Indoctrinations and philosophy

[Peter Kropotkin]

as I have noted before, we are, right from birth,
indoctrinated with the beliefs of the family, the state,
the society, the church... because of when I was born, 1959
and where I was born, Minneapolis, I was indoctrinated with different
beliefs than you were... It was assumed that there was a "god"
and that communism was wrong, and AMERICA was number one..
those are some of the beliefs that I was, and we are indoctrinated with...

Now let us think about the point of philosophy... which is to, depending
on who does the thinking, about wonder, love, doubt, or establishing
what is true and what is false... if we come to philosophy in doubt, as I do,
then we must doubt the indoctrinations of our childhood...I cannot
assume that there is a god, or that communism is wrong or capitalism is
right or that AMERICA is the greatest country on earth...

Our indoctrinations are really just social/political/economic assumptions
made about our society or state.. and we are philosophers and as such,
we cannot, cannot make assumptions about our indoctrinations.. I was
indoctrinated with the belief in god... that is an assumption.. and I must
challenge the assumptions of my/our country, socially, politically, economically...
for that is the point of philosophy... to challenge both our own assumptions,
but to challenge the social, political, economic, religious assumptions of our
society and state...

Think of the great philosophers in history, they didn't confirm their
society's beliefs or assumptions, they challenged those beliefs...
every major philosopher's value comes from their challenging
their society's beliefs and assumptions...from Socrates to Descartes
to Spinoza to Nietzsche, every single one of them challenged their
society/state's beliefs/assumptions....

as a philosopher, if you simply accept the society's beliefs/assumptions,
and go from there, as your starting point, you are not a philosopher,
you are a polemicist...if you start with fixed assumptions, for example,
the 2020 election was stolen or there is a god, and go from there,
you are not a philosopher, you are simple defending already held
beliefs/assumptions...that means you are a polemicist defending
your fixed assumptions/beliefs....

This is in part why I object to philosophers who start with fixed/set
assumptions.. the Medieval philosophers for example, they start with
the assumptions that there is a god, and go from there...
(and one of my objections to phil, he starts with fixed assumptions
and goes from there, instead of challenging his beliefs/assumptions)

I have held three different and distinct political philosophies,
and several different philosophies, for example I once held that Nietzsche
could walk on water, he was such a great philosopher, today I suspect
had he lived long enough, he would have rejected most, if not all of his
philosophy....I don't hold to the strength of my beliefs, in other words,
I don't think holding to beliefs/assumptions, as in there is a god unto
death, think of early Christians who died for their faith, as being
worthy of being honored, to accept a belief/assumption even to
death has any value...it isn't the strength of my belief that matters,
but my willingness to attack my beliefs/assumptions that matters...
it takes greater courage to attack beliefs than it does to hold
beliefs/assumptions to the death....

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

if you simply accept the society's beliefs/assumptions,
and go from there, as your starting point, you are not a philosopher,
you are a polemicist..

Your assumption about what a polemicist is needs examining.

[Peter Kropotkin]

if you simply accept the society's beliefs/assumptions,
and go from there, as your starting point, you are not a philosopher,
you are a polemicist..

Your assumption about what a polemicist is needs examining.

K: you are correct.. my bad.. that's what I get for writing before I eat breakfast
and wake up... reminder to self, don't write anything before waking up...

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

K: you are correct.. my bad..

Don't worry about it, it isn't a hanging offence.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Not yet, anyway....

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

Attacking his own beliefs live, in front of us. What a lad.

[bobmax]

it takes greater courage to attack beliefs than it does to hold
beliefs/assumptions to the death....

It takes courage and the willingness to suffer.
Because research calls for tearing the roots of evil that cling to my heart. And with each tear the heart bleeds.

But nothing is as good as the Truth.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Attacking his own beliefs live, in front of us. What a lad.

K: as I am sure you are aware of, I have attacked my own values and
beliefs in several threads on ILP... I have no problem with that....
life is nothing more than an examination of values that one has
and understanding why I picked those values instead of other values....
what other point of philosophy is there?

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

life is nothing more than an examination of values that one has
and understanding why I picked those values instead of other values....
what other point of philosophy is there?

I dig it

[Iwannaplato]

then we must doubt the indoctrinations of our childhood...

Great and I agree. Is there anything left from the indoctrinations of childhood that you haven't doubted and investigated. Of course we get these big overriding and in a sense concrete beliefs, like the ones you mentioned around God, the US, etc. But pehraps there are other beliefs you had then, that you still have: epistemological, or metaphysical (realism?) or about your own ability to notice anomolies or.....

And then, now you have arrived your current philosophy. Are there any parts of it that it's time to look at, and check again?

It seems, but you didn't state it, that you might consider certainty a problem. If so, could you imagine changing your mind about that?

[Peter Kropotkin]

then we must doubt the indoctrinations of our childhood...

Great and I agree. Is there anything left from the indoctrinations of childhood that you haven't doubted and investigated. Of course we get these big overriding and in a sense concrete beliefs, like the ones you mentioned around God, the US, etc. But pehraps there are other beliefs you had then, that you still have: epistemological, or metaphysical (realism?) or about your own ability to notice anomolies or.....

And then, now you have arrived your current philosophy. Are there any parts of it that it's time to look at, and check again?

It seems, but you didn't state it, that you might consider certainty a problem. If so, could you imagine changing your mind about that?

K: well, I am not exactly sure about certainty, but I hold that there is no such thing
as an "absolute truth"... I don't know of anything that can be called "absolute truth" ..

But Kropotkin, it is easy to find something that is an "absolute truth"
for example, everyone dies.... are you sure? have you checked that everyone
who as ever lived, has also died? Nope, we can't make that assumption.
Kropotkin, there is a god? Again, you willing to bet the farm on that one?
I wouldn't... how do we know in fact that there is a god.. in the end, it
becomes an epistemological question... how do we "know" that to be true?

I would be willing to bet almost everything that we hold true today, in 200
years will be laughed at, as being false and downright dumb..
I of course, won't be here, and most likely, you won't be here...
but don't bet the farm on it....

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

for example, everyone dies.... are you sure? have you checked that everyone
who as ever lived, has also died? Nope, we can't make that assumption.

Of course we can make that assumption. Where do you imagine refusing to make that assumption is going to get you? Okay, so one day you meet a 10,0000 year old man who has the appearance of being in the first flush of youth, what's the worse thing that can happen, weighed against your making of that false, but reasonable, assumption?

[Iwannaplato]

K: well, I am not exactly sure about certainty, but I hold that there is no such thing
as an "absolute truth"... I don't know of anything that can be called "absolute truth" ..

There's a difference between certainty - which is a strong sense that one is correct and absolute truth.

You criticized people who go to their graves holding onto their belief in God. YOu don't believe in God, so see no value in this. But would you have the same judgment of beliefs that you hold? IOW is it ok to hang onto beliefs? When isn't it? How much should one let go of beliefs? How much should one question one's current beliefs or should one do this all the time? Are there potential problems with always questioning oneself?

IOW it seems like you are suggesting a kind of heuristic, that it's best to let go of beliefs every now and then. Should that belief be questioned? How do we know what is the best way to relate to current beliefs and what are the criteria for determining what a good relationship to one's own beliefs is?

I would be willing to bet almost everything that we hold true today, in 200
years will be laughed at,

Which of your current beliefs do you think are the most likely to be laughed at?
And let's not give the future the authority over truth. There could be a wrong turning, perhaps it's already started, where, for example, we decide that the limbic system is the root of problems - you can see seeds of this in pharmacological approaches to suppressing even everyday emotions - and how people are often told they are too emotional in debates - which is a great way for those in power - who know the current system will likely support them - can pathologize their opponents.

Perhaps via gene therapties, transhumanism, nanotech, 'improved' psychotropics, future humans will not have much in the way of limbic systems. They may well just all sorts of things from a logical perspective not grounded in relations/emotions as we do. And they may not even realize that their existence is a mere shadow of ours.

I suggest this not to say it is coming, but also not assume that philosophy will necessarily progress. Which is implicit in your OP since you find current philosophy wanting and the past philosophy much better.

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: well, I am not exactly sure about certainty, but I hold that there is no such thing
as an "absolute truth"... I don't know of anything that can be called "absolute truth" ..

There's a difference between certainty - which is a strong sense that one is correct and absolute truth.

IW: You criticized people who go to their graves holding onto their belief in God. YOu don't believe in God, so see no value in this. But would you have the same judgment of beliefs that you hold? IOW is it ok to hang onto beliefs? When isn't it? How much should one let go of beliefs? How much should one question one's current beliefs or should one do this all the time? Are there potential problems with always questioning oneself?

K: that is in fact not true.. I criticize people who don't examine their belief in god...
For the vast majority of people, their belief in god stems from their childhood
indoctrinations... I have examined or search for god for 40 years... and I couldn't
find any proof for god... if you have any type of proof for god, I would love to hear it...
it isn't in holding the belief, but in not attacking or examining it that I criticize...


IW: IOW it seems like you are suggesting a kind of heuristic, that it's best to let go of beliefs every now and then. Should that belief be questioned? How do we know what is the best way to relate to current beliefs and what are the criteria for determining what a good relationship to one's own beliefs is?

K: I would say an examination of beliefs is required, not necessarily a "let it go of beliefs"..
why hold this belief instead of another?

K: I would be willing to bet almost everything that we hold true today, in 200
years will be laughed at,

IW:: Which of your current beliefs do you think are the most likely to be laughed at?
And let's not give the future the authority over truth. There could be a wrong turning, perhaps it's already started, where, for example, we decide that the limbic system is the root of problems - you can see seeds of this in pharmacological approaches to suppressing even everyday emotions - and how people are often told they are too emotional in debates - which is a great way for those in power - who know the current system will likely support them - can pathologize their opponents.

K: I have no idea what current beliefs will be laughed at in 200 years.. but just
as we laugh at beliefs held 200 years ago, the future hopefully will pity our
ignorance.. for example, bloodletting was still in use 200 years ago... and what
ignorance of today, will be the future "bloodletting?"

IW: Perhaps via gene therapties, transhumanism, nanotech, 'improved' psychotropics, future humans will not have much in the way of limbic systems. They may well just all sorts of things from a logical perspective not grounded in relations/emotions as we do. And they may not even realize that their existence is a mere shadow of ours.

K: As one who depends on so called "transhumanism" I don't fear it as much as most people do.
Will the future bring about "better" human beings or not, I have no idea but
until we actual have conversation about what a better human being looks like,
we will have no idea...and this is basically my entire point... what does it mean to
be human?


IW: I suggest this not to say it is coming, but also not assume that philosophy will necessarily progress. Which is implicit in your OP since you find current philosophy wanting and the past philosophy much better.

K: CURRENT philosophy is wanting... and why? Because we don't ask or seek out
the questions of existence... I hold that we can't even make "progress" until we
actually, begin to ask the right questions.. you can't find answers until you ask
the right questions... people will occasionally ask me, what are the answers?
How the hell should I know because I am still seeking the right questions to ask,
little less seeking the answers...
and the past, at least they knew enough to ask questions which could lead
to answers...we can't even ask the right questions...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

IW: You criticized people who go to their graves holding onto their belief in God. YOu don't believe in God, so see no value in this. But would you have the same judgment of beliefs that you hold? IOW is it ok to hang onto beliefs? When isn't it? How much should one let go of beliefs? How much should one question one's current beliefs or should one do this all the time? Are there potential problems with always questioning oneself?

K: that is in fact not true.. I criticize people who don't examine their belief in god...
For the vast majority of people, their belief in god stems from their childhood
indoctrinations... I have examined or search for god for 40 years... and I couldn't
find any proof for god... if you have any type of proof for god, I would love to hear it...
it isn't in holding the belief, but in not attacking or examining it that I criticize...

I don't hold to the strength of my beliefs, in other words,
I don't think holding to beliefs/assumptions, as in there is a god unto
death, think of early Christians who died for their faith, as being
worthy of being honored, to accept a belief/assumption even to
death has any value...

I was responding to that.
in the context of this....

I have held three different and distinct political philosophies,
and several different philosophies, for example I once held that Nietzsche
could walk on water, he was such a great philosopher, today I suspect
had he lived long enough, he would have rejected most, if not all of his
philosophy....I don't hold to the strength of my beliefs, in other words,
I don't think holding to beliefs/assumptions, as in there is a god unto
death, think of early Christians who died for their faith, as being
worthy of being honored, to accept a belief/assumption even to
death has any value..

so it seems like having a variety of beliefs is better than having one belief over a long time. Or, it implies that if people have the same belief over a lifetime they arent' questioning their beliefs. How would you know that to be the case? That they don't have periods of doubt or crises of faith or don't mull over their beliefs?

What is the right amount of questioning? Your critique was mainly aimed at those who believe in God. A belief you don't have. Is it possible that conclusions based on people holding onto beliefs you disagree with will lead to a generalization about beliefs that is problematic? What if they are holding onto a belief you agree with?

How often should one question one's belief that the earth revolves around the sun or that pedophilia is not good for child development?

IOW does the generalization hold or is it a problem primarily when you see beliefs you disagree with?

IW: IOW it seems like you are suggesting a kind of heuristic, that it's best to let go of beliefs every now and then. Should that belief be questioned? How do we know what is the best way to relate to current beliefs and what are the criteria for determining what a good relationship to one's own beliefs is?

K: I would say an examination of beliefs is required, not necessarily a "let it go of beliefs"..
why hold this belief instead of another?

K: I would be willing to bet almost everything that we hold true today, in 200
years will be laughed at,

IW:: Which of your current beliefs do you think are the most likely to be laughed at?
And let's not give the future the authority over truth. There could be a wrong turning, perhaps it's already started, where, for example, we decide that the limbic system is the root of problems - you can see seeds of this in pharmacological approaches to suppressing even everyday emotions - and how people are often told they are too emotional in debates - which is a great way for those in power - who know the current system will likely support them - can pathologize their opponents.

K: I have no idea what current beliefs will be laughed at in 200 years.. but just
as we laugh at beliefs held 200 years ago, the future hopefully will pity our
ignorance.. for example, bloodletting was still in use 200 years ago... and what
ignorance of today, will be the future "bloodletting?"

Well, actually bloodletting may very well have helped against some infections
And I think the pharmacological approach to modulating emotions will go the way of the barber. Unless the transhumanists take over.