Decline of the West???

[Wizard22]

Successful kings don't need to do that. It's much better, and much more effective, too, to gain the love and respect of one's people.

...still oh so innocent, aren't ya?

[Sculptor]

The trouble with this sort of question is that there is no such thing as "The West".
Furthermore, no criteria for judging decline has been offered.

And yet look at the discussion thus far? It's been informative.

What say you, incline, plateau, or decline?

What are your criteria?

[Wizard22]

What are your criteria?

Let's use Skepdick and Maia's criteria of "progress", standard-of-living I suppose.

[Iwannaplato]

I think most people would point to the very rich and wealthy for evidence of this type of 'progress'.

IN what ways? How do they behave, what do they do that shows ascent?

Me personally? I don't think that way. I think in terms of how average people treat each other, optimism for the future, spirituality, philosophy.

This is not a trap question but, do you see yourself as being optimistic in general in how you post here? I have no great statistical overview, but it seemed like you focus a lot on what you consider the negative. (which by the way I don't consider a bad thing, myself. IOW if I'm right that you do this - focus on the negative as you see it - I don't think that's grounds for criticism. If there are problems focusing on the negative can be quite healthy)

For example, if the quality of philosophy increases, then that's significant to me.

So, what would that look like?

[Skepdick]

OK, so the word "king" seems to have derailed you from understanding the point. How about...

I'd rather be middle class in 2023AD than super rich in 2023BC.

...so you need to skew 4000 years to make your point.

I understand what you're saying. But it's not the whole picture.

I am not "skewing" anything - I am pointing out that viewing the world through the lens of classes without taking into account the dynamics of time robs you of understanding how the experience of being poor has changed over time.

Being poor today is a significant improvement over being poor 5000 years ago, so if anything my picture is far more complete than yours.

Mean while poverty as such will never be erradicated because "poor" is always tautologically defined in relation to somebody who's less poor (e.g rich).

If there are any differences in wealth (such that they can be plotted on a statistical distibution) you draw the line in the middle - to the left are your "poor"; to the right are the "rich". But the tautology isn't useful without temporal context.

All the riches in the world couldn't have bought you a doctor with a clue 5000 years ago.

[FlashDangerpants]

So we have confirmed that you are doing another antisemitism here.

Your juvenile tactics don't work on me, or anybody else here, my small-hat friend. If my family were Anti-semitic then my grandfather and the rest of the Anglos would not have saved your kin from the Nazi death camps, and imported you to the West. But we did. And you made the West wealthy for awhile...until you forgot where you came from, and why you are here.

Now your true nature is exposed. It doesn't take many generations for you to turn on your saviors, does it?

So I will hear no more about your prudish, empty rhetoric.

Jews made the west wealthy for a while?..... how did they do that?

[Wizard22]

IN what ways? How do they behave, what do they do that shows ascent?

In ways that British people admire and emulate the Royal Family.
In ways that black American youfs admire rappers.
In ways that minority girls in America admire Kim Kardashian.
In ways that white girls admire Taylor Swift.
In ways that nerds admire Bill Gates and Elon Musk.

Shall I go on?

This is not a trap question but, do you see yourself as being optimistic in general in how you post here? I have no great statistical overview, but it seemed like you focus a lot on what you consider the negative. (which by the way I don't consider a bad thing, myself. IOW if I'm right that you do this - focus on the negative as you see it - I don't think that's grounds for criticism. If there are problems focusing on the negative can be quite healthy)

For example, if the quality of philosophy increases, then that's significant to me.

So, what would that look like?

Sometimes, yes I am optimistic. Other times, no I am pessimistic. I try to align my expectations to Reality, not Subjective opinions.

Quality of Philosophy means many intellectually sharp and logically consistent opponents debating about vital, important topics, along with challenging the status-quo of societies, and Western Civilization in particular. Philosophy should regularly challenge taken-for-granted truths, for example, propaganda of Covid-19 or LGBTQ+ Marxist indoctrination, versus Biological and Virological Reality. This should include the ability to consider the far-left Secular Atheist viewpoint, versus the far-right Abrahamic Religious viewpoint.

You cannot call yourself a Philosopher, or even interested in Philosophy, if you cannot consider, understand, and repeat verbatim oppositional viewpoints.

[Wizard22]

I am not "skewing" anything - I am pointing out that viewing the world through the lens of classes without taking into account the dynamics of time robs you of understanding how the experience of being poor has changed over time.

Being poor today is a significant improvement over being poor 5000 years ago, so if anything my picture is far more complete than yours.

Mean while poverty as such will never be erradicated because "poor" is always tautologically defined in relation to somebody who's less poor (e.g rich).

If there are any differences in wealth (such that they can be plotted on a statistical distibution) you draw the line in the middle - to the left are your "poor"; to the right are the "rich". But the tautology isn't useful without temporal context.

All the riches in the world couldn't have bought you a doctor with a clue 5000 years ago.

Read daniel's response to Maia on page 8.

Having few resources, does not constitute how persons or societies function or their health. A proud and noble people can be dirt poor, and worth more than a decrepit, corrupt, wealthy society. That's the difference you're missing. So it isn't as much about quantity and quality of resources, versus the "reality on the ground". People still need to live, while in squalor. People will need to face adversity, no matter their position in any society, of any time.

So you've not really covered these different areas by which people disagree and resist any notion of "general improvement of time as progress".

In other words...people can be depressed, vain, lowly intellect, miserable, while rich, while living in the first world, while being at the "tip of progress" according to your stated standards.

[Wizard22]

Jews made the west wealthy for a while?..... how did they do that?

By providing huge amounts of loans at low interest to Western countries, through the banks, from the 1950s onward.

Nowadays, the US just barely agreed to increasing the US debt by trillions of dollars. Eventually this magic funny money won't work.

Then the chickens will come home to roost.


And you will get your chance to see real anti-semitism and meet these real nazis you so greatly adulate.

[Wizard22]

Civilizations don't last long when the electricity turns off and the sewage stops flowing.

Western funny money can't last forever, and certainly not much longer.

Do you all think Westerners will really become "woke" when a gallon of gas, milk, or a dozen eggs cost $100.00?

[Skepdick]

Read daniel's response to Maia on page 8.

Having few resources, does not constitute how persons or societies function or their health.

Yeah, right. Successfill societies require time and effort. Show me a society which appeared in an instant with a magic wand.

Societies which didn't have to put in the work to develop culture, knowledge, science, medicine, industry.

And explain to me why the average life expectancy for humans was 35-50 years merely 300 years ago. How did it magically double?
How did we stop dying from dumb shit like sepsis and cholera?

A proud and noble people can be dirt poor, and worth more than a decrepit, corrupt, wealthy society.

And a proud, noble and wealthy society is worth more than both of those togeher.

What's your point?

That's the difference you're missing.

The difference which you could only explain by strawmanning me?

I am speaking qualitatively. In the most rational and holistic manner possible taking all the available evidence under consideration. Despite your attempts to peg qualities (such as nobility and wealth) against each other.

You seem to be romanticising about the noble savage.

So it isn't as much about quantity and quality of resources, versus the "reality on the ground".

And the quality of this reality is qualified how?

People still need to live, while in squalor. People will need to face adversity, no matter their position in any society, of any time.

OK. And? Facing and conquering adversity is precisely what causes moral progress.

So you've not really covered these different areas by which people disagree and resist any notion of "general improvement of time as progress".

Why do I have to do that?

If you are going to pretend that life 5000 years was better than it is today - then give up all of your posessions and become my slav.e
I have work for you.

In other words...people can be depressed, vain, lowly intellect, miserable, while rich, while living in the first world, while being at the "tip of progress" according to your stated standards.

Which is why I am counting all of those factors in the general concept of "well being".

Ceteris paribus less depression is better than more depression. As we lower depression we progress.
Ceteris paribus less misery is better than more misery. As we lower misery we progress.

[Maia]

Jews made the west wealthy for a while?..... how did they do that?

By providing huge amounts of loans at low interest to Western countries, through the banks, from the 1950s onward.

Nowadays, the US just barely agreed to increasing the US debt by trillions of dollars. Eventually this magic funny money won't work.

Then the chickens will come home to roost.


And you will get your chance to see real anti-semitism and meet these real nazis you so greatly adulate.

You do seem to have it in for Jewish people, don't you? I've actually been to Israel, which I'm willing to bet you haven't. We went there for two weeks on a school trip when I was 17. Stayed in Tel Aviv, Eilat, and Jerusalem. Every single person I met was extremely friendly and helpful, and I was particularly impressed with the service in restaurants and other venues. I even got to swim with dolphins. I highly recommend it, if you want a few of your prejudices challenged, but then again, who on earth wants that? It was a bit hot though, I must admit, despite it being January.

[Flannel Jesus]

You do seem to have it in for Jewish people, don't you? I've actually been to Israel, which I'm willing to bet you haven't. We went there for two weeks on a school trip when I was 17. Stayed in Tel Aviv, Eilat, and Jerusalem. Every single person I met was extremely friendly and helpful, and I was particularly impressed with the service in restaurants and other venues. I even got to swim with dolphins. I highly recommend it, if you want a few of your prejudices challenged, but then again, who on earth wants that? It was a bit hot though, I must admit, despite it being January.

I was surprised to learn just recently how pervasive this type of anti semitism really is. Seems like philosophy forums are drowning in it.

[Maia]

You do seem to have it in for Jewish people, don't you? I've actually been to Israel, which I'm willing to bet you haven't. We went there for two weeks on a school trip when I was 17. Stayed in Tel Aviv, Eilat, and Jerusalem. Every single person I met was extremely friendly and helpful, and I was particularly impressed with the service in restaurants and other venues. I even got to swim with dolphins. I highly recommend it, if you want a few of your prejudices challenged, but then again, who on earth wants that? It was a bit hot though, I must admit, despite it being January.

I was surprised to learn just recently how pervasive this type of anti semitism really is. Seems like philosophy forums are drowning in it.

It's depressing that some people just don't seem able to learn the lessons of the past.

[FlashDangerpants]

Jews made the west wealthy for a while?..... how did they do that?

By providing huge amounts of loans at low interest to Western countries, through the banks, from the 1950s onward.

Nowadays, the US just barely agreed to increasing the US debt by trillions of dollars. Eventually this magic funny money won't work.

Then the chickens will come home to roost.


And you will get your chance to see real anti-semitism and meet these real nazis you so greatly adulate.

And this coming crisis will of course be caused by the Jews huh?
Gonna guess it will result in some sort of conflict between various races too?