Philosophy redux part 3

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

As I mark out the lay of the land, we come to another philosophical
problem, or actually to be correct, we have some collective/
universal problems that need to be addressed…

Among the philosophical problems we face today is that
of morals… in a god less universe, how do we know
or justify, morality… every early 20th century philosopher,
considered themselves as ‘‘Moral’’ philosophers…
From Nietzsche to Wittgenstein, to Heidegger,
to Sartre… every one of them saw themselves as
Philosophers seeking morality/ethics…the existentialists
as a group, were seeking the foundations of morality in
a no god universe…

So, there is problem one… the question of morality in
a no god universe… What is the foundations of morality in
a no god universe?

That would be a question for our times…

The second philosophical problem lies in what goals or
what is our purpose, especially collectively…
we have no idea about what a collective goal/purpose,
might look like… everyone, well most everyone has an
individual purpose or goal, and think about those individuals
that don’t have a goal or purpose? Those people are clearly
lost souls… we see them all the time… The really bright person
who holds down a menial job and why? They never found what they
were looking for… a job that gave one meaning and purpose…
and let us extend that to an entire generation that couldn’t find its
own meaning and purpose…

Our generation, or to be totally accurate, the Baby Boomers…
From my birth, in 1959 to the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1992,
that was the boomers fixation… to defeat communism…
or at least the indoctrination that we received that required
us to fixate on communism…In those days, we saw communists
under every rock in America…

It was of course, the wrong collective goal/purpose…
The assumption, also made today by MAGA fascists,
is that by removing one group of people, suddenly
paradise rings and the new age begins… false of course,

Removing every single Liberal in America isn’t going to
create a utopia or paradise…In fact, very, very little will
change if every single Liberal were deported… and why?

Because as Shakespeare’s says,

‘‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves,
that we are underlings’’

For the MAGA/conservative, the fault always lies in the Stars,
in others, not in us…and therein lies the problem, that we fail
to work out our own accountability…and part of that failure does lie
within our inability to find a collective goal or purpose which
doesn’t negate others, which is to practice nihilism…

for the conservative ‘‘go to move’’ is to blame others for the
state of the world… but because that is nihilistic,
it can never create a positive situation…
and that is the next step… to remove or at least lessen
nihilism in the world… that too can become a collective goal
or purpose… and what is nihilism? the negation of human beings
and their values… to dehumanize a person, by insult or action,
is nihilism… capitalism is dehumanizing and thus is nihilism…
and that can become the goal/purpose in existence, to discover
what economic system is the least dehumanizing?

We see how capitalism is dehumanizing, and how communism
is the exact same way, is also dehumanizing… one replaces
the goal/purpose of existence to be the accumulation of wealth/profits
and the other goal or purpose to make the state the primary
goal of existence… we are individually born to serve the state…
replace the word state with money and you have capitalism…

So, the goal here is to create an economic system that doesn’t
treat people as a means to the end, and that end being the accumulation
of wealth… at the expense of the people and on their back in the
form of stealing their efforts in the theft of wages done by capitalism…

and that is also the political goal… to create a political system
that doesn’t treat people as an expendable asset…

In the creation of a goal or purpose, we cannot begin
exploitation or dehumanization of human beings…
and both are current leading contenders for an economic
system do just that, exploit and dehumanize people and their
values… the political system should also remove this
exploitation of people to be cannon fodder for the state…

As America does today…so, in this exploration of political
systems, we can say that certain political systems, by their
very mechanism, is nihilism because it dehumanizes
human beings and their values…

Among the political systems that dehumanizes people,
oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, any type of totalitarian
state dehumanizes and devalues human beings…
Thus IQ45 drive to power, by creating a police state,
that is by definition, nihilism, because any police state
makes the police more important than the general public…
and that is the exact stance of IQ45 and his Nazis…that
the police are more important than the general public…

And that is nihilism… for it makes one part of the state,
more important than another part of the state…
and that is nihilism…the dehumanization of the
general public and their values…

and therein lies on of the major problems todays, is that
both our political system and our economic system,
are nihilistic because they dehumanize human beings
and their values…

How to create an political and economic system that doesn’t
devalue or dehumanize people and their values?

so, we add this to our collection of themes to work out…

one: create a collective goal or purpose
Two: to work out a political system that doesn’t
dehumanizes people
Three: to work out an economic system that doesn’t dehumanize
or devalues human beings…
Four: to work out a collective moral/ethical system that also
doesn’t dehumanize and devalues people… and in a no god universe,
a moral/ethical system that foundation is on why we should
act morally and not just because of ‘‘god’’…because we do
live in a no god universe and what morals and ethics can we
generate in a no god universe…how do we justify holding
to one set of values while rejecting another set of values,
in a no god universe?

I have offered up on solution in which we act morally in terms
of our needs… that to be moral, is to enable people to reach their
needs, both their psychological and bodily needs… to
gain their biological needs of love, food, water, shelter/sleep,
education and health care… and to reach their psychological
needs of safety/security, of a sense of belonging, of self-esteem..
the goal of morality/ethics is to allow people the opportunity
to reach both their biological and psychological needs…

and what could be a collective goal/purpose?
to help create a state/society in which the goal is
to help people reach their needs, both bodily and
psychologically… what political system will allow
people the ability to reach their needs? what economic
system allow people to reach their needs without the current
drive to nihilism that devalues and dehumanizes people,
as is the economic system today does…

or to put it another way: What systems will allow people
the ability to reach, become who they are…
what collective method of politics and economics, will
allow us the chance to become who we are?

The collective system, be it political or economic, both,
must allow us the individual chance to become who we are…
and this is the tricky part, how do we engage/create a system,
which includes all people, to gain their own individual goals?

One for all and all for one…

if there were to be a motto for our new age, this may as well
be it… we cannot survive without the all, we human beings
are social creatures, that we must have to survive, is
have an all-inclusive political and economic system…
I can only survive within the embrace of other human beings,
there is no choice… I cannot be unless you are…
that human beings depend so heavily on others, for meeting
both our physical and psychological needs is the one obvious
fact of existence…

the very fact that we have morals and ethics come from the
fact that we cannot survive, however we try, to survive on our
own… morals and ethics come from having two or more people…
the high number doesn’t change, but the low number does change,
we cannot be moral if we are a society/state of one…for morals
and ethics is a collective achievement, not a solitary one…

and we need a collective goal or purpose to move us in some
direction… right now, collectively we are simply rapidly moving
very fast in one spot… there is no collective movement right now,
we are facing the same enemy, the same motives, the same
actions… or as the very famous saying as it…

‘‘The definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over
and over again, each time hoping for a different result’’

we keep trying the same action, both politically and economical
and expecting different results… the only way to break this cycle
is to come to the realization of this cycle and try to break it…

So, as I like to say, now what?

Kropotkin

2

One of the idea’s that floats around, is this idea
of a collective religion to unify a nation, a people…
And Christian Nationalist of today, certainly do promote
that idea… but therein lies the problem… religion is
not nor is it designed to be a ‘‘one size fits all’’ answer
the fact of the matter is that people use religion in a wide
variety of ways… today Christians believe that the goal is
to get to heaven, regardless of the costs, and yet, that
is not the point of religion…it serves as much as a
comforter of souls, as it were… one size fits all religions,
fail because human beings are not ‘‘one size fits all’’ beings…

and in a no god universe, it makes no sense at all to
make salvation the primary goal of existence…as I
simply follow the evidence, or in this case, the lack of,
to hold that there is no god…and then why should I
engage in finding salvation in terms of religion?
that makes no sense…

The question of our times does include this aspect of
religion, but note that the price of a universal, one size
fits all, religion damages our souls because we are not
‘‘one size fits all’’ human beings…and this goes true within
our political and economic systems… this idea of ‘‘one size fits all’’
is the cornerstone of modern politics and economics…

Are we to serve the state or does the state serve us?
I say that both are true, but how we reach that is just as
important as the why we reach that conclusion…

and we must reject ‘‘any one size fits all’’ proposal,
that so many people today engage with…
The state/society must engage with meeting the needs of its
citizens, and the citizens must engage in meeting the needs of
the state/society… and without any ‘‘one size fits all’’
mentality…

but we can overcome these difficulties, with a thought
turning our efforts toward an engagement with values…
for example, instead of ‘‘one size fits all’’ religion,
we allow everyone the chance to pray or not to pray,
as one sees fit, so the solution here is to engage with
values like justice/equality or freedom… we give people
the freedom to practice justice, which is simply equality of
all… equal actions toward equal people…this conclusion
denies the right of the wealthy to act because they are wealthy
and others cannot act because they are poor… Justice is the
practice of equality for all, regardless of their trinkets of
existence, wealth, power, titles, fame or material possessions…
true justice has nothing to do with these trinkets,
just is practiced because the state, regardless of the state,
will operate better and more free with justice being the guiding
principles of a state/society…

and those principles operate as a ‘‘one size fits all’’ because
the assumptions are a better fit for a society… ‘‘that all men
are created equal’’’ and practicing justice is the principle
that engages with this idea… ‘‘That all men are created equal’’
and the use of justice in a society/state helps us engage with
this principle… the principle of justice is inclusive, and that
makes all the difference in the world in terms of being ‘‘one size
fits all’’… for we can practice justice as a ‘‘one size fits all’’
for it includes, not excludes… whereas religion is about
the ‘‘us vs them’’ mentality… and it divides, not includes…
and the future requires us to include, not exclude…

So, the question of unifying people comes into fruition better
when it is about a value that unifies people, not divides them
and pursuing the value of justice is more unifying than
pursuing religions…

Kropotkin

1 Like
3

morals: Whatever maximizes the happiness of conscious beings.

objectives and purpose: to create better brains. brains capable of continued happiness instead of homeostasis. if its not possible to escape homeostasis, then destruction of the all consciousness generators/brains/souls may be recommended.

side objectives: science, philosophy, social stability.

unstable societies interfere with pursuit of side objectives [science, philosophy].

side objectives science and philosophy are non-optional objectives. Required for destruction of universe objective. Required for maximizing happiness objective. Required for assessment of destruction of universe objective:

Example: If souls/consciousness cannot be destroyed, abort objective: [universe destruction]. If souls/consciousness go back in time after universe destruction, abort objective: [universe destruction].

side objectives: science, engineering, philosophy, social stability. Required for primary objective : maximize happiness of conscious beings.

1 Like
4

@Peter_Kropotkin

The reality of the situation is the United States is on the verge of financial economic collapse. That’s also the reason coincidentally we’re on the verge of World War III.

What is the idealistic solutions to all of that by political liberals? What would Peter Kropotkin do?

:clown_face:

5

Agree or disagree with this sentence:

‘‘That the basic aim of science is the finding of a fixed
world picture independent of the variation of time and space’’

and just as importantly, what does this sentence mean to us?

PS, the statement in question is by Ernst Mach…

Kropotkin

1 Like
6

Peter Kropotkin:
Agree or disagree with this sentence:

‘‘That the basic aim of science is the finding of a fixed
world picture independent of the variation of time and space’’

and just as importantly, what does this sentence mean to us?

PS, the statement in question is by Ernst Mach…

K: The problem with this viewpoint, is that there is no fixed
viewpoint upon which we can settle on… For example,
one might say, the fixed, set, universal, one size fits all,
is this question of god… if there is an absolute, fixed
viewpoint, that is god…What can be considered to be
a universal? an absolute? a one size fits all universe…

there is no statement that qualifies for this understanding
of a fixed, set, universal ideal… One might say god,
but extreme claims require extreme proof…
and there is no proof of the existence of god…
(and I have asked for proof dozens of times and never
gotten anything that is verifiable.. its in the bible, and
that is verifiable, how exactly? We have revelation
that proof that god exists… but revelation isn’t epistemological
provable… how would I be able to verify gods existence,
without revelation? To say, god exists is to make shit up
because it can’t be proven or verified…
Just as when one says, there are absolute statements,
‘‘all men die’’ the fact is that we can’t prove or disprove this
statement… we can clearly assume, but that is all we can do,
assume…if we can’t even prove that god exists, how can we
epistemologically know that the

‘‘Government, institutions and the state are all becoming more feminine’’

Where would one go to make sense of this statement?
We would have to compare or contrast the government,
institutions, the state with the idea of being masculine or
feminine and what does masculine or feminine have to do
with the state/the government/or institutions?

To make sense of the statement about the masculinity or femineity
of the state/government/or institutions…we have to work out
how the state/government/institutions are even masculine or feminine
or other? what does being masculine even have to do with those ideas,
state/government/institutions? One would have to unpack a whole
lot of philosophy to even begin to make sense of that argument…
to be philosophical, is to use reason, argument, whereas to
be about revelation, that is as far as possible from being
philosophical… and the statement about the masculinity
or femininity of institutions, without any facts, that is
using revelation…the opposite of reason/of philosophy..
and why would one use revelation instead of philosophy
in making statements? that is because MR. A is not a
philosopher, but a polemist… arguing for revelation,
not facts…

So, do you argue from revelation, statements with no facts
or evidence backing them up, or are you a philosopher…
using facts, evidence and reason to make an argument…

Kropotkin

1 Like