within our current state/society....
and that become another story.... we are social beings/creatures....
and what does that mean to us in terms of our actions, beliefs, and values...
if we accept the premise that we are social beings/creatures that can only
exist within a social structure, a state or society, then emotions like hate
or anger or bigotry make no sense....for anger and hate and bigotry
cannot unite us, it can only divide us... and from a social being standpoint,
with us being creatures of a state/society, then we must engage with
positive values that promote the state or the society.... to tear down
the fabric of the state/the society is to destroy the very foundation
of being human...for we must have, MUST HAVE, the state or the society
for us to be or to become human beings...the state/ the society is
a fundamental aspect of being human..... the ancient Greeks said as much,
that the only true human being was one and the same with the Polis, the city...
you cannot become a human being without the polis... in fact, their
concept of being a barbarian was fundamentally about living within the
polis/city...speaking Greek, which can only be learned in the city, was
the fundamental aspect of being human.....if you were not a member of
the state/society like being Greek, or being Roman, you were a barbarian....
you cannot separate out their idea of barbarian, with the idea of the city....
and what values make the city possible? does hate or violence or prejudice
make the city possible? No, hate and anger and prejudice divide us,
it doesn't connect us or unite us or link us or strengthen us....
the act of philosophy is to work out what values are the values we
should be engaged with... and so the story here is what past, present
and possible future values should we have, and why those values, and not
other values?
the questions of philosophy are really questions of the story of being human...
and seeking out values is just one part of that story... and we have other
stories within philosophy that we engage with? and of the top of your head,
can you name the other stories that philosophy engages with?
Kropotkin
Philosophy as a story....
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: Philosophy as a story....
the story of human beings revolves around what
helps us or allows us to become better human beings?
do the values like hate and anger and bigotry, allow us to become
better human beings? do those values allow us to become better
citizens?... and by citizens, I mean valued members of the state/society....
but unlike the American/capitalism understanding of ''valuable'' we understand
the idea of a ''valued member'' of the state/society in terms of how much
that member of society/state improved the state/society....
and a couple of really good examples would be Gandhi and MLK....
Nether one, Gandhi or King, made much of an economic impact on
the respected state/society, but made enormous social and political
impact on their state/societies.... both of them made their societies/
state better.... and we can also do so without having much money..
if, if we begin to practice holding onto values like love, honesty,
peace, hope, charity... not just as a belief, but as a ''way of life''
for example, in America today, we have many if not most people
calling themselves ''Christain'' but in fact, rarely if ever, actually
practice Christianity.... they mouth platitudes meant to make
them think, THINK,, they are Cristians, but in fact, they are
nowhere close to being a Cristian in actions...... if you reject,
as many today reject the words of Jesus, then you are not a
Christian.... it is as simple as that.... I too reject the word of
Jesus, and I am not a Christian, but I am an Atheist... and I don't
preach nor do I practice Christianity... but at least I am honest....
Many so-called Christians are just CINO... Christian in name only.....
and this hypocrisy is part of what troubles America today...
the vast majority of the GOP/MAGA party are CINO... for if you
practice hate or bigotry or hostility toward others that are different
from you, that is CINO..... IQ45 is a perfect example of a self-proclaimed
''Christian'' and doesn't practice that in real life... he is a perfect
CINO....for Jesus proclaims love as the answer, not hate or bigotry
or prejudice.... the only course of action for a true Christian,
is the path of love... to love another as your brother... anything less
is not being a Christian.......
for that is the story of our modern day....
we have three, but not only three different types of stories...
we have the religious, as we see in the above example,
but we also have the philosophical and we have the scientific
stories... and depending on which story we choose to follow,
we can have three different types of stores we can follow....
the religious, the Christian, the Buddhist, the Catholic, the Hindu,
the Jain, they are all religious stories.... and depending on which one
we choose, we can have vastly different values and beliefs to follow....
or we can choose to engage with the scientific story.... which is to
follow the facts wherever they lead....the scientific story is not
a story about the why, but a story about the how..... how the planets
were made or how the lungs work, or how did the Dinosaurs looked....
those are other stories that lead us to the how, but not to the why....
in discovering the how, we don't see the why... what does it mean
for us to know how the lungs work? it certainly won't tell us the meaning or
reason for our existence....or knowing about Dinosaurs won't tell us the
meaning or reason for our own existence....
the scientific is about the how, the philosophical is about the why...
why should we hold to these values and not other values....
what is the meaning or purpose of our existence?
philosophy can, perhaps, tell us the meaning or purpose of our existence....
and the religious, that story is about human existence in terms
of metaphysical understanding... religions tell us about the why
of existence in terms of metaphysical reasons, god, heaven, hell,
Satan, Angels....to say, as the Buddhist do, that we are always
being reborn, until we become enlightened enough to avoid being
reborn, that is a metaphysical idea.... for it has no evidence, or facts
to support that belief....there is nothing physical to point to, to allow us
to holding a belief in reincarnation.... it is metaphysical...... beyond
the physical...but that metaphysical answer is a religious answer to
the question, "what does it mean to be, to exists, or what is our purpose?"
religion tells us a different story than science or philosophy....
a different answer as to why.... what is the meaning and purpose of
human existence? and religion answer is vastly different than philosophy
and very different than the scientific.....but in the end, the religious
is just another story meant to explain our existence....
our existence in terms of why, and what does it mean, and
what values should we hold and what values should we not only hold,
but what values should we practice...
and the interesting thing about the stories we have, is that they have
many, many different and diverse aspects to them.... we can
have a multitude of different philosophical stories explaining what it
means to be human...as we do religious stories that explain the
meaning and purpose of existence... the why.......and we have,
over the years, many different and diverse stories to explain the
how of existence.... the story of evolution is one such story that
has change and evolved over the years....and the story of
thermodynamics has had several different versions over the years...
has had the scientific story of the cause of planets existence...
that has changed over the years as well.... how did the earth come
into being? that question has had a religious context, and also
a philosophical context as well as a scientific context....
so, some questions can move from the religious to the philosophical
to a scientific understanding.... and we must keep track of how we
are answering these questions, be it religious or be it philosophical
or be it scientific.... the ''mode'' we answer a question impacts
the answer we get..... if we are in the philosophical ''mode'' we will
get a different answer than if we are in the religious ''mode'' or
the scientific ''mode''.....
and the awareness of what ''modes'' we are in, makes a difference
in how we answer a question....
the different stories we tell, makes a difference in the answers we get....
and what ''modes'' those stories are in, also makes a difference....
Kropotkin
helps us or allows us to become better human beings?
do the values like hate and anger and bigotry, allow us to become
better human beings? do those values allow us to become better
citizens?... and by citizens, I mean valued members of the state/society....
but unlike the American/capitalism understanding of ''valuable'' we understand
the idea of a ''valued member'' of the state/society in terms of how much
that member of society/state improved the state/society....
and a couple of really good examples would be Gandhi and MLK....
Nether one, Gandhi or King, made much of an economic impact on
the respected state/society, but made enormous social and political
impact on their state/societies.... both of them made their societies/
state better.... and we can also do so without having much money..
if, if we begin to practice holding onto values like love, honesty,
peace, hope, charity... not just as a belief, but as a ''way of life''
for example, in America today, we have many if not most people
calling themselves ''Christain'' but in fact, rarely if ever, actually
practice Christianity.... they mouth platitudes meant to make
them think, THINK,, they are Cristians, but in fact, they are
nowhere close to being a Cristian in actions...... if you reject,
as many today reject the words of Jesus, then you are not a
Christian.... it is as simple as that.... I too reject the word of
Jesus, and I am not a Christian, but I am an Atheist... and I don't
preach nor do I practice Christianity... but at least I am honest....
Many so-called Christians are just CINO... Christian in name only.....
and this hypocrisy is part of what troubles America today...
the vast majority of the GOP/MAGA party are CINO... for if you
practice hate or bigotry or hostility toward others that are different
from you, that is CINO..... IQ45 is a perfect example of a self-proclaimed
''Christian'' and doesn't practice that in real life... he is a perfect
CINO....for Jesus proclaims love as the answer, not hate or bigotry
or prejudice.... the only course of action for a true Christian,
is the path of love... to love another as your brother... anything less
is not being a Christian.......
for that is the story of our modern day....
we have three, but not only three different types of stories...
we have the religious, as we see in the above example,
but we also have the philosophical and we have the scientific
stories... and depending on which story we choose to follow,
we can have three different types of stores we can follow....
the religious, the Christian, the Buddhist, the Catholic, the Hindu,
the Jain, they are all religious stories.... and depending on which one
we choose, we can have vastly different values and beliefs to follow....
or we can choose to engage with the scientific story.... which is to
follow the facts wherever they lead....the scientific story is not
a story about the why, but a story about the how..... how the planets
were made or how the lungs work, or how did the Dinosaurs looked....
those are other stories that lead us to the how, but not to the why....
in discovering the how, we don't see the why... what does it mean
for us to know how the lungs work? it certainly won't tell us the meaning or
reason for our existence....or knowing about Dinosaurs won't tell us the
meaning or reason for our own existence....
the scientific is about the how, the philosophical is about the why...
why should we hold to these values and not other values....
what is the meaning or purpose of our existence?
philosophy can, perhaps, tell us the meaning or purpose of our existence....
and the religious, that story is about human existence in terms
of metaphysical understanding... religions tell us about the why
of existence in terms of metaphysical reasons, god, heaven, hell,
Satan, Angels....to say, as the Buddhist do, that we are always
being reborn, until we become enlightened enough to avoid being
reborn, that is a metaphysical idea.... for it has no evidence, or facts
to support that belief....there is nothing physical to point to, to allow us
to holding a belief in reincarnation.... it is metaphysical...... beyond
the physical...but that metaphysical answer is a religious answer to
the question, "what does it mean to be, to exists, or what is our purpose?"
religion tells us a different story than science or philosophy....
a different answer as to why.... what is the meaning and purpose of
human existence? and religion answer is vastly different than philosophy
and very different than the scientific.....but in the end, the religious
is just another story meant to explain our existence....
our existence in terms of why, and what does it mean, and
what values should we hold and what values should we not only hold,
but what values should we practice...
and the interesting thing about the stories we have, is that they have
many, many different and diverse aspects to them.... we can
have a multitude of different philosophical stories explaining what it
means to be human...as we do religious stories that explain the
meaning and purpose of existence... the why.......and we have,
over the years, many different and diverse stories to explain the
how of existence.... the story of evolution is one such story that
has change and evolved over the years....and the story of
thermodynamics has had several different versions over the years...
has had the scientific story of the cause of planets existence...
that has changed over the years as well.... how did the earth come
into being? that question has had a religious context, and also
a philosophical context as well as a scientific context....
so, some questions can move from the religious to the philosophical
to a scientific understanding.... and we must keep track of how we
are answering these questions, be it religious or be it philosophical
or be it scientific.... the ''mode'' we answer a question impacts
the answer we get..... if we are in the philosophical ''mode'' we will
get a different answer than if we are in the religious ''mode'' or
the scientific ''mode''.....
and the awareness of what ''modes'' we are in, makes a difference
in how we answer a question....
the different stories we tell, makes a difference in the answers we get....
and what ''modes'' those stories are in, also makes a difference....
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: Philosophy as a story....
Part of the ''fame'' of Socrates was that he brought philosophy
down to earth... instead of engaging with cosmology, or things
like what is the ''primary'' object in the world... it is fire, or water,
or earth or ''mind''.... Socrates brought philosophy to mean
people and their interests, goals, values....
He begins with people... what does it mean to be human?
Now the Greeks, including Socrates, thought that the universe
was rational, logical, easily explainable, given it was rational,
not random or driven by chance.... which is different than we
think today... Science has shown us that the world and our place
in the world is random, chaotic, due to chance.... probability rules,
not rational thought about the universe and the world.....
but once again, we have to bring philosophy back down to earth... and
what does this mean? that our interest in metaphysics, is taking us away
from our understanding of who we are....in thinking about god or heaven or
angels or Satan, we are taking ourselves away from the earth and what is...
theological matters take us away from us working out who we are and
what it mean to be human....
if I am exploring what god does, how does that help me explore who I am?
or what is possible for me? We have to take away theological matters
from our investigations and return to such human endeavors, such as
ethics, morality, epistemology, political science.......
What is my relationship to you and to the society, supposed to look like,
what is it supposed to be? Ethics, the understanding of how we are
supposed to act and interact with each other.....and just as importantly,
why this action is better than other actions? There are many who don't believe
in equality or justice or are prejudice against certain races or people.....
their attacks on diversity for example, is that helping or hurting other people?
I believe we get further with love and peace and hope and charity, then
we do with hate and violence and anger and prejudice....to my mind,
there is no place for hate or injustice or prejudice in the world....
equality or diversity is the path to go.... but the question becomes, why
is this path of diversity and equality and love, a better path than hatred or
injustice or prejudice?
I believe in the power of love instead of the power of hate.... love,
or as been said, you reap what you sow.... and I would rather reap love,
than reap hate..... I believe the world to be a better place when love
is the dominant belief, not when hate or violence is the dominant belief...
which beliefs hold to the betterment of the future?
given that we reap what we sow?
Love, peace, non-violence, joy, beauty, charity, honesty,
or to put it in a brief term, democracy.... I hold that what comes
from democracy and diversity, creates a better life, both today and
tomorrow....think of the Nazi Germany has been a bearer of ill tidings,
of hate, violence, anti-beauty, dictatorship, anti-life......
think of that world... a dark world...with no joy or love or hope or
justice or equality or beauty...... think of the rights and privileges
that the Nazi's took away... the right to vote (one party vote is not the right
to vote) the right to love whomever you want to love, the right to self
determination, everything one did, everything was about the state
and not one own individual self... Nazi Germany practice bigotry,
prejudice as public policy... what beliefs do you want?
and do they include prejudice and bigotry? or, or do you want
justice and equality, diversity? if we accept the maxim, that
you reap what you sow, then it would make sense to reap kindness
and love and hope and peace and charity, to name a few values worth
having.... and that is the story of philosophy.....
What values should we hold and why those values, and not other values?
But that is the point of philosophy.... to discover what values are worth
holding and why those values and not other values?
and where does public policy fit into here? how does housing and traffic
and libraries and roads, public policy debate, fit into this question of values?
if we put human beings first, then we have the ''welfare state"... if we hold
to money, as a value being first, then we engage with such public policy
as denying people their right to love who they want and vote as they are
told, and be the person that puts the state first, not themselves.........
my philosophy story is about expanding who we are, not narrowing
human beings to a set and determined self.....the freedom to
become who we are, not to become what we are told to be.....
but for many, being told what to become, is safer, is less fearful...
to have someone tell me who I am, take both responsibility and freedom
away from me.... I don't have to choose, and that is scary... someone
else is choosing for me...
I want to put the burden, the responsibility of life back onto the
people....and that is the value of having role models... like MLK
and Gandhi.... and Socrates... let us follow the example of the
best of us, not the worse of us....follow Gandhi instead of Hitler,
follow MLK instead of IQ45, let us follow Socrates instead of
Jordan Peterson...
the story of philosophy is also one of which role model shall we
follow and why that role model? I have taken to several role models,
Socrates to be sure, but also Nietzsche and Spinoza....and in some small
way, Kierkegaard, Henry Adams, and Kazantzakis, and Colin Wilson....
as role models.... and why these people and not others? I see them
as being role models of choice.... what choices should I make and what
choices can't I make, about who I am to be?
the story of philosophy isn't just about epistemological questions
or metaphysical questions or logical questions about existence,
but philosophy is also about our choices and possibilities and
our role models.....
what choices can you make and why those choices? that is philosophy...
Who do you wish to emulate? that is philosophy....
Who is your role model? that too, is philosophy.....
how should we treat each other? that too is philosophy....
Which values should I hold to? and that too is philosophy....
which god should I follow? and that is not philosophy,
that is theology... for theology is rarely about our choices....
for in theology, we are determined already by god....
I would rather be held accountable by my own values, my own
beliefs...instead of a theology value... or even scientific values
Kropotkin
down to earth... instead of engaging with cosmology, or things
like what is the ''primary'' object in the world... it is fire, or water,
or earth or ''mind''.... Socrates brought philosophy to mean
people and their interests, goals, values....
He begins with people... what does it mean to be human?
Now the Greeks, including Socrates, thought that the universe
was rational, logical, easily explainable, given it was rational,
not random or driven by chance.... which is different than we
think today... Science has shown us that the world and our place
in the world is random, chaotic, due to chance.... probability rules,
not rational thought about the universe and the world.....
but once again, we have to bring philosophy back down to earth... and
what does this mean? that our interest in metaphysics, is taking us away
from our understanding of who we are....in thinking about god or heaven or
angels or Satan, we are taking ourselves away from the earth and what is...
theological matters take us away from us working out who we are and
what it mean to be human....
if I am exploring what god does, how does that help me explore who I am?
or what is possible for me? We have to take away theological matters
from our investigations and return to such human endeavors, such as
ethics, morality, epistemology, political science.......
What is my relationship to you and to the society, supposed to look like,
what is it supposed to be? Ethics, the understanding of how we are
supposed to act and interact with each other.....and just as importantly,
why this action is better than other actions? There are many who don't believe
in equality or justice or are prejudice against certain races or people.....
their attacks on diversity for example, is that helping or hurting other people?
I believe we get further with love and peace and hope and charity, then
we do with hate and violence and anger and prejudice....to my mind,
there is no place for hate or injustice or prejudice in the world....
equality or diversity is the path to go.... but the question becomes, why
is this path of diversity and equality and love, a better path than hatred or
injustice or prejudice?
I believe in the power of love instead of the power of hate.... love,
or as been said, you reap what you sow.... and I would rather reap love,
than reap hate..... I believe the world to be a better place when love
is the dominant belief, not when hate or violence is the dominant belief...
which beliefs hold to the betterment of the future?
given that we reap what we sow?
Love, peace, non-violence, joy, beauty, charity, honesty,
or to put it in a brief term, democracy.... I hold that what comes
from democracy and diversity, creates a better life, both today and
tomorrow....think of the Nazi Germany has been a bearer of ill tidings,
of hate, violence, anti-beauty, dictatorship, anti-life......
think of that world... a dark world...with no joy or love or hope or
justice or equality or beauty...... think of the rights and privileges
that the Nazi's took away... the right to vote (one party vote is not the right
to vote) the right to love whomever you want to love, the right to self
determination, everything one did, everything was about the state
and not one own individual self... Nazi Germany practice bigotry,
prejudice as public policy... what beliefs do you want?
and do they include prejudice and bigotry? or, or do you want
justice and equality, diversity? if we accept the maxim, that
you reap what you sow, then it would make sense to reap kindness
and love and hope and peace and charity, to name a few values worth
having.... and that is the story of philosophy.....
What values should we hold and why those values, and not other values?
But that is the point of philosophy.... to discover what values are worth
holding and why those values and not other values?
and where does public policy fit into here? how does housing and traffic
and libraries and roads, public policy debate, fit into this question of values?
if we put human beings first, then we have the ''welfare state"... if we hold
to money, as a value being first, then we engage with such public policy
as denying people their right to love who they want and vote as they are
told, and be the person that puts the state first, not themselves.........
my philosophy story is about expanding who we are, not narrowing
human beings to a set and determined self.....the freedom to
become who we are, not to become what we are told to be.....
but for many, being told what to become, is safer, is less fearful...
to have someone tell me who I am, take both responsibility and freedom
away from me.... I don't have to choose, and that is scary... someone
else is choosing for me...
I want to put the burden, the responsibility of life back onto the
people....and that is the value of having role models... like MLK
and Gandhi.... and Socrates... let us follow the example of the
best of us, not the worse of us....follow Gandhi instead of Hitler,
follow MLK instead of IQ45, let us follow Socrates instead of
Jordan Peterson...
the story of philosophy is also one of which role model shall we
follow and why that role model? I have taken to several role models,
Socrates to be sure, but also Nietzsche and Spinoza....and in some small
way, Kierkegaard, Henry Adams, and Kazantzakis, and Colin Wilson....
as role models.... and why these people and not others? I see them
as being role models of choice.... what choices should I make and what
choices can't I make, about who I am to be?
the story of philosophy isn't just about epistemological questions
or metaphysical questions or logical questions about existence,
but philosophy is also about our choices and possibilities and
our role models.....
what choices can you make and why those choices? that is philosophy...
Who do you wish to emulate? that is philosophy....
Who is your role model? that too, is philosophy.....
how should we treat each other? that too is philosophy....
Which values should I hold to? and that too is philosophy....
which god should I follow? and that is not philosophy,
that is theology... for theology is rarely about our choices....
for in theology, we are determined already by god....
I would rather be held accountable by my own values, my own
beliefs...instead of a theology value... or even scientific values
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: Philosophy as a story....
one of the questions for me, is what branches of philosophy,
should we attend to and what branches should we remove or
ignore?
I am good with epistemology, and political science and ethics/morality,
and esthetics and even logic....
but notice, I do not include theology... and why?
questions that are valid in one age, are not in another age......
as science has removed much of the ''how'' questions and thus we can also
remove theology from the why list...... we accept the scientific theory of
the big bang, because there is enough evidence to accept it as a theory...
the facts support the big bang theory.... there are no fact/evidence to
support a theory that god somehow created the universe....
and that theory, had impact and influence in people's lives because
the situation they lived in, allowed them to hold that theory.....
but given that science has removed much of the theories of
religion/theology, we can't go back home again.....
the environment has changed enough that we can no longer support
any type of theory that allows for a god or for theology....
as I have noted elsewhere, human beings as hunter/gatherers were not
theological beings... that came with the next economic phase which was
pastoral and that continued through the next economic stage, which we live
in today, the urban/city life.... hunter/gatherers thought in terms of
what we would call today, magical thinking, the exact same way a small
child engages in magical thinking.... a dog might walk up to a child, the
child might not notice and suddenly, there is a dog there... magically....
the child will simply accept that, as magic... not theological, but as magic....
the point about magical thinking is there is no cause and effect for a child....
things just happen magically and there is no need to think about it or wonder
about it... it just happened....
the next stage, the pastoral stage, is where human beings discover cause
and effect... we, most of us, move slowly, very, very slowly from magical
thinking to theological thinking...from something to just showing up,
to us wondering why, cause and effect of that something just showing up.....
and our thinking of cause and effect, theological thinking has lasted for
many centuries... roughly for 5000 years... that coincided with the rise
of the urban/city living that we have had for 5000 years....
the environment, in many ways, creates the ways of thought, what
we believe in, and which values we hold.......
today, we exists in a very different environment, the environment
is a mixture of economic/political/social/ and philosophical ways of life...
or to say it another way, our environment dictates in a very large way,
our beliefs and values..... our new way of life, the Industrial Revolution
and the current information revolution, has dramatically changed
how we think about cause and effect and, AND, our values and beliefs....
in our modern industrial world, magical thinking has no place in it...
we must organize ourselves in very structure ways of cause and effect or
the entire system may collapse.... the entire modern way of life depends
on having the right cause and effect to every aspect of our lives.....
but today, we have gotten to the environment to where even
theological thinking no longer works for us....Capitalism is
theological thinking... the ''invisible hand of god'' makes
private vices, somehow, work for the public good....that is
magical thinking, moving backwards past theological thinking for a moment......
instead of hoping, and that is exactly what people do when they
think about the ''market forces'', of how magical thinking will
keep the market on track... the magical thinking of supply and demand...
will somehow, keep in the market in balance....
Capitalism, the market depends a great deal on magical forces, like
supply and demand and private vices, somehow becoming public
good....so, Kropotkin, what are you suggesting?
I am suggesting instead of relying on magic or god, let
take control over our economics system.... let us be in charge,
instead of magical or theological thinking.... If I want to hold to
the value of equality, then the economic system must reflect that...
if I am to hold to legal equality, then the value of justice must
be enforced....if I am to hold to political equality, then everyone
must be able to vote and have a public say in their lives......
if I am to hold to economic equality, then we must work toward that
goal..... in which we can use part of or all of socialism or even communism....
as we do today.... America is not really a capitalistic society, but a mixed
economic society... but we hold onto vestiges of our ''invisible hand''
economics... where we engage in magical thinking about how we are
to live economically....and the interesting thing is unlike Marx,
we don't hold to the takeover of the economic system by the
''working class'' will be a long term thing... it will pass just as quickly
as capitalism has passed into the past..... an relic of an age that
no longer exists...
a new technological discovery could overthrow everything, a
new way of thinking about economics could change everything,
aliens landing on earth could, dramatically change everything
we know today..... where we take our notion of political equality,
and use it on our economics... where everyone shares in the wealth,
equally.... and I suspect, this is the path that the Aliens that will
eventually reach earth, has taken... the powers to be, share and
share alike... there is no upper or lower class, there is just one class,
and everyone share equally, economically, socially, politically, legally
and philosophically.... I cannot see any other way as to
how an alien society/state can reach it maxim state without equality.....
a state/society that is unequal, will eventually destroy itself over
inequality... that so dominates our society/our state today.....
social, political, economic and legal inequality will bring about
the end of America.. as it has brought about the end of every
civilization and society/state that has ever lived.....
for example, would have England have survived without its
political and legal drive to equality.... England has survived
because the upper classes gave its lower citizens relative,
relative equality, both politically and legally....
and the next step is the drive, which we can begin to hear, is
the drive to economic equality.....it is not enough to have
social, political or legal equality, we must also have economic
equality for a society/state to last... Marx and his opening statement
for the establishment of economic equality is just the opening remarks
to which we shall many, many such calls for economic equality....
what is the story you want to hear going forward?
what economic or social or political or legal, story you want
to change to improve our state/society?
how do we become better people and, AND a better society/state?
equality is the answer.... social, political, economic, legal and
philosophical equality for all persons on that state/society....
Kropotkin
should we attend to and what branches should we remove or
ignore?
I am good with epistemology, and political science and ethics/morality,
and esthetics and even logic....
but notice, I do not include theology... and why?
questions that are valid in one age, are not in another age......
as science has removed much of the ''how'' questions and thus we can also
remove theology from the why list...... we accept the scientific theory of
the big bang, because there is enough evidence to accept it as a theory...
the facts support the big bang theory.... there are no fact/evidence to
support a theory that god somehow created the universe....
and that theory, had impact and influence in people's lives because
the situation they lived in, allowed them to hold that theory.....
but given that science has removed much of the theories of
religion/theology, we can't go back home again.....
the environment has changed enough that we can no longer support
any type of theory that allows for a god or for theology....
as I have noted elsewhere, human beings as hunter/gatherers were not
theological beings... that came with the next economic phase which was
pastoral and that continued through the next economic stage, which we live
in today, the urban/city life.... hunter/gatherers thought in terms of
what we would call today, magical thinking, the exact same way a small
child engages in magical thinking.... a dog might walk up to a child, the
child might not notice and suddenly, there is a dog there... magically....
the child will simply accept that, as magic... not theological, but as magic....
the point about magical thinking is there is no cause and effect for a child....
things just happen magically and there is no need to think about it or wonder
about it... it just happened....
the next stage, the pastoral stage, is where human beings discover cause
and effect... we, most of us, move slowly, very, very slowly from magical
thinking to theological thinking...from something to just showing up,
to us wondering why, cause and effect of that something just showing up.....
and our thinking of cause and effect, theological thinking has lasted for
many centuries... roughly for 5000 years... that coincided with the rise
of the urban/city living that we have had for 5000 years....
the environment, in many ways, creates the ways of thought, what
we believe in, and which values we hold.......
today, we exists in a very different environment, the environment
is a mixture of economic/political/social/ and philosophical ways of life...
or to say it another way, our environment dictates in a very large way,
our beliefs and values..... our new way of life, the Industrial Revolution
and the current information revolution, has dramatically changed
how we think about cause and effect and, AND, our values and beliefs....
in our modern industrial world, magical thinking has no place in it...
we must organize ourselves in very structure ways of cause and effect or
the entire system may collapse.... the entire modern way of life depends
on having the right cause and effect to every aspect of our lives.....
but today, we have gotten to the environment to where even
theological thinking no longer works for us....Capitalism is
theological thinking... the ''invisible hand of god'' makes
private vices, somehow, work for the public good....that is
magical thinking, moving backwards past theological thinking for a moment......
instead of hoping, and that is exactly what people do when they
think about the ''market forces'', of how magical thinking will
keep the market on track... the magical thinking of supply and demand...
will somehow, keep in the market in balance....
Capitalism, the market depends a great deal on magical forces, like
supply and demand and private vices, somehow becoming public
good....so, Kropotkin, what are you suggesting?
I am suggesting instead of relying on magic or god, let
take control over our economics system.... let us be in charge,
instead of magical or theological thinking.... If I want to hold to
the value of equality, then the economic system must reflect that...
if I am to hold to legal equality, then the value of justice must
be enforced....if I am to hold to political equality, then everyone
must be able to vote and have a public say in their lives......
if I am to hold to economic equality, then we must work toward that
goal..... in which we can use part of or all of socialism or even communism....
as we do today.... America is not really a capitalistic society, but a mixed
economic society... but we hold onto vestiges of our ''invisible hand''
economics... where we engage in magical thinking about how we are
to live economically....and the interesting thing is unlike Marx,
we don't hold to the takeover of the economic system by the
''working class'' will be a long term thing... it will pass just as quickly
as capitalism has passed into the past..... an relic of an age that
no longer exists...
a new technological discovery could overthrow everything, a
new way of thinking about economics could change everything,
aliens landing on earth could, dramatically change everything
we know today..... where we take our notion of political equality,
and use it on our economics... where everyone shares in the wealth,
equally.... and I suspect, this is the path that the Aliens that will
eventually reach earth, has taken... the powers to be, share and
share alike... there is no upper or lower class, there is just one class,
and everyone share equally, economically, socially, politically, legally
and philosophically.... I cannot see any other way as to
how an alien society/state can reach it maxim state without equality.....
a state/society that is unequal, will eventually destroy itself over
inequality... that so dominates our society/our state today.....
social, political, economic and legal inequality will bring about
the end of America.. as it has brought about the end of every
civilization and society/state that has ever lived.....
for example, would have England have survived without its
political and legal drive to equality.... England has survived
because the upper classes gave its lower citizens relative,
relative equality, both politically and legally....
and the next step is the drive, which we can begin to hear, is
the drive to economic equality.....it is not enough to have
social, political or legal equality, we must also have economic
equality for a society/state to last... Marx and his opening statement
for the establishment of economic equality is just the opening remarks
to which we shall many, many such calls for economic equality....
what is the story you want to hear going forward?
what economic or social or political or legal, story you want
to change to improve our state/society?
how do we become better people and, AND a better society/state?
equality is the answer.... social, political, economic, legal and
philosophical equality for all persons on that state/society....
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: Philosophy as a story....
I have been reading, writing and thinking about
philosophy for over 40 years..... and to this day, I still
haven't found a book written or a philosopher's take on what
is life, to be a ''balm'' to my soul..... every single philosopher I have
read, has been both right, well, except Rand, and she is an idiot...
and wrong... but mostly wrong.....if there was a school of thought
that I have spent the most time with, it would be the existentialists....
and the major problem I have with them, is there all basically
negative.... I would love to have an existentialist's who is a
positive thinker.... the emphasis in existentialism is the fear of death,
but why not explore the possibilities of life, as a positive, not as a negative...
Life is not a burden or a fate to avoided, but something that has value
and is worth the effort....
and when writers like Heidegger who write about ''being'' but really
mean god, or like Kierkegaard who thinks in terms of the religious/god,
whereas the ethical is only possible in terms of our relationship with
religions or god....whereas I hold that ethical thought and behavior,
don't have a religious/god base to refer back to.... how to be ethical
without any religious or god reference, is my goal....
and that was part of Nietzsche's efforts... to create a morality/ethics without
a god or a religion.... with its values being based on human values, not
supernatural values.... and what human values can we use to establish
ethical or morals upon?
and here, for me anyway, has been the goal of philosophy
to establish moral and ethical standards with no reference to
any supernatural entity...
and as ethics/morals is something beyond just personal values,
it has a collective value... in other words, it is not enough to say,
my own personal values are peace, love and charity, hope and honor....
I have to be able to turn those personal values into collective values....
and how do I hold/turn these personal values into collective values?
and why does it matter if we don't have personal values turned into
collective values? the bottom line here is simple, the point of the ethical/
moral values is to establish how am I to act and interact with you?
to think of it this way, individually, as a single person, we have
no need for morals/ethics.... does Robinson Crusoe have any need
for ethics/morals? not until Friday shows up, is there any need
for morals or ethics....
one of the starting points of morals/ethics is the one on one relationship
that we have... how am I to act/interact with another person? but the reality
is that it is rare, very rare, that we deal with people, one on one....
for the most part, we interact with people within a group, two or more
setting.... let us suppose this... we/you have a group of friends... and one
of the friends is turning into a dick... and creating conflict and trouble
within the friendship group.... what can be the response of that group?
that is the basic point of ethics/morals.....and quite often the group's
response may very well be to kick the ''immoral'' person out of the group....
and I have seen this within group dynamics... but not always......
for whatever reason, the group allows this person to stay, and
the conflicts and trouble with continue until the person either reforms
their behavior or they leave the group....and both are possible.....
but that group dynamic, that is ethics and morals on a larger scale....
and how do we establish the ''rules'' and ''laws'' in regard to larger
group dynamics? and which ''rules'' ''laws'' do we use in larger
group dynamics?
for the most part, part of the reason that we have an ''unsettled''
America, is our collective response to actions taken....
for example, we have a police officer shoot an unarmed civilian,
and the example given is, they, the policeman, was afraid for his life....
so, instead of shooting, back away from the situation... walk away...
if you are so afraid.... but for the most part, what we do, within
thinking about this situation, is what is referred to as ''situational ethics''
which is to say, our use of ethics/morals is based upon the ''situation''
to shoot or not to shoot, is based on the situation... not on any
basic rules or laws...
and one of the basic problems with this type of ''situational ethics''
is that we have a wide variety of actions and punishments because
each situation seems to be different....so, in one case, we send a
policeman to jail, in another, virtually exact same situation, we might
fire them and in the third situation, we might do nothing...
that is one of the major problems with situational ethics as
an ethical/moral theory.... a very wide range of possibilities/
variations can exist as punishment for the same action...
it leaves us without any guidelines if we have no sense of what
might/will happen in any given action... will I be punished for
this action or will I be rewarded or will I just be ignored....
and that is one of the major problems with situational ethics.....
if the situation dictates the ethics, then we may have several
possible punishments as a results....
but to create a ''rule'' a punishment for every action, may mean that
we fail to take into account all possibilities for that action.....and we
may miss being fair in regard to someone ''rule breaking''.....
and the key word here is fair..... which is just another word for just...
and justice is the key point here..... and what is justice, legal, political,
social, and economic justice? the term justice means equal.... that we
treat people equally in terms of the legal process, the political process,
the social process and the economic process...for justice means equality.....
and we can return to our situational ethics debate by bringing justice into
the equation.....to treat everyone differently by punishing differently
based on actions taken, if one police officer kills an unarmed citizen
based on a personal fear, then every single police officer must
be punished equally, if the claim is that ''they are afraid'', of an
unarmed citizen, for there to be justice in this situation....
the other day, in St. Louis Missouri, a police officer lost control of
his car and crashed into a will known gay bar... the owner came down
and was upset, as he should be, and he, the bar owner was arrested,
and jailed... but was any action taken against the police officer?
nope.... and that situation fails the justice test...
for there was no equality between the two responses...
one was punished and the other was not, even though
the creator of the situation, the police officer, began the
entire incident...he was not punished.... that is not justice...
the equal treatment of two people.... as we treat one person,
we must treat the other.. exactly the same.... or there isn't justice...
within this idea of justice/equality, we can create a full and meaningful
rules and laws for us, individually and collectively....
in other words, we can create morals and ethics, based on the
idea that justice is the practice of equality....
and that the only way to engage with justice is to practice
people being treated equally...and we can use that principle to
work out a theory of ethics/of morals.....
that does not start or end with any type of supernatural
ethics/morals......
we must judge, treat and punish people with justice, which
means equally.... so, we don't treat IQ45 differently than we
do Joe Blow from Ohio... we pass laws with an equal status
for both, on both actions and on punishments.....
if we are willing to treat people with justice, treat them the same,
then I am willing to drop or end quotas...for example, schools must
have certain races within them... or that blacks get a certain % of federal
funding... if we were to treat people equally, then I am willing to drop
those standards... but the key point must be that we treat people
equally...with justice... if a school has ''certain things'', those ''certain
things'' must be shared or within each school....
and what is the point of our society/state.. if we take justice/equality
as our primary ethical/moral value?
which means we no longer take, as we do today, winning and losing
as our final value.... in taking to justice/equality as our primary value,
winning and losing, in any activity, no longer makes any sense....
the goal and point of a society is not to win or lose, but to be just
and fair to everyone in that society/state.....
and this changes the very meaning of the state... no longer are we
concerned with winning or losing, we are focused on justice/equality
of its citizens... we no longer pass laws that favor one group over another
based on the equality theory of government....and thus we no longer
pass laws favoring individuals over another... for example,
the tax rate for all groups should be the same.... the wealthy can
no longer ''buy'' politicians to reduce their tax rate.... or corporations
buy politicians or political parties to reduce or end their taxes...
as, for example, Exxon-Mobile has turned congress into a subdivision/
subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile...if you buy enough politicians in any political
party, that party now works for you.. as the Kock brothers bought the
the entire state legislators of Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and are trying to
buy more state legislators....to benefit themselves.... but that isn't justice...
nor is it equality.... and on that basis, it must end.... one of the primary
goals of our newfound knowledge, will be to end the court case of
''citizens united"... that is the only way we can return to our primary
value of justice/equality....of treating others as equal... for that is justice....
and that is the point of philosophy.... to work out what values we have
and what values we should have and why those values and not others....
Kropotkin
philosophy for over 40 years..... and to this day, I still
haven't found a book written or a philosopher's take on what
is life, to be a ''balm'' to my soul..... every single philosopher I have
read, has been both right, well, except Rand, and she is an idiot...
and wrong... but mostly wrong.....if there was a school of thought
that I have spent the most time with, it would be the existentialists....
and the major problem I have with them, is there all basically
negative.... I would love to have an existentialist's who is a
positive thinker.... the emphasis in existentialism is the fear of death,
but why not explore the possibilities of life, as a positive, not as a negative...
Life is not a burden or a fate to avoided, but something that has value
and is worth the effort....
and when writers like Heidegger who write about ''being'' but really
mean god, or like Kierkegaard who thinks in terms of the religious/god,
whereas the ethical is only possible in terms of our relationship with
religions or god....whereas I hold that ethical thought and behavior,
don't have a religious/god base to refer back to.... how to be ethical
without any religious or god reference, is my goal....
and that was part of Nietzsche's efforts... to create a morality/ethics without
a god or a religion.... with its values being based on human values, not
supernatural values.... and what human values can we use to establish
ethical or morals upon?
and here, for me anyway, has been the goal of philosophy
to establish moral and ethical standards with no reference to
any supernatural entity...
and as ethics/morals is something beyond just personal values,
it has a collective value... in other words, it is not enough to say,
my own personal values are peace, love and charity, hope and honor....
I have to be able to turn those personal values into collective values....
and how do I hold/turn these personal values into collective values?
and why does it matter if we don't have personal values turned into
collective values? the bottom line here is simple, the point of the ethical/
moral values is to establish how am I to act and interact with you?
to think of it this way, individually, as a single person, we have
no need for morals/ethics.... does Robinson Crusoe have any need
for ethics/morals? not until Friday shows up, is there any need
for morals or ethics....
one of the starting points of morals/ethics is the one on one relationship
that we have... how am I to act/interact with another person? but the reality
is that it is rare, very rare, that we deal with people, one on one....
for the most part, we interact with people within a group, two or more
setting.... let us suppose this... we/you have a group of friends... and one
of the friends is turning into a dick... and creating conflict and trouble
within the friendship group.... what can be the response of that group?
that is the basic point of ethics/morals.....and quite often the group's
response may very well be to kick the ''immoral'' person out of the group....
and I have seen this within group dynamics... but not always......
for whatever reason, the group allows this person to stay, and
the conflicts and trouble with continue until the person either reforms
their behavior or they leave the group....and both are possible.....
but that group dynamic, that is ethics and morals on a larger scale....
and how do we establish the ''rules'' and ''laws'' in regard to larger
group dynamics? and which ''rules'' ''laws'' do we use in larger
group dynamics?
for the most part, part of the reason that we have an ''unsettled''
America, is our collective response to actions taken....
for example, we have a police officer shoot an unarmed civilian,
and the example given is, they, the policeman, was afraid for his life....
so, instead of shooting, back away from the situation... walk away...
if you are so afraid.... but for the most part, what we do, within
thinking about this situation, is what is referred to as ''situational ethics''
which is to say, our use of ethics/morals is based upon the ''situation''
to shoot or not to shoot, is based on the situation... not on any
basic rules or laws...
and one of the basic problems with this type of ''situational ethics''
is that we have a wide variety of actions and punishments because
each situation seems to be different....so, in one case, we send a
policeman to jail, in another, virtually exact same situation, we might
fire them and in the third situation, we might do nothing...
that is one of the major problems with situational ethics as
an ethical/moral theory.... a very wide range of possibilities/
variations can exist as punishment for the same action...
it leaves us without any guidelines if we have no sense of what
might/will happen in any given action... will I be punished for
this action or will I be rewarded or will I just be ignored....
and that is one of the major problems with situational ethics.....
if the situation dictates the ethics, then we may have several
possible punishments as a results....
but to create a ''rule'' a punishment for every action, may mean that
we fail to take into account all possibilities for that action.....and we
may miss being fair in regard to someone ''rule breaking''.....
and the key word here is fair..... which is just another word for just...
and justice is the key point here..... and what is justice, legal, political,
social, and economic justice? the term justice means equal.... that we
treat people equally in terms of the legal process, the political process,
the social process and the economic process...for justice means equality.....
and we can return to our situational ethics debate by bringing justice into
the equation.....to treat everyone differently by punishing differently
based on actions taken, if one police officer kills an unarmed citizen
based on a personal fear, then every single police officer must
be punished equally, if the claim is that ''they are afraid'', of an
unarmed citizen, for there to be justice in this situation....
the other day, in St. Louis Missouri, a police officer lost control of
his car and crashed into a will known gay bar... the owner came down
and was upset, as he should be, and he, the bar owner was arrested,
and jailed... but was any action taken against the police officer?
nope.... and that situation fails the justice test...
for there was no equality between the two responses...
one was punished and the other was not, even though
the creator of the situation, the police officer, began the
entire incident...he was not punished.... that is not justice...
the equal treatment of two people.... as we treat one person,
we must treat the other.. exactly the same.... or there isn't justice...
within this idea of justice/equality, we can create a full and meaningful
rules and laws for us, individually and collectively....
in other words, we can create morals and ethics, based on the
idea that justice is the practice of equality....
and that the only way to engage with justice is to practice
people being treated equally...and we can use that principle to
work out a theory of ethics/of morals.....
that does not start or end with any type of supernatural
ethics/morals......
we must judge, treat and punish people with justice, which
means equally.... so, we don't treat IQ45 differently than we
do Joe Blow from Ohio... we pass laws with an equal status
for both, on both actions and on punishments.....
if we are willing to treat people with justice, treat them the same,
then I am willing to drop or end quotas...for example, schools must
have certain races within them... or that blacks get a certain % of federal
funding... if we were to treat people equally, then I am willing to drop
those standards... but the key point must be that we treat people
equally...with justice... if a school has ''certain things'', those ''certain
things'' must be shared or within each school....
and what is the point of our society/state.. if we take justice/equality
as our primary ethical/moral value?
which means we no longer take, as we do today, winning and losing
as our final value.... in taking to justice/equality as our primary value,
winning and losing, in any activity, no longer makes any sense....
the goal and point of a society is not to win or lose, but to be just
and fair to everyone in that society/state.....
and this changes the very meaning of the state... no longer are we
concerned with winning or losing, we are focused on justice/equality
of its citizens... we no longer pass laws that favor one group over another
based on the equality theory of government....and thus we no longer
pass laws favoring individuals over another... for example,
the tax rate for all groups should be the same.... the wealthy can
no longer ''buy'' politicians to reduce their tax rate.... or corporations
buy politicians or political parties to reduce or end their taxes...
as, for example, Exxon-Mobile has turned congress into a subdivision/
subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile...if you buy enough politicians in any political
party, that party now works for you.. as the Kock brothers bought the
the entire state legislators of Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and are trying to
buy more state legislators....to benefit themselves.... but that isn't justice...
nor is it equality.... and on that basis, it must end.... one of the primary
goals of our newfound knowledge, will be to end the court case of
''citizens united"... that is the only way we can return to our primary
value of justice/equality....of treating others as equal... for that is justice....
and that is the point of philosophy.... to work out what values we have
and what values we should have and why those values and not others....
Kropotkin
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: Philosophy as a story....
one of the basic, primary questions of existence, is or really must
be, what does it mean to be human? the Kantian questions of
"What am I to do?" ''What should I believe in?" ''What can I know?"
on this dark, cold and rainy day, what should I do, or even better,
what should I be doing? I am spending this day, reading, I have finished
up one book, a recent book, a biography of Plato... and I have started
another book, one I have read often... Irrational Man.. by William Barrett...
at times, I return to books I have read many time before... to regain
inspiration, as it were... and one of my questions, among many, is
what are we to do?... should I be reading and writing or should I be
engage in something ''better'' or should I be engaged, as I am right now,
in writing out new philosophy......or should I be doing something
entirely different?
what story should I be working out, or engaged with?
one of the political problems, one of, is that people want
to pick out candidates, that have experience...
in other words, they choose experience over theory....
and they choose to political office, one's who are experience
in political affairs... the Majority of those running for office
in America, are already experienced politicians...
using a lower office to run for a higher office...
and touting their experience in that lower office, as
a possible building block for a higher office...
practical experience over theoretical experience...
and using this as an example, has the last several presidents
improved your life in some fashion? If asked, most would say no....
or would answer that marginally, their lives have improved....
and I would suggest that the reason for this has been the
politicians themselves.... we vote for politicians that have made
politics as their occupation.....their job... and in doing so as a worker,
what does any worker strive for in doing their job? titles,
higher paycheck, more power.... as does any politician... but this
has absolutely nothing to do with the real task of the state...
which is to improve a citizen's life..... IQ45 goal, as president, was
to make money... now he is running for president, as he has publicly
stated, to avoid jail... IQ45 has no interest, of any kind, in working
for justice within our system, or work for equality or work for a better
state/society.... he won't make any money that way.... and that is his
avowed goal... and has been for all his life... to make money....
why else would he have start business after business after business...
or has anyone forgotten ''Trump Steaks'' or "Trump University'' or perhaps
''Trump Airlines'' the creation of these businesses had no other value
then to make IQ45 money.... and that is the only value he offers us
today, a way to make himself money.... it has nothing to do with
seeking out justice or equality or truth or love.... just money...
and the great value of a political state is that it should have
nothing to do with making a profit... for that isn't the goal of
a state....to make its citizens better off, yes, but to make money, no.....
and that is why IQ45 is the wrong person for being president......
one of the primary purposes of the state is to seek out justice/equality
for all its citizens, not just the wealthy, connected ones.....
and we can see from an examination of values, which candidate should
be president... and it ain't IQ45...
and if we accept the idea that the point of philosophy is to examine values,
which values should we hold, then we should put those who are
philosophically inclined for president, and not those who only goal/purpose
is to make money or seek out titles, power, fame, or material possessions....
as I have stated before, to seek out those trinkets of existence, is to
seek out temporary values... whereas seeking out permanent values like
justice/equality, love, freedom, peace, are values worth seeking out
and promoting in both our private and public life....
but in seeking out an office like the Presidency, one has to sell out,
to work in the world of money, power, fame, material possession
and titles... to make bargains with the devil, as it were....
to be held hostage by the very forces that allowed one to be elected
as president....you have to offer/promise the material objects to
certain people, groups or business entities to get elected....
and those very promises makes one as president, an unwise choice....
and so, we hit a road block... basically, one who wants to be president
really shouldn't be president....they are driven by the values that
undermine our lives... greed, corruption, bribery, fraud, malfeasance,
and the loss of moral values come basically from those who only goal is
to gain the trinkets of existence..... power, fame, titles, wealth,
material possessions...if we put those values above values like
justice/equality, then we see why we have the failure of government
in America over these last few decades.... they, the government and those
within the government, are pursuing the wrong values...
But Kropotkin, you are asking for saints to be president...no, I am
asking for philosophers to be president, not saints.... to pursue
a value worth pursuing, instead of pursuing values that undermine
and make worthless, values like justice/equality, peace, charity,
hope, love....those are values worth pursuing, not the trinkets of
existence.... and we should support people who values are positive
values, like justice and hope and peace and love... not to support
hate or anger or bigotry or those who follow injustice....
the question is not what policy will that person hold, but what values
does that person hold? that is the real political question....
we should be working toward, not what public policy, say in taxation,
but in what values drive that public policy toward taxation.....
and in terms of taxation, we should be engaged with justice/equality
in questions of taxation.....
Kropotkin
be, what does it mean to be human? the Kantian questions of
"What am I to do?" ''What should I believe in?" ''What can I know?"
on this dark, cold and rainy day, what should I do, or even better,
what should I be doing? I am spending this day, reading, I have finished
up one book, a recent book, a biography of Plato... and I have started
another book, one I have read often... Irrational Man.. by William Barrett...
at times, I return to books I have read many time before... to regain
inspiration, as it were... and one of my questions, among many, is
what are we to do?... should I be reading and writing or should I be
engage in something ''better'' or should I be engaged, as I am right now,
in writing out new philosophy......or should I be doing something
entirely different?
what story should I be working out, or engaged with?
one of the political problems, one of, is that people want
to pick out candidates, that have experience...
in other words, they choose experience over theory....
and they choose to political office, one's who are experience
in political affairs... the Majority of those running for office
in America, are already experienced politicians...
using a lower office to run for a higher office...
and touting their experience in that lower office, as
a possible building block for a higher office...
practical experience over theoretical experience...
and using this as an example, has the last several presidents
improved your life in some fashion? If asked, most would say no....
or would answer that marginally, their lives have improved....
and I would suggest that the reason for this has been the
politicians themselves.... we vote for politicians that have made
politics as their occupation.....their job... and in doing so as a worker,
what does any worker strive for in doing their job? titles,
higher paycheck, more power.... as does any politician... but this
has absolutely nothing to do with the real task of the state...
which is to improve a citizen's life..... IQ45 goal, as president, was
to make money... now he is running for president, as he has publicly
stated, to avoid jail... IQ45 has no interest, of any kind, in working
for justice within our system, or work for equality or work for a better
state/society.... he won't make any money that way.... and that is his
avowed goal... and has been for all his life... to make money....
why else would he have start business after business after business...
or has anyone forgotten ''Trump Steaks'' or "Trump University'' or perhaps
''Trump Airlines'' the creation of these businesses had no other value
then to make IQ45 money.... and that is the only value he offers us
today, a way to make himself money.... it has nothing to do with
seeking out justice or equality or truth or love.... just money...
and the great value of a political state is that it should have
nothing to do with making a profit... for that isn't the goal of
a state....to make its citizens better off, yes, but to make money, no.....
and that is why IQ45 is the wrong person for being president......
one of the primary purposes of the state is to seek out justice/equality
for all its citizens, not just the wealthy, connected ones.....
and we can see from an examination of values, which candidate should
be president... and it ain't IQ45...
and if we accept the idea that the point of philosophy is to examine values,
which values should we hold, then we should put those who are
philosophically inclined for president, and not those who only goal/purpose
is to make money or seek out titles, power, fame, or material possessions....
as I have stated before, to seek out those trinkets of existence, is to
seek out temporary values... whereas seeking out permanent values like
justice/equality, love, freedom, peace, are values worth seeking out
and promoting in both our private and public life....
but in seeking out an office like the Presidency, one has to sell out,
to work in the world of money, power, fame, material possession
and titles... to make bargains with the devil, as it were....
to be held hostage by the very forces that allowed one to be elected
as president....you have to offer/promise the material objects to
certain people, groups or business entities to get elected....
and those very promises makes one as president, an unwise choice....
and so, we hit a road block... basically, one who wants to be president
really shouldn't be president....they are driven by the values that
undermine our lives... greed, corruption, bribery, fraud, malfeasance,
and the loss of moral values come basically from those who only goal is
to gain the trinkets of existence..... power, fame, titles, wealth,
material possessions...if we put those values above values like
justice/equality, then we see why we have the failure of government
in America over these last few decades.... they, the government and those
within the government, are pursuing the wrong values...
But Kropotkin, you are asking for saints to be president...no, I am
asking for philosophers to be president, not saints.... to pursue
a value worth pursuing, instead of pursuing values that undermine
and make worthless, values like justice/equality, peace, charity,
hope, love....those are values worth pursuing, not the trinkets of
existence.... and we should support people who values are positive
values, like justice and hope and peace and love... not to support
hate or anger or bigotry or those who follow injustice....
the question is not what policy will that person hold, but what values
does that person hold? that is the real political question....
we should be working toward, not what public policy, say in taxation,
but in what values drive that public policy toward taxation.....
and in terms of taxation, we should be engaged with justice/equality
in questions of taxation.....
Kropotkin