Nuts or how I learned to become

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

here I am going to use MR. A. as an example of what
not to do…first reason for using him is that he is an useful
idiot, in this case and secondly, he isn’t a philosopher,
just merely a troll or if one wants to be more philosophic,
he is nothing more than a polemist…

Like many here, MR. A complains, a lot, about our current age…
but not so surprising, he offers nothing in regard to a solution
to the problems he sees or thinks he sees…basically, he is fighting
a rear-guard action in which he focuses on the past, but not on the future…
have you ever heard MR. A. speak of the future? No, of course not,
that would require him to actually engage with the future…and in regard
to the past, MR. A. has condemned aspects of our society, but always
in terms of the past, he writes about what was, but never in terms
of possible solutions in the future…or what will be…but he is not alone,
many here spend their time in the past, arguing about what was, never
what will be or what should be… like many here, he speaks of
how screwed we are, and how there is no possible future available
to us… as much fun as this ‘‘doom and gloom’’ is, it doesn’t solve anything,
it doesn’t point us to any possible actions we might take to ‘‘overcome’’
this ‘‘doom and gloom’’… but within this ‘‘doom and gloom’’ lies some
assumptions…

  1. That some ism or ideology will be able to save us, most here credit
    religion or specifically Christianity, as possible avenue of our future
    ‘‘redemption’’ or means to be ‘‘saved’’…The question for me is not
    how are we to be ‘‘saved’’ or how do we find ‘‘salvation
  2. one such solution has been offered by Heidegger… when in that
    famous Der Spiegel interview… what was his solution?
  3. ‘‘Only a god can save us now’’

and I am sure many here agree with this idea, but the fact is there is
no god, and we can’t assume there is one… in the interest of
the very survival of the human race, we have to assume there is no god…
and the solution to our problems, must come from us, as we try to
understand what the current situation is and what solutions is
possible, given where we are today… the solution, as least
according to MR. A. and those like him, is basically to give up…
roll over, play dead… or to be a tad more blunt, to take it
in the ass without lube… that is MR. A. solution… do nothing
because there is nothing we can do… As I have overcome many,
many difficulties, I can’t accept that solution… the answer is to fight,
and work out the many possible solutions to our problems today…
I don’t believe in the passive solutions offered by many here…
think of it this way… in the bible, the book of Job, Job had
many diverse problems and yet, he remained in faith and did
nothing…he too waited for a god to save him…the answers
lie not in being passive, as MR. A. is passive, but in doing something…
But as Kant pointed out, we have three practices to follow…
one: ''What are we/I to do?" two: ''What should I/we believe in?"
and three: ''What can I/we know?"

I would suggest given these three practices, that the world suffers
from the second practice, ''What can I/we believe in?" it is here that
we create our own problems… for our beliefs are what drives our
actions… MR. A. believes in being passive, I do not…
for within my own values/my own beliefs requires me to overcome,
to become who I am… and the means to achieve this is by actions
and the striving I engage with to overcome what stands before me…
the political world is a mess… and why? I hold that it is because
of the money going into the political world… our laws, our
courts, our institutions have been bought by money… from
either/or the corporations and individuals… if you want to trace
where it, the money drive really went into high gear, is the Supreme
court decision, ‘‘Citizen United’’… so, if we want to begin to
move this nation back toward a democracy, it begins with
overturning ‘‘Citizens United’’
Now one might say, correctly, that we can’t overturn this…
and that is being passive… we can overturn it, if, IF we make
a strong concerted effort… note the world ‘‘concerted’’ in other
words, the actions of one or two won’t change this, but being united,
working together, we can and we must overturn this monstrosity,
that is ‘‘Citizens United’’

Now if everyone were to accept MR. A. solution which is to
be passive and accepting of this, of course, nothing will happen…
it takes you to get off your ass and make something happen…
I am a parent… and one of the lessons we teach children, is to
never give up… if you fall down, you get back up…
if something seems to be too hard, is the answer to give up,
as children do, or is the answer to continue on, even if we fail…
even if failure is guaranteed… we must continue on our efforts to
overcome…Yes, the battle to change ‘‘Citizens United’’ is likely doomed,
but so, the fuck what? The battles and wars we fight are often doomed…
In the World War 2 battle, The Siege of Bastogne, when surrounded
and facing slaughter, the American commander when offered the choice
of surrender or die, he, quite correctly choose to fight… his one word
answer to the surrender demand was ‘‘NUTS’’…
I do not, nor will I ever lay down as MR. A has laid down
and giving up… as we tell our kids, the important thing is
to never give up, even when the odds are totally against you…
and why would I ignore an answer that I have given my daughter
about when the going gets tough…

Kropotkin

2

let us try this: when one preaches acceptance, when one
says the answer is ‘‘the game is rigged’’ that is acceptance
of the Status quo… and that is what MR. A preaches…
acceptance of the status quo… because he never offers us
any answers to the questions of the age…How do we overcome
the nihilism of our age? His answer is to just accept it and?
There is nothing else there…the modern age sucks or as one
poster put it, its garbage… OK, how do we overcome this
‘‘garbage’’… how do we turn ‘‘Garbage’’ into a useful practical
measure?

The first step, as always, and this is just a first step, what is
the problem? the question becomes, how are we to understand
our present age? The answer is our age is a ‘‘Nihilistic’’ age…
and what causes our ‘‘nihilism?" The isms and ideologies of
the age is what drives our current ""Nihilism’’… communism,
capitalism, socialism, Catholicism… (Catholicism stands
as representative of religions, including Buddhism and Islam
and Judaism… among other nihilistic ism’s)
and if our isms and ideologies stand for nihilism, what can
overcome that? We can either create another ism, in which
we seek out to overcome them or we look elsewhere…
we can overcome by seeking out the good, not the ism..
in other words, we overcome by seeking out what is the good,
or we overcome by ‘‘ad meliora’’ toward the better…
and one might ask, how do we know the ''better?"

Actually, the answers are right in front of us, if we only look…
What are the lessons of evolution? One: that human beings
are social creatures… that we cannot, however we try, we cannot
survive on our own… human survival is directly tied into our
need for community… in the very beginning, was the tribe…
and that was our first community… bands of brothers who
needed each other to survive the early days of existence…

and with every increase in ‘‘tribe’’ came an increase in improving
our own survival… we can survive better in a small town or city,
then we can in a small tribe of a 50 or 60 people…and with each
increase in the size of our community, we increase our own survival…
that isn’t conjecture, but fact…

and that is the second lesson of evolution, that the goal, if there
is any such thing, is the survival of the species… and that is
where we must focus on… nature by itself, doesn’t offer us
any sort of answers as to the goal or purpose of existence…
if one says, the goal of being human is to reach god or make
money or to have fame, those are human constructs that have
no basis in evolution… evolution is a very small act…
there are no huge, grand gestures in evolution… it is simply
small acts that allow the species to improve its chances for
survival…

If we accept this, the solution to our survival, which is the only goal of evolution,
of nature, that solution is to improve our own community,
improve the chances of the tribe to survive…
and we have done so, by increasing the size of the tribe…
we have gone from a small tribe to a city/state, to ever larger
states, which we call tribes… Greece for example is just a larger
tribe… as is America and Russia and France… ever larger tribes
is one answer to the question of how we survive as a species…
and what is the answer to why this idea of tribes is so important?
that of needs… we are living beings and part of that condition, lies
in the question of, how do we meet our own needs? these needs
are the means we continue to survive… we must, as living beings,
as human beings, eat, sleep, drink water, breath air, education
and having health care… those are the basic requirements of
living beings… and the best way for us to achieve those needs
is by the existence of a state/society…
as we cannot live alone and still be able to meet our own needs…
those needs listed above are bodily needs, but as human beings
we require not only our bodily needs, but we must answer the
psychological needs of being human… and the best way to meet
those psychological needs is by a society, a state…
for our needs are large… and so the state/society must be
also large enough for everyone to meet those needs…

a society/state must have safety/security… and that is one of the
primary needs of being human… this explains why the safety/security
of the state stands as a large need for many people…and yet, the
current administration has, by its actions, decreased the safety/security
of America… has ICE, for example, made you feel more secure/safe
or has it made you feel less secure/less safe? that answer is quite
easy to understand… ICE has clearly made America less safe,
less secure… hence the anxiety that clearly has engulfed America…
Has the bombing of Iran, of Venezuela, has that made you feel more secure,
more safe? That answer is fairly clear… every action of this administration
has made America less safe, less secure… its war on the poor,
the old, minorities and children, has that made you feel more secure?
Has the massive tax cuts for the rich, has that made you feel more
safe, more secure? for each attack on American citizens has
decreased the safety and security of America… In fact, I can’t
see the benefit of any action this administration has done…
it hasn’t made us safer, or increased our ability to meet our needs,
or it hasn’t in any way, shape or form, been ‘‘ad melioria’’, toward the better…

Once we understand what ‘‘ad meliora’’ actually is, we can then begin
to work out what we really need to do…
we must work on meeting our needs, and that the conservative
viewpoint doesn’t do that… conservativism is nihilism because
it negates human beings and their values… human beings and
their values are negated when we push for the trinkets of
existence… when we seek fame or power or money or titles
or even material goods… those trinkets don’t, in any way,
shape or form, answer the question of what is next?

So, in your viewpoint, what does ‘‘ad meliora’’ really entail?
What actions do you take that actually does move us collectively,
or we are a social, collective species, what actions can we take
that leads us to ''ad meliora?"

Kropotkin

3

Well, I’m a Szaszean, keter, so i don’t believe anyone can be nutz, only disappropriated. Organic disease, yes, but ‘personality disorder’ no. You can’t have a disorder when you’re ordered entirely by your environment.

4

In thinking further about this, this question of
‘‘how do I find salvation’’ ‘‘How am I to be saved’’
is in fact, anti-evolution… for the question of evolution,
isn’t about our own personal being saved, no, the question
of evolution is about the species… the survival of the species
is the question of evolution… and one’s personal salvation doesn’t
enter into this equation…for the individual dies… that is not
conjecture, but fact… at some point in the future, I will die…
as you will die… and what matters is not our own personal
salvation, or being saved… that is irrelevant to the question
of evolution…and there is far more proof, evidence for evolution
then there is of god…

This idea of ‘‘personal immortality’’ is really just wishful thinking…
I will die, but the goal is not my own individual continued existence…
it is the question of evolution… of the species… and our actions
and beliefs must reflect the collective before the individual…
for individuals die and will continue to die… and have done so in
the past… but the species must go on…and so, we act with the
collective in mind, not our own personal salvation… for that is
what evolution means… the collective, not the one or the few…
but of all…and this is why the isms and ideologies of today
are wrong… for they support the ideal of the one, not the many
or all… what is the focus of capitalism? of making money…
that isn’t a collective goal, but an individual one…
and the idea of Buddhism that we must, individually,
move toward Nirvana… which is individual non-being… is wrong…
for we are social, collective beings… we can only survive
collectively, not individually… in a group setting or within
a tribe… not, individually… for we cannot meet our own
needs individually… we cannot find love or feed ourselves
or defend ourselves individually… that is why Hobbes ‘‘state
of nature’’’ lends itself to a collective living, not an individual way
of life… Long before there was Darwin, we have Hobbes explaining
why a ‘‘state of nature’’ is not a desirable path…

Kropotkin

5

But you utterly misrepresent him here. Mr. A is a communist (and Buddhist or neo-buddhist) with concrete ideas about changes and goals.

But here’s the problem with your assumption. Not everyone has to do everything. Pointing out problems that are denied, including those denied by the mainstream media, is very important. Until enough people realize how they are being mislead or what the current problems really are, you may not have enough momentum to carry out change. If they think things are fundamentally ok, rather than systematically messed up, they have no motivation to listen to ‘visionaries’ like yourself.

Mr. A and I have a number of disagreements, but 1) he does have plans 2) he obviously hasn’t given up and does EXACTLY what you are doing: writing posts in a philosophy forum. Unless you’ve given up, you have no reason to assume he has. 3) Writing vague, meandering ideas about what we should do and what values we should have - your approach - how effective has that been? You say nuts to a small group of people some of whom are interested in philosophy. I don’t know what you are doing politically outside of your posting here, but perhaps you could show us. You seem to be comparing yourself to someone under siege in a war. On what grounds are you comparing yourself to him?

Then you go into nihilism. In response to one of your posts a while ago, Mr. A. asked you to demonstrate that communism is necessarily nihilistic. Since pontification is why you are here, you ignored him.

You want to talk about the future, but seem to think political dialogue is not needed. In fact you seem to have given up on it.

that is not the lesson of evolution. At least not Darwinian evolution. Evolution does not look forward. Things that work survive. There is no looking forward in natural selection.

1 Like
6

So, Kropotkin, you are negating individuals in favor of the state/
the collective… Not at all…I am reassigning the individual…
What the individual does is quite important… and definitely part
of the collective…

What is the role of the individual within the state/society?
That is a perennially question that goes back to even before
Plato… how do we individually help the state?

one of the ways is by becoming who we are…
take Kropotkin for example, what are his possibilities?
Well, as noted before, I can no longer be an athlete… as I once
was, and I can no longer do backpacking trips as I once did,
but I can explore other possibilities that are available to me…
I can travel, I can learn, I can become the best philosopher I
can possible be…Those possibilities still reside inside of me…
even at 67… but in terms of possibilities, I can become something
beyond just Kropotkin… if I were so inclined, I could be gay or trans
or cross-dress… there are all kinds of possibilities available to me in
terms of being who I am…and there are individual possibilities in terms
of sexual oranitation… those who argue against gays and trans and
cross-dressers are making an argument based on bigotry and prejudice…
for there is no reason to exclude them other than bigotry and prejudice…
for they are also attempting to become who they are…
and they are also seeking out their own nature and possibilities…

I would argue that the diversity of gays and trans and cross-dressing
people are a plus to us, not a negative… as the religious claim…
for one of the private goals, purposed we have is to become who
we are… as my own possibility is to become a philosopher, others
may take their possibilities to be sexual in origin…
and who am I too say they are wrong? and how would we even
be able to note that those who seek out their possibilities in
sexual orientation, are wrong? what criteria would I use to
to dispute their claim of seeking out what is possible for them…

I might say, god or religion, but that is argument by prejudice
and bigotry… is there an collective argument denying gays or
trans people? NO, no there is not… but Kropotkin, in some unknown
fashion, never actually explained, but gays and trans people somehow
damage the state/society… and your evidence for this is?
Once we remove bigotry and prejudice, there is no argument
against gays or trans in the state or within the society…
as belief in god, is just another form of bigotry and prejudice,
for outside of the religious argument, there is no evidence for
god or for religion…

Kropotkin

1 Like
7

But for some reason you decided to call out someone who actually has overlapping values with you. He’s very critical of Trump. He has said nuts to capitalism. You may not agree on the solution, but you actually share criticisms of the elites with their centralized power and wealth. Instead of seeking to find common ground, you misrepresent him, fail to notice when he does have suggestions about the future, miss the opportunity to collaborate or have a partial ally, reinforce the demonization of the other and evade dialogue.

You respect some kinds of diversity, but if he has a different solution to the power imbalances, you can’t even bother to read them. If he critiques Trump in a different way from how you do, you present this as nihilism and giving up. If his style is not vague noblish sounding visions for the future, then his diversity is ok to judge and dismiss.

1 Like
8

@greenfuse

Living in the southwest of the nation myself I have even suggested making citizens out of some illegal migrants or immigrants with Peter in the past. I believe compromise is possible on the issue.

But the moment I have suggested white identity is real or that European cultural identity should be respected along with everybody else’s he goes on a tirade about racism. I would describe myself as an ethnic or racial pluralist meaning I try to find solutions to all people coexisting together. Although it is true I find much of liberalism’s view on race or ethnicity to be very problematic to the point of being obnoxious.

Likewise, although I am very critical about homosexuality and transgenderism I don’t go about discussing mistreating them or harming them. I just believe heterosexuality is the majority norm where it takes more precedence over a minority of the population.

He is opposed to collectivized solutions to collective problems. He clings to an outdated radical form of individualism that causes more problems than good.

No matter how you try to talk to liberals in good faith they never listen to anything and are unwilling to debate or listen to other people’s views.

:clown_face:

1 Like
9

Why do you insult others?

1 Like
10

So you’re having productive conversations online with conservatives? Me be skeptical. If you openly present yourself as a communist, it seems unlikely those conversations remain especially open-minded, given the current climate. And my skeptical reaction is not ‘cause conservatives are bad and liberals are good’. I just see patterns in both groups all over the place.

And philosophy forums, unfortunately, aren’t good places for philosophical discussion. It can happen—you occasionally get thoughtful, well-written responses—but once real points of disagreement appear, people tend to dig into their trenches. And the fallacies, avoidance, wandering starts. That’s been my experience regardless of political alignment.

What I genuinely appreciate is when someone can concede a point. In another forum discussion, I told someone they had chosen a poor word. After some back-and-forth, I realized he was actually right, so I said so. He had also made a tangential argument I agreed with, and I acknowledged that as well.

His response was: “I can see you’re losing steam.” and other noises that acknowledging a mistake and noting common ground, mean you are weak or conceding or dropping out. I wasn’t conceding the central disagreement; I was simply acknowledging accuracy where it existed. Yet it was treated as surrender. In fact the guy hadn’t managed to respond to many points I made.

Finally, unlike in their personal lives, people can pontificate. They got stuff to say. And damned if some good points or things they realize they aren’t quite sure of are going to get in the way.

1 Like
11

I am the victor, for I never admit a mistake! That was your folly, your undoing, and you’re reaping the meager rewards from what your weakness sowed! A pitiful crop for a minuscule man.

1 Like
12

@greenfuse

I do describe myself as a conservative socially and culturally, yes.

The things I disagree with modern conservatives which is why I am a Marxist and communist is that I disagree with them on their embracing of economic financial capitalism. This is why I am not republican conservative or libertarian.

I also believe democracy is a farce and I would throw republicanism in there with that as well.

I am an authoritarian socialist conservative.

Finally, as Buddhist spiritually I do not embrace Abrahamism or Christianity.

In the western conservative movement Christianity any more is becoming an integral part of that mindset. It is a mindset I simply do not share.

Sometimes I will talk to local libertarians offline to get a feel for what they’re thinking, but every time I talk with them they always fall back on economic capital and every time my response to that is always the same, what exactly are they conserving?

When it concerns democratic liberals or republican and libertarian conservatives I disagree with a lot of both mindsets. Being dissatisfied with both ideologies my mindset is all about finding alternatives.

:clown_face:

13

Ah, now I understand. I doubt he learned one thing from my exchange with him. I suppose we could call that an anti-capability. A quality good for condoms, I suppose.

1 Like
14

Well, it seems like you might be agreeing.

1 Like
15

@greenfuse

What do you mean?

:clown_face:

16

@greenfuse

I agree with Peter that economic capitalism is a terrible thing. I agree with him Trump is bad.

With that being said our solutions to these problems are vastly different from one another.

As a democratic liberal his political solution is more hoping and voting, my political solution is revolution because I have no faith whatsoever in democratic institutions. As a student of human history I see the United States and the west collapsing very soon in the near future because of its own wicked corruption where I envision revolution after the collapse of things to be everywhere.

This is where our perceptions of things differ greatly.

:clown_face:

17

Well, you might have been saying that you run into similar problems with conservatives that you do with liberals. They are both humans of the times.

1 Like
18

Yes, I knew you weren’t in the same ‘party’.

1 Like
19

@greenfuse

Neither democratic liberals or conservative republicans represents my political and philosophical views.

There honestly needs to be more political parties and affiliations inside this nation, but there simply isn’t.

In the absence of there being any political party representing my views I feel the need to carve or scupt a political ideology of my own that does.

:clown_face:

1 Like
20

The Ethics of Eudaimonia (the latest version of the Three Principles of Eudaimonia in 2026) also supports the author’s overturning of the “United Citizen Case”

The interpretation of the “Citizens United” case by the Ethice of Eudaimonia must start from the framework of the three principles, penetrate the abstract rhetoric of “freedom of speech”, and directly point to the structural damage this case has caused to the f-w-e parameter system of American politics.

From the perspective of the first principle: The diverse paths to pursue Eudaimonia are monopolized by capital.

On the surface, this case expanded the “freedom of speech” of enterprises, but in reality, it distorted the political discourse field from “multidimensional citizen consultation” to “capital bidding ranking”. The four-level needs theory reveals that the political participation of ordinary citizens (expression needs L2, pride needs L4) depends on the sense of dignity of “being heard”. When enterprises can infinitely fund super political action committees, and political advertising time slots are bought out by money, the voices of ordinary voters are diluted to near silence in the information flood. This is not an expansion of freedom, but rather a cover-up of substantive inequality (one dollar, one vote) with formal equality (one person, one vote), depriving the majority of citizens of the core path to achieve positive pride through political participation. The Ethice of Eudaimonia emphasizes that true freedom is the “ability to pursue Eudaimonia”, not the privilege of “drowning others in money”.

From the perspective of the second principle: The legalization of systematic infringement.

This case constitutes a fundamental breakthrough of the “non-infringement” bottom line of the democratic system. Although independent expenditures by enterprises are not direct bribery, they create quantifiable “policy return expectations” - studies show that political donations from specific industries are significantly correlated with subsequent legislative benefits. This is essentially the partial privatization of the legislative process: enterprises use capital as a bargaining chip to obtain structural influence over public policy, while the demands of ordinary citizens are marginalized due to the lack of equivalent resources. More seriously, the “black money” mechanism makes the infringement chain hidden - voters cannot identify the true source of the speech and cannot hold anyone accountable, and the w (social deterrence) parameter fails in key areas. When the law itself becomes an instrument of infringement, the second principle requires citizens to activate “defensive responsibility”: through institutionalized non-violent non-cooperation or constitutional litigation, forcing the system to return to the track of consultation.

From the perspective of the third principle: The disintegration of the co-construction environment.

The essence of democracy is “co-construction” - citizens transform heterogeneous demands into compatible arrangements through equal dialogue. This case has alienated politics from “co-construction” to “bidding”: the outcome of policies no longer depends on the quality of the argument, but on the thickness of the funds. This directly destroys the generation mechanism of the cooperation dividend e - when one party believes that the rules have been captured by money, the rational choice is to withdraw from cooperation (political apathy) or engage in confrontational mobilization (polarization conflicts). The intensification of political polarization and the collapse of trust in the United States after 2010 are symptoms of the systematic collapse of the e parameter. The concept of the “repairable δ threshold” in the Ethice of Eudaimonia points out that when the channels for institutional repair are blocked, society will slide into a desperate equilibrium of δ_repair→1 - trust is completely bankrupt, and hope is zero.

Conclusion: This case is a typical example of the divergence between “legal formal justice” and “Eudaimonia substantive justice”. The Supreme Court, under the guise of protecting freedom of speech, has eroded the co-construction of democracy. The judgment standard of the Ethice of Eudaimonia is clear: any institutional arrangement that systematically deteriorates f (citizen dignity), w (fair deterrence), and e (cooperation dividend) simultaneously loses its legitimacy, regardless of the constitutional provisions it invokes.