Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:48 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:44 am
If there is no higher authority pertaining to morals
What? Who proposed that? My point was that I don't want the government to take a specific
religion in mind to its foundation. That will lead to its role being more than just the protection of our rights, and draws a pretty clear line to rationalizing things like socialized medicine.
This isn't a thread about morality, it's a thread about effective governing and what would likely lead to a 'socialist state.' I don't know who has the 'responsibility' to act as the moral guidance, probably should ask that in one of the ethic subforums. But who I want
to have that role, are things like communions and charities, or any organization that works to do something like that.
This thread concerns the essential philosophical question: Is the purpose of Man to serve the state or is the ideal purpose of the state to serve Man? The attraction to freedom vs the attraction to conceptions of statist slavery? The eight methods of control described in the OP all refer to what is necessary to suppress the need for freedom and to recognize its value in favor of creating dependency of some form of government enforcing statist slavery.
For those like Greta the question doesn't exist. To even suggest it is some sort of right wing propaganda that must be banned. Political philosophy is the act of condemning Trump. So the question for the open mind is't how to govern but first the purpose of govenment. The Constitution asserts that government serves Man while for those like Alinsky Man serves the government
For those appreciating the philosophical value of this question be assured that others already discuss it in ways that would be banned by the Greta mind as belonging in Instagram but far from philosophy forums. That is why I recently added the 2019 American Weil society colloquy topic to the Simone Weil thread.
We are hereby pleased to announce the 39th Annual Colloquy of the American Weil Society, which will be held at IQS (Institut Quimic de Sarrià), one of the schools associated to the Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2019, hosted by Oriol Quintana, Associate Professor at IQS. This colloquy will have an intentional international character, reaching scholars from around the world, specially from France, Italy and Spain. The topic of this year’s colloquy is: Rootedness, Identity, and Nation. This theme is deliberately broad, so that Weil’s religious, political, and/or ethical philosophy may be addressed under the heading.........................
It is a worthwhile struggle for me to ponder how rootedness, identity, and nation, can fit together into an organic whole. I recognize the need to belong but also the danger in becoming an atom of the great beast. How do I define an individual in a human rather than a societal perspective? How do I understand the value of a nation in these times where globalism is so popular? What are the benefits and drawbacks of patriotism?
All this isn't so easy. I see my ignorance I am grateful that there are ways in which people can join in making a better use of philosophy than the modern glorification of self importance. And of course I am grateful for those like Simone whose lives have inspired sincere questions as to the objective meaning and purpose of humanity
“To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.” ~ Simone Weil
Contemplating effective governing reguires first contemplating the purpose of government which requires opening to questions no longer fashionable for modern philosophy which limits itself to condemning Trump and how to indoctrinate people into a form of statist slavery. It offers hope for those whose minds are open to the depths of philosophy to know that that people will come from around the world to share on what is being condemned here by Greta. It means that others can also contemplate the difference between the attraction to freedom - human need to be
and the willingness to abandon it in favor of an imagined security offered by the Ainsky mind.