a modern question?

the question is simple enough, why can’t we moderns create great ART?

We can all agree that great Artists have lived in the past,
just a few names to remind you, Da Vinci, Goethe, Shakespeare,
Van Gogh, Michelangelo, even in the last century we have Picasso…
so, who can you name right now, working right now, that is a great Artist?

I can’t name one and I doubt you can name one…and the names most
people will come up with are musicians, not painters, not writers, not
poets, not architects, but musicians… Dylan for example…

I even type up greatest Artist living today, right now and got a list
of people I have never heard of…for example Liu Xiaodong, and the listing
I saw said and I quote: “Perhaps one of the greatest painters of all time”…
a great deal of the list were Artists from the east, Liu for example
and Zhang Xiaogang…plus a scattering of German Artists…
and several American Artists… the only names I had heard of is Jeff Koons…
and Keith Haring…I saw a show of Haring’s work in the
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art… and it was ok, the wife and I travel up
to the city every so often and go to the SFMOMA…due to covid, we haven’t been there
in a while…

anyway, the vast majority of Artists listed I have never heard of
and so I must take someone’s else word as to how good these Artists are…

but the question does arise as to why, why can’t we moderns create great ART…
one might hold that a Da Vinci only comes around every so often, or that
a Goethe comes around every so often…we might offer up the possibility
that great ART comes from a society that values ART and we clearly don’t value
ART in any way, shape or form in this modern world…

how are we to achieve Great ART when every thing we have is mass produced in
some factory in China? I hold that we cannot produce great ART because we
are to beholden to the concept of a consumer/producer/ worker society…

the creation of ART is less important then the production of goods, cheaply made
goods that can be created by mass production and consumed by people at a relatively
low price… in other words, the question of quality never arises…why would
we create something of quality when we can make money by building crap?

Who needs ART when the goal is to make money/profits…ART has no value
in a society that is engaged in the search for profits…and a society engaged
in just meeting its basic needs of food, water, shelter, education and health care…
the basics necessities of what a human needs… that society, our society has no
need for ART when the goal is to “put food on the table” as we do today, 24/7…
if the modern engagement is with making money, that leaves no room for such
things as ART…

so how would you return us to the creation of ART? But Kropotkin,
creating ART won’t put food on my table… yes, exactly…
but look about us… we are leading lives of “quiet desperation” and I hold
that is, in part, because we do on some level, miss and crave ART and its
being created.

Because we have walked away from ART, we are less the complete
as human beings… in fact, I would suggest that the creation of ART is
one of the criteria of being human… in losing ART, we are losing who we are…

for ART seek what is possible in being human… ART is a listing of what is
possible for us as human beings…ART is an engagement with our
human possibilities…A book like ''Crime and Punishment" is a
book about our possibilities as a human being…we, as human beings,
can kill and this book tells us what possibilities can occur when we do so…

ART tells us what is possible for us as human beings…and specific
areas of ART, for example science fiction list our future possibilities given
certain technology and certain events…we can learn from sci-fi
what it means to be human under certain conditions…
that we can be great in the future given the possibilities of space travel…
sci-fi list the possibilities for us in the future…

think of ART as a ‘‘how to be human’’ given certain conditions like sci-fi
or in novels like ‘‘War and Peace’’

but we don’t have that in modern ART…and we
are reduced as human beings because of that

Kropotkin

I don’t think there’s any reason to assume people cannot or are not creating great art. Very few artists are recognized as “great artists” in their own time - you listed Van Gogh for example.

The question then shifts from Why can’t they / aren’t they creating great art, to Why don’t you know who the great artists are?

When it comes to visual art, I think it’s interesting to point out that we live in a time when all (or nearly all) technical aspects of art have been mastered. Someone who is able to paint extremely realistically isn’t even worth attention anymore, that’s just technique. Compare this to DaVinci and Michael Angelo who are famed of course for their vision of colour, subject matter and composition, but also because of their impeccable technique. Technique is no longer sufficient to get any real attention.

So I invite you to ask yourself: why is it that you don’t know of contemporary great artists? It’s not like this period of time in the art history books will be empty, is it? You just don’t know what will fill it. So why not?

K: what you ask is a legitimate question but it does leave an unanswered question,
do you know of any “great” ARTIST working today? my question is, in part, an
attempt to discover the “great” ARTIST’S working today…

Am I ignorant of contemporary ARTIST’S? Yes, I freely admit that…
and I have no real defense for that…so, educate me…

Kropotkin

and in thinking about this, I note on a personal level, I am ignorant of
what has transpired intellectually, Artistically, scientifically, and philosophically…
in other words, I have spent years studying what has lead up to this point, but
I haven’t studied this point…I don’t read modern literature, the last fiction books
I read were the two series, the harry potter series and the Games of thrones series…

I have never read Thomas Pynchon or any John Updike books… when I did read fiction
books, they were of Russian novelists like Tolstoy or Dostoevsky or English poetry like
Tennyson or Blake or sci-fi books like the Foundation series or “When Worlds Collide”
written in 1933…

I haven’t read a fiction book published after 1980 outside of the books mentioned…

but my thought was to fill in the history that has lead up to the writings of those books…
context is everything and I felt I couldn’t read those books without some context or history
of what has lead up to them…I recall reading “Ulysses” and it took me months to read that
book… the longest time reading a book ever for me, fiction or non-fiction…

my thinking is how can I hope to understand modern literature if I haven’t understood
the literature of the past and how to place modern literature into context if I haven’t
understood the literature of the past? and that literature is something I am engaged with,
as I am not engaged with ART per se, either paintings or Architecture or sculptures…

and the failure here does lie within me and as said, I have no defense for these
failures…but it does become a question of priorities… I have a limited amount
of time and what shall I spend that time on, is just another Kantian question we
face every single day…and I choose to spend my limited time on
matter of interest to me, hence I spend my time on philosophy, history,
political science… social studies…and the questions of existence…
what does it mean to exists? In making my choices, I by making those
choices, limit other choices… I cannot engaged in a study of ART and still
have time to study philosophy…I must choose and in that choice, I
consciously decide what is of value to me, and clearly ART isn’t that
important to me… but philosophy is… and in that choice, I
also define who I am… my choice tells me who I am by
what is important to me, ART or philosophy? my choices determines
my values and what I seek gives my life some sort of pattern…

so I seek knowledge, wisdom and in doing so, I also determine who I am…
of what values are important to me and what values are not important to me…
also say something about the human being I am…or the human being I could be…

Kropotkin

the question becomes, through which values shall we engage with to
understand what it means to be human?

shall I engage with ARTISTIC values or social values or historical values or
scientific or philosophical values in which I use as a lens to understand the
world and my existence… I might use ARTISTIC values which means I
see what it means to be human through the ART I have created or has
already been created…I view the world through the lens of say, painting…
I seek to compare and contrast and even interpret the world through the
creation of paintings…for example, what does the painting “Guernica” say
about human existence? and in comparing “Guernica” to say a scientific
understanding of the universe, I can see and rightfully so, that
the painting “Guernica” can tell me more about what it means to be human
then the scientific understanding that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun…
or that the painting “Guernica” can explain to me the “human condition” far better
then any scientific fact…Human beings are Hominids… that is scientifically true,
but it doesn’t explain the “human condition”…which is what does it mean to
be human?

we can even see how an “ARTIST truth” is more valuable then a philosophical truth…
we can see that in our understanding of Kant’s “things in themselves” as oppose
to a viewing of “Guernica”…or our understanding of whether “synthetic
a priori” knowledge is possible… and in understanding “synthetic a priori”
knowledge, does that help us to understand what it means to be human, or
the human condition? I don’t think so, not in the way the painting “Guernica”
can help us understand and explain what it means to be human…

am I arguing for a “Romantic” understanding of the universe where we see
the universe through the lens of emotions and feelings and we forsake
reason and rationality? no, I am not making that argument, I am saying we
must be prepared to understand what it means to be human, to understand
the “Human condition” through whatever means we can use…
be it ART or be it philosophy or be it literature or be it poems…
or be it paintings…

for we learn from each medium of ART or philosophy or History or painting…
and each can offer us some knowledge or understanding of the “human condition”
and each “truth” is valid, equality valid from its own unique standpoint…

and I can validate that truth by making it my truth… I am not forsaking
all possibilities when I make one choice, I am simple saying this is my truth,
where is your truth?

is there a universal/transcendental truth, equal to all? I don’t see that being true…
for what “truth” do we have that is transcendental/universal?

for everyone who agrees that this particular truth is actually true, there are
still some who will doubt… Christians hold that we can have life immortal,
that we can live forever… but many, including the Buddhists hold that “truth”
is not for them…I am included… for I hold that “Life immortal” is a nightmare
a horror of all horrors… and yet for some, that is the eternal truth,
that in holding certain beliefs, you will have an immortal life…
but only in holding that particular belief… holding other, different beliefs will
doom one to eternal damnation…but who is to say, this belief is the
sole “truth” of existence? I for one, do not have the courage or strength
to hold to one and only one belief is the “true belief”

so, through what values do you see the universe through?

is it ARTISTIC values or philosophical values or historical values
or do you hold to scientific values as being the values through which
you see the universe through?

the different values decide the different truths… for a religious value
has different truths then a scientific value
and an ARTISTIC value/truth is far different then a historical value/truth…

the values we choose decide the truths we hold…

so what values are your values? scientific, religious, philosophical,
historical, economic, or some combination of values?

pick your values and discover your truths…

Kropotin

so another “modern” question in the form of a statement…

we have existence… I exist… you exist… we exist…

If I were a solitary individual living on a deserted island, I would
have no need for theories that explain existence… it wouldn’t matter…
Robinson Crusoe has no need of any type of theory in which to explain existence…
he exists alone and that is the only fact that involves him…

but, but when we coexist with another, we now need theory, a theory in
which we can explain our experiences, our shared history, how we are to
act toward each other…Hegel tried to explain our experiences as
one where there is a master and the other is a slave…and that is one possibility…
where there is only two, we have a very limited amount of possibilities…
so the question really arises when we have three or more of us…
and with the addition of every single person thereafter, we increase our
possibilities…how are we to organize ourselves? what is my relationship to
you? and is that relationship different to another due to forces/experiences?

think of how we were to organize just 10 people… that organization would look
different then if we were to organize two or to organize millions…
numbers matter…and with each person, I am less likely to interact with them…
in other words, I might be able to meet and engage with a group of a 100 but
within a group of thousands or millions, I would never be able to meet or
engage with most of those people…

so we will have two different types of engagement going on, we have the small
personal engagement we might have with the small number of people we do know…
and we have another engagement with the large number of people that we will never
be able to engage with…in other words, we have two sets of rules…
one set of rules is our engagement with the small number of people we deal with
on a daily basis, and the other set of rules is our engagement or lack thereof to
the thousands or even millions we will never be able to engage with…

as with most people, when I first met someone, I am more formal… Hello
Mr. Smith, how are you? I might shake their hands… or not, given the ongoing
pandemic, we might not ever again engage in shaking hands as a means of greetings…
when meeting friends or people I know, I am far less formal…
so we have to sets of interactions with people… the one’s we know
and the ones we don’t know…here on ILP we can see the various interactions
in place… the newbies… we treat differently then we do the vets who have been
around a while…

and yet, at what point has the rules under which we treat people ever
been set down on paper or given organization? how do I know how to
engage with people or they with me, without any set rules or organization?

and the rules of engagement between people seems to be different within
the different people, races, nationalities… having been to England and to Spain and Italy,
the rules of how we engage with people seems to be different…the formality of
the English is far different then the informality of the Spanish or the Italians…

which leads us to wonder, how the rules of engagement between people get set up,
or organized? We have two possible means… one is through formal education, schooling
and the other is the informal education we received from our parents, friends, the church,
the state, the society…each the informal education we receive can be also said to
be experiences…we experience all our lives, the various means in which we
can engage with other people… formal and informal being two such possibilities…

now what of the theories we have such as modernism or postmodernism?

And I picked those theories out because I am engaged right now trying to
understand those two theories… I could have chosen other theories to engage with…

theories are simply means we use to help us explain what it means to be human
and how do we interact with other human beings…Modernism is one theory
of our interaction with other human beings, and the postmodern is another
theory of how we interact with other human beings, our society, our state…

and what are theories? Just an organize attempt to explain our experiences…
we can have rational theories… we have theories of nature that are rational,
the sun is the movement of a star and we revolve around the sun, along
with 8 other planets which is called a solar system…the scientific explanation
is an attempt to create a rational, logical theory of our experiences… without
the recourse to supernatural causes… the sun is the god Apollo who is riding
his fiery chariot across the sky… this is a less rational theory of the bright light
in the sky…and who is right? The Greeks would have said, they were right…
and in their minds, they were right… and we hold that the sun is a large ball
of gas, a star… which is our name for an entire class of large ball of gases which
light the sky…the sun is a sphere of hot plasma, heated by the scientific
process of Nuclear Fusion…as with all the other lights in the sky we call stars…

this explanation of the sun, while correct, doesn’t really help us to explain
our experiences with the sun… the sun was a major factor in the creation of
life on planet earth… and is a major factor in keeping life existing right now…
we get our power from the sun as well as our food…but to explain
how the sun is responsible for our existence from eating food, requires
more explanation… in other words, we must continue to explain
how the sun powers our food via sunlight…it is not self explanatory
to go from the sun light to our continued survival from eating food which
is maintained by the sun…the sunlight we see requires more explanation
to see its exact role in our survival…

so we see that there are several levels of explanation required
in our daily interactions with people and events…one explanation while
sufficient to explain aspects of existence isn’t sufficient to explain all
aspects of existence…

while an explanation of the sun as a chariot of Apollo was sufficient
to the Greeks because it did answer their questions, this answer is
quite insufficient to us… because we see the universe through
the lens of science… we require scientific explanations for our
experiences…and that is because our past, the last 500 years
has been the scientific age… in which we use science to explain
what it means to be human and what our experiences mean…

while science doesn’t use religion or history or economics to explain us to us,
many have used religion or economics to explain us to us…
Marx for example felt that the entire substructure of humanity
was economic in nature… we built our entire society on
the base of economics…while other hold that we are creatures
of god and that we must build our theories on the basis of
religion because we are religious beings, not scientific beings or
historical being or economic beings… and the various theories
of history, economics, religion, science are simply explanations
of who we are and how we interact with each other…

we can use history or economics or philosophy to explain our experiences
to us…and we can, as is often the case, we can mix science and history
or mix history to economics to explain what it means to be human
and how we are to interact with each other… what do our experiences
mean to us is explain by various theories… Freudian psychology is just one
theory to explain ourselves to ourselves…and evolutionary psychology
is another theory and Marxism is just another theory we use to explain
our experiences and what they mean…

so what I am saying here is instead of creating theories, we should
understand what theories are and what their value is…
explore our understanding of theories themselves and then
work out the various theories of existence…

Kropotkin

an experience, I felt the sun today on my skin… and it felt warm…
must I create a theory of that experience?

I feel in love today with a women…and it felt good…
must I then create a theory of that experience?

so, why do we create theories of our experiences?

the sun lies in the sky…
isn’t that enough? or must we create theories be it natural theories
of our sun is a second generation sun that came together because of
the various gasses that were created by the previous sun and then
with gravity, the various gasses coalesced into a single mass which
after time became the sun I am currently looking at…

or supernatural theories, the sun is really Apollo chariot going across the sky…

why do we hold to and engage with theories of our experiences?

Kropotkin

after we understand why we should engage in theories, as oppose to
simple accepting the universe as is, the sun is warm… and that’s it…
we go no further then this in our understanding of experiences…

we need to engage in the nature of our theories…

I hold that we should follow the example set by the Enlightenment
and engage in rational, logical theories of existence…the sun is a star,
made up of gasses that is super heated by Nuclear fission…and the sun was once
born and will at some point, die… quite violently I expect…taking out the nearby
planets of Mercury, Venus, Earth and probably Mars

or we can hold onto the religious theories… one day god created the heavens and
the earth…which also means that the sun was created and will also face extinction
at some point in time…if something is created in time, it existence is also
something that is timed… to be born is to die…but because these things
are wrapped up in religious theology, the fact that the sun was created and thus
also a candidate to die, never crosses their minds… the sun is permanent…
thus as it always was, it will always be…and here lies the dangers of
indoctrinations like the religious indoctrinations of the family, the church, the state,
the society and the culture…mistakes in logic and thinking can and do occur…
for example the bible says this:

“In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep… And God said, Let there be light:
and there was light. And god saw the light, and it was good: and god divided the light
from the darkness”

in other words, the sun, the heavens, the earth and people were all created…
and that means born and to be born is to die…we cannot just accept the words
as is because to do so means one will exists in error… the error of thinking that
the sun is eternal… it isn’t… and that is based upon the word of god, not science…

we must engage in the enlightenment project for the simple reason to fail
to do so means one will exists in error…we are told, by the very same people
that the sun is eternal, that we can exist forever, never die if, if we just repent our
sins… but if they are in error about the sun being eternal, then might they be in
error in this? how far does error exists in our lives? how are we to correct errors
if we don’t face up to them and explore their validity?
so, the enlightenment project is simply an project to understand
where lies the truth and where lies the errors…

Can I exist within error? How do I survive as a human being if I am in error about
something? to be in error is to risk possible loss of life and my existence to be gone…

If I hold, in error, that that I can fly, like a bird, then I am in error and in trying to
fly, I will die… I will not survive an attempt to fly like a bird jumping off a building…
to say, there is no such thing as gravity is to be in error… and that error might cost
me my survival…so, it is important to know whither or not, I am in error about something
that could cost me my life… I might think that bears are my friend and I can go about
petting a bear… that error will be my last error… it is important for survival to know
whither or not, we exists in error…and to better be without error, we must
then hold to an engagement with our knowledge… in other words, discover
what knowledge we have that is either in error or not in error…our very lives
could depend on us knowing what knowledge we have that is in error or not…

now theories are means of organizing our knowledge into methods of knowing
whither we are in error or not… I might have a wrong theory about why I am sick,
at this moment my ankle is swollen up like a balloon, is this serious or not?
I can have my own theory as to why my ankle is swollen up but to avoid being
in error, I am going to see a foot doctor on Monday… it might be serious and life
threating or not… I don’t know… so avoid being in error, which might cost me
my life, I will see someone who has studied such things… he is more likely to
have a better theory then I do… my own survival might or might not depend on
his theories… or his knowledge of how feet and ankles work…
his knowledge/theories are the path to being in error or not…

the enlightenment basically says, be engaged in your own theories…
my theory about my ankle is overuse… I stand and walk 8 hours a day
30 to 35 hours a week… my ankle simple couldn’t deal with being used so much…
which is why I need to rest my ankle… and I have… it is far improved today,
then it has been… so, my theory of why my ankle is swollen is partially
proven by the improvement in my ankle since I have been resting it…
so we can often validate our theories by the success and failure of
our actions taken in response to our theories… If I was wrong about
my ankle being swollen because of overuse, then my ankle would still
be really, really swollen… I haven’t “solved” the problem, found the
underlying theory of why my ankle is swollen…
and that theory must be correct to no longer be in error about my ankle…

in other words, our theories and their solutions create a feedback loop…
we can see if our theories are correct in the solutions we engage with in
response to our theories… if our theories is right and our solutions is right,
we will some success in improving the problem… My theory of my ankle
being overwork means I must stay off it it for a while…
I have stayed off if it and it is better… so far, my theories and possible
solutions are correct, not in error…my ankle is better… now there may
be an underlying problem that I am unable to see, so I still might be in error
and my ankle will not improve because of this unseen error… so, I will still see
the podiatrist on Monday morning…I could do, as many do, hold to the theory
that my problem, my error of my swollen ankle can be solved by god and god only…
so, to find my solution, to overcome my error, I must pray to god and ask forgiveness
for whatever sins I may have done…in other words, I leave my solution to
chance and to the random nature of god…I am often told that we cannot ever
understand the nature of god and we cannot expect to achieve our own solutions
of error by expecting god to solve our problems…in other words, we can be passive
about seeking our own solutions or we can be aggressive in seeking our own solutions to
the errors of our existence…personally, I would rather be aggressive in seeking
solutions to the problems/errors that plague me… …

so the creation of theories is in response to problems or error that we face
as human beings…

the reason we have religions is to seek the apparent universal need for salvation…

I am in sin… how do I overcome or am no longer in error with sin?

but that statement is really an assumption… that all human beings are in sin or
in need of salvation? I can live my life without error and go without any assumption
of sin and I will still lead a good and decent life… I can live my life without
the error of believing in sin… it is not necessarily something that I must have
to survive… I can exist without needing or wanting or having sin…

now many cannot, so who is right and how will we know?
what theory will we use to work out this theory of sin and is it
needed to exists?

and therein lies the value of the enlightenment… to dare to know…
to explore the assumptions of the society we live in and work out for
ourselves what it means to be human and what if any, errors we have
and how do we find solutions to those errors/problems?

so if we have the enlightenment in which to work out our theories,
what options do we have outside of the enlightenment to work out
our errors? in other words, how else shall we work out our own understanding
of what it means to be human? if we don’t use the enlightenment theory to discover
the ways and means of our own errors, then what theory of existence shall we use?

if we dismiss the enlightenment as a method of understanding existence,
of understanding our errors, then what theory do we use?

Kropotkin

Ok, let us grant the anti-enlightenment forces, the anti-rationalist
their arguments…we cannot use reason, rationality to work out our
errors or to find a new path… then what method do we use?

if you reject reason and rationality as the modern day GOP/TFH party do,
then how do they understand and work out the problems/errors of
our modern day?

a simple enough question… as UR and observe and gloom have rejected
reason and rationalism, by what method do they use to work their problems?
how do you know there is a problem and how do you find a solution,
without reason/rationalism?

Kropotkin

to be a modern day conservative requires one to hold insane conspiracy theories,
for example, one such theory is that liberals, George Soros to be exact,
have a space laser to cause forest fires in California… now, the TFH party
never tells us why Soros would do such an insane thing, only that
Soros is doing an insane and a quite impossible action…
for example, the conspiracy theorist never explain why Soros who
does live in California, would do such a thing… it defies explanation
as to do use Lasers to set forest fires… there is no rational, logical
explanation for such an action…

but defying logic and reason/rationality does seem to be the point
in conspiracy theories…using reason, there is absolutely no point
in setting California fires… the failure to use reason and logic and rationality,
leads one to hold irrational, illogical idea’s and theories…to remove one
as far as possible from the use of reason and logic and rationality
of the enlightenment…which leads us to wonder, why this hatred of
reason and rationality? why this hatred of the enlightenment?
does it lie in the fear that exists because the pursuit of wisdom,
to enact the goal of the enlightenment which is to pursue the saying,
Dare to know… that is on several levels, scary…to dare to know means one
has to have the courage to accept the new understandings that daring to know,
can lead to…it takes courage to attempt a new understanding of who you are
and what it means to be human…another translation of Sapere aude can be
this: Dare to be wise…and daring to be wise takes courage… for it is easy to
simply accept the indoctrinations of one’s childhood, belief in the current state,
culture, society, values of that culture/state/society… for example it is easy, oh
so very easy to simple accept the notion about the exceptionalism of America…
we, because we are Americans are inherently different/better then other nations…
that we are somehow, somehow and the reason for that exceptionalism is
never explained, but we are favored by god? or nature? or our laws? who knows
and that is the point… we don’t engaged in any understanding of the reasons
why we might be thought of as exceptional…who decides and by what standards?

this idea is held not by reason or logic or rationalism, but by whatever
other beliefs drive those who oppose reason and rationality…anti-enlightenment
beliefs…beliefs that are not challenged or given some thought about, but
simple accepted because?

they make us feel better about ourselves? this belief about
American exceptionalism is an problem/an error. So how do we
see its truth without any recourse to some method like
rationalism or logic? we cannot… the idea of American exceptionalism is
in error but we cannot see how or why until we use reason to understand
this question…

now one might say, but Kropotkin, America is exceptional…
and I say, how do you know? what facts do you have that prove
that America is somehow, exceptional?

and this notion of American exceptionalism is a byproduct of avoiding reason,
logic, rationality in one’s thinking… it is only possible when one is engaged
in anti-rationalism, anti-enlightenment beliefs… to know thyself is the
most basic motto of philosophy and that is only possible when one rejects
this anti-rationalism/ anti-enlightenment beliefs that drive the modern conservative
and the modern day GOP/TFH party…

Kropotkin

so if we reject the ideals of the enlightenment, of
using logic, reason, rationality, then what do we hold to be true?

the only standard left the abiding holding of faith…

the forces ranging against reason, logic and rationality argue
for and hold to, faith as the principle belief in life…

holding to their being a being that exists that is our maker and
the reason we human beings exists… a universal/transcendental being
called god…a being that “owns” us… in a universe with a god, we are renters
that can be evicted at any time…we own nothing and are nothing…

whereas in a universe where we hold to reason and rationality, we
are the owners, it is a significant difference in holding to faith
and holding to reason…

much of what the TFH crowd believes, they believe on faith…
that Soros has lasers to start California forest fires… or that
IQ45 won the last election…or there is some “deep state”…
beliefs that don’t stand up to reason or scrutiny but are held on faith…

this war between faith and reason has a long, long history…
Socrates lost his life when the forces of faith put him to death…
Jesus lost his life when the forces of reason put him to death
the entire modern history can be understood as a conflict
between the forces of faith and the forces of reason…
we see the history of the 20th century as one long battle between
faith and reason… Both World Wars are battles between faith
and reason… the Holocaust is what happens when faith wins,
the rise of modern medicine and technology is what happens when
reason wins…of course, those of faith, the GOP, hate science, medicine,
experts… UR and Observe and gloom each have attacked science,
experts, medicine…their hatred of wearing mask is just a symptom
of their hatred of science and reason…

I stand with the forces of reason… I stand with the Enlightenment with its
appeal to reason, logic and rationality… I hold to Sepere aude…
dare to know… dare to be wise…dare to know things…
and I reject appeals to faith… because holding to faith leads
one to commit errors without understanding the nature of the error…
because faith rejects reason, rationality, logic… in holding to faith,
one cannot see or know what is true or real… because faith clouds
understanding of what we see and know… in other words, our faith
leads us to false beliefs like the faith the TFH party has in IQ45 winning
the 2020 election… he didn’t but faith can distort our vision, our
understanding of reality… faith clouds the truth and hides
reality… by holding to faith, I can see an event and miss its true
nature because my faith forces me to misunderstand an event,
like the 2020 election…reality, truth is Biden won the 2020 election,
and it is only by holding onto faith that I can miss that truth… faith
allows me to deceive me…into false beliefs and holding onto errors…

of course UR and Observe and gloom will say I am wrong,
but their belief in my being wrong lies in their faith, not
in reason or rationality or logic… for their faith twists
and distorts the reality they see… faith allows one to distort
the truth to match the belief one has…to turn reality into
what the faith demands even if that faith turns reality
into a false image, an error…

so do you hold to faith or do you hold to reason?

answer that question and you can become who you are…
someone who can mistake reality due to the beliefs one holds
or to hold to the enlightenment beliefs that the truth lies in
our daring to know… or our daring to be wise…

Kropotkin

Good topic, Peter, but how about the category of faith in reason, or the reason for faith? Without these other intervening , perhaps even the very questions could not have developed to be asked?

The reason for asking ties in with the major premise of why can’t great art be created nowedays. But Iay be wrong, and the tie in with that may be unwarranted, and your intention was to create a montage of impressions on modernity.
But if the first guess is right, then the categorization of faith, apart of reason, is warranted only by reference to the beginning of that split.

And the beginning of questioning it certainly effects the modern outcome of Kantian categories, whereby he discussed the very issue of division and it’s effects.

The earliest pregenitor of faith over reason , is Origen, and Luther and Nietzhe came long after

The categories by now have become so intrinsic in our language that we speak of them as though
they were categorical from a beginning which somehow transcended theit content.

I shall return to Meno’s question in a bit… but first…

the question of faith allows us to hold, as faith, error…
for example how does one reconcile the faith that IQ45 won the election
with the reality that IQ45 lost the 2020 election?

the only way is to deny, to bury reality that IQ45 lost the election
and hold to the faith, the error that IQ45 won the election…
holding to faith means we must deny, denounce the truth/reality
because it conflicts with the faith…

as a holder of reason, I hold that Biden won the election, (and it wasn’t even close)
but if I were to hold onto faith, I could, despite the truth, reality, hold that
IQ45 won the election… I would be holding onto error, but given the choice
between faith and reason, I would and must hold onto faith every time…so says
the person of faith…and in holding onto faith, one can believe, well anything…
there is a god, that there are lasers causing forest fires, that there is a “deep state”
that there are lizard people who run the country, that the Jews run the country indeed
the world…because in faith, there is not way to discern what is true and what isn’t…
faith allows, in fact even encourages errors and mistakes because there is no
way to sort out what is truth and what is error?
faith removes the possibility of sorting out the truth…because anything becomes
possible in faith, and in fact, that is a line in the bible… faith makes anything possible
but faith cannot and does not change gravity or evolution or the theory of relativity…

even with faith, I still cannot overcome gravity… jumping into the Grand Canyon thinking
I can fly because I have faith that I can fly, doesn’t change the fact that despite my faith,
I will plunge to my death because faith cannot, cannot overcome gravity, or evolution
or any other scientific theory…if faith cannot overcome gravity, then how does faith
overcome the reality of IQ45 losing the 2020 election?

so given all of this… what is needed? what is the solution to our current
problems?

I say this, a new, even renewed application of the enlightenment values…

where we seek not faith, but we renew our reason, our rationality…
we seek Sapere aude… we seek to “dare to know things” or we seek “dare to know”
or even more so, we seek “dare to be wise”… and wisdom then is clearly not
found in faith… for faith can lead us astray into holding beliefs that are in error,
like IQ4 won the 2020 election…or there is an “deep state”…or there are space lasers
that have started the California forest fires…

holding onto conspiracy theories despite evidence that they are not true
is a sign of one holding onto faith, and not reason or rationality…

Kropotkin

Meno:
Good topic, Peter, but how about the category of faith in reason, or the reason for faith? Without these other intervening , perhaps even the very questions could not have developed to be asked?
[/quote]
K: I don’t hold that there can be “faith in reason” or that “reason can be found in faith”

it is kinda a one thing, reason or faith, proposition… and I choose reason,
because one can be lead astray by faith and because faith cannot, cannot
work out the why error has happened, it is the path to failure …

at least with reason and rationality, I can be wrong and then work out
with reason and logic, the how and why I was wrong and then correct it…
with faith, I cannot do so… faith commits me to a course of action
that cannot be undone without damage to faith itself…

I hold that to come to realize that one’s faith is wrong, will lead someone
to close to a nervous breakdown… if for example, UR or Observe were to
actually come to the realization that IQ45 lost the election, they would
have a nervous breakdown… their faith is tied into who they are as people,
whereas my understanding of reason allows me to change and modify my
beliefs… for example, I have held three different political positions,
and multiple philosophically positions in my life… I would be unable to do that
if I held my political or philosophical positions by faith…holding on to faith
doesn’t allow one any type of flexibility…whereas with reason, I can change
and modify my beliefs into new beliefs that hold less error…

I have changed my political positions without any “nervous breakdown”
that would endanger UR or Observe if they were to change their
political positions…

Kropotkin

today we have substituted the faith we once held for religions
into a faith in the modern state… we have replaced the former
attacks upon faith and religion with words like “Atheist”
and “Spinozist” with new attack upon the non believers of
nation… calling them “Traitors” and “Terrorist” but
there is no real difference between the former faith in religions
and the current faith in nations… not however the isms of
democracy or communism, no, we don’t hold onto that faith,
we hold onto our faith in nationalism like “American exceptionalism”
instead of our prior faith in god and religions…

we have not change our faith, we have simply change the faith from
god and religion to the state and nationalism… America is the new religion,
the new faith…and the new ideology that hold the faith of the people…

to deny faith in the nation is no different then denying faith in god…

so the new enlightenment means we must attack this faith in country and nation
and in doing so, allow us to see reason and rationality instead of faith…

reason dictates that no nation, no country has a exclusive relationship with
being right or wrong…the new enlightenment means we
see our nation in terms of reason, rationality which means we
“dare to know”… wisdom is knowing the place our nation, our country
stand in relations to other countries and to itself…

we no longer hold faith in American exceptionalism… we see our country,
our nation for what it is… another nation that has some right and has some wrong…
in which we try to strengthen our right and work on our wrongs…

in other words… “In order to create a more perfect union”
we have an honest, open understanding of America… something we
don’t have today… because our faith in America leads us to
hold to false beliefs, we hold beliefs in error, for example that America is
the leading light of the world because of its exceptionalism…

exceptionalism is not a belief, a faith, exceptionalism is a act…
we must prove ourselves every single day…
like modern day athletes, we must prove our greatness in actions
every single day…to win a championship this year, means we must
prove ourselves worthy of winning next year and the year after and the
year after…a soccer (football) player must prove themselves every single
year, every single game to achieve greatness as we must if we are to hold
that America is “great” or exceptional…

I am not saying we can’t be great or exceptional, I am saying we must work
at it every single day… we cannot, we cannot just assume our greatness with
faith…for faith leads to error… we must achieve greatness or being exceptional
with hard work and even harder understanding of what it means to be great
or exceptional…

I cannot assume I am great or exceptional, I must prove it every single day,
within the field I have attempted, which is philosophy…it is only
by my continued work and reading and writing that I can stay great or
exceptional…I hold that I am the best philosopher on ILP…
why, because I don’t hold to faith that I am the best, I work at it every single day…
and to me, every day that I am unable to work on my being the best philosopher,
is a lost day…it is not by faith but by actions that I hold I am the best philosopher
on ILP… I don’t assume or hold by faith my greatness, it is by hard work…

and the same is true of a country or any organism, it isn’t by faith or assumptions
that an organization achieves greatness, it is by working on it every single day…

Kropotkin

so the faith that once was held by religions has been transferred to nations…
and those who hold to faith instead of reason, will once again, in a few years,
transfer their faith in nations into something else… for it is about faith,
not the ism or ideology in question that one holds faith into, but the faith itself
that is important…

and what will be the next object of faith… I have no idea… but the transfer will
happen, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when…

what will be the next object of faith if not religion or the state/nation?
I suspect it is already happening in the “white is right” movement…
which is just another assumption in faith with no basis in facts or evidence…

so how do we escape this cycle of going from one faith base religion like
belief in god or religion to faith in the state/nation to the next object
of faith?

a new enlightenment in which we challenge the nature of the object of faith…
we no longer assume that the new god is the state/nation… but we attack the
fundamental assumptions of faith, be it god, religion, the state or the nation…
and the next step of assumptions that will be our new faith…

it is the underlying assumptions of god, religions, the state, the nation that
must be worked out…we must dare to be wise and we must dare to know…
it cannot be business as usual in the house of assumptions… our house…
we cannot assume on faith that this ism or that ideology is the correct one…
we must engage in our faiths and see what it means to be human without
the safety net of assumptions that now exists in those assumptions of state
and nation and god and religions…

a very popular error: having the courage of one’s convictions;
rather it is a matter of having the courage an attack upon one’s convictions

Nietzsche…

and todays belief/faith in our current faith of state/nation is just another
form of having courage in our convictions instead of an attack upon our
convictions…

Kropotkin

In thinking about the 1960’s, the hippy era, was an attempt to
create change via enlightenment values…

the emphasis during the 60’s was tied more into personal attempts
of gaining enlightenment, the phase ; Turn on, tune in, drop out…
was simply another example of this. the method of turning on and tuning in
and dropping out was quite clear and drugs played a major role in this…
the use of drugs to create an alternative state of mind is an clear attempt
to recreate the enlightenment values that overcame Europe from 1650 to 1750,
as defined by Jonathan Israel…

but therein lies the failure of this attempt, it was too tied into drugs
and their value to create an alternative state of mind…
we can and must achieve an “alternative state of mind” without the the use
of drugs… because the use of drugs, the drugs themselves become the object
of the search, not the “alternative state of mind” …the attempt to engage
in the search for enlightenment was the point, not the drugs…the next high isn’t
reaching for some new understanding of self and state/society…it is just the next high…

we recall the Hegelian use of the dialectic, where we have the thesis, which give
rise to an reaction, the antithesis, and then then the tension between the two being
resolved by a means of a synthesis…a combining of the two as it were…

where we fail today is how we hold to a thesis, say the existence of a ‘‘deep state’’
but there is no attempt to work out the tension between the existence of the
“deep state” and its antithesis, which is there is no “deep state”… holders of
the “deep state” theory do not engage in any attempt to
seek out or discover if there is indeed a “deep state?”
Holders of the “deep state” theory won’t engage in any type of engagement in
the other possibilities that lie outside of a “deep state” theory…

there is the courage of their convictions, but no attempt to go beyond that
belief, or faith to seek out other possibilities, no attempt to seek some sort of
enlightenment which is reaching to the next phase, the attempt to engage in
the antithesis , that there is no ‘‘deep state’’ and resolve the tension between
two distinct and conflicting understanding of the world, by a synthesis which is
able to combine these different thoughts into one coherent belief…

that there is a vast amount of conflict/tension in the world between conflicting
thoughts and faith and beliefs…but much of this conflict arises from people
holding onto error… much of modern day conflict arises from people not
being to overcome their indoctrinations… be it he religious…god,
to the political… conservatism…to the irrational … that IQ45 won the
2020 election…

that the left hold to wrong beliefs/errors can be a topic of conversation,
but that the right/ conservative holds onto false beliefs/errors of
basic childhood indoctrinations also cannot be denied…the engagement
we have with a new viewpoint, a new understanding of the world, which
called enlightenment, every time we challenge our childhood indoctrinations,
hat attempt is called pre-enlightenment… and the arrival of new beliefs ands
truths is enlightenment…he day I arrived at my new truth, that there was no such
thing as the metaphysical, no such thing as god, I reach enlightenment…but we
achieved this state all the time…the change in viewpoint, in the understanding
of new viewpoints, happens all the time…it is not a rare or uncommon event…
it happens all the time…as we age, we change out truths, our understanding of
what means to be human at my stage of existence is coming into another
stage of enlightenment…this process happens all the time…as we age or any
change in our understanding of any new environment…to have kids is a common
enough event in our lives, but that event creates a new understanding of who we
are and what it means to be human…it is an enlightenment event, whether
we want it to be or not…

the enlightenment event I am engaged with is a natural body event that happens to everyone…
say puberty or going from middle age to senior citizen as I have recently and am
ongoing with… as everyone who reaches my age will be faced with at some point
as we age… no, the enlightenment event I am engaged with and that am
encouraging you to work on is this…not to have the courage of ones beliefs/faiths,
but to challenge them, to overcome our childhood indoctrinations of religion,
political, social, family, state…to overcome the childhood indoctrination
of ‘‘American exceptionalism’’’ to overcome that thesis with a more logical,
better balanced understanding of America and who we are in this new
understanding of who we are, in a much more rational new enlightenment event…

from ‘‘America is evil’’’ which virtually no one in America holds to, to the
thesis of ‘’‘American exceptionalism’’ so the truth actually is somewhere in the
middle, in some new synthesis that combines these two conflicting opposites…

but to reach this new understanding or enlightenment, requires us to
make an engagement with or to challenge our current thesis or beliefs…

the challenge in our human existence is not to change our physical state,
that happens all the time to us human beings…I am born and every day
thereafter my body changes all the time, I have no control over that…

but I can change and adapt my own responses to the physical changes…
in other words, we must work out the emotional, psychology, mental
challenges in our selves and our environment…

our engagement with being human is not a physical engagement, but a
a social. emotional, psychological, mental, a constant adaptation
within us to change our inner world, not the outer physical world…

enlightenment is an engagement within us, about us…

we can see what happens to those who fail to change or adapt
their childhood indoctrinations…we call the conservatives…
and they hold onto their childhood indoctrinations long past their due date…
and they are unwilling to make an attempt to change their beliefs or
viewpoints/childhood indoctrinations…

to go from animal to animal/human to becoming human, fully human…

that is the journey, or one of them anyway…

what have you done to overcome today,
to overcome your childhood indoctrinations?

it is not enough to hold onto beliefs/faiths, but to overcome them…
to engage in the daily activity of enlightenment and overcoming…

did you work on your enlightenment today?

if not, why not?

Kropotkin

The goal of the enlightenment was in achieving ‘‘religious tolerance’’
and ‘‘intellectual freedom’’‘’’

The question I ask is this, have we even achieved this low standard
of enlightenment?

The answer is clear, at least to me, no, a resounding NO…

now what?

Kropotkin

a slight change of pace, but not really…

we have, what has been called, the “information age” we have
a gazillion sources of information… the internet provides us with
more information then we know what to do with… I can, literally look
up almost anything… if one knows where to look, that especially
true…

however and this is the important part, what we lack, and seriously lack
is the understanding of what that information means… we lack the wisdom,
to know the value or importance of such a massive amounts of information…

we have restricted information to being about our jobs or our career,
but not about challenging our childhood indoctrinations…
we use our information in a “practical” sense, and not in a sense
of use to overcome or challenge what it means to be human…

I have plenty of information to say, learn German… and I have reasons,
practical reasons to learn German… so it is encouraged… and made
quite available to me as a resource… but what resources are made available
to me to overcome my childhood indoctrinations? to overcome my
“education” which I use loosely… we are educated to hold certain values,
not to question those values, but to hold them…
for example, this idea of “American exceptionalism” we are taught,
educated to hold this value, but is that value, this education we receive
really worth it? so, I challenge the “education” we receive…
it is meant to allow us to have enough knowledge to hold down a job,
to be “productive” as a citizen… but we aren’t “educated”
in what it means to be human or we aren’t educated in overcoming
our childhood indoctrinations… in other words, we are told to hold
certain propaganda, about the state, the society, the family, the culture,
and church… but we are not in any, way, shape or form encouraged to
engage with what it means to be an American in our current state/society…

we are told that we must be “good” Americans by holding to such values
as “America is the greatest country on earth” or that we are the rightful
heirs to the concept of “American exceptionalism” but not to question
those childhood beliefs or values…

the true test of education is to train us into going from animal to animal/human
to becoming fully human… to train us to question the values and assumption
of a state/society/ culture…that is the true meaning of an education…
although one wouldn’t know that if one is educated in the American educational
system… which is focused on one thing and on thing only… training children
to become “productive” citizens by holding down jobs or to be “good” citizens
by an engagement with the values of our current society… the
engagement we have with being a “good citizen” in our primary
activity of being a “good citizen” which is to consume, produce and
be a worker bee in the American society…nothing more is asked of
an American and nothing more is wanted or expected…
just to consume, produce and be a worker bee… that is the entire
agenda of the “American dream” to consume goods, to produce those goods
and be a worker bee which allows us to consume those goods and produce those
goods…that is the end all, be all of the American educational system…
to create those who consume, produce and work…

to become human is certainly not the task, nor is the task to produce
those who may question the American system of education which is
to produce worker bee’s…no, the challenge is to overcome
our childhood indoctrinations of the goal of existence is to
work hard, consume much and spend our lives in slavery to
those who only function is to gain and hold on to wealth,
created by our workers actions… in other words, wealth is created
by the work of our workers and then their excess production is
stolen by capitalist who use that excess production to build massive
wealth which leads to power… we work to increase the wealth of
others, to build massive wealth in those who own the means of production…

I produce wealth by checking and in checking more goods, then I am pain with…
so, let us say, I am paid $20 an hour, to make wealth off of me, I must in some
fashion, create more then $20 dollars of wealth… the excess wealth I created by
more work is stolen by the corporation and used to increase their profits…
so if I created $25 worth of wealth, the extra $5 dollars is profits in which the
corporation uses to increase the wealth of those who own the means of
production… that is my only value as a worker, to create more wealth then I cost,
If I fail to do so, I am fired… simple as that…if I fail to make profits, I am fired…

that is my only value to big business… be a worker, consumer, and a producer…

and that is the point of my education, to buy into that… the highest value
I can achieve is to be “productive” American… but that is the failure of
the American educational system… to have but one goal… to produce,
to consumer and to work… anything else is not only denied but actively
discouraged… the society at large doesn’t care if I am able to overcome
who I am because that isn’t the goal of our state/society… to achieve wealth,
power, fame, titles… that is the goal of existence… at least according to our
educational system… to become human, to overcome our
childhood indoctrinations is not only not wanted, it is discouraged…
you don’t hear about it in our mainstream media… because our mainstream media
is owned by 6 corporations who goal is to make profits, and that goal of making
profits cannot be challenged or even hinted at…I will never be mentioned
by mainstream media because my statements deny the values of America,
which is the achievement of making profits…nothing more…
to become human is discouraged… only by remaining animal, can
America and our corporate overlords achieve their objective of
making and keeping profits/money…

to challenge the status quo is forbidden… and the status quo is
about making and holding money/profits… nothing more…

what assumptions did you challenge today? what values did you
overcome today? what childhood indoctrinations have you examined today?

did you make any attempt to go from animal to being animal/human to the final,
as of now, goal of becoming fully human? why not?
if you did not challenge who you are today, the United States of America
thanks you for keeping the goal of America the gaining and holding of profits…
for America is nothing more then a collection of super corporations which only
goal is to make and keep money/profits… to engage in becoming human
is denied and forbidden by America…

Kropotkin

the modern question of education lies in this…

What is the point of being “educated?”…

why be “educated?”

what is meant to happen when one is "educated?‘’

Kropotkin