Once more into the fray

[Mr. Civility]

Cheers!

It is time to give the old internet forums a try once more. It has been a while, but modern alternatives simply aren't cutting it.

My goal in life is to defend and advocate for civility (which according to my own formulation includes a lot of philosophy) in any all all ways possible be it online or offline in writing, speech, art, what have you.

Looking forward to many interesting discussions and debates. I've got plenty of topics in mind.

[promethean75]

I prefer to remain a noble savage and dwell beyond the gates of your city, thank u.

[Wizard22]

If you're here for Civility, then I fear you've come to the wrong place!

[Walker]

Hello, Mr. Civil. Wecome. Be the change you want to see. Good philosophy.

Here's a thread.
viewtopic.php?t=41862

[Mr. Civility]

I prefer to remain a noble savage and dwell beyond the gates of your city, thank u.

By all means. I shall build and you shall watch from afar.

Luckily for you, this city will not steal any land or force anyone to servitude.

Civility is a voluntary way of life. One with peace and stability in mind.

[Mr. Civility]

If you're here for Civility, then I fear you've come to the wrong place!

Maybe so and I shall be cautious. Maybe stability can be restored in these parts somehow?

Some strict/twisted form of politeness is not required by the way. That would only get in the way.

[Mr. Civility]

Hello, Mr. Civil. Wecome. Be the change you want to see. Good philosophy.

Here's a thread.
viewtopic.php?t=41862

Thank you! Wise words, master Walker.

Excellent initiative as well. I shall ponder the challenge and respond in kind given the time.

[Age]

Cheers!

It is time to give the old internet forums a try once more. It has been a while, but modern alternatives simply aren't cutting it.

My goal in life is to defend and advocate for civility (which according to my own formulation includes a lot of philosophy) in any all all ways possible be it online or offline in writing, speech, art, what have you.

Looking forward to many interesting discussions and debates. I've got plenty of topics in mind.

1. What does the word 'civility' mean and/or refer to, to you, exactly? Or, in other words what is 'civility', exactly, according to your own formulation?

2. What is 'philosophy' to you, exactly, which a lot of is included in your own formulation of 'civility'?

[promethean75]

"Luckily for you, this city will not steal any land or force anyone to servitude"

Well that'll be a first. I know of no city since the industrial revolution that did not immediately put a citizen in chains the moment he popped out of his moms. One is given the choice of becoming a wage laborer or living with diogenes in an old bathtub behind a building and being charged with loitering or trespassing.

And as for the myth of 'free competition', I quote one Johann Kaspar Schmidt:

"... it is not 'free,' because I lack the things for competition. Under the regime of the commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the possessors of the capitalists"

Both Rousseau and Hobbes were right, but only becuz Marx hasn't happened yet.

[promethean75]

We anarchists don't object to civilization per se, only to what has so far been fraudulently called 'civilization'.

We merely express more openly and honestly what the ruling class is so careful to conceal as it maintains its status-quo and calls it a democracy or a republic. The anarcho-egoist is what the capitalist wants to be but cannot openly announce it, as that would jeopardize his opportunity to exploit those duped by his deception via the fraudulent concept of the state that he professes to them. If he told the truth, the whole thing would break open and chaos would reign.

I mean if u wanna do democracy, do it, but do it right, becuz we anarchists are watching, and we can't be fooled like your citizens.

[Mr. Civility]

1. What does the word 'civility' mean and/or refer to, to you, exactly? Or, in other words what is 'civility', exactly, according to your own formulation?

2. What is 'philosophy' to you, exactly, which a lot of is included in your own formulation of 'civility'?

Good direct questions. Here are direct answers.

1. Civility, according to my formulation, means building and maintaining peace in society (civilization) by acting in a stable way.

Stable actions are based on
a) treating everyone, including yourself, as an individual.
b) treating everyone based on factual needs not arbitrary wants.
c) treating everyone with honesty by revealing relevant information (e.g personal matters might be irrelevant)

Putting this formulation to practical use is the tricky part. I'll share some examples in Walker's thread.

2. Philosophy, according to a common formulation, means the love of knowledge. For me it comes down to seeking more knowledge and understanding in particular. It is impossible to act in a stable way without researching the facts and understanding enough about other individuals and their needs.

That's the short of it. What do you think about these two concepts

[Mr. Civility]

Well that'll be a first. I know of no city since the industrial revolution that did not immediately put a citizen in chains the moment he popped out of his moms. One is given the choice of becoming a wage laborer or living with diogenes in an old bathtub behind a building and being charged with loitering or trespassing.

There are more alternatives lifestyles than that in modern cities, but the sentiment rings true. It is hard to see alternatives when going with the flow. Looking the other way is one thing, swimming the other way is on another level.

The city I was referring to is immaterial, a way of life I call civility. If followed by enough people, it will lead to civilized, material, cities too!

And as for the myth of 'free competition,..

This topic better be discussed on its own thread (and I'm sure it has been discussed many times already). Do you have a good one to suggest for perusal?

We anarchists don't object to civilization per se, only to what has so far been fraudulently called 'civilization'.

Having talked to an anarchist before, the ideology sure seems to push the other way. "Without rulers" as the translation goes, is an interesting idea, which nonetheless at the moment seems very difficult to pull off. New technologies are going to change that though.

We merely express more openly and honestly what the ruling class is so careful to conceal as it maintains its status-quo and calls it a democracy or a republic. [...]If he told the truth, the whole thing would break open and chaos would reign.

And honesty is what I'm also all for. A civilization based on lies and deceit will inevitable collapse and leave but memories behind. That is, the citizens were not civilized enough as they failed upholding their civilization. In the worst case the collapse leads to a dark age, which is likely worse than living up to one's civil duties trying to fix what was broken.

[Age]

1. What does the word 'civility' mean and/or refer to, to you, exactly? Or, in other words what is 'civility', exactly, according to your own formulation?

2. What is 'philosophy' to you, exactly, which a lot of is included in your own formulation of 'civility'?

Good direct questions. Here are direct answers.

1. Civility, according to my formulation, means building and maintaining peace in society (civilization) by acting in a stable way.

Stable actions are based on
a) treating everyone, including yourself, as an individual.
b) treating everyone based on factual needs not arbitrary wants.
c) treating everyone with honesty by revealing relevant information (e.g personal matters might be irrelevant)

Well every individual human being is an individual human being, right?

Every, and all, individual human beings need the exact same things, which is about only four things, right?

What is 'relevant', or not, is relative to the individual observer, or the individual human being, right?

Putting this formulation to practical use is the tricky part. I'll share some examples in Walker's thread.

2. Philosophy, according to a common formulation, means the love of knowledge. For me it comes down to seeking more knowledge and understanding in particular. It is impossible to act in a stable way without researching the facts and understanding enough about other individuals and their needs.

But, each individual human being has the exact same needs. This knowledge was already been arrived at, after obtaining the facts.

That's the short of it. What do you think about these two concepts

What I think is that they are your individual concepts, which;

1. Why is a 'stable way' necessary for building and maintaining peace, in a society?

2. Why is treating every one, as an individual, so-called 'acting in a stable way', exactly? For example, why would treating groups of human beings like, for example, children, and, adults differently, or just treating all human beings as 'human beings' the same, not be a so-called 'stable way'?

3. One could only treat every one based on factual, or actual, needs, and not just on wants, collectively nor arbitrarily, only once one has learned and knows the actual difference between human wants, and, human needs, right? Do you yet know what human beings actually 'need', and thus can also distinguish between human beings' 'needs', from what are just 'wants'?

4. Revealing 'relevant' information, honestly, is way too 'relative' to be of any actual success or of any real usefulness here. For example, I might rape and murder a child, for example, but then find or decide that revealing 'that information' is not 'relevant' here. But, which some other individual, like "yourself", might consider revealing 'that information' would be 'relevant'. (But, without any direct guidance nor correlation to what the 'relevant' word is, literally, relevant to, each and every individual human being could be on their own, here.)

Also, and by the way, I found that by just treating absolutely every one with Trust, Respect, Understanding, Empathy, with Loyalty (Honesty), Openness, Voluntary, Enthusiasm, with and for absolutely every individual one, then this is what causes, creates, and keeps what you call 'civility', in place. Or, what I just call, 'Every one just living in peace and harmony together, as One'.

[Age]

Well that'll be a first. I know of no city since the industrial revolution that did not immediately put a citizen in chains the moment he popped out of his moms. One is given the choice of becoming a wage laborer or living with diogenes in an old bathtub behind a building and being charged with loitering or trespassing.

There are more alternatives lifestyles than that in modern cities, but the sentiment rings true. It is hard to see alternatives when going with the flow. Looking the other way is one thing, swimming the other way is on another level.

The city I was referring to is immaterial, a way of life I call civility. If followed by enough people, it will lead to civilized, material, cities too!

And as for the myth of 'free competition,..

This topic better be discussed on its own thread (and I'm sure it has been discussed many times already). Do you have a good one to suggest for perusal?

We anarchists don't object to civilization per se, only to what has so far been fraudulently called 'civilization'.

Having talked to an anarchist before, the ideology sure seems to push the other way. "Without rulers" as the translation goes, is an interesting idea, which nonetheless at the moment seems very difficult to pull off. New technologies are going to change that though.

We merely express more openly and honestly what the ruling class is so careful to conceal as it maintains its status-quo and calls it a democracy or a republic. [...]If he told the truth, the whole thing would break open and chaos would reign.

And honesty is what I'm also all for. A civilization based on lies and deceit will inevitable collapse and leave but memories behind. That is, the citizens were not civilized enough as they failed upholding their civilization. In the worst case the collapse leads to a dark age, which is likely worse than living up to one's civil duties trying to fix what was broken.

The days when this is being written are the True 'dark ages'. Civilizations, and/or civility, were actually existing way before human beings began inventing and creating 'stuff', which was back before adult human beings began greedy and selfish, like they Truly are, in the days when this is being written.

The beauty of always evolving, or 'moving forward', is that human beings can and do 'back to' living 'civil' and, in True 'civilizations', like they used to. But, in the future from when this is being written human beings live 'civil', with what is 'needed' at forefront of all 'thinking', but still with all of the desired, or wanted, 'creature comforts' designed with 'the future' as the most important, and with them all created and powered by pollution-free energy. This, however, only comes into play when the learned and nurtured 'greed' and 'selfish' is once again absent from the adult human being.

[Mr. Civility]

Well every individual human being is an individual human being, right?
[...]
1. Why is a 'stable way' necessary for building and maintaining peace, in a society?

2. Why is treating every one, as an individual, so-called 'acting in a stable way', exactly? For example, why would treating groups of human beings like, for example, children, and, adults differently, or just treating all human beings as 'human beings' the same, not be a so-called 'stable way'?

Everyone human being is an individual, yes.

Unfortunately some forget or disregard that fact and end up treating other individuals based on superficial simplifications or group based generalization (e.g. it seems to me that all left handed people are like X -> you are left handed -> you are like X!). Acting in this way is unstable, because it gives individuals reasons to dislike and distrust each other. People who dislike and distrust each other are unlikely to want to work together towards common goals, such as maintaining a peaceful civilization, which is the goal of civility.

This is why it is better to act in a stable way, which is to treat others as individuals. When it comes to adults and children, there are differences in maturity which have to be taken into account when granting rights, but drawing the line at 18-20 years is just a matter of practicality. Adulthood could be determined individually based on some tests, but it is not a big issue as everyone will eventually pass that age threshold anyway. Patience is a virtue, which those who mature quicker should understand.

Every, and all, individual human beings need the exact same things, which is about only four things, right?
[...]
3. One could only treat every one based on factual, or actual, needs, and not just on wants, collectively nor arbitrarily, only once one has learned and knows the actual difference between human wants, and, human needs, right? Do you yet know what human beings actually 'need', and thus can also distinguish between human beings' 'needs', from what are just 'wants'?

And these four things are... survival related?

The simplest civilized society would have two purposes:
Primary: Provide all individuals with what they need (factually for survival)
Secondary: Allow all individuals to do what they want (arbitrarily as long as it does not contradict the primary purpose)

This way it is possible to make the distinction between needs and wants. What individuals need includes what needs to be done to maintain society based on the current situation we live in (e.g paying taxes is not what many want to do, but it is needed.)

But, each individual human being has the exact same needs. This knowledge was already been arrived at, after obtaining the facts.

There are other facts to consider when it comes to putting these ideas into practice. Armchair philosophy is just the beginning.

For instance, finding a path from this point in time to a future point in time where society has become more civilized requires a lot of searching for facts and understanding. After all not everyone agrees on this way of life and many act in all sorts of arbitrary ways (particularly in politics) at the moment. How to convince others to change their ways is a difficult task which has no ending.

What is 'relevant', or not, is relative to the individual observer, or the individual human being, right?
[...]
4. Revealing 'relevant' information, honestly, is way too 'relative' to be of any actual success or of any real usefulness here. For example, I might rape and murder a child, for example, but then find or decide that revealing 'that information' is not 'relevant' here. But, which some other individual, like "yourself", might consider revealing 'that information' would be 'relevant'. (But, without any direct guidance nor correlation to what the 'relevant' word is, literally, relevant to, each and every individual human being could be on their own, here.)

Relevant related to maintaining a peaceful civilization, which is the goal of civility. If someone doesn't want this, for some arbitrary reason, then they can value other things, but the result of that might not be maintainable. A society where murder goes constantly unpunished would not remain standing for long. It would be beneficial to leave that society, fast, and anyone with the means to do so would do so.

Also, and by the way, I found that by just treating absolutely every one with Trust, Respect, Understanding, Empathy, with Loyalty (Honesty), Openness, Voluntary, Enthusiasm, with and for absolutely every individual one, then this is what causes, creates, and keeps what you call 'civility', in place. Or, what I just call, 'Every one just living in peace and harmony together, as One'.

Except it would not. Evil individuals exist and they would abuse you immediately if blindly trusted or respected. They would hide their true intentions and act in unstable, but subtle ways to twist your empathy and loyalty so that your life, and society at large, would slide away from harmony and unity towards greed and destruction.

Civility, on the other hand, works once all individuals who want to live in peace (80%, 90%, 95% of the population?) demand civility from those who use political, social and economic power. Once that is achieved, then unstable actions become very difficult to pull off. Not impossible though, because perfection will always be out of reach. Good enough is good enough.

That's the short of it. What do you think about these two concepts

What I think is that they are your individual concepts,

I thank you for the questioning, nonetheless I should have been more clear. By "these two concepts" I meant civility and philosophy. Do you use these words in your thinking or go with some others?