Philosohical Gangsterism

I think philosophers should form their own gangs, online or even off. I’m getting tired of this let’s only talk to one another if we disagree, crap. Let’s find some ideas, ideals and procedures we, or some of us can rally around. Also, maybe we could get together physically, if possible, and do shit. We could formulate a code of laws and enforce it on one another, start some projects, any ideas?

A cohesion can only occur by cohesive behavior.

You are unlikely to cohere to mine. I am unlike to cohere to yours. The same is true between everyone you meet. Who wants to behave without a cause?

That fact is the fundamental incentive for false flags, religions, causes to fight for, and dreams to aspire to. There must be a reason for anyone to discipline their own behavior, their “Perception of Hope and Threat”, their “Values”.

Like what?

  1. Philosophy should be as vital to you as eating and drinking.

  2. You’re not a consumerist, money and matter, material possessions are primarily a means to an end (the end being something higher, like your wellbeing, or the wellbeing of family, friends and allies), rather than ends in and of themselves.

  3. You’re an atheist/agnostic/pantheist, you’re not a monotheist or a transcendental idealist. The inner world we can consistently perceive via introspection, and the outer world we can consistently perceive via the five senses, are intimately intertwined, and are all there is, or all we should concern ourselves with. Reason, knowledge and wisdom should conform to perception.

  4. That’s not all, but that’s a start. Perhaps the rest, or some of the rest, could be decided collectively, through independent coalitions or interdependent coalitions, aristosophically, or demosophically. Perhaps a philosophical community could be established primarily on consensus building and discussion, as opposed to debate, not that I’m against debate, I cherish it, it’s just that debate needs to be balanced with something a little more constructive… a lot more constructive.

Organized philosophy existed in Greece for a time but much has changed. You need certain elements in society, before such things automatically occur.

There are quite a lot of forums where people share or a majority share certain beliefs. It sounds like from what you say below, for example, you could join a humanism discussion forum. IOW figure out what general label your beliefs would fall under, google it, and you are likely to find a discussion forum where people share some or many of the beliefs and tend to, for example, not be monotheists.

I must be a fish out of water then. Maybe that’s because I have Greek blood. My ancestors are from Crotone. They were Pythagoreans. The English and French mean something a little different than what the Greeks meant by philosophy.

Greece is a failed state because fundamentally thier philosophy, at least the social parts are false.

I wouldn’t refer to myself as a humanist. While I tend to value people (which I value largely intrinsically) above places and things (which I value largely extrinsically), I don’t think that necessarily makes me a humanist. A humanist is someone who believes all sapiens have objective and equal value. I subjectively (although I see no stark contrast between object and subject) value some people more than others. I don’t even value people or anything all that much. I don’t think people are anything special from an acentric perspective. I don’t think history is linearly ascending. Sapiens are just another animal, and like any, eventually we’ll go extinct, or evolve into something else, something largely unrecognizable to our present selves, which probably won’t be relatively superior. In spite of all that or because of it, I’m not an “annhilist” or an “antinatalist”, I think you one can accept the consequences of time, and still find some reason to continue. To me, a humanist is someone who deifies man, replacing the JudeoChristian Utopia with a Capitalist or Socialist one.

Which social parts of their philosophy are you speaking of?

Is this not the exemplification of American Philosophy right here?

There’s always potential for conspiracies, be it in a religion, or in a corporation.

Im not teaching a class anti. Im telling you shit that should be clear to one who understands philosophy, history, politics and economics.

Smears, what’s the point in saying the sky is blue? Just because I asked you a question, doesn’t mean I think of you as someone fit to teach. I don’t come here to teach or to be taught, nor do I come here to circle jerk, I come here to challenge and be challenged, which may seemingly contradict my OP a little, I’ll resolve that later. Two educated people can come to two very different conclusions regarding the same subject matter. Education is insufficient. There’s always subjective elements at play, cognitively and emotively, some people are able to assess and interpret data better than others, and life is too short to assess and interpret all the available data. I come from the point of view that we’re all learning together, though some may have more to learn than others, but you come from the point of view of an authority figure. Demonstrate, don’t declare, put your money where your mouth is, you incompetent, lazy, self-gratifying jack off.

Not if there is nothing to bring cohesion of the “conspirators”.

I’m not sure what you mean?

In any case, I’ll take my chances, while keeping a look out for the NWO.

All people are guided by their own perception of hope and threat.
Fear scatters.
Hope gathers.
If there is to be cohesion of any group, there must be perceived hope in such behavior.

How are philosophers to inspire the perception of such hope in each other?

Fine, but can you see how you are missing the main Point? There are likely forums that have profiles that fit you already in Place. It seemed like the OP is bemoaning what ‘we’ do and suggesting ‘we’ do something else. As far as I can tell A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THE INTERNET TO FIND THEIR GANGS and have already done this. It might take some running through labels to find a forum that fits your beliefs. I’d give you some suggestions given what you write above, but this gives you a chance to say’ Oh that label does not fit me’. What you say above is a fairly common set of beliefs on the internet and there are forums where it predominates. If you had some really specific view that I had never encountered I could get the problem, but that just isn’t the case.

I got yah, I got yah, keep your knickers on.

Fine tuning it could be very tricky. For example, you may have to look through cultural and age (experience) biases and either incorporate or reject them (or even some of your own). You may have to identify all possible triggers for embracing that particular worldview (economy, politics, individual psychologies, etc.) and this may lead you to some unexpected places. All roads may lead to Rome, but is everyone there for the same reasons?