Philosophical Brinkmanship
There are not many hits when you put the words 'philosophical' and 'brinkmanship' together on an internet search.
Is 'living dangerously' a philosophy? Is gambling a philosophy? In the sense that if an organised group of humans wants to affect major change that has maximum effect on as many people as possible then do they have to engage in brinkmanship?
The Tories in the UK just U-turned on their proposal to get rid of the 45% tax band. Is this an example of failed political brinkmanship?
Putin annexing chunks of Ukraine. The 'this far and no further,' type of brinkmanship?
Do we easily step over such red lines?
Are there examples of philosophical brinkmanship that you would cite as being such.
Is 'I think therefore I am,' brinkmanship? If you accept it then you are alive, individual, significant etc. If you don't accept it, then what are you? Does your personal decision regarding this claim not put you on a brink of 'accept this is true or join the anti-life people or settle for some 'state of internal flux,' and 'live on the brink'.
Is the most exciting philosophy, that which takes you to A BRINK, challenges who you are, and what you want? Is Philosophical brinkmanship the best and most provocative kind of philosophy there is, or have I just shoved a couple of words together, and suggested a term of little value or significance?
I came across a website called 'The World Philosophical Forum.' Here are a few samples from its pages:
[i][b]The World Philosophical Forum (WPF) is an international independent Greek founded non-governmental, nonprofit organization (NGO) with branches in many countries (now in 53) on all continents all over the Earth. Being international & independent, WPF expresses and protects the interests of Humanity as a whole through disambiguation and acting on behalf of all the Earth civil society for a better everyone聮s future.
Registered in Athens, Greece in 2009 by philosopher Igor Kondrashin (now WPF President and CEO 聳 see profile), WPF vision of Life on the Earth from the very start of its foundation and activity was as protected, prosperous BEING for all, governed by reason, wisdom, morality, responsibility and justice with no place for people using in their everyday life double standards, corruption and falsehood. Such people should be civically reeducated in a correct way until they realize the true values for happy and peaceful life for all. The human rights on the Earth are to be respected by everybody, but be preceded and combined with human duties. According to WPF ideals, the all human ideology should be sort well with the ideas of transuniversalism, which blend together the best ideas of neohumanism with the ideas of transhumanism and allow everyone to live in dignity, peace and prosperity.
The WPF is headquartered in Athens, Greece, having also national branches The WPF is headquartered in Athens, Greece, having also national branches all over the planet Earth.
The WPF cooperates with UN-UNESCO, offering its reasonable ideas to their officials, trying from its side to assist in implementation of their progressive initiatives, supporting their strategies and global goals.[/b][/i]
They seemed to me to have some good goals but then terms such as 'civically reeducated in a correct way' started alarm bells ringing.
[i][b]Urgent notice!
Humanity is closer than never to the overall self-annihilation after mutual nuclear strikes!
All inhabitants of the Earth, be ready!
Now you have a good chance to fly to Heaven at any moment,
or, most likely, because of your total civil ignorance and social dementia - to Hell!
Most of Humanity has gone mad and is ready to die for nothing, therefore
WPF activity and guidance are intended only for those people, who still want to LIVE on this planet!
WPF invites such humans to join our universal community of Earth citizens,
aimed to live in the new, better World Order![/b][/i]
I began to see that there were many language errors on this site. Was this merely because its main backers are Greek or is this just a bunch of crazies, claiming to work with UNESCO?
'WORLD PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM!' sounds important. Is this site an example of the kind of philosophical brinkmanship being employed today.
Does this worry or excite you or a bit of both?
Is 'living dangerously' a philosophy? Is gambling a philosophy? In the sense that if an organised group of humans wants to affect major change that has maximum effect on as many people as possible then do they have to engage in brinkmanship?
The Tories in the UK just U-turned on their proposal to get rid of the 45% tax band. Is this an example of failed political brinkmanship?
Putin annexing chunks of Ukraine. The 'this far and no further,' type of brinkmanship?
Do we easily step over such red lines?
Are there examples of philosophical brinkmanship that you would cite as being such.
Is 'I think therefore I am,' brinkmanship? If you accept it then you are alive, individual, significant etc. If you don't accept it, then what are you? Does your personal decision regarding this claim not put you on a brink of 'accept this is true or join the anti-life people or settle for some 'state of internal flux,' and 'live on the brink'.
Is the most exciting philosophy, that which takes you to A BRINK, challenges who you are, and what you want? Is Philosophical brinkmanship the best and most provocative kind of philosophy there is, or have I just shoved a couple of words together, and suggested a term of little value or significance?
I came across a website called 'The World Philosophical Forum.' Here are a few samples from its pages:
[i][b]The World Philosophical Forum (WPF) is an international independent Greek founded non-governmental, nonprofit organization (NGO) with branches in many countries (now in 53) on all continents all over the Earth. Being international & independent, WPF expresses and protects the interests of Humanity as a whole through disambiguation and acting on behalf of all the Earth civil society for a better everyone聮s future.
Registered in Athens, Greece in 2009 by philosopher Igor Kondrashin (now WPF President and CEO 聳 see profile), WPF vision of Life on the Earth from the very start of its foundation and activity was as protected, prosperous BEING for all, governed by reason, wisdom, morality, responsibility and justice with no place for people using in their everyday life double standards, corruption and falsehood. Such people should be civically reeducated in a correct way until they realize the true values for happy and peaceful life for all. The human rights on the Earth are to be respected by everybody, but be preceded and combined with human duties. According to WPF ideals, the all human ideology should be sort well with the ideas of transuniversalism, which blend together the best ideas of neohumanism with the ideas of transhumanism and allow everyone to live in dignity, peace and prosperity.
The WPF is headquartered in Athens, Greece, having also national branches The WPF is headquartered in Athens, Greece, having also national branches all over the planet Earth.
The WPF cooperates with UN-UNESCO, offering its reasonable ideas to their officials, trying from its side to assist in implementation of their progressive initiatives, supporting their strategies and global goals.[/b][/i]
They seemed to me to have some good goals but then terms such as 'civically reeducated in a correct way' started alarm bells ringing.
[i][b]Urgent notice!
Humanity is closer than never to the overall self-annihilation after mutual nuclear strikes!
All inhabitants of the Earth, be ready!
Now you have a good chance to fly to Heaven at any moment,
or, most likely, because of your total civil ignorance and social dementia - to Hell!
Most of Humanity has gone mad and is ready to die for nothing, therefore
WPF activity and guidance are intended only for those people, who still want to LIVE on this planet!
WPF invites such humans to join our universal community of Earth citizens,
aimed to live in the new, better World Order![/b][/i]
I began to see that there were many language errors on this site. Was this merely because its main backers are Greek or is this just a bunch of crazies, claiming to work with UNESCO?
'WORLD PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM!' sounds important. Is this site an example of the kind of philosophical brinkmanship being employed today.
Does this worry or excite you or a bit of both?
Comments (81)
It has the makings of a cult playing on the current climate of fears.
Edit: Classic end of days stuff
Yep, I agree. I might even say that some far-right wackos, perhaps even fascists, are wearing some interesting labels nowadays. What would a WPF badge signify to you? Is there a philosophical brinkmanship being currently championed? For good and bad purposes? Has this always been so?
Do you have fav philosophers that liked to take people to a brink of thought? Is Jordan Peterson a good example? Did Dan Dennet try to warn against such brinkmanship with his term deepities?
Not sure what you mean by the brink word and too many pointless questions there.
Atheism, a philosophical movement grounded in logic and skepticism has its own list of martyrs, comparable to religion's own.
[quote=Plato]No one is hated more than he who speaks the truth.[/quote]
So, are these examples of philosophers who played the brinkmanship game and lost? or did they actually win due to a martyrdom card? You, for example have accepted the title of 'the father of western philosophy,' even though we have no actual writings from Socrates.
Would you call a character like Jordan Peterson a philosopher who likes to use brinkmanship?
He seems to suggest concepts like 'If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.' (line from a well-known Manic Street Preachers song.) Whereas, Sam Harris, Steve Pinker etc, not so much.
Is philosophical brinkmanship the only way to attract the majority?
But how do we stop, 'truth is a question of who has the biggest stick!'
I corrected some of the language errors I initially made, did that help? If not, what do you mean 'pointless questions?' Do you mean you don't understand the questions? or you don't think they are worth answering?
Fair enough!
Philosophical brinkmanship happens, in my humble opinion, when someone commits to a creed and becomes its strong proponent, willing to fight to the death to win supporters.
While I mentioned philosophical martyrs in my previous post, the kind of people who I mention im the previous paragraph aren't exactly them. A philosophical shaheed is one who sacrifices himself for truth/reason while a philosophical fanatic is simply someone who has consecrated his life to a system of philosophical beliefs whether it's true or reasonable.
As for might is right, this is an unfortunate state of affairs we have to simply put up with at the moment. Philosophical martyrs will, at one point or another, tackle it effectively.
You remain non-committal Mr Smith. You seem to agree that philosophical brinkmanship is a valid term but is it merely a blunt tool to 'inflame' the masses and it often backfires and often becomes the cause of your own demise? Or is it essential if you want to cause significant change as quickly as possible?
A line from the Prince song 'sign o the times'
"A man ain't happy Unless a man truly dies.'
I always took this as a line about brinkmanship.
Is this what humans always need? Brinkmanship? before they change their ways?
Otherwise, they become apathetic and change only happens at much slower than a snail's pace.
Is this the philosophical/psychiatric reason why voters in so many countries seem to be choosing 'extreme,' 'wacky,' 'colourful,' 'slightly mad,' leaders?
Surely it is wiser to see the car coming from a great distance away and then you have plenty of time to plan how to avoid getting killed by it.
Even the recent Nasa effort to divert asteroids from hitting the Earth by crashing a satellite into it etc is a good idea. 'Future proofing,' is the best response. A clear and present danger may require some kind of brinkmanship when there is no time to do anything else. But philosophical brinkmanship is in general, a bad approach in my opinion. People should pay attention to what is going on and educate themselves, socially, politically and historically. The fact that far too many people, are still so easy to manipulate and dupe, is the problem. Philosophical brinkmanship is still far too powerful a weapon imo.
It's unbelievable that "More than 120 football fans have reportedly died after chaos and violence erupted following an Indonesian league football match." and "If Bolsonaro does not win then there might be civil unrest in Brazil," Etc The rest of the world should be screaming at them instead of merely shaking their heads. 'SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE OF BRAZIL AND INDONESIA!"
But definitely not quite the same thing. I don't think the game theory of brinkmanship comes up much in the actual arguments of philosophy, maybe in university politics though.
[quote=Mark Twain]If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed.[/quote]
Yeah, but my focus is more about what makes people 'commit' themselves today to a particular point of view.
Okay, so we have ontology as a method of categorisation and of listing propositional logic scenarios such as x ? you accept y ? you must accept z. You also exemplified a personal choice scenario by typing 'don't go down x.'
So, if a person who deserves the title philosopher either due to academic qualifications or through personal publishing's decides to 'manipulate' (either positively or negatively) by offering the example you suggest in a brinkmanship style such as x ? you accept y ? you must accept z, where x, y, z.
power ? responsibility ? consequences.
Brinkmanship scenarios seem to be, employed a lot today.
How do you counter those who employ such brinkmanship philosophy?
Surely philosophers must have discussed this in depth.
Is rule by fear/threat/terror a legitimate philosophy? Basic Nazi philosophy for beginners.
Take people to the brink of their fears! That's the way to get them to live as you dictate.
Does that philosophy work?
Promise people anything they want until you get power! Take them to the brink of their desires!
Does that philosophy work?
Do these approaches only work for so long but ultimately fall.
Gandi said that all tyrants eventually fall. History suggests that he was correct but the 'we are on the brink' approach, still seems to have a great deal of power and attracts so many into knee-jerk voting such as in the elections of Trump, Bo Jo, Bolsonaro etc
Yep, I agree, too much to know and not enough personal brain space to store it nor time to assimilate it.
Maybe that's part of the problem, we have so much getting thrown at us that it's tough to even know where the real threats are coming from.
Aye! Like I once said, true/not, we're, each one of us, the best we can be given our circumstances. So if someone doesn't give a flyin' f**k about the truth or reason or ethics then we shouldn't hold that against that someone. He can't help but be the way he is; nature and nurture conspired to make him like that. Am I being too kind, too soft, too Dr. Pangloss when I adop this attitude?
I try to judge others on a case-by-case basis. I will accept mitigating circumstances, sure but there are very definite levels of personal responsibility that cannot be shirked even when considering every aspect of the circumstances you find yourself in. Again, I am reminded of the muse song I posted on another thread. How many people could be made into the following and for how long?
But there has to BE a moral high ground or else what do we aspire to? If we present a moral high ground then it has to be 'occupied,' otherwise it becomes farcical.
In a classroom, would you, as an adult, speak out against the use of any recreational drug or underage drinking etc, even if you did not follow such guidelines yourself, when you were their age?
You may be a judge, who truly feels that all paedophile's should simply be shot in the head in the local public square or burned at the stake and the local children allowed to watch whilst eating free popcorn.
We all have to listen very carefully to the 'better angels of our nature,' or else we all turn back into jungle style ferrule creatures. You can't build a good and progressive society based on personal instincts.
I think that examples like:
Quoting universeness
From a website called The World Philosophical Forum is much more akin to a term like philosophical brinkmanship than it is akin to a concept like '(moral) luck' but perhaps, it was not your intention to compare the two and you were merely offering your view about what the current philosophy community is discussing and offering their listeners.
Philosophical brinkmanship as in calling for change/belief ... at any cost? That would be terrible indeed!
Okay, I will try to explain myself a little better.
Brinkmanship is being used a great deal nowadays, agree?
Many doomsters try to convince the majority of others, to live their life as if they are on the brink. On the eve of the destruction of themselves and their species. Theism certainly employs this tactic as do anti-lifers and general pessimists/doomsters. Threats from madmen such as Putin and political rhetoric from vile characters such as Trump, Bolsonaro, right wing supremists etc seem to confirm this approach.
In my OP, I was asking the 'philosophers' here, (the academic ones and those who have studied the topic in-depth,) how philosophy/philosophers would respond to my 'philosophical brinkmanship,' term. @Count Timothy von Icarus for example offered 'ontological commitment,' and suggested (I think) that the concept of 'philosophical brinkmanship' was not something discussed much amongst philosophers. You seemed to suggest that there was some validity to the phrase.
Quoting Agent Smith
So, amongst the ancient philosophers, who do you think most employed the brinkmanship approach?
Who used fear, threat, etc. A kind of "Listen, we are all utterly doomed, if you don't listen to me!' approach, as their 'philosophy,' when trying to communicate with the masses.
Which of the now dead philosophers used this approach and why do you think they chose to.
Which of the current philosophers use this and why do they choose to? (I think Jordan Peterson does, for example).
My final question on this is again, a why question.
Is brinkmanship used because if you win, you win big? but if you lose, you lose big?
Is it the 'all in' poker game?
If a person/group/movement wants to change things for what they think would be better.
Let's say I want to establish a humanist/socialist global system.
Is the most successful approach, likely to be, the application of a philosophy of brinkmanship.
You will get your system established much quicker and embed it much deeper and make sure it lasts much longer if you convince the people that all alternatives will result in their destruction.
Are there many 'philosophers' that support that approach? As opposed to those who would suggest that 'reasoned argument,' and 'convincing the people through honest discourse,' is the best way to get them to trust you and give your system a trial period?
There's no doubt in our mental gymnastics, we consider the extremes. I believe it helps us feel opinionated and helps derive meaning to come to important decisions. However the maturity of thinking appears to be something more modest and universally pragmatic.
I certainly consider extremes, but I don't choose to fully exist there.
Do you feel that the powers that be, the media and perhaps many 'philosophers' seem determined to push us all in the direction of focusing on extreme scenario's?
No doubt the powers that be have a vested interest in pushing extreme philosophies. At the risk of starting a fight, I won't throw any of the obvious (to me) extreme philosophies under the bus. But maybe capitalism is a favorite whipping post that does drive a lot of our thinking.
But to your statement, yeah, it's ok to pass through extreme philosophies, but not "exist there".
Is there an agenda to drive us to extreme philosophies... I'm going to vote "yes". I don't think any form of government on earth in history has arrived at the utopia they claim to push to achieve. Not that we should be dismissive of good ideas and lessons learned. That would suggest then that historically we were driven to extremes and collapse was the result.
Quoting universeness
The mainstream media is nothing compared to GB News. Their narrative, day after day, is that there's a war for the heart and soul of the country against the politically correct, woke, lefties. They and a large proportion of Britain are angrier than the left, despite the right being in power for over a decade, and the current government being the furthest to the right. Practically everything in politics has gone in their favour and they still find things to be the end of the world.
I include Jordan Peterson as a right wing drama queen.
I broadly agree.
I am not surprised you bracketed (true). Do many philosophers act out of character? or are many philosophers, past and present, merely characters and some even more accurately described as caricatures.
So are there any particular philosophers you would name from the classical era in particular or from the post-classical times, that you think particularly pushed a purely fear/threat/brinkmanship philosophy.
Do quotes like: Friedrich Nietzsche
[b]"God Is Dead"
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."[/b]
Do you think Nietzsche should be categorised as a brinkmanship or fear-based philosopher?
What about Plato's:
"The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Is this fear-based philosophy?
There is nothing in philosophy that could make a novice or a veteran in the subject a fanatic and you need to be one to find brinkmanship appealing.
Yet there are many philosophers that many would describe as fanatics, yes?
You ask a very good question. I think humans are very attracted to brinkmanship. That's why the freak show was so popular and many people are themselves 'thrill seekers,' or are very attracted to the label 'adrenalin junkie'.
I would say early pioneers became so, out of necessity. They moved into new territories out of need rather than a wish to put their lives on the line but there does seem to be a part of the human character that feeds from the 'wow factor,' of putting your life on the line. All or nothing philosophy?
I think many philosophers have massaged those areas of the human character to suit their own ends.
Quoting universeness
I thought you'd disagree with my point about Peterson.
One of his latest things to get riled up about is climate change. Saying that the error bars around a climate change projection for 50 years time are so great that we wouldn't be able to measure the positive or negative affects of anything we do right now, "so how in the world are you going to solve a problem when you can't even measure the consequence of your actions. How is that even possible".
That's one of Nigel Farage's hobby horses too (in addition to immigration).
When Jordan Peterson first started to publicly philosophise, he was more guarded, I think. I was attracted to the various human dilemmas he posed such as being a guard at Auschwitz, etc (Certainly an on the brink job for anyone with a conscience) and how he thinks he would have lived through such.
His experience in psychiatry and his knowledge of how humans think is very impressive.
Then when he started to talk about how natural and essential power hierarchies were, I started to detract from him. His over-the-top attraction to all things Dostoyevsky, then his drug episode and getting his banned treatment in Russia, then his daughters various background money making schemes using his name, then his outbursts against his twitter ban and his obvious transphobia etc. So I now think he is a narcissist and probably a little mad.
But he is also quite dangerous as he is very intelligent and has the ear of a large number of people.
He could influence the political vote of many to vote for right wing policies.
His arguments against climate change are also worrying and BS. The main evidence for climate change is the continuing extreme weather events that are happening all over the planet and worsening every year and the FACTS of how much natural forest we are losing and how much plastic pollution is in the Ocean, how many species are in danger etc.
But perhaps I could be beat with my own stick here if I keep exemplifying fear and threat, just like Jordan does. I would of course claim that I am using fear/threat/brinkmanship to encourage change for the better however. But I suppose my dissenters can claim the same.
My laziest, exasperated, response to the name Nigel Farage, is just many many multiple: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
But is this 'massage/manipulation/attempt to control and direct base human primal fear, not the basis of so much of what gnarls at the human condition and stifles its full potential and rate of progress?
Is this not an area that philosophers could really help everyone with? In ways that are just not happening right now, imo. Should good philosophers not start to describe the rich/wealthy/powerful few, as scared people? People who see what life can be like for some. The horrible, unjust sufferings etc and to prevent that happening to them or those that they love, they gather and gain control over as many resources as possible, withdraw to their castles, gated/secured properties and pull up their drawbridges and place their security systems/people all around themselves and live in their own little protected Oasis.
They don't, nor do they want to hear the screams of those dying of famine etc. The 15,000 children dying EVERY DAY! and if they ever do, they roll some gold coins into the collection box and that sates their conscience. :vomit:
So many get so distracted and duped by those who peddle fear and brinkmanship. The nefarious claim that we had better listen to the threats they peddle, because if we don't aspire to be exactly what they want us to be, then we will personally suffer a lot more than we suffer now.
The theistic nefarious threaten with hellish outcomes after death, so even death will not offer you the escape of oblivion. How f****** dare they!
If you don't do what they say, then not only will this life be shit but your life after will be shit, but if you do as they command then this life might be mostly shit but the next life will be glorious, you know, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD! :lol:
The non-theistic rich, gangster mob, who run most, if not all, countries, suggest that they are in charge due to birthright or the historical dynastic efforts of their ancestors or due to their superior intelligence/celebrity or their recent understanding/manipulation of the human invention of money/the money trick, etc
If we try to dissent or even engage in mass revolt/revolution, due to claims of a stacked deck or an inability to act like life is still exclusively under 'law of the jungle' rules, then they will employ the tactics they have used against all humanist/socialist movements in the past. Starve it of resources, focus global plutocratic forces on that particular country/group, pick off the leaders one by one, buy off as many of their top people as possible, let some of them join the nefarious rich, make them betray each other, divide and conquer, kill it, kill it kill it, kill their attempt towards a fairer system before it grows and threatens the continued supremacy of the nefarious few or more accurately the scared nefarious few.
It is surely the responsibility of good and decent philosophy and philosophers to alley the primal fears of the human race and encourage them to believe that we do not have to continue to accept that the position of the nefarious few who control the fate of the vast majority of the rest of the human race, is unassailable.
I think climate change is one thing leftists (although not all climate change activists are on the left) are up in arms about. They are gluing themselves to trains, roads, damaging buildings, interrupting nationally broadcast speeches (including the new Prime Minister's conference speech). If the dangers of what they are preaching are true, maybe rightly so.
I have been watching the channel V-gan Booty, where the girls are going out naked, covered in their own menstrual blood, throwing paint over businesses, chaining themselves to things, screaming that people are animal abusers, and stealing animals from farms. As extreme as this is, if slaughterhouses are as bad as they say they are, rightly so.
If you keep throwing fear and threat at people and you keep role playing brinkmanship then the reaction of some will get more and more extreme. From theistic terrorism (Islamic/Christian/supremist etc) to extreme versions of civil disobedience like some of those you mention. The tories were lucky today, that it was just greenpeace protesters that managed to get so near to MissTrusst, I mean Mrs Truss. It could have been the scarier type of extremist that got so close.
There are many people who are wound very tight and its not difficult to confirm their worse fears and then convince them that an extreme response must be delivered by them NOW!!!! To save us all.
It's an old tactic, isn't it? But how many current philosophers are explaining this, every opportunity they get? I think that such is needed now, don't you?
No, I simply used him for exemplification of the kind of philosophical fear mongering/brinkmanship I am requesting discussion/opinion on.
Do you think 'good' modern philosophers have a responsibility to protect people from such or teach them ways to defend themselves against such?
I don't know. Some have graciously stepped up to the plate, offered their services for free. Skeptics like the late The Amazing Randi have made significant contributions to critical thinking; atheists like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins too have made a mark in that arena. Scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson have been more reserved in their criticism of bad ideas, preferring to defend rather than attack.
Interesting names to identify. What about those I exemplified a little earlier on this page:
Quoting universeness
Opinion?
An Appeal to Fear
Ok, does:
an appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative.
in your opinion, support or detract from a claim that some statements made by Plato and Nietzsche are fear based and if so, how many fear based statements do you have to make to be labelled a fear-based philosopher or a philosopher who mainly engages in brinkmanship scenarios. Nietzsche.....yes, Plato......sometimes?
Should we fear being led down the garden path? Should we fear illusions? Should we fear lies?
Do you?
We should conduct a poll.
You could start by answering the question
We should conduct a poll.
I appreciate the suggestion, but I am interested in some details, not yes/no responses.
Are lies, illusions (deception) dangerous?
Quoting Agent Smith
This seems a futile dance. It's okay if you prefer asking questions to answering them.
Sorry, but it's not your fault.
You maintain your rather enigmatic status Mr Smith. Maybe you are an international spy who only answers direct questions put to you by @Jamal when he is debriefing you in one of the various secret underwater pods he and his minions own or have I been watching old 'our man Flint' movies again.
Perhaps your matrix disguise is just a ruse to put us of your trail and your true-life story was dramatised in:
Does the following ringtone annoy you or activate your secret programming?
I had to google 'maya.'
the supernatural power wielded by gods and demons.
They have no power, as they don't exist. Can you get the ones you have experience with, to affect me?
I think your demons and gods are wimps and cowards and non-existent. I challenge your manifestations to affect me. Not through human hands or accidental happenstance of course, that would not count.
But if you could arrange a personal face to face meeting with any demonic or god manifestation you are familiar with, I would buy you a beer afterwards in appreciation, if I survive the encounter, which I will, easily, as such entities have no power, as they are only of the human imagination.
Quoting universeness
Same thing!
Well said Agent Flint!
Confirmed! No sarcasm involved!
Nietzsche urged people never to drink alcohol. I think that's a bit extreme. But perhaps a good shot of medicine for a society bent on excess. His argument was basically that it stripped us of our drive for self improvement.
I'm not sure what good it would do in practical terms. People tend to be led by emotion and self-interest, rather than philosophical or any other type of reasoned argument.
This is true of some but certainly not all. If an individual is TRULY 'open minded,' then said individual will welcome challenge to even your most dearly held viewpoints as challenge offer you the opportunity to HONESTLY defend. After I get over the initial shock, I will eventually thank someone who shows me convincing evidence that a viewpoint I hold is fatally flawed, especially if it means some of my past or current actions are, in accordance, incorrect/unjustified/damaging to the common good or to human progression etc.
Quoting Ajemo
I agree, but this is a situation that each individual must fully understand in my opinion, as it has proven to cause extremists like Trump, BoJo, Bolsonaro and Duterte to be given power and it also facilitates autocratic powers such as Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un etc. If people have to be taken to some kind of brink of fear or threat, to get their compliance or to win their vote, then philosophers must explain to them that this is what they are doing and that they must stop doing so and consider the information they are sourcing, in a more balanced way and with more scrutiny, to ensure its accuracy before they take any actions.
Quoting Ajemo
I am conflicted on the advice 'dont touch the fire because it will burn you!' I agree it's silly to touch the fire because it WILL burn you, so I personally do heed such advice but some people who think 'Well, it might have burned you, but it won't burn me, I have a cunning plan,' etc, only seem to learn through suffering and such suffering often turns them bitter, twisted and misanthropic.
I don't abstain from something like alcohol, but I stay aware of the dangers involved.
I think Nietzsche was, in the main, a bad role model for the human race and I think his fear-based philosophy did more harm than good. But I am basing that on a limited knowledge of his life and all he wrote or said. I do agree with always trying to improve yourself but not exclusively in the areas of power, wealth and influence over the lives of others (unless that influence is benevolent.)
I think this is too true of too many to be denied or ignored (but I would take out the words 'philosophical or any other type of,' in the quote above, as I think some philosophy is not well reasoned,) and I think that all living philosophers have a human responsibility to try to change this. This is the viewpoint I was heading towards, from the OP I typed. I am simply interested in how much support for this view there is amongst current TPF members, but I don't want a poll, as suggested by @Agent Smith, as I would like to know a little detail about why they agree or dissent.
The 5 tropes of Agrippa/Pyrrho (I forget which)
1. Dissent
2. Relation
3. Regress
4. Circularity
5. Assumption
What personal opinion are you offering me based on these 5 tropes?
You need to be a little less cryptic to gain more impact, imo, or your viewpoints simply become lost in the background noise of the words of others such as Agrippa/Pyrrho.
I offer ... surety brings ruin (re The Delphic Oracle)
They were just junkie's, messed up on scooby gases as opposed to scooby snacks!
What a lark eh? A great kingdom will fall! and it turned out to be your own :lol: what a hoot! :rofl:
Those crazy daze, of the ancient junkies and their purple haze!
That said, oracularity was an art form; the sophistication was dazzling or so the story goes.
Yeah, but only to those who were not aware of the con involved. Like moronic Kings or tough guy gangsters, who were scared of the woo woo in their heads, and wanted CONformation the non-existent gods were on his side and of course former American Presidents like Ronald Reagan, who did not sign a policy document without consulting his oracles. :lol:
Don't be impressed by bullshitters who hide behind curtains or magicians who impress with bells, whistles, smoke and mirrors. Ancient woo woo is no more impressive than the woo woo of modern con artists such as Uri Geller or David Blaine.
An oracle is just a grifter:
[b]Oracle:a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity.
a place at which divine advice or prophecy was sought.
synonyms:
prophet 路 prophetess 路 sibyl 路 seer 路 augur 路 prognosticator 路 diviner 路 soothsayer 路 wise man 路 wise woman 路 sage 路 fortune teller 路[/b]
Wise man/women, how ridiculous to include those terms under 'Oracle.' :rage:
Edit: Change the dictionary definition for Oracle to 'Grifter, offers fake predictions regarding future events in the hope of gaining fraudulent funding.'
Point made, point taken. Oracles were known to have consumed entheogens (psychotropic plant products) and to that extent can be treated as druggies and we all know not to ask these kinda peeps for advice! The Greeks, the whole lot, must've been cuckoo!
Unlike many on TPF. I don't admire much about ancient Greek culture or Rome or Egypt or even my own closest culture, the ancient Celts and the vile druids in Scotland/Ireland. Saint Mungo/Andrew/Patrick/George etc are all ridiculous embarrassments to me.
I think the best human civilisation and culture, firmly lies in the future, not the past.
The past, at its best offers many more examples of people, behaviours and systems we should avoid repeating as opposed to those we should emulate.
I look forwards to those philosophers not born yet, not characters like Plato and Aristotle.
I really appreciate ancient philosophers - they managed to get so much done with so little to work with. A true philosopher is at home in 2022 BC as he is in 2022 AD - the armchair is all he needs.
The question becomes 'where do you yourself, as a single entity/conscience, mainly exist?
Past/present/future/outside of linear spacetime? By 'outside linear spacetime, I refer to spacetime I would label escapist/fantasy/dream/woo woo spacetime.
For me, I exist more in future linear spacetime. Most of my thinking, references my projections into future linear spacetime.
BTW, the first time I saw the film LUCY, your clip is from, I had quite a low opinion, now I think it's a brilliant movie of cult classic status.
agreed :up: