the problems of our modern times...

[Peter_Kropotkin]

That we have problems is an understatement but with a little work, we
can work out the nature of these problems…if we rethink the
nature of these problems…

I contend that the problems we face are not the problems listed daily
in our news, but lie along a different path, a philosophical path…

we read about such ‘‘problems’’ as global warming or income inequality…
but they aren’t the problems I’m referring to… I am referring to the deep
philosophical problems we face… problems we can best understand using
the traditional areas of philosophy…

so we can use such areas of philosophy as Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics,
Metaphysical, political science and Axiology…as tools to understand our
current problems…

let us begin with Epistemology: the study of knowledge, what we know
and the scope and range of our knowledge…

Recently, UR wrote about the alleged censoring of IQ45 by the media,
he complained about how the MSM… “was censoring the sitting president
of the United States” but that statement is factual wrong… Biden is
the sitting president of the U.S, not the village idiot…
to lie about knowledge, information to gain political advantage is
certainly one of our major problems…another lie is the meme that
somehow, “Masks reduce the oxygen going to the brain and causes brain
damage”… which would be news to surgeons and nurses who wear them all day…
lies to promote/create certain understanding of the world…
lies that would benefit the conservatives…lie to create political change…

How are we to trust information if it is used corruptly to misinform people?
to lie on such a scale is to degrade our information, to make information useless…
and if information is useless, it cannot do its job which is to inform us as to
make it easier to make a decision… we cannot make correct decisions if we have
the wrong information or use the wrong information…

so our first problem is the use of information in terms of politicalizing
information… if we are to understand the world and hold to
solving problems, then we must have the correct information…
the first problem is the abuse and misuse of knowledge to gain
some political advantage…information/knowledge can only have value
if, if it is used truthfully and without any attempt to gain any sort of
advantage, political or otherwise…we cannot move forward as a people,
as a culture, as a political entity if we abuse or misuse knowledge/information…
for we cannot make inform and intelligent decisions if we do not have the correct
and truthful information in which to make that/those decisions…

so the first problem of our Modern age is Epistemology… the study of
knowledge, what can we know and how do we know it… the scope and range
of our knowledge… we must gather and use information honestly and truthfully…
or our decisions will not be sound because of faulty information…

the second problem is one of a Metaphysical nature…
Metaphysical: the study of the fundamental nature of existence and
reality…

the why we are here, influences and dictates what we are to do in
our daily lives and our social and political lives…
what is the point of existence? that starting point impacts
and influences the journey we take in both our individual and collective
lives…

one side of the political structure believes in every man for himself…
there is no point in any type of collective action due to the “evil” nature
of man… but this becomes an Epistemology problem… how are we to know
if, if human beings are actually “evil” or “good” if we don’t have honest,
impartial information as to the nature of our souls? What does it mean to be
human? and how does that information impact our individual and collective
decisions we make every single day? Only with honest, impartial information
can we be able to make correct decisions about what is our present and future
goals…

to a conservative, a human being is a irredeemably “evil” person,
unable to change and become something more… thus we see why the
conservative seeks safety/security values… if man/human beings
are irredeemably “evil”, then it makes perfect sense to make
safety/security the number one value we seek… but what that isn’t true,
what if man/human beings aren’t irredeemably “evil” what if, what if
man/human beings are able to change and become something more?
then the conservatives base their actions and knowledge upon
something that is wrong, that isn’t true… and that is how I hold
that the conservative is wrong… because we aren’t and never were
Irredeemably “evil”… we can change and we can become something else…
the novel, “The Christas Carol” is an entire novel dedicated to the proposition
that we are able to change and become something else…

and we see change in people and ourselves all the time…
for we do not remain a 4-year-old all our lives… our information
and knowledge changes about the world, our environment changes
and we must, must change with it… for if we cannot, we die,
no different than the dinosaurs… we must change and adapt or we
will no longer be able to survive…that is the bottom line about
evolution… change/adapt or die… if there is a lesson about being human to
be learned from evolution, that is it… change/adapt or die… the
lesson to be learned from evolution…

So what is the fundamental nature of human beings? I hold that
we are closer to being silly putty in terms of our nature than being
a solid rock…to be consistent at all times, in all actions, is to
be unable to change and adapt to the ever-changing situations/environment
we find ourselves in…individually and collectively, we must be able to
change and adapt to the situations and environment we find ourselves in…
so this leads us to understand the Metaphysical as being more fluid
and changeable than many would like…

I shall be taking a break, I shall return shortly…

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

ok, back…

the next assessment we make is in regard to our problems
is within Ethics and Aesthetics… I shall be combining these two
for reasons that shall become clear later on…

so Ethics: the concern with morals involving the systematizing
defending, and recommending concepts of “right” and “wrong”
behavior…

Aesthetics: the branch of philosophy engaged with the nature of beauty
and taste…

the above two branches are sometimes combined into one branch called
Axiology… the philosophical study of values…

what are values and how do we know what values are the “correct” values…
so, this also becomes an epistemology problem… how do we “know” what
values are useful and what values are not?

because the conservative holds that man/human beings are “evil”
that the values to hold are the negative values of hate, anger, lust, greed,
violence… to be able to engage in an “evil” world requires us to hold
equally “evil” values to compete with this “evil” world…
to fight “evil” with “evil” seems to be the thought here…

but what if the conservative is wrong… what if the world/human beings
are not irredeemably “evil” but situationally “evil” in other words,
the situation creates the values we use to deal with or understand what is
happening…the conservatives as exhibited by UR and gloom and Observe
have no use for and no understanding of the positive values like love,
hope, charity, forgiveness, peace… these values have no place for the conservative
because of their opening belief that human beings are Irredeemably “evil”…
what is the point of holding positive values if everyone is irredeemably “evil?”

as I have written before, the philosophical problem of the “Modern” age has
been this question of Ethics/morals… from Nietzsche to today, the
primary question of philosophy has been this question of ethics…
what is the right thing to do and how do we know it is the right thing to do?

so Ethical questions are tied into epistemology questions of knowledge…
what is the scope and nature of “right” and “wrong?”

but that kinda leaves us this question of Aesthetics…
how does the understanding, the nature of beauty
and taste, inform us ethically, epistemology?"

look at “good” ethical actions, the man who walks the old lady
across the street… that is an ethical action but it also is an
aesthetical action… the kindness of one human being to another is
an aesthetically action…it has a beauty to it… being kind to another,
is an act of beauty… and being mean and violent to another person,
is not an Aesthetical act… violence is not an act of beauty…
the conservative in championing the negative acts of
anger, hate, violence, greed, and lust, are not engaging in
acts of beauty… in fact, anger, hate, lust, greed and violence
is the opposite of acts of beauty… the conservative has no interest
in seeking the Aesthetical life, the life of beauty, the life of
displaying compassion to all, which is beauty personified,
is not of interest to the conservative… recall the basic principle
of the conservative, that all human beings are irredeemably “evil”…
there is no beauty in that belief…there is beauty and value
in the liberal idea that everyone, everyone can be redeemed and
found useful…we can tie the question of Aesthetics and ethics/morality
together…to act with goodness is the act of acting within beauty…
goodness is aesthetically pleasing… “evil” is aesthetically not pleasing…

so the question facing us today, is this question of what is “good” and what is “evil”
and how is that aesthetically pleasing? what is “evil?”… Was the holocaust “evil?”
and if so, how? the Holocaust was an act of ugliness and lacked any type of
an aesthetically pleasing values or actions…and within those actions of
murder and violence, can we see any, any aesthetically pleasing actions?
Does the murder of another human being ever pleasing or have any type of
beauty involved in it? No, not that I see…

we can, sometimes, spot ethically wrong actions by their
aesthetical content… if the action has some beauty to it,
it is far more likely to be an ethical/moral action…

so we return to a concept I briefly wrote about, Axiology…
which is the study of values… we can view/understand values
by both their ethical content and their aesthetical content…
an ethical action can also be an aesthetical action…

this is one possible understanding of the aesthetical and the ethical
actions of the world…

more later…

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

and we are left with the philosophical concept of
the political science…

we, the left and the right, spend much time battling over
political science… so what is political science?

Political science: the study of government, the nature and scope and
legitimacy of public agents and institutions between them…
and within political science lies specific areas like politics,
liberty, justice, property, rights, laws, and the enforcement
of laws… What are the duties of the state to the individual/citizen
and what are the duties of the individual/citizen to the state?

Much of the debate on ILP revolves around these questions of
political science…in other words, much of the debate on ILP
revolves around the philosophical questions of political science…
We tend to lump questions of income inequality and climate change
and other modern problems into political questions… but
they are really philosophical questions… that begin with
the Metaphysical questions of our nature, are we really irredeemably
“evil?” That Metaphysical underlies the entire question of
political science… what is the nature of man/human beings?

so political questions are tied into Epistemology questions,
how do we know if man/human beings are “evil” or “good”
or some weird mix of both? we can also see questions of
political science as being Aesthetical questions…questions of
beauty…a family that is provided by government assistance enough
to be able to feed their family is an act of beauty… it is aesthetically
pleasing…

Now one may say, but Kropotkin, beauty is subjective,
and thus what you see or know about beauty is subjective,
subjective to your own specific birth, education, lifestyle,
socio-economic class and political past and present… in other words,
beauty isn’t objective or universal… it is subjective and
conditional…and I agree… beauty is in the eyes of the beholder…
as long as it is understood that in saying so, we no longer have
any universal standard upon which we can agree to…
and in doing so, we also then admit that there is no such
thing as a universal ethics/morality…

Ethics/moral are situational ethics… the situation defines, creates
the ethics/morals used in any situation…

So, what does this mean for philosophy?

any attempt to create a universal theory of philosophy is doomed to failure…
thus any attempt to use Epistemology or the metaphysical or the Aesthetics
or ethically or political science to explain who we are and what we value,
is and cannot be universal… we are left within a situational understanding
of all values and concepts…

more later

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

In Science for example, we had such people as Einstein attempt
to create a “theory of everything”… known as TOE…and my knowledge
of science isn’t good enough to be able to speculate if we can create
a TOE…in science, but I can state that we cannot, cannot
create a theory in which we can explain or understand
us as human being philosophically in terms of a TOE,
in other words, we cannot create a “theory of everything… human”
that includes everything about us as human beings…

we are incomplete to ourselves and we shall remain so because
we cannot, ever, create a TOE, about human beings because so
much of our understanding of what it means to be human,
subjective and based upon our conditional birth, education,
lifestyle, socio-economic place, our political stance…
the very fact I was born in the United States in Minneapolis
Minnesota, in a certain year means I will view, understand
existence differently than one born in California or in Spain or
in the UK…even in the same year, or even on the same day, at
the exact same time… as we will be raised differently, educated
differently, find ourselves in vastly different socio-economic circumstances…

and those differences prevent us from being able to connect, even one
on one with viewpoints and beliefs… and what about us collectively,
millions of us born and raised and educated differently?

there is no possibility of us ever agreeing with each other on such basic principles
as in ethics or the metaphysical or the aesthetics viewpoint…

human beings situationally understand what existence is and what
it means for us as human beings… there is not and cannot be
a universal understanding of what it means to be human…

and this is another philosophical problem of our times…
we simply cannot reach or achieve some universal understanding
of what it means to be human…a universal approach to understanding
of our problems isn’t possible…

so, now what?

Kropotkin

[Peter_Kropotkin]

I find it interesting that the conservatives on this site,
never, never offer up any solutions to the problems as they see it…

they offer up insane conspiracy theories, and dumb ass comments like
“don’t get vaccinated” and “don’t wear a mask”
but they don’t offer up connections to the problems they see
to the "solutions’’ they offer up…

in other words, they offer us some insane conspiracy theory
about George Soros or big pharma or the CCP of China…
but do they ever, EVER offer us some sort of solutions to
their conspiracy theories? no…and why not?

Because it would require some understanding of the problem
and the solution… in other words, they would have to think about
various solutions to their conspiracy theories… and frankly, they
aren’t smart enough to come up with solutions… that coming up with
solutions requires some hard work and they are clearly not capable of
doing hard work…they hold to a fairly superficial understanding of
what it means to be human… they might see a “bruise”, a problem,
but they fail to get beneath the “bruise” to find out what may have
caused or created the “bruise”…

so we have conservatives offering up as a “solution” to the problem
of crime, as being bringing back god into the schools…
what a simplistic solution to a complex problem…

bring back religion in schools doesn’t solve the complex issues of poverty
and racism and education and the proper role of government in
the lives of people…

to say, bring back religion in schools is to suggest that we have a
religious problem when in fact, we have an social, economic, political
problems in society, the state, the government and the culture…
Our problem aren’t about what religion we pray to, but problems
about our philosophical understanding of what it means to be human…
what is required from the society, the state, the culture… as obligations
from the society to the individual and the obligations of the individual
to the state/society…

the solution to such problems as poverty is found within our understanding,
our philosophical understanding of what is the role of government in our lives?
and what is our ethical obligations to ourselves and to each other? Do I have
an Ethical obligation to you and to everyone in society even if we are not related?
the liberal will suggest that yes, we have an responsibility, an obligation to
each other, an intrinsic obligation to each other that lies in our being fellow
human beings… we are, by evolution, beings with a deep and abiding
concern and obligation to each other…we are social beings… we cannot
survive alone… we must have social and ethical and moral and aesthetic
obligations to each other as evolution put into us… we were created
within a evolutionary standpoint, to be connected to each other,
regardless of our family connection… for many, our connections to
each other, as friends, lovers, boyfriend/girlfriend is deeper than our
connection to our family, the ones we were born into…

but we must have, if we are to stay sane and stable, have connections to
each other, no matter what our family connections are…
thus we have a need for clubs, associations, groups, parties and even such loose
connections as human beings… In other words, we have the lions club,
we have chess clubs, we have the democratic party, we have a connection
to others, who like me, watch the San Francisco Giants baseball team…
we, who love the Giants have form a club of sorts, we connect
based on watching and loving baseball… and we connect on all sorts
of levels, it isn’t about what we connect about, be it baseball, chess,
politics, philosophy, math, science, whatever it is, it is the connections
we form that matters… not the specific reason we connect, again be it baseball or
football or chess…it is the connection we form that is the basis of our lives,
not what we connect about…

the fundamental aspect of human existence is that connection we form with
others… it could be said that human being that cannot connect with others,
are not human beings at all…

so let us return to the problem of our modern times…
we have, in a very real sense, lost our connections to each other…
the way we can reconnect, may be the one of the ways we solve
the problem of our modern times…

it doesn’t matter if we are faced with global warming or income inequality, if
we are connected to each other… the solution to many of our problems lie
in our inability to connect with each other… thus we now see UR problem,
his inability to connect with others… conservatives have a problem
connecting to others and thus they fail to see the importance of
connection in our lives…

Kropotkin