The Philosophy of Distraction

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by RCSaunders »

simplicity wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:14 pm
simplicity wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:08 pm I am a-political.
I am too. It means I'm frequently accused of being and anarchist. Recognizing there are no social/political solutions and that government is an essentially corrupt idea, however, does not make one an anarchist. Governments, like disease and poverty are inevitable evils, like bad weather and natural disasters. One cannot live to fight everything one knows is bad, one learns what the bad things are to protect oneself from them, not attempt to fix them.
I generally consider myself a "philosophical anarchist" for many of the reasons you elucidated. Just the same, true anarchism is simply the opposite extreme from totalitarian government, so pick your poison. Obviously, the middle [minimal control/maximum freedom] is where you want to be.

The U.S. Constitution laid out about the best we can hope for at this point, so following it seems to be a prudent idea. I am sure that future humans will improve upon the document and resolve some of the conflicts that always mess-up any collaborative human project.
I am always amazed at how many people believe the U.S. Constitution is some kind good political plan. The whole reason for the existence of the Constitution was to create a stronger Federal government capable to raising taxes and tarrifs for the sole purpose of paying off the revolutionary war debt which was not possible under the Articles of Confederation. The only reason for the so-called "Bill of Rights," written by Madison, was to assuage the objections of those states that resisted signing the Constitution. In less than a year after the signing of the Constitution, the government that supposedly existed because of the revolt against British taxes, imposed its own heavy taxes on the whisky that farmers in west New York were shipping East (because it was to expensive to ship the grain itself), resulting in Federal troops firing on American citizens--the Whisky Rebellion. Liberty under the Constitution did not last a year, and the government has grown more oppressive every year since. See The Federalist Papers.

The basic problem with government is the belief that an agency of force can be used to make a society the kind one would like it to be. It's the basic wrong premise of politics. Any society is only the sum of the kind of people that are that society. Honest, intelligent, productive, self-sufficient, virtuous individuals do not need to be regulated. Government assumes society will consist of dishonest, ignorant, unprodutive, incompetent, vicious individuals that require agencies of force to control them and protect others from them, which is almost always the case. Those who become the government come from that same society, and are the same dishonest, ignorant, unprodutive, incompetent, vicious individuals the government is meant to control. People that want and need a government (or participate in them) are never those that are a real value to one another--the truly benevolent neither need or desire an agency to take care of them or control how they deal with one another.

Just for the record I'll point out there is something very wrong with some supposed contract signed by a handful of self-serving individuals being binding on those never consulted about the contract, and signed it--and no piece of paper, no matter how noble, ever changed what any determine individual chose to do. Every major war in history began shortly after parties signed treaties or peace agreements.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pm
I am always amazed at how many people believe the U.S. Constitution is some kind good political plan.
No matter how you wish to keep score, it's the best that's be tried thus far. I am sure you would agree that human governance is no easy matter.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pmHonest, intelligent, productive, self-sufficient, virtuous individuals do not need to be regulated.
I would bet you a beer that if you gathered the 1000 most virtuous folks you could find and put them together in a community, [essentially] you would end up with most of the "stuff" that characterizes collective humanity. En masse, people are people are people...

And aren't we the idealistic one?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pmJust for the record I'll point out there is something very wrong with some supposed contract signed by a handful of self-serving individuals being binding on those never consulted about the contract, and signed it--and no piece of paper, no matter how noble, ever changed what any determine individual chose to do. Every major war in history began shortly after parties signed treaties or peace agreements.
No doubt, but [and as you rightly pointed out] 99.9% of the population doesn't feel like doing much of anything [other than attending to their addictions], so that's the way it goes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:21 am Get rid of all people-in-charge and replace with whom?
That is only wishful thinking without taking the roots of the problems into account.
Your approach is merely fire-fighting or merely cutting the weeds instead of pulling them up with the roots.
There are two basic problems...first is that "they" changed many of the regulatory laws that made much of what has gone down possible [especially banking]...the second is that individuals collectively went to the dark-side [because they could]. You have to change to regulations back to what they were [or make them more effective] and get of rid of the corrupt people. Not everybody is a slimeball.
The above is too simple-minded which goes with your nic, 'simplicity'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:21 amActually what you are complaining about [increasing corruption at present only] arise inevitably [but unfortunately] of the necessity of natural evolution in the development of the human mind to deal with natural catastrophe that are likely to be fatal to humanity, e.g. pandemic, climate change, and those of galactic nature that could make the human species extinct.

Now at least humanity has the potential to migrate to another planet just in case Earth will be destroyed by a rogue meteorite or other natural means. This potential could not manifest without the modern development and its inevitable corruptions and evils [which can also be potentially mitigated in the future].

From the above, I say, your range of thinking is narrow and shallow.
That's a great idea. Why don't we all go down to the corner spaceship stop and jump on an express and rocket-off to some other planet.

Fix what you can fix and leave the Flash Gordon stuff to the comic book folks.
Surely you are not that ignorant of Besos' and Richard Branson's projects of their Spaceship-Stop.
If you have the money, you can just booked a ticket NOW!, pay for it and you will be in space as an astronaut very soon.
https://www.virgingalactic.com/register/

Note I highlighted 'potential' specifically.
With the above reality, it is a matter of time the potential to hop off to another planet from a Spaceship-Stop will be realized.
Note the same pattern with flying in the most advanced planes and jet planes within a 100 years since the Wright Brothers first took to the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by RCSaunders »

simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pm
I am always amazed at how many people believe the U.S. Constitution is some kind good political plan.
No matter how you wish to keep score, it's the best that's be tried thus far. I am sure you would agree that human governance is no easy matter.
230 years is not a very long time and for the first hundred eleven years after the ratification of the constitution (1789-1900) there was more individual freedom and growth of economic prosperity than ever before in history, perhaps even to the time of the progressive war-monger Teddy Roosevelt. Then came Wilson, the depression and World War I, and the government became powerful enough to do what was always intended (see Hamilton) under the Constitution, the absolute power to confiscate wealth to itself in the form of taxes and tariffs to finance its militarism and forever wars. There is much less individual freedom and opportunity for financial success to individuals in the U.S. today than there was to the colonialists under British rule before the revolution.

The freedom and prosperity enjoyed in the US for the first hundred years was not because of the kind of government it had--no government ever made any society better--it was because there was so little government. People who lived in the nineteen forties and fifties perhaps enjoyed the highest points of freedom, prosperity, and culture in history, the last of the momentum of the nineteenth century, even while it was being destroyed (World War II and the New Deal), and it's been downhill ever since.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pmHonest, intelligent, productive, self-sufficient, virtuous individuals do not need to be regulated.
I would bet you a beer that if you gathered the 1000 most virtuous folks you could find and put them together in a community, [essentially] you would end up with most of the "stuff" that characterizes collective humanity. En masse, people are people are people...
I doubt very much that we would agree on what virtue is, and I could never judge another's virtue, so such an experiment, even hypothetically, would be pointless. (And no truly virtuous person would consent to be part of such an experiment.)

There is no, "en masse," there are only individual human beings. To judge them as anything else is a kind of prejudice, like racism. No one is the individual they are because they are a member of some collective, like, "mankind." The distinguishing characteristic of human beings is that every one is a volitional being and what they are and how the live must be chosen by each individual.

Those I would consider, "virtuous," are those who embrace their own nature as volitional beings, neither desiring or seeking anything in life but what they can achieve and acquire by their own effort, knowing all they are and all they enjoy is theirs because they have earned it. They are not virtuous to meet anyone else's standards or for the sake of anyone else's welfare, but the requirement of their own nature to know they are not a parasite, dependent on others, and that they are worthy of associating with and enjoying others because they are never a threat to anyone else and all their relationships are voluntary and benevolent, because they have nothing to gain from anyone else that is not to the benefit both to those others and to one's self.

Are there many like that? Certainly not, and you almost never hear about them, because they are busy living their lives and have no interest in social/political affairs and no interest in interfering in the lives of others. Nevertheless, there are literally millions of such individuals, and every one is a unique individual living their own life as they choose. I doubt you would consider them virtuous, because most have no use for laws or social conventions, seldom enjoy the insipid pleasures and activities that fill the lives of most people, and do not embrace or support any particular philosophies or ideologies.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:04 pmJust for the record I'll point out there is something very wrong with some supposed contract signed by a handful of self-serving individuals being binding on those never consulted about the contract, and signed it--and no piece of paper, no matter how noble, ever changed what any determine individual chose to do. Every major war in history began shortly after parties signed treaties or peace agreements.
No doubt, but [and as you rightly pointed out] 99.9% of the population doesn't feel like doing much of anything [other than attending to their addictions], so that's the way it goes.
That's true, but it is not a condition that is imposed on them. It's what they choose. They don't really matter to the .1% except to be recognized. (Most of the 99.9% are not dangerous, and in their way often very interesting, even productive. The .1% has no problem dealing with most of the them, even enjoying them and benefiting them, though most of the 99.9% despise and resent the .1%, especially because of their success.)
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:20 am Surely you are not that ignorant of Besos' and Richard Branson's projects of their Spaceship-Stop.
If you have the money, you can just booked a ticket NOW!, pay for it and you will be in space as an astronaut very soon.
https://www.virgingalactic.com/register/
There's a guy down at the corner of 5th and Jepip who has been calling for the end of the world, as well.

The answers to mankind's problems do not lie in running away. This is a child's view. In the adult world, you deal with it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:20 amNote I highlighted 'potential' specifically.
With the above reality, it is a matter of time the potential to hop off to another planet from a Spaceship-Stop will be realized.
Note the same pattern with flying in the most advanced planes and jet planes within a 100 years since the Wright Brothers first took to the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
When people do make their way elsewhere, they will bring all their shit with them.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pm 230 years is not a very long time and for the first hundred eleven years after the ratification of the constitution (1789-1900) there was more individual freedom and growth of economic prosperity than ever before in history, perhaps even to the time of the progressive war-monger Teddy Roosevelt. Then came Wilson, the depression and World War I, and the government became powerful enough to do what was always intended (see Hamilton) under the Constitution, the absolute power to confiscate wealth to itself in the form of taxes and tariffs to finance its militarism and forever wars. There is much less individual freedom and opportunity for financial success to individuals in the U.S. today than there was to the colonialists under British rule before the revolution.
The fact that prices were cheaper on January 1, 1900 then they were on January 1, 1800 says it all. I get it but much has changed since the 19th century. I am not suggesting that this is the ideal, only that its the least dirty shirt in the laundry basket.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmThere is no, "en masse," there are only individual human beings. To judge them as anything else is a kind of prejudice, like racism. No one is the individual they are because they are a member of some collective, like, "mankind." The distinguishing characteristic of human beings is that every one is a volitional being and what they are and how the live must be chosen by each individual.
So you don't subscribe to the idea that there is group mentality or group behavior, that is, that individuals behave differently in groups? Have you ever been to a football game with 75K people or a rock concert with 150K people? How about what took place in Nazi Germany?

Groups bring out the worst in individuals as most of them tend toward pure evil.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmThose I would consider, "virtuous," are those who embrace their own nature as volitional beings, neither desiring or seeking anything in life but what they can achieve and acquire by their own effort, knowing all they are and all they enjoy is theirs because they have earned it. They are not virtuous to meet anyone else's standards or for the sake of anyone else's welfare, but the requirement of their own nature to know they are not a parasite, dependent on others, and that they are worthy of associating with and enjoying others because they are never a threat to anyone else and all their relationships are voluntary and benevolent, because they have nothing to gain from anyone else that is not to the benefit both to those others and to one's self.


You are quite the idealist!

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmAre there many like that? Certainly not, and you almost never hear about them, because they are busy living their lives and have no interest in social/political affairs and no interest in interfering in the lives of others. Nevertheless, there are literally millions of such individuals, and every one is a unique individual living their own life as they choose. I doubt you would consider them virtuous, because most have no use for laws or social conventions, seldom enjoy the insipid pleasures and activities that fill the lives of most people, and do not embrace or support any particular philosophies or ideologies.


Would you include yourself among the individuals you describe above?

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmNo doubt, but [and as you rightly pointed out] 99.9% of the population doesn't feel like doing much of anything [other than attending to their addictions], so that's the way it goes.
That's true, but it is not a condition that is imposed on them. It's what they choose. They don't really matter to the .1% except to be recognized. (Most of the 99.9% are not dangerous, and in their way often very interesting, even productive. The .1% has no problem dealing with most of the them, even enjoying them and benefiting them, though most of the 99.9% despise and resent the .1%, especially because of their success.)

I agree with the spirit of what you say but I believe it to be significantly more complicated. What exactly do you believe you or I have within us that led to our success? Just wanted to do it? Smarter than most? More industrious? Had more help along the way? Went to better schools?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:20 am Surely you are not that ignorant of Besos' and Richard Branson's projects of their Spaceship-Stop.
If you have the money, you can just booked a ticket NOW!, pay for it and you will be in space as an astronaut very soon.
https://www.virgingalactic.com/register/
There's a guy down at the corner of 5th and Jepip who has been calling for the end of the world, as well.
Somehow your thinking is way off my point.
I believe the guy 'at the corner of 5th' is worried about his own physical death thus he pines for eternal life in paradise and avoiding the threat of being burnt in Hell.
In my case, the concern is not with the individual[s] but the human species as a whole.

The answers to mankind's problems do not lie in running away. This is a child's view. In the adult world, you deal with it.
Note I mentioned the threat of a rogue meteorite that could smash Earth in smithereens, then one will have nothing to run away from.
In addition it is fact the Earth is orbiting towards the center of the Sun and each year the Earth will get hotter and hotter [of immediate effect] until it crashes into the Sun [in billion of years time].

There are those problems contributed by humans, e.g. climate change, pollution, etc. which are preventable and do not present a fatal threat to humanity as a whole.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:20 amNote I highlighted 'potential' specifically.
With the above reality, it is a matter of time the potential to hop off to another planet from a Spaceship-Stop will be realized.
Note the same pattern with flying in the most advanced planes and jet planes within a 100 years since the Wright Brothers first took to the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
When people do make their way elsewhere, they will bring all their shit with them.
By the time humans are able to inhabit another planet, the average person's inherent moral impulse [moral compass] (following the current positive trend) would have unfolded and activated very significantly to spontaneously and naturally [with minimal enforcements] deal effectively with the 'shit' of the past.

You are addressing the issues above too superficially.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by RCSaunders »

simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pm 230 years is not a very long time and for the first hundred eleven years after the ratification of the constitution (1789-1900) there was more individual freedom and growth of economic prosperity than ever before in history, perhaps even to the time of the progressive war-monger Teddy Roosevelt. Then came Wilson, the depression and World War I, and the government became powerful enough to do what was always intended (see Hamilton) under the Constitution, the absolute power to confiscate wealth to itself in the form of taxes and tariffs to finance its militarism and forever wars. There is much less individual freedom and opportunity for financial success to individuals in the U.S. today than there was to the colonialists under British rule before the revolution.
The fact that prices were cheaper on January 1, 1900 then they were on January 1, 1800 says it all. I get it but much has changed since the 19th century. I am not suggesting that this is the ideal, only that its the least dirty shirt in the laundry basket.
That's probably true, but a dirty shirt is still a dirty shirt. Why settle for wearing a dirty shirt? One can always wash their own. Good is not the equivalent of, "less bad."
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmThere is no, "en masse," there are only individual human beings. To judge them as anything else is a kind of prejudice, like racism. No one is the individual they are because they are a member of some collective, like, "mankind." The distinguishing characteristic of human beings is that every one is a volitional being and what they are and how the live must be chosen by each individual.
So you don't subscribe to the idea that there is group mentality or group behavior, that is, that individuals behave differently in groups?

Have you ever been to a football game with 75K people or a rock concert with 150K people? How about what took place in Nazi Germany?

Groups bring out the worst in individuals as most of them [ I believe] tend toward pure evil.
I know there are, "group," mentalities. Very few people think for themselves. Almost everyone finds it easier to be a member of something, believing, thinking, and doing what everyone else around them does, simply accepting everything their teachers, and favorite, "authorities," tell them. Its the explanation for every religion, ideology, racial and ethnic prejudice, political party, and nationalism. It's the inevitable consequence of every individual who chooses not to think for himself.

You are right! It's the democratic principle, isn't it? Our gang is better than your gang because there's more of us. When the biggest (or most duplicitous or violent) gang wins, it's called the government.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmThose I would consider, "virtuous," are those who embrace their own nature as volitional beings, neither desiring or seeking anything in life but what they can achieve and acquire by their own effort, knowing all they are and all they enjoy is theirs because they have earned it. They are not virtuous to meet anyone else's standards or for the sake of anyone else's welfare, but the requirement of their own nature to know they are not a parasite, dependent on others, and that they are worthy of associating with and enjoying others because they are never a threat to anyone else and all their relationships are voluntary and benevolent, because they have nothing to gain from anyone else that is not to the benefit both to those others and to one's self.

Are there many like that? Certainly not, and you almost never hear about them, because they are busy living their lives and have no interest in social/political affairs and no interest in interfering in the lives of others. Nevertheless, there are literally millions of such individuals, and every one is a unique individual living their own life as they choose. I doubt you would consider them virtuous, because most have no use for laws or social conventions, seldom enjoy the insipid pleasures and activities that fill the lives of most people, and do not embrace or support any particular philosophies or ideologies.
You are quite the idealist!

Would you include yourself among the individuals you describe above?
I suppose I am. But it's my ideal. I have no desire, or belief, it is possible to impose it on anyone else. But it's really not an, "ideal," in the usual sense, not some noble, "cause," or, "morality." It's totally selfish, motivated by my own desire to never settle for less than the best I am able to be, have, and achieve in life.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pmNo doubt, but [and as you rightly pointed out] 99.9% of the population doesn't feel like doing much of anything [other than attending to their addictions], so that's the way it goes.
That's true, but it is not a condition that is imposed on them. It's what they choose. They don't really matter to the .1% except to be recognized. (Most of the 99.9% are not dangerous, and in their way often very interesting, even productive. The .1% has no problem dealing with most of the them, even enjoying them and benefiting them, though most of the 99.9% despise and resent the .1%, especially because of their success.)
I agree with the spirit of what you say but I believe it to be significantly more complicated. What exactly do you believe you or I have within us that led to our success? Just wanted to do it? Smarter than most? More industrious? Had more help along the way? Went to better schools?
When I was very young the question you just asked used to bewilder me. It took two forms: 1. Why do so many people believe what cannot possibly be true, and, 2. why do so many people do so many self-destructive things? Neither of those questions bothers me any longer and the reason for that is my realization that how others chose to use their minds and life are just none of my business.

Nevertheless, over the years, some of the reasons for the irrationality of humanity in general have revealed themselves.

The first of those reasons is the simple fact that for every possible right answer, there an infinite number of possible wrong answers, and mankind is bent on discovering all the wrong ones and embracing them, because the wrong one's are usually simpler and are less troublesome than the truth, which requires hard work and rigorous reason. "Pat," answers are much easier and less troublesome to simply accept.

The second reason is more fundamental. Life is hard and reality is demanding and dangerous, and not very, "nice." To live requires constant effort, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and constant effort to provide oneself with the requirements of life. Reality is ruthless and unforgiving and one either conforms to the requirements of reality or suffers the consequences. It's not the kind of world most people want, and reality refuses to provide what they want.

What most people want is world that is safe, where nothing is, "too hard," where they can do just anything without suffering bad consequences, where, "never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." But that is not the world they live in. So, they are ready to believe and support anything that promises to provide that kind of world, whether it is a God, or a government, or both, and almost every religion, political philosophy, and ideology has promoted the lie that some scheme can make reality, or society, what one would like it to be.

Why doesn't everyone realize that their life is theirs and that it will only be whatever they make of it? I don't know, and do not believe what anyone chooses is determined by something else, like the inherited traits, or culture, or economic station, or chemicals in the brain, or evolution, or any of the other excuses made for human behavior. I cannot read minds and do not know what thought processes guide other's choices, I only know it is their own beliefs, values, and thoughts that determine their behavior.

I know, in my case, from the third grade on, I never took the word of any adult merely on their say so, never believed anything unless to the best of my knowledge and reason, I understood why it was true. I made many mistakes, but they were my mistakes so could recognize what was wrong with them and correct them when I learned more (which one who only believes what they are told cannot do). I never wanted anything I could not feel I had earned or won by my own effort and achievement. (I've never liked gifts.) Many others who believe and live as I do, were just like me, the way they always lived and believed. Others I know came to a realization (often after a disastrous consequence of living unrealistically) that their life depended solely on how they used their mind and abilities and that their every failure and success was their own doing. Most never come to that point in their life.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:29 am In my case, the concern is not with the individual[s] but the human species as a whole.
That's very noble of you but don't you believe that trying to be the savior of humanity is biting-off a bit more than any of us is capable of chewing?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:29 amNote I mentioned the threat of a rogue meteorite that could smash Earth in smithereens, then one will have nothing to run away from. In addition it is fact the Earth is orbiting towards the center of the Sun and each year the Earth will get hotter and hotter [of immediate effect] until it crashes into the Sun [in billion of years time].

There are those problems contributed by humans, e.g. climate change, pollution, etc. which are preventable and do not present a fatal threat to humanity as a whole.
So you spend your time worrying about this sort of thing? People will either figure out the climate/pollution one way of another. It's really not something that needs to keep you up at night. Man has always had to have these existential threats because ?? If it's not one thing, it's the other...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:29 amBy the time humans are able to inhabit another planet, the average person's inherent moral impulse [moral compass] (following the current positive trend) would have unfolded and activated very significantly to spontaneously and naturally [with minimal enforcements] deal effectively with the 'shit' of the past.

You are addressing the issues above too superficially.
Perhaps, but I believe I understand the complexity of the issue [which is every issue going on in human civilization]. Perhaps you should start off with a more reasonable project like volunteering at your local food-bank or some such thing. The planet and humanity [as a whole] will take care of itself through the infinite things that take place continually.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:48 pm That's probably true, but a dirty shirt is still a dirty shirt. Why settle for wearing a dirty shirt? One can always wash their own. Good is not the equivalent of, "less bad."
In my personal life I strive for perfection, but collectively, one must lower the bar significantly [accounting for the 99.9%].
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pm I suppose I am. But it's my ideal. I have no desire, or belief, it is possible to impose it on anyone else. But it's really not an, "ideal," in the usual sense, not some noble, "cause," or, "morality." It's totally selfish, motivated by my own desire to never settle for less than the best I am able to be, have, and achieve in life.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are those out there who would suggest that your way is disruptive to the collective. Of course, these are complete morons, but they're out there just the same.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:54 pm When I was very young the question you just asked used to bewilder me. It took two forms: 1. Why do so many people believe what cannot possibly be true, and, 2. why do so many people do so many self-destructive things? Neither of those questions bothers me any longer and the reason for that is my realization that how others chose to use their minds and life are just none of my business.

Nevertheless, over the years, some of the reasons for the irrationality of humanity in general have revealed themselves.

The first of those reasons is the simple fact that for every possible right answer, there an infinite number of possible wrong answers, and mankind is bent on discovering all the wrong ones and embracing them, because the wrong one's are usually simpler and are less troublesome than the truth, which requires hard work and rigorous reason. "Pat," answers are much easier and less troublesome to simply accept.

The second reason is more fundamental. Life is hard and reality is demanding and dangerous, and not very, "nice." To live requires constant effort, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and constant effort to provide oneself with the requirements of life. Reality is ruthless and unforgiving and one either conforms to the requirements of reality or suffers the consequences. It's not the kind of world most people want, and reality refuses to provide what they want.

What most people want is world that is safe, where nothing is, "too hard," where they can do just anything without suffering bad consequences, where, "never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." But that is not the world they live in. So, they are ready to believe and support anything that promises to provide that kind of world, whether it is a God, or a government, or both, and almost every religion, political philosophy, and ideology has promoted the lie that some scheme can make reality, or society, what one would like it to be.

Why doesn't everyone realize that their life is theirs and that it will only be whatever they make of it? I don't know, and do not believe what anyone chooses is determined by something else, like the inherited traits, or culture, or economic station, or chemicals in the brain, or evolution, or any of the other excuses made for human behavior. I cannot read minds and do not know what thought processes guide other's choices, I only know it is their own beliefs, values, and thoughts that determine their behavior.

I know, in my case, from the third grade on, I never took the word of any adult merely on their say so, never believed anything unless to the best of my knowledge and reason, I understood why it was true. I made many mistakes, but they were my mistakes so could recognize what was wrong with them and correct them when I learned more (which one who only believes what they are told cannot do). I never wanted anything I could not feel I had earned or won by my own effort and achievement. (I've never liked gifts.) Many others who believe and live as I do, were just like me, the way they always lived and believed. Others I know came to a realization (often after a disastrous consequence of living unrealistically) that their life depended solely on how they used their mind and abilities and that their every failure and success was their own doing. Most never come to that point in their life.
I have no argument with any of what you wrote above [as it describes my own path relatively accurately, as well]. As a matter of fact, there are many people like us. Here's an example. I have always loved Porsche 911's [you might, as well] because they represent not only an automotive ideal but beyond it's present form, constant striving to be better. In any case, when I finally bought my first 911 [a beautiful '88 coupe, Grand Prix White/black leather interior] which was 7 years old [but was in pristine condition (of course :)], I was given a promotional tape introducing the new 993 generation 911 [this would have been late 1994].

It was as if the tape was made just for me [all the way down to how they knew that most "911 guys" cut their own grass!]. It was incredible how accurately Porsche understood its devotees. And it was a wake-up call to me suggesting that I was not nearly as unique as I thought.

Anyway, I believe that what makes us what we are is way beyond our ability to understand [even on an extremely superficial level]. Where I disagree with you is that I believe that although we may manifest a certain persona [for all kinds of reasons], within us is contained all the rest, as well. Given the proper circumstances, we will be [fill in the blank]. The art of torture has certainly made this clear.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by RCSaunders »

simplicity wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:45 pm I have no argument with any of what you wrote above [as it describes my own path relatively accurately, as well]. As a matter of fact, there are many people like us. Here's an example. I have always loved Porsche 911's [you might, as well] because they represent not only an automotive ideal but beyond it's present form, constant striving to be better. In any case, when I finally bought my first 911 [a beautiful '88 coupe, Grand Prix White/black leather interior] which was 7 years old [but was in pristine condition (of course :)], I was given a promotional tape introducing the new 993 generation 911 [this would have been late 1994].

It was as if the tape was made just for me [all the way down to how they knew that most "911 guys" cut their own grass!]. It was incredible how accurately Porsche understood its devotees. And it was a wake-up call to me suggesting that I was not nearly as unique as I thought.

Anyway, I believe that what makes us what we are is way beyond our ability to understand [even on an extremely superficial level]. Where I disagree with you is that I believe that although we may manifest a certain persona [for all kinds of reasons], within us is contained all the rest, as well. Given the proper circumstances, we will be [fill in the blank]. The art of torture has certainly made this clear.
At this point our differences are not significant enough for me to want to debate them. I never expect anyone to agree with me at all, so I'm pleasantly surprised by those things we similarly understand. All except your last two sentences: "Given the proper circumstances, we will be [fill in the blank]. The art of torture has certainly made this clear."

In spite of the little use I have for Christianity, the fact that so many Christians in history could not be changed in their views or behavior, even under the most horrid of persecution and torture disproves that premise. Its the opposite wrong premise to the view that every man has his price. Neither premise is true of the individual who refuses to live as a slave, who does not confuse, "living," with, "existing." [There are innumerable cases of individuals who suffered terribly and died horribly to escape slavery.]

[The whole, "torture makes people do things against their will," hypothesis is wrong. Human behavior is chosen. If one's ability to think and choose is destroyed, whatever they do after that is not human behavior but the behavior of some sub-species incapable of making conscious choice, simply reacting to irrational impulses and conditioning.]

Do you still have the Porsche? I'm not as fond of automobiles as some, but I can understand the pleasure of having all that power in one's own hands and control. My wife and I owned and rode Harley's (hogs) for years. It's one of those things that one either loves and enjoys or hates and is terrified of, neither right or wrong. But if you love it, the sense of power and freedom it provides is much like real freedom and power, a physical visceral experience reflecting the freedom of one's mind to thoroughly enjoy the use of this world and what it makes available.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by Sculptor »

simplicity wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 pm Philosophy is fine but it's certainly a piss-poor refuge from the problems of the real world. There are two great crises racking Western culture at present...massive [Romanesque-like] corruption [at all levels of private and social leadership], as well as the general population's acceptance of this overt duplicity as acceptable means of furthering political agendas [morphing politics into religion].

All systems corrupt. This has been known for millennia. The U.S. Constitution was written for us, the folks who would drop the ball. Perhaps it's time that our news outlets print The Constitution on their front/home pages in order to remind the citizenry what to do when the corruption threatens to destroy the republic.

The authoritarianism that has slowly but surely leached from the elite [who always believe their interests are universal] has now tainted our collective being with lies about every damn thing [distractions so they can keep hauling nearly all the money to their banks].

The only philosophy that matters now is that which embraces individual freedom as an antidote to the authoritarian maniacs that literally want it all. These are narcissists-extraordinaire who could care less about anything or anybody [those willing to do whatever it takes to win]...including bottom-feeder politicians who sold their souls long ago, tech billionaires who would never allow their children to become addicted to the electronic pandemics they peddle, and all kinds of other sociopath CEO's/executives who protect themselves and their families against the all the garbage they propagate to the American public.

The point of philosophy is not in designing the safest and most secure places to hide, but instead, formulating an action plan, a way to to help move this mountain of putrid refuse toward the dump.
Two observations.
1) Modern coms and info, have enabled us for the first time to see the cracks in the establishment, and the poisons that lurk in the swamp. I think we've pretty much always been this way since the fallacy of democracy was foisted upon society, corruption went underground
2) You do an implied disservice to "Rome" by implying that their form of government was very corrupt. Their corruption was open and part of the normal way of things. Modern western democracies are not like them at all. Modern democracies are dishonestly corrupt.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:32 pmIn spite of the little use I have for Christianity, the fact that so many Christians in history could not be changed in their views or behavior, even under the most horrid of persecution and torture disproves that premise. Its the opposite wrong premise to the view that every man has his price. Neither premise is true of the individual who refuses to live as a slave, who does not confuse, "living," with, "existing." [There are innumerable cases of individuals who suffered terribly and died horribly to escape slavery.]
Although there is probably no-thing more paradoxical than is religion, as I have gotten older I have been able to appreciate its function in human society. You must admit that it has had a unique presence in human society. It makes government look anemic [by comparison].

Keep in mind that religion is simply the intellectualization of spirituality so [this time, the 99.999%] never move on to the non-intellectual [which is the actual foundation of all religion]. That is, Christianity is about living the life of Christ, not all the window dressing. Living a spiritual life is applying your philosophy of life [in general] to things beyond our intellectual grasp.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:32 pm[The whole, "torture makes people do things against their will," hypothesis is wrong. Human behavior is chosen. If one's ability to think and choose is destroyed, whatever they do after that is not human behavior but the behavior of some sub-species incapable of making conscious choice, simply reacting to irrational impulses and conditioning.]
It seems like one could roll out that answer for other conditions that might create out-of-control behavior, as well. Slippery slope...
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:32 pmDo you still have the Porsche? I'm not as fond of automobiles as some, but I can understand the pleasure of having all that power in one's own hands and control. My wife and I owned and rode Harley's (hogs) for years. It's one of those things that one either loves and enjoys or hates and is terrified of, neither right or wrong. But if you love it, the sense of power and freedom it provides is much like real freedom and power, a physical visceral experience reflecting the freedom of one's mind to thoroughly enjoy the use of this world and what it makes available.
I remember getting on the back of a really loud Harley and being given a wild ride when I was a young kid [maybe seven or eight]. It so scared the shit out me that I have [literally] never been back on a bike since!! I still get the chills just thinking about it.

Actually I have a super nice Jaguar F Type which is absolutely wonderful.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by simplicity »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:05 pm
Two observations.
1) Modern coms and info, have enabled us for the first time to see the cracks in the establishment, and the poisons that lurk in the swamp. I think we've pretty much always been this way since the fallacy of democracy was foisted upon society, corruption went underground
2) You do an implied disservice to "Rome" by implying that their form of government was very corrupt. Their corruption was open and part of the normal way of things. Modern western democracies are not like them at all. Modern democracies are dishonestly corrupt.
Points noted.

Just the same, even though Roman corruption was in plain sight [as you suggest], there must have been a fair amount obscured, as well.

My point was that the corruption pendulum seems to have reached the apex of its amplitude in the plus direction, witness the morphing of millions of young folks of our society into debt-slaves and other horrors.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Philosophy of Distraction

Post by Sculptor »

simplicity wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:11 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:05 pm
Two observations.
1) Modern coms and info, have enabled us for the first time to see the cracks in the establishment, and the poisons that lurk in the swamp. I think we've pretty much always been this way since the fallacy of democracy was foisted upon society, corruption went underground
2) You do an implied disservice to "Rome" by implying that their form of government was very corrupt. Their corruption was open and part of the normal way of things. Modern western democracies are not like them at all. Modern democracies are dishonestly corrupt.
Points noted.

Just the same, even though Roman corruption was in plain sight [as you suggest], there must have been a fair amount obscured, as well.

My point was that the corruption pendulum seems to have reached the apex of its amplitude in the plus direction, witness the morphing of millions of young folks of our society into debt-slaves and other horrors.
This is not about government corruption so much as handing over government assets to privately owned monopolies.
Youth in trouble is due to a 50 year+ adherence to a new paradigm for ecopnomic thinking due solely to Milton Friedman; Monetarism.
Whilst this has overheated the property market at the same time providing financial products to ramp up massive inequality whilst also prodiving an ideologival basis to solely blame the woes of society on the individual.
Socialism and anything remotely left-wing which attempts to redress the inequality by trying to engineer a situation where the people THAT ACTUALLY DO THE WORK might get paid a decent wage - has been turned into a dirty word.

The new economic paradigm was first tried out as an experiment by General Pinochet in CHile, when that worked out really well for the rich, it was moved to the UK and US with Thatcher and Reagan. Both these clowns smashed the power of trade unions and reduced working people's rights whilst funding the economic machine by selling off government held assets and fuelling the property market to produce a boom bust cycle, and ever present threats of unemployment to keep working people in fear of loosing their meagre earnings.
Post Reply