Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Mon May 22, 2017 5:30 pm

jimhaz wrote:Left wingers gave you the dole you survive on.
They also created the computers and internet which he uses to rail against them.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Mon May 22, 2017 6:05 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
You have here negatively judged a whole group of people simply on the basis of their association with academia.

No, I'm not judging people based on their "association", but on their actions. It wouldn't matter to me if they called themselves academics or business people, if their actions were the same.
A couple of posts ago, you dismissed all academics as "small-minded" and "deeply-deluded" without specifying a single action they have made. That is indeed judging by association.

Kevin Solway wrote:I wish that David had made it clear from the very start that his primary concern was the perceptions of other people - specifically, deluded left-wing academics. It would have saved a lot of time.

So we can now understand that the whole thrust of David's words, his objections, his many speculations, his diagnoses of mental illness, his determinations of who is human and who is not, and his warped interpretations and misrepresentations, arise from his trying to view the world through the lens of deluded left-wing academics, whose perceptions are what really matter.
Here you are again, judging and dismissing others based on association.

I'm sure most academics would laugh at the very idea of someone like myself being aligned with their perceptions and modes of thinking. You really are scraping the barrel with this sort of drivel.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 22, 2017 7:09 pm

David Quinn wrote:I'm sure most academics would laugh at the very idea of someone like myself being aligned with their perceptions and modes of thinking.
And yet you're almost calling them perfectly capable of rationally dealing and assessing all other important things in life, like you said here:
The top scientists, academics, writers, philosophers, military leaders, medical practitioners - that is to say, anyone who possesses genuine expertise and sophisticated thought-processes are naturally part of the liberal establishment and nearly all of them to a tee are utterly horrified at the spectacle of Trump shitting all over the Oval Office.
But still they would be extremely deluded about the finer points of reality itself -- but that's a small matter, right? A detail we can overlook here?
the sight of supposedly wise thinkers on Genius Forum also being dazzled by Trump’s sub-human shenanigans and speculating about whether they are acts of genius? That’s just embarrassing.
But this isn't what actually happened on the forum, no dazzling, no "acts of genius" in philosophical or intellectual sense claimed besides near limitless capacities for promoting a certain image and stirring up all kinds of things while remaining the upper hand, as we have both agreed on earlier. This would mean the above statement is quite far removed from reality. It's just not rational to claim and that's why you get the reactions you do.

As for your sense of embarrassment over any issue like this, that is exactly what Kevin wrote: so much concern about perceptions of others, since you already established that most academics (the best, brightest and educated by definition) would laugh at the very idea of you being aligned with them in the first place. Why even imagine more embarrassment? Also since it's evident quite a few people interested in all the wisdom you value on this forum are shown to be quite divided on the dangers of a Trump administration and, which has been pointed out by others earlier: so much of what's related to the perennial wisdom traditions and also individualist philosophies like the one of Nietzsche would be way closer aligned with conservatism or libertarianism - even some of the "new right" movement - than it could ever be called fully compatible with any liberal politics. Although this all could be part of a discussion which has not even really started yet. That you actually are assuming it's the case already, as something self-evident, with quite the urgent undertones, implies you might be attached to some identity as a liberal or feel that the current socialist-capitalist society and its world order is something half way enlightened and needs defence because of some debatable belief that it has to be true?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 22, 2017 7:58 pm

David Quinn wrote:
jimhaz wrote:Left wingers gave you the dole you survive on.
They also created the computers and internet which he uses to rail against them.
"Left wingers", never mind Al Gore, didn't create the internet or computers. That's an embarrassing idea, if any thing on this forum could be embarrassing at all! It's not a statement which can be backed up meaningfully. A surprising amount of computer scientist are in my (also professional) experience more conservative but often the individualistic type, a bit anarchist perhaps, with a lot of privacy concerns and sceptical about all government. This cannot be called "left winger". Computers do not equal the political progressive movement. The progressives never campaigned for the spread of computer technology or science but more for social justice, equality, green energy and more democracy in all places on earth.

But okay you have your own definitions of left winger, including mediaeval monks and such:
I am talking about the progressive movement that began in the Middle Ages, which incorporated the scientific revolution and pushed, in the face of sustained and often violent resistance by the conservative classes, for social reforms that centered around the concept of equality before the law and individual rights.
In that case, Trump and many of his supporters came out of that progressive movement as well. Nobody I know of, even the majority within the Trump camp is trying to undo scientific progress or the notion of equality before the law. The devil is in the details of how to apply this in each and every specific case!

So in the end all we have are red herrings.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Tue May 23, 2017 12:47 am

David Quinn wrote:When I speak about the “liberal establishment”, I am not referring to the current left-wing obsession with feminism, political correctness and identity politics and so on. Rather, I am talking about the progressive movement that began in the Middle Ages, which incorporated the scientific revolution and pushed, in the face of sustained and often violent resistance by the conservative classes, for social reforms that centered around the concept of equality before the law and individual rights.
That's a very bad definition of "liberal establishment", especially because it has so far been thrown around in discussions about modern, not medieval, politics.

Essentially, you're saying that a 600 year old politico-philosophical movement fosters a greater potential for wisdom in its numerous and diverse adherents than the rest of humanity. That's not an acceptable theory, even allowing for ignorance of the subject matter.
This courageous movement placed value on truth, objective knowledge, education, and fairness right from the very start - and today we are all beneficiaries of it. I believe this important point sometimes gets lost in the whole anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fracas which is occurring at the moment.
All this makes perfect sense as long as you don't pay attention to the notion of valuing truth and fairness. What are truth and fairness? Are those things valued more than untruth and unfairness? In what respect, and to what degree, do left- and right-wingers differ in their valuation of truth and fairness?

I'll just focus on truth because "fairness" clearly has more of a political than a philosophical connotation in this case. Virtually all people generally ignore reality when it contradicts with their desires. Even when they acknowledge it, they do so only partially, i.e., to the extent it is compatible with their desires or necessary for the fulfilment of more vital desires. Left- and right-wing people differ in this respect only on the parts of reality they choose to acknowledge so that they can ignore the other parts. This means that, in both cases, "truth" refers to parts of truth and not truth itself, i.e., wisdom.

Thus, the practical or social benefits of acknowledging parts of truth are irrelevant in the judgment of wisdom. Even the *potential* for wisdom can't be judged that way, because wisdom can never be attained by incrementally being happy to acknowledge more parts of truth.
Freedom means thinking for yourself and assuming responsibility for your actions - which, from the conservative perspective, is tantamount to playing with the devil.
It is possible to make that same argument against the leftist perspective. From my perspective, people only consider themselves responsible for something when they are certain they will get something else in return. Since the responsibility that comes with wisdom is honesty about oneself, and since no freedom or reward is afforded by such responsibility, it is not compatible with left- or right-wing ideas of freedom.
The progressive culture, with its emphasis on individuality and education, is vastly superior in every respect. It may have lost its way a little bit over the past few years, but looking at the bigger picture, its underlying principles remain sound.
There are 100 millions of highly educated and individualistic people, but only a few of them have wisdom. The conventional definitions of individuality and education have nothing to do with wisdom, nor are they restricted to progressive politics. You can't redefine words and then pretend that they mean the same thing. Left- and right-wingers dispute the definition of "individuality" within their own groups, and none of their definitions of "individuality" are wise.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Tue May 23, 2017 1:24 am

David Quinn wrote:I'm sure most academics would laugh at the very idea of someone like myself being aligned with their perceptions and modes of thinking.
Which basically means that you view the progressive movement as a bridge between complete ignorance and wisdom. This view is fundamentally flawed if you're going by the forum's definition of "wisdom". All genuinely wise teachings place supreme value on the seeker being honest with himself and living accordingly regardless of the consequences. This would make them *axiomatically* incompatible with all political ideas, including progressivism, whose primary assumption is *always* that reason (along with a certain political and economic structure) is just a means to the end of a better society.

Also, purely from a statistical viewpoint, the percentage of left-wing people who become wise is not significantly higher than that of right-wing people who become wise. This would, on its face, discredit the hierarchy you propose.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 23, 2017 7:07 am

jupiviv wrote:the progressive movement as a bridge between complete ignorance and wisdom
It tells us something though about the way David and Dan could have connected their wisdom to the Idea of progress and perhaps related ideology of progressivism. This would be an entire topic by itself! But I'll introduce it here in any case.

Progressivism is about putting the improvement of the "human condition" first, which is somewhat of a moral concept or at least revolves around human "birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality". And somehow improving all of that, what Buddha calls dukkha and the road towards putting an end to it, one might suppose.

The Idea of Progress is that quality of life, or advancement of the "human condition", the elevation and perhaps then even extinguishing of all suffering would be coupled to advances in technology, science, and social organization. Often also interchanged with modernization in general: as purposeful development towards a future with less war, crime, hunger and disease, increasing the, is assumed: art, right thought, joy and scientific exploration. Or something like that.

Instead of opposing this, I can only state that my own concern is only wisdom. That's also the end result for me. The end result is not human happiness, or health, or spreading the human genes around the universe. That would all be instinct, the animal realm of course since all organisms or combination of certain genes would work towards the situation it persists, procreates while removing all barriers to do so. But one could leave all these concerns behind although every gene in the body would still function towards survival of itself and all what's similar enough -- hence hormonal reactions, cultural programming and so on.

But instead wisdom is clearly only way, only manner not an end towards anything. It doesn't supply some overarching meaning to fulfill an earlier lack of meaning. It does not concern itself with future vistas or justify a sense of being on this seeming world. Therefore, just because something is improving our technology or breeding, decreases death or discomfort is not necessarily going to be some boon for wisdom. It might be, at times, but one always will find a drawback, a hinder as well.

And since wisdom does not provide ultimate meaning, it does not have morality in itself. It's not overly concerned about the fate of humanity, not even ones own personal fate. Nature just unravels as it should. Wisdom could be that one fire cracker in the deep night, for all we know. It cannot contain any aim or lack of aim. Or any lack. And therefore it's ultimately apolitical as it should consider, boldly, dangerously perhaps, that insanity or irrationality, as a phenomenon, plays its part in ways which lie beyond current understanding. Therefore it's not about wisdom anymore when opposing any larger event that is being perceived and interpreted in the world. Wisdom only opposes ignorance when turned on itself, to sustain itself, to remain true to itself. No other real concern.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue May 23, 2017 10:34 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:the progressive movement as a bridge between complete ignorance and wisdom
It tells us something though about the way David and Dan could have connected their wisdom to the Idea of progress and perhaps related ideology of progressivism.
Please don't assign ideas to me unless I've specifically said something about it. I am not David. I am not, and have not, made any attempt to 'solder' (Jup's word) my political views to wisdom. Ever. I have also not attempted to accuse Kevin of having done anything like that. I don't see it that way and that is not remotely the problem as I do see it. Generally speaking, indeed almost exclusively speaking, I don't see any link between political views and wisdom. So, for example, the view that wisdom is most likely to be pursuable in a liberal democracy that affords actual freedom of time and thought and possesses a social welfare regime, is purely a political view. It has nothing to do with wisdom itself. Though I hold that view quite strongly it is entirely contingent on many things.

I also, for the record, regard the USA to be be a 'liberal democracy' to a limited extent. Since about the mid 70s I consider the US to have become, in many ways and to a large extent, a quasi-fascist state ('fascist' being defined here as a state where corporations effectively run government) and that corporate Democrats are deeply entwined in that.

Kevin mused,
Logical fallacies are the actual destruction of consciousness, and insult is probably the lowest and most desperate of all logical fallacies.
Actually, there is something worse, and that is someone who ought to know their logical fallacies and how they work and in what context they inhere, using them as a weapon in order to merely look superior. Your statements about logical fallacies are disingenuous and border on an indulgence in the fallacy fallacy.

For a start, insults are hardly ever instances of the ad hominem fallacy. Nor are subjective judgements about the quality of an idea. An insult must meet the criteria of the ad hom to actually be one. This is true of any fallacy, such as the slippery slope fallacy wherein many slippery slope statements are not, in fact, fallacious. You know this.

Secondly, accusations of logical fallacy in the context of a largely informal and rhetorical dispute are bullshit and simply come across as pretence, especially when such pontifications are littered with caps lock. You know full well how many times we've described something as 'insane' - or whatever else - in personal conversations. I wonder how many instances of such things we'd find in the transcripts of The Hour of Judgement. In short, chill.

David wrote,
decimating the federal government by not appointing heads of staff and senior employees
This is an interesting point that is arguably going under-reported. There are something like 200 position yet to be filled in the State Department alone. The Department is struggling to function because of it and is beginning to publicly declare this. That is reflected right across the Government. GOP members are becoming increasingly nervous because of its hamstringing effect on the GOP's legislative agenda. Time is running out. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the reason for this is simply that the current batch of ideologues, narcissists and neophytes in the White House simply believe, as Tony Abbott did here, that they could run everything themselves, that they effectively know better anyway. But legislation that passes muster and will survive over time requires expertise. It can't be whipped up like half-arsed Executive Orders and be expected to get through the House and Senate.

That combination of arrogance and ignorance could be quite damaging for the Government and the GOP over time. And they don't have all that much of it. These are fairly lengthy processes and a Congressional election is looming and the signs are increasingly strong (as is belief among GOPers themselves) that the GOP will take a hammering.

Will the arrogance and insolence of this White House bring the GOP's agenda to a screeching halt? It's looking that way and the more it's distracted by the rising mushroom cloud of the Russia thing and by Trump and the White House's bizarre behaviour, the more that agenda gets set aside.

On a different note, ya have to admit, it's entertaining on some level to witness this series of events: Trump fires his FBI Director in the middle of an investigation into Trump and Russia and then two days later admits on TV he did so because of the Russia investigation. He then invites Russian officials - you know, from the country that just hacked their election - into the Oval Office (unprecedentedly) - and not only spits out classified information to 'hostile' officials, but also admits to them he sacked the FBI Director over Russia and feels better for it.

I mean, you couldn't write this stuff.

Oh, and ya also gotta laugh at shit like this, which is a kind of hypocrisy that often occurs in politics, but is endemic to Trump's personal mental processes.

January 2015 tweet:
"Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted. We have enuf enemies."
Can't write this stuff.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue May 23, 2017 11:09 am

I think we should keep in perspective how many people actually voted, actively, for Trump. He got 19.5% of the popular vote. 58.5% of people didn't vote for anyone (many due to ineligibility). If we take say, 9% points off Trump's figure to account for GOP voters who would have voted for the GOP no matter who the candidate was (I'd do the same thing for Clinton), we're looking at 10% of voting age America that actively voted for Trump. It'd require deep demographic research as to what the 58.5% who never voted actually think, so for this purpose I'm going to pretend we don't know.

10% - ain't that much. Now, I'm perfectly willing to take that 10% of people and declare, in my best abusive and judgemental voice, that people who stood before this man and heard him declare unto them that, "Only I can fix it." and "I will give you everything." - each time to rapturous cheers - and still voted for him, are, indeed, deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Tue May 23, 2017 11:25 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:the progressive movement as a bridge between complete ignorance and wisdom
It tells us something though about the way David and Dan could have connected their wisdom to the Idea of progress and perhaps related ideology of progressivism. This would be an entire topic by itself! But I'll introduce it here in any case.

Progressivism is about putting the improvement of the "human condition" first, which is somewhat of a moral concept or at least revolves around human "birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality". And somehow improving all of that, what Buddha calls dukkha and the road towards putting an end to it, one might suppose.

The Idea of Progress is that quality of life, or advancement of the "human condition", the elevation and perhaps then even extinguishing of all suffering would be coupled to advances in technology, science, and social organization. Often also interchanged with modernization in general: as purposeful development towards a future with less war, crime, hunger and disease, increasing the, is assumed: art, right thought, joy and scientific exploration. Or something like that.
Nicely summarized. That is indeed what I think. The goal of encouraging everyone to become wise goes hand in hand with the goal of creating a society which best promotes this. You can’t have one without the other.

This doesn't mean that I agree with everything that progressive movement has done since the Middle Ages, or that it doesn't need significant improvement. But as a general ideal, the desire for the human race to rise above its conservative/tribalistic/animalistic values goes hand in hand with the Buddhist path of breaking one's conditioning and mentally developing away from the animal realms.

Instead of opposing this, I can only state that my own concern is only wisdom. That's also the end result for me. The end result is not human happiness, or health, or spreading the human genes around the universe.
Look at it this way. Since wisdom is consciousness of ultimate reality, or consciousness that is no longer distorted by delusion and insanity, the desire to eliminate all delusion and insanity from the world goes to the very heart of the spiritual path. This means encouraging everyone, including oneself, to transcend their attachments and their limited perspectives and open themselves up to the absolute reality which is beyond all perspectives.

In Buddhism, those who only think about their own personal development are called "arhats", while this forum has always been concerned with the larger, grander path of the bodhisattva, which involves valuing perfection and fully perceiving the truth that everyone is oneself. As such, a bodhisattva fully focused on wisdom naturally seeks to improve the world in the same way that he seeks to improve himself.

Unlike Christianity, which depends on the existence of drama, Buddhism is calm, methodical, uneventful, intellectual. It doesn't require Trump-inspired insanities or stupid violent catastrophes to kick it into gear.

jimhaz
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jimhaz » Tue May 23, 2017 12:55 pm

[Buddhism is calm, methodical, uneventful, intellectual]

I think we are getting to the nitty-gritty of why I’m still disappointed with the attitude of non-anti Trump persons here, and appalled more generally at the lack of contextual wisdom that exists in voters these days.

An additional essential aspect for me is sensitivity to the universe, more specifically the sort of compassion that flows from this sensitivity – otherwise the same attributes can apply to any rather intelligent person. It is this sensitivity that makes a sage. I've felt it in myself at times, though not much lately since I've regressed philosophically in recent years as the novelty of enlightenment desires eroded away. I recall Kevin referring to his own heightened sensitivity to reality as a child, a sensitivity that led him to pursue philosophical wisdom and sage like qualities (and he stills sounds sagelike on video :).

Since reading the start of Diebert’s post that restarted this discussion, and immediately reacting with “fuck this, I’m not going to even think about whatever he said....and the forum should close”, the story (true or not) of Nietzsche going mad when he reportedly saw a horse being whipped by a coach driver has repeatedly appeared in my head.

It is that compassion, controlled by wisdom, that seems to be missing from Dieberts and Jupiviv’s perspective. They seem to be trying to prove themselves wiser than others by expressing mostly indifference to the Trump situation. I am simply not interested in wisdom that does not encompass compassion.

It is certainly true that I hold a similar indifference to military actions in the middle east, due to the hopelessness of the situation where both religion, government and circumstance line up against improving their lives. If the non-anti Trump crew more clearly stated that it is “an ends justifies the means” issue wherein the forces behind Trump would be made impotent for some time by the sheer incompetence of the Trump team, I’d be less irritated by their stance, merely regarding it as some sort of misjudgement about the level of risk of greater long term damage.

I partly recall a situation where this reckless indifference applied to David. During a discussion some years ago about femininity I think David made a statement that there might be a need to force young females to take testosterone to masculinise them (or something like that), so that they might develop the ability to become enlightened. I recall internally rejecting the ideology of the pursuit of wisdom at all costs, though it could be said I’ve never actually believed in that (outside of the costs to the self-centred ego at the individual level).

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Tue May 23, 2017 1:06 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm sure most academics would laugh at the very idea of someone like myself being aligned with their perceptions and modes of thinking.
And yet you're almost calling them perfectly capable of rationally dealing and assessing all other important things in life, like you said here:
The top scientists, academics, writers, philosophers, military leaders, medical practitioners - that is to say, anyone who possesses genuine expertise and sophisticated thought-processes are naturally part of the liberal establishment and nearly all of them to a tee are utterly horrified at the spectacle of Trump shitting all over the Oval Office.
But still they would be extremely deluded about the finer points of reality itself -- but that's a small matter, right? A detail we can overlook here?
It’s all relative. From the point of view of wisdom, most of academia is an exercise in pure wankery, particularly in the philosophy departments. But compared to the insane, vacuous ravings of the Republicans/Trumpists/evangelicals, these very same academics suddenly seem like profound, coherent thinkers.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:the sight of supposedly wise thinkers on Genius Forum also being dazzled by Trump’s sub-human shenanigans and speculating about whether they are acts of genius? That’s just embarrassing.
But this isn't what actually happened on the forum, no dazzling, no "acts of genius" in philosophical or intellectual sense claimed besides near limitless capacities for promoting a certain image and stirring up all kinds of things while remaining the upper hand, as we have both agreed on earlier. This would mean the above statement is quite far removed from reality. It's just not rational to claim and that's why you get the reactions you do.

As for your sense of embarrassment over any issue like this, that is exactly what Kevin wrote: so much concern about perceptions of others, since you already established that most academics (the best, brightest and educated by definition) would laugh at the very idea of you being aligned with them in the first place. Why even imagine more embarrassment?
It’s a figure of speech. I’m not actually embarrassed. It’s a colorful, short-hand way of expressing disapproval.

I don’t know what Kevin is going on about. Understanding other people’s perceptions is very important if you want to communicate with them properly. Even Weininger stated that one of the hallmarks of genius was the ability to actualize in oneself other people’s points of view. It is a critical skill for acting intelligently in the world.

Also since it's evident quite a few people interested in all the wisdom you value on this forum are shown to be quite divided on the dangers of a Trump administration and, which has been pointed out by others earlier: so much of what's related to the perennial wisdom traditions and also individualist philosophies like the one of Nietzsche would be way closer aligned with conservatism or libertarianism - even some of the "new right" movement - than it could ever be called fully compatible with any liberal politics.
I’m not sure about this. I look at your backgrounds. For example, you come from a country that has historically been one of the most progressive countries in Europe for the past few centuries, so you have already benefited from having a progressive upbringing, even though you might not want to acknowledge it. The same with Kevin. Even jupiviv has come into contact with progressive ideals via the British and Dutch influences on his country; added to this, India has long held enlightenment up to be the highest value in life, at least in principle, which makes relating to the forum easier. The point is, in all three of you, progressive ideals have already shaped your character, broadened your outlooks and enhanced your receptiveness to higher wisdom.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 23, 2017 4:16 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Please don't assign ideas to me unless I've specifically said something about it.
Hah! But this actually started with you assigning ideas to others without any consideration first: like "Trump must be a Genius".
I am not, and have not, made any attempt to 'solder' (Jup's word) my political views to wisdom.
Nevertheless you often sound like exactly doing that. As if you have declared certain issues, especially when it comes to an opinion on Trump, as a matter of choosing between rationality or irrationality. Politics gets simply covered under the sauce of psychology, worries for World War 3 or the constitution. As if the last decades not all political views were often enough about exactly those concerns. Will this or that government soon blow up the world, or ruin the economy, or be ruled by a shadow government, or get us in to more wars and so on. To me that's exactly what it always was about with politics.
On a different note, ya have to admit, it's entertaining on some level to witness this series of events: Trump fires his FBI Director in the middle of an investigation into Trump and Russia and then two days later admits on TV he did so because of the Russia investigation. He then invites Russian officials - you know, from the country that just hacked their election - into the Oval Office (unprecedentedly) - and not only spits out classified information to 'hostile' officials, but also admits to them he sacked the FBI Director over Russia and feels better for it.
If the Russia investigation would indeed be hysteria about near to nothing, as Trump claims, these actions would be rational if he truly holds that view. And so far I haven't seen any thing materializing but more cloak and dagger. We'll see. The investigation is not shut down in any way as a result, with the special investigation it actually widened. So the move clearly was against Comey especially and from what I understood, he made quite a few extreme bad judgement calls, not just with the mail server during elections but also with a couple intelligence reports on Russian hacking. We'll have to see what happens and not assume irrationality is limited to only one person or camp. The universe tends to spread it around quite fairly.
January 2015 tweet:
"Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted. We have enuf enemies."
Can't write this stuff.
Yes its' bad but not that different from a Bush asking us to "read his lips" when he was promising the moon before he got elected. With Trump it's especially bad because he said so much about everything under the sun as a normal citizen, not just as campaign lies. And it all comes back to haunt him now.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue May 23, 2017 6:21 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Politics gets simply covered under the sauce of psychology, worries for World War 3 or the constitution. As if the last decades not all political views were often enough about exactly those concerns. Will this or that government soon blow up the world, or ruin the economy, or be ruled by a shadow government, or get us in to more wars and so on. To me that's exactly what it always was about with politics.
This is the rhetoric of someone trying to normalise Hitler. It is quintessentially Chamberlain. I will not suffer it. Normalising this White House or trying to place it some kind of history of mundane political chicanery is utter bullshit. You sound like one of those bureaucrat stiff-shirts from a 90's disaster movie who won't listen to the scientist who's telling you a shitstorm is coming.

A shitstorm is coming, and not of a good, fertilising kind. It's been raining down on us for over 100 days now and yet some of you still wish to contend it's not that bad, like the hapless and helpless fuckers of https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/3/n ... tory_farms

Don't piss on my leg and tell it's raining.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 23, 2017 10:23 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Politics gets simply covered under the sauce of psychology, worries for World War 3 or the constitution. As if the last decades not all political views were often enough about exactly those concerns. Will this or that government soon blow up the world, or ruin the economy, or be ruled by a shadow government, or get us in to more wars and so on. To me that's exactly what it always was about with politics.
This is the rhetoric of someone trying to normalise Hitler.
Yes, wheeling "Hitler" into the discussion. That's the rhetoric of someone who has left the realm of reasonable discourse and verbally "bombs" the place to bits. You sound like you're 16 years old or was in a deep coma the last decades when shit came down. We can differ about the significance or severity of one thing over the other but stop with the drama show on "Hitler" and impending doom. The world never was safe from insanity and neither is a human mind, which should be your biggest worry, by the sound of it. Actually, it should always be the concern of any thinking being.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Wed May 24, 2017 6:41 am

David Quinn wrote:The goal of encouraging everyone to become wise goes hand in hand with the goal of creating a society which best promotes this. You can’t have one without the other.
The point is how similar wise goals are to progressivist goals. When rationality is considered to be a means to something else, like health or happiness, the result is irrationality. Such is the case with both progressive and conservative goals, and it is so *equally*. It's impossible to consider rationality to be inferior to something else in a superior way, since the end result will be exactly identical, i.e., irrationality. It's certainly possible to debate the merits of different forms of irrationality in terms of *hygiene*, but hygienic merits - by definition - are not indicators of *wisdom*.

And besides all that, the elephant in the room is that the progressive goals are irrational even on their own terms, like the central idea of improving and perfecting the human condition (I dislike this term but I'll use it anyway) through scientific and social progress. That idea is unrealistic considering how much social progress has historically depended upon access to resources and energy (Roman empire-slaves::British empire-coal::US empire-oil), and considering how much the incomparably fast and massive increases in resource availability in the 20th century depended on conditions which we have no reason to believe can sustain or be sustained indefinitely.

But the more serious issue, in the context of wisdom, is the axiom which supports that idea, which is what I mentioned at the beginning, i.e., truth as means to untruthful ends. The most obvious consequence of adherence to such an axiom is the gradual prevalence of a paltry and palpable *farce* of truth acted out by things which do not in themselves have anything to do with truth. Science and scholarship, art, compassion for the unfortunate, universal equanimity, prudent sexual relationships and charity concerts are in and of themselves considered acts of great wisdom.

Not that those things can never be guided by at least some rationality, but they are often nothing more than habit and custom. The problem, however, is that they are considered to be inherently rational, or at least de facto expressions of rationality in *opposition* to the things that all the other ignorant people who're not down with the progressive ideology like to think and do. So at bottom it's all just politics with some excuse used to justify power structure or policy or lifestyle or candidate A over B for no actual reasons whatsoever. From the very start, the real battle is not between wisdom and ignorance but the popularity of one irrational idea over another depending upon the prevailing conditions within which it operates.

On that note, I will return to the QR/S schism and the reason for this whole debate, as this is probably my last word on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, Kevin's stance has merit because it is truly *apolitical*. His responses to me when I asked him certain questions about Trump/alt-right not long after he started posting convinced me of that. The only faults I found with his views are on the issues of Milo, favouring Trump solely on the basis of his opposition to SJWs, and the optimistic view of Trump's potential to be a more effective or rational leader than the competition. But then, my far more cynical view of Trump may well be wrong (though, obviously, I don't think so).

The important thing is that Kevin is stating his reasons for supporting Trump and by no means attempting to merge his support for certain alt-right/conservative ideas with his philosophy. That's why I see merit in S's stance and not QR's. I don't believe in destroying science or democracy, but I do believe that such things can be valued for extremely foolish and vain reasons, and it is such valuations - which manifest in myriad and often mutually exclusive forms - which must be sought out and destroyed. In other words, I will strike a pose, but don't expect me to vogue.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed May 24, 2017 10:21 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Politics gets simply covered under the sauce of psychology, worries for World War 3 or the constitution. As if the last decades not all political views were often enough about exactly those concerns. Will this or that government soon blow up the world, or ruin the economy, or be ruled by a shadow government, or get us in to more wars and so on. To me that's exactly what it always was about with politics.
This is the rhetoric of someone trying to normalise Hitler.
Yes, wheeling "Hitler" into the discussion. That's the rhetoric of someone who has left the realm of reasonable discourse and verbally "bombs" the place to bits. You sound like you're 16 years old or was in a deep coma the last decades when shit came down. We can differ about the significance or severity of one thing over the other but stop with the drama show on "Hitler" and impending doom. The world never was safe from insanity and neither is a human mind, which should be your biggest worry, by the sound of it. Actually, it should always be the concern of any thinking being.
How predictable. I'm not directly comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm making a normalisation analogy. But, you knew that. If you can't see that we are actually not just heading for a socio-political shitstorm but are in the middle of one, you are suffering from some sort of mental block. We have not seen anything remotely like this in post-war history. Nothing. Need I delineate all the ways in which this is demonstrably abnormal?

If you want to argue that all these abnormalities and unprecedented actions are not especially bad, then fine. I'll listen to that but I don't have any time for any view that says this is just another cog in a dodgy wheel.

Take a look at various things that are going under-reported at the State level. Look at Texas. Look at voter suppression activities. Consider these in the light of a federal administration that will not act as a Constitutional buffer against such activity. Consider also that there are no longer any US Attorneys to perform similar roles. It's not all about the Feds but the broader reality that the Feds create. Governors of Red States now feel free to walk the path of the imposition of theocratic rule.

Can you imagine walking into the only pharmacist in your town and being told your prescription won't be filled because you're an atheist? This is currently a very real possibility.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Wed May 24, 2017 11:33 am

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The goal of encouraging everyone to become wise goes hand in hand with the goal of creating a society which best promotes this. You can’t have one without the other.
The point is how similar wise goals are to progressivist goals. When rationality is considered to be a means to something else, like health or happiness, the result is irrationality. Such is the case with both progressive and conservative goals, and it is so *equally*.
What about when rationality is used as a means to attain wisdom? In this case, the end result isn’t irrationality, but the opposite.

If the progressive movement can be tweaked and diverted away from egotistical goals such as happiness and directed towards wisdom, then we have a perfect marriage between wisdom and progressiveness.

Such a marriage can never occur between wisdom and conservatism. By its very nature, conservatism is backwards-looking. It is the conservation of the past, of dead stuff, of delusion.

And besides all that, the elephant in the room is that the progressive goals are irrational even on their own terms, like the central idea of improving and perfecting the human condition (I dislike this term but I'll use it anyway) through scientific and social progress. That idea is unrealistic considering how much social progress has historically depended upon access to resources and energy (Roman empire-slaves::British empire-coal::US empire-oil), and considering how much the incomparably fast and massive increases in resource availability in the 20th century depended on conditions which we have no reason to believe can sustain or be sustained indefinitely.
Things can change rapidly on this front. Physicists could finally crack the holy grail of cold fusion, for example, which would provide a cheap, inexhaustible source of clean energy for everyone. Genetic technology has the potential to greatly increase food production. Nano-technology has the potential to deal effectively with our rubbish and waste products. And so on. I share your concerns, but the bleak future you are painting here is based on many questionable assumptions.

On that note, I will return to the QR/S schism and the reason for this whole debate, as this is probably my last word on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, Kevin's stance has merit because it is truly *apolitical*. His responses to me when I asked him certain questions about Trump/alt-right not long after he started posting convinced me of that. The only faults I found with his views are on the issues of Milo, favouring Trump solely on the basis of his opposition to SJWs, and the optimistic view of Trump's potential to be a more effective or rational leader than the competition. But then, my far more cynical view of Trump may well be wrong (though, obviously, I don't think so).

The important thing is that Kevin is stating his reasons for supporting Trump and by no means attempting to merge his support for certain alt-right/conservative ideas with his philosophy.
To summarize, then, Kevin’s current political activity has merit because it is philosophical in nature (i.e. he is being apolitical), while at the same time it is important to note that it isn't philosophical in nature ......?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed May 24, 2017 12:34 pm

Seriously, Trump is just too funny for words:

13 June 2016
Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 24, 2017 8:50 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Seriously, Trump is just too funny for words:

13 June 2016
Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!
The crazy campaign rhetoric coming from camp Trump was indeed the reason this thread was started. The fact is, this remark was in direct response to Hillary's campaign claim that she was the champion of Woman & Gay Rights while Trump was basically said to be misogynistic. While Trump holding now the office of POTUS indeed can't take most of his campaign rhetoric that seriously any more, he did have an actual point back then, in this particular case: Clinton did indeed accept large private donations from a country where women and gays were being mistreated to various degrees. The point of campaign rhetoric is to cast clouds over the other's abilities to take office. What they did or do when in office is not always a personal choice, that's the point after all of being appointed to an office much bigger than your self. Therefore various things claimed during campaigns rarely are expected to pan out during a time in office. With Trump it's a bit extreme though, indeed. No disagreement here from me in general.

Did you already hear that joke about the Australian, the Indian and the Dutch bloke meeting up in a bar? These three were not bothered since many years to participate much in their own local or national political systems but still spent night after night arguing about the dangers and insanities of American politics. You see, a lot is about perspective. Next round is on me!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 24, 2017 9:03 pm

jimhaz wrote:Since reading the start of Diebert’s post that restarted this discussion, and immediately reacting with “fuck this, I’m not going to even think about whatever he said....and the forum should close”, the story (true or not) of Nietzsche going mad when he reportedly saw a horse being whipped by a coach driver has repeatedly appeared in my head.
It's a good point actually and in my mind as well: having a brilliant mind with genius insights cannot be itself any guarantee that it will keep. It's possible some just might descent eventually in hysteria, sentimentality or embrace an almost dead horse because that's all what's left at that stage.

But you probably meant something else with it ;)
It is that compassion, controlled by wisdom, that seems to be missing from Dieberts and Jupiviv’s perspective. They seem to be trying to prove themselves wiser than others by expressing mostly indifference to the Trump situation. I am simply not interested in wisdom that does not encompass compassion.
It's doubtful 'indifference' is the right word when targeting the two people who have written about that topic the most, from various angles and certainly have explored the possible negatives and positives, at least more than any other poster so far.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Thu May 25, 2017 12:27 am

David Quinn wrote:To summarize, then, Kevin’s current political activity has merit because it is philosophical in nature (i.e. he is being apolitical), while at the same time it is important to note that it isn't philosophical in nature ......?
Someone please play the Mario death sound.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Did you already hear that joke about the Australian, the Indian and the Dutch bloke meeting up in a bar? These three were not bothered since many years to participate much in their own local or national political systems but still spent night after night arguing about the dangers and insanities of American politics. You see, a lot is about perspective. Next round is on me!
I don't participate but I do try to keep up with it. Mostly it's just like western politics but Game of thrones drama porn emulation hasn't become prevalent yet. Modi is certainly a step in that direction though. In fact, it'd be interesting to compare Modi with Trump especially with respect to D'n'D's evaluation of the latter. He has done at least one thing since taking office which can be described as undemocratic and as having widespread consequences, but there's still no sign of post-apocalyptic police state oppression. Really puts Dan's hysteria over Trump saying he wants to sue newspapers into perspective.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu May 25, 2017 1:52 am

David Quinn wrote:A couple of posts ago, you dismissed all academics as "small-minded" and "deeply-deluded" without specifying a single action they have made. That is indeed judging by association.
No, your logic is flawed. You are speculating, but don't have the ability to realise that you are speculating. Either that, or you are deliberately lying.

I don't have to specify what their actions are in order to judge them by their actions.

Here you are again, judging and dismissing others based on association.
No, as I've said, I judge academics to be deluded based on their actions - not their group membership.

There are a handful of academics who are not so deluded, such as Jordan Peterson, or Gad Saad.

You obviously have a very high opinion of left-wing academics, firstly because you claim they are the superior people on earth, and secondly because you say you care so much about their perceptions, and on pleasing them.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu May 25, 2017 2:06 am

Dan Rowden wrote: . . .and still voted for him, are, indeed, deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible.
You are merely speculating as to why people voted for him, and I don't believe you have any idea why people voted for him.
. . . and no other sensible judgement is possible.
So you believe that your speculations are absolutely right and other people's speculations are necessarily wrong.

That thinking is insane.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu May 25, 2017 2:17 am

jupiviv wrote:. . . by no means attempting to merge his support for certain alt-right/conservative ideas with his philosophy.
From my point of view I value freedom of thought and freedom of expression. I have no interest in what may be "alt-right", or "conservative", or "liberal", or anything else.

I see Trump as a piece of froth on the ocean. I am only interested in the tide.

Post Reply