plato85

Operation Paperclip: At the end of WWII the US imported West German scientists and academics into US universities to get an edge over the USSR in the cold war. Along with those academics they also imported the ideologies that made the Wiemar Republic the mess it was. Western Culture is still in a state of psychosis. All of these years after the war our society is still so completely obsessed with the war and Nazis, that we see everything though that prism rather than the thousands of years of history we have. We try so hard to be the opposite of Nazi's that we're ironically becoming what the Nazi's were reacting against.

I completely agree. The tagline at freedomainradio.com is "The largest philosophical discussion in the world". When you read that tagline you immediately think of the great philosophers, the great books, the great conversation spanning thousands of years. This site is not a book club. FDR was never intended to be a place for general philosophy. The way I see it, Molyneux used to be about his own libertarian philosophy, but now he's about libertarian politics and social commentary. His shift is why this forum has lost its purpose. To be relevant to Stephan Molyneux and his listeners this forum has to be re-purposed as a political forum and a place for libertarians to come together. If this really is a philosophy forum we would find someone who's primarily interested in philosophy to rally around. Stephan Molyneux is far better known as a leading libertarian commentator than a philosopher. This forum could be a power base where libertarians come together and organise a political movement. Libertarians could come here to discuss how to influence others, and overthrow the established ideology. We could make that the mission of this forum. However we define the forum, it has to line up with what Moleneux is doing. We need a mission-statement.

I just came across this on meetup.com.... Are any of you guys behind this? I might go.

I just found this.

I'm halfway through Arthur Herman's - The Cave the Light. I've read a few histories of philosophy, this is my favourite. It covers the history of philosophy from the pre-socratics right through to the modern age. It doesn't go into their philosophies in depth, it more gives a narrartive to the history of philosophy, why each philosopher was needed, and how they impacted history. It focuses on how society/philosophy swings between Plato inspired philosophy and Aristotle inspired. It's 570 pages plus another hundred pages of foot notes/bibliography/index. https://www.amazon.com/Cave-Light-Aristotle-Struggle-Civilization/dp/0553385666

They're not creating money out of nothing. They're stealing money. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand divides the world into producers and looters. There are only so many people producing and actually doing the work. Fiat money is only worth something because there are people working for it and producing. Gradually over time the Welfare state gets bigger and bigger as a proportion of the economy, untill there are not enough people producing to make the money worth anything. Excellent book. Totally recommend it. In Plato's Republic Book 8, Plato describes how Democracy fails. He says people vote for leaders who promise more than they can deliver. Rather than accumulate wealth the state starts to go into deficit. Once a democracy goes into debt it is doomed. The Debt opens up a division in wealth between the rich and the poor. Eventually either the underclass revolt, or a demagogue comes along and mesmerizes the people with impossible promises. Once in office he raises taxes which kills the economy completely, and then he slaughters any opposition groups, and therefore the greatest thinkers. As for whether it's deliberate or insane, look at the election in Britain last night. The Conservatives promised an austerity budget, slashing public health and other services, they were punished at the polls by Labour who promised to end Austerity. Also a democracy is dependent on a liberal society - ie a society that can think for its self, that is self regulated apart from the government/police. Now they're importing an authoritarian population from the third world, the government must crack down on security and surveillance. It seems deliberate.

Yeah it's not a perfect list. They addressed most of your issues in the introductory book. They put together the list in a committee of professors at a university. There were a lot of disagreements but everyone agreed most of the books in the set are important. Leaving out the Bible was a fierce debate but they went with the assumption that everyone already has one, maybe they did back then? They said that the science books they chose are good reads that describe the process they went through to come up with their ideas, and they remind you that anyone can be a scientist and you don't have to go through higher education. I don't understand the cult of Shakespeare, and they do need more Dostoyevski and Tolstoy. Orwells 1984 only came out in 1948 and this set was published in 1956. Everything except Freud would have been out of copyright in this set. Years ago before TV we had a reading culture. People did relate to each-other through these books the way people relate through movies these days. And people felt more connected with their ancestors and their history. The great books are our Western Heritage. forgetting these books is letting Western culture die. When we discuss the ideas of the books of the past we keep those ideas alive and we can build on them. Apart from just a discussion amongst people we know, this is a conversation among writers, continually referring to each-other and their ideas. Discussing what they agree and disagree with, so that philosophy can continue. Philosophy is a conflict between competing ideas. It's this conflict that is the conversation.

Hahaha ironic response to Stephen Fry's video. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/culture/2016/apr/12/stephen-fry-fury-comments-abuse-victims-self-pity-charity-mind

Nazi Germany was not restoring traditional European norms, they were more like a regression to Ancient Sparta. The Nazis were fighting were traditional European countries.

Stephen Fry on political correctness and clear thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQHakkViPo This is probably the the best explanation about why the people are irrational I've heard. Fry says that people are refusing to grow up, and refusing to see the world the way it is with it's complexity. That made me think of a documentary I watched a few years ago about how the media is trying to keep us infantile to sell us more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwpXxEiztWw&list=PL5A4nPQbUF8AXdDPpbNxR1l2TUsGlDUWA I wonder what we can do about this?

The rise of the Nazis was a reaction to Bolshevism and communism. The Wiemar Republic was completely irrational, but Nazi Germany wasn't exactly an enlightenment movement. They were burning books. They closed down the free press and media, and put in their own propaganda. The universities were already quite bad but the Nazis just put in their own narrow Nationalist syllabus. Reactions can be as irrational as the thing they're reacting against. On the other hand the Germans have never been particularly enlightened, the way rest of Europe (esp Britain and France), and US have been. So they didn't have anything rational to fall back on where we do.

This made me smile http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/populist-personalities-the-big-five-personality-traits-and-party-choice-in-the-2015-uk-general-election/ I wonder what the implications are.

Yeah it's not a perfect list. They addressed most of your issues in the introductory book. They put together the list in a committee of professors at a university. There were a lot of disagreements but everyone agreed most of the books in the set are important. Leaving out the Bible was a fierce debate but they went with the assumption that everyone already has one, maybe they did back then? They said that the science books they chose are good reads that describe the process they went through to come up with their ideas, and they remind you that anyone can be a scientist and you don't have to go through higher education. I don't understand the cult of Shakespeare, and they do need more Dostoyevski and Tolstoy. Orwells 1984 only came out in 1948 and this set was published in 1956. Everything except Freud would have been out of copyright in this set. Years ago before TV we had a reading culture. People did relate to each-other through these books the way people relate through movies these days. And people felt more connected with their ancestors and their history. The great books are our Western Heritage. forgetting these books is letting Western culture die. When we discuss the ideas of the books of the past we keep those ideas alive and we can build on them. Apart from just a discussion amongst people we know, this is a conversation among writers, continually referring to each-other and their ideas. Discussing what they agree and disagree with, so that philosophy can continue. Philosophy is a conflict between competing ideas. It's this conflict that is the conversation.

Yes you're right that's my error. Sins are the christians idea of sin but it's not an ultimate list of evil. I was trying to show how evil used to be used.

The fall of Rome was a slow and crazy process. Civilizations can go though depression and famon and come out of it stronger. But when society goes crazy that's harder to recover from.

If you're interested in philosophy you should be reading the 'Great Books', or the 'Western Canon'. These books are described as 'the great conversation'. The Idea is since Homer there has been a continuous philosophical discussion down the generations. Each book in the Western canon keeps this conversation going, and it comments on the previous books. There are many different lists of what is in the Western Canon. Some lists put more emphasis philosophy written in theory form, some lists put more emphasis on philosophy written in novel form. This link below is to a set of 500 books which are the most important philosophy books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World Some of the books are more interesting and more important than others. Some are really easy to read, some are quite dry and hard to read. Some I disagree with so much that it fills me with fury. Some of these books are so damn good that I'd prefer to be in their company than anyone else. But every book is rewarding because you understand the world in a new way, you can see how different people think, and you can see where all of our political differences stem from. If you prefer to read fiction then Harvard Classics have a similar set which you should be able to pick up quite cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics In the old days when only the elite went to university, in the days when a higher education meant a general education rather than a specialised vocational education, this is what they studied. The goal of many people is to read all of these books in 10 years. I've been complimenting my reading with audio books so I can get through books while I'm driving or walking the dog. A lot of these audio books are up on Audible and Naxos Spoken Word Library.

In the Christian faith they say that Jesus died for our sins. If a Christian sins then they're sent to hell. Sinning is evil. Everyone sins. So everyone's life is a struggle between good and evil. Here's a list of 40 sins that seem innocent enough but send you to hell: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/40SinsThatWillSendYouToHell.html Doing evil is the same as sinning. Sinning is just choosing a bad way to live. Being too lazy or eating too much, cheating on your wife, stealing etc. Evil is one of those words that must have completely changed meaning over the last century. Evil used to just be the opposite of virtuous (verb for vice). I don't think I've ever read a philosophy book where evil meant anything worse than bad. I'm not sure where this idea that 'evil' means outrageous atrocities committed by warlords, governments, and religions, comes from. It probably came from the relativists who find it hard to see anything as immoral unless it is atrocities.

Anyone here who hasn't read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, it's about the most essential philosophy book ever written. It's Ayn Ran's biggest influence and in turn, Rand is Stefan Molyneux's biggest influence. They say Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book in the US after the bible. Both Jesus and Ayn Rand were influenced by Nichomachean Ethics.

I'm not dividing the world into good people and evil people. I'm saying we all are part good and part evil to different degrees. We all try to be good but the way of evil is easier. I'm not struggling with meaning in my life. I'm just struggling with defining the meaning of words.

Bloody hell. You make everyone stashing away gold sound like an optimist! I agree hard landing is preferable. You forgot to add that Trump is planted there as a scape goat and we've been conditioned to believe that he's an evil Nazi anyway, so that these disasters are blamed on the 'right-wing' (even though that term has already completely lost all meaning), the disasters give the elites an excuse to bring in this communist government.

If you've read Ayn Rand she follows his philosophy, all the bad guys hate life in general.

It's more of a classical definition the ancient Greeks used. In Aristotle's ethics he talks about how these self defeating traits lead to outrageous atrocities. How people treat others the way they treat themselves. You'll usually find these maniacs also abuse themselves. Decadent behavior is evil, but a lesser degree than an atrocity.

The thing is the Left call themselves Liberals because in a previous generation they did say they believed in liberty. Their liberty meant something different from it's classical meaning. Roosevelt defended Europe from Tyranny (reluctantly). He lifted the prohibition. He started a rights movement, he wanted everyone to have equal rights. He wanted people to have more rights. That movement continued up till the 80s or 90s, but then it was more or less finished. The left morphed into what ever it is now since then.

I'm building up a philosophy from the questions I've been asking in this forum. Are there any errors in my reasoning? Structural Decline of society If you’ve tried and failed to convince someone to think rationally, and you find your logical arguments are refuted by emotional arguments, it may be that they have not self actualised. In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, people do not self actualise and start to think rationally until certain physiological and emotional needs are met: Food/shelter, safety, love/belonging, esteem, self actualisation. Our society was founded by the English. Our manners and customs came from Protestant England, but our culture was turned upside down. Good Christians are meek, they do not talk about religion, politics, or money in polite society. People’s feelings are important and it’s not OK to upset or offend people. In a Christian, class based society, where each class is responsible to bring up the lower class and look up to the higher class, moral authority in society tends to shift up the social hierarchy to the upper classes and the clergy. Australia was founded as a series of penal colonies. Convicts were treated quite poorly, and when they got out of gaol they were also treated poorly by the Christian immigrants who saw them as wicked sinners. Because of this we have an aversion to higher classes, and we became irreligious. In this irreligious society with meek Christian customs and manners, moral authority tends to shift down the hierarchy rather than up. Since it’s not OK to upset or offend people, those people who are more easily offended, who tend to be lower on Maslow’s Hierarchy are hard to challenge, and you are likely to be shamed if you try. Because it’s hard to challenge irrational ideas in polite society, our society has been structurally locked into a gradual shift towards irrationality, and the moral authority of the offended victim classes. Since roughly the 1970s we’ve been stuck in this direction when the moral authority in the church started to be challenged, and the media started to shift us into being more of a consumerist society, by trying their best to making us feel unfulfilled, artificially keeping us from reaching self actualisation, and therefore rational thought. The three sides of the equation that locks us into this gradual shift are: 1. Meek society leaving us unable to challenge the lower classes. 2. Godless society taking away moral authority from the top. 3. Consumer society leaving us unfulfilled and irrational. What can we do to change this equation? 1. Challenge meek society – We create a confrontational society where we stand up for reason. When you change yourself to meet the challenge of an adversary, you get into game theory, and you become a mirror of that adversary and become everything you hate, and no one ends up happy. Think of the cold war and mutually assured destruction. Think of what the singles dating scene has become, with both sexes now reading books about how to win in the dating scene, but everyone ends up miserable. Think of Trumps polarised US. This is the road to schizophrenia. The only way to deal with game theory is not to engage in it and stay human. 2. Challenge Godless society to move moral authority back to the top – The classes at the top are more likely to be self actualised than the classes at the bottom, but that’s not a good reason to trust them. The ruling classes have certainly abused the lower classes many times before. 3. Challenge consumer society – We have about the best standard of living in history, so it seems surprising that more people are not self actualised, but that is the paradox. Our standard of living is built on a consumer society that holds people back from being satisfied. I will put it to you that because moral authority is with the irrational victim classes, our society structurally set become increasingly irrational. We’ll probably go down the schizophrenic game theory path to counter the irrationality of our political opponents, and ultimately our society will become polarised by two different kinds of irrational, and then collapse. The only way to save our society and liberal democracy is to make enough people self actualised so that they can think for themselves, become self determined, and independent, rather than looking up or down the hierarchy for guidance. This means that to save liberal democracy we must challenge the idea that it’s OK to be envious rather than being happy with what we’ve got. We can wait for our society to collapse and bring down the economy with it, or we can try to fix our society so that we can withstand an economic collapse.

Given that I'm talking about trolling being a response to political correctness, and political correctness is also trolling, we're getting into game theory. This is starting to sound schizophrenic. Usually the best way to respond to game theory is to not get dragged into the game, and find a way to stay human. What we really need is good ways of responding to political correctness.