Looking for an echo to stroke your bruised ego?

We are, in our humble manner, in a search for objective truth “[…] without either ignoring or doing violence to the facts, for which we strive in scientific work.” Freud Civilization and Its Discontents, chapter V, page 36.

The search for truth (philosophy) is a brutal adversarial combat. It’s not personal. You have proven to be woefully unequipped for the task, since all you bring are opinions that you have overheard other people make. Argument is the use of logic to reduce ignorance; (lumen siccum) illuminating the dark places of the mind.
Try to follow this. I made a falsifiable declarative statement about the inherent weakness of socialism with respect to Kant’s categorical imperative. I was making a philosophical point which you misinterpreted.

I never said Socialism is evil. At most my comment concludes that socialism grants the opportunity for people to be evil that does not occur in a Libertarian society.

You began by making a (false) equivalence between Libertarian government and Capitalism, in order to unleash a pre-canned, anti-capitalist rant. What followed was a Gish-gallop** diatribe of confusing bile that, to borrow from Wolfgang Pauli, is “not even wrong” (meaning it can’t be falsified and not that it is true).

Compare this with the philosophical point I made. (And here, the broad definition is best, since the declarative statement is TRUE for all examples, subject to any counter-examples, which it also prompts.) Socialism has the (ethical) weakness which leaves it susceptible to transgressing the categorical imperative.

To disprove it, find one example where a Libertarian system would allow one person to treat another person as a means to some other end. For example, killing a convicted murderer transgresses the categorical imperative. (Society acting to override the individual’s absolute right to life.) This then allows us to examine the philosophical point (with precision) from multiple viewpoints (each role and place in a stratified society). It illuminates the discussion with the limitations of the concept.

Your definition, in contrasting, is unnecessarily divisive; it contains perjoratives and lacks any facts that may serve to disprove it with research. (The late Dr Karl Popper falsification principle —— which powers empirical science by determining —— that truth is that which cannot be disproved.)

Dismiss, Distort, Distract, Dismay
Extra credit for identifying the four devices (from the Soviet disinformation toolkit, as codified by NATO in their handbook). For instance: “shit definitions” is an attempt to Dismiss the epistemologically-sound and widely-accepted definition I used as “too vague”. (It’s only flaw is that is leaves little room for the eristic sophist to distort its meaning for to ignite a POLITICAL argument.)

Yes, it is a very general definition. As such it is particularly useful for high-level PHILOSOPHICAL analysis. Notice the sophisticated ju-jitsu technique of turning its strength (its generality) into a weakness (too vague).

Notice also the alternate definition tries to frame socialism as a Platonic ideal,* above any grubby criticism. The new distorted definition reframes the dialectic, priming it for deconstruction.

Distract
Arguing about definitions is an excellent way to distract people from the argument. (This is called reframing; the aim is to include irrelevancies or exclude undesirables.)


________
* Plato conceived of a two-part description of reality, like Cartesian duality, 2000 years later: virtual (spiritual) and physical realms. For instance, the shape encompassed by the cloth of a latine sail is the physical equivalent of the (perfect) Platonic ideal that we recognize as a triangle.
** The Gish gallop tries to overwhelm rational argument with quantity. The aim here is to bury the inconvenient fact/s under a tsunami of difficult to decipher parataxic terminology. Another technique is the motte-and-bailey.

It is not a trivial undertaking to disprove something, if only because the antagonist will simply reply “I didn’t mean that”, even if they did. (Nicholas Schakel called this (2005) the motte and bailey fallacy.) It is especially effective if the sophist can pick a term used by their interlocutor that can be interpreted in more than one manner.

The perennial problem to solve is how to match finite resources (food, lodging, etc.) and potentially infinite demand. Socialism is the fifth class of idealized society (as delimited by JC Davis, 1984), which insists that the perfection of bureaucracy will bridge this gap.

The fundamental question is how to ensure people follow the executive plan. Capitalism harnesses self interest which magically yields, epiphenomenally, summum bonum.

Whereas Capitalism assumes the market forces of mutual self-interest will balance (fairly), Socialism is intent on mediating social interaction to ensure its fairness, and hence capitalism is autonomic and socialism requires a (human) intermediary, potentially managing every interaction.

Trade is the source of prosperity. It builds wealth. It requires trust to operate.

The first agrarian revolution (which started in the fertile crescent of what we now call Asia Minor about 12kYA, with a mutant strain of wheat that shed its seed much easier —— quite possibly the first human-guided genetic modification in recorded history) saw groups of people congregating to pool their resources and specialize their talents. This can only create a stratified society. The artist and the hunter, the cook and the smith all have to be paid enough to keep working. Supply and demand rewards industry according to the desires of that society, and undesirable or overly expensive products are less likely to proliferate.

This freedom to choose to specialize also, unavoidably, creates the freedom to fail and to succeed (comparatively) less successfully. A liberal society aspires for equal opportunity —— the ability to move through society, both up and down relative to others. A socialist society aspires to equal outcomes.

Hence freedom is antithetical to equality of outcomes.

At least since Thomas More published Utopia (Latin, 1516, Ralph Robinson translation, 1551) people have thought to eliminate the source of human conflict within society by the abolition of private property. (John Locke refuted this cogently with the work I quoted earlier, 1690.) Dr Susan Bruce (OUP, 1999), Three Modern Utopias, Introduction, pp. xxi.f.

Civilization
Once a goal is decided, it is incumbent upon citizens to help achieve it. Libertarian society uses civic duty to encourage excellence; Socialism uses the stick of coercion (through authoritarian laws) together with the carrot of social status to ensure its edicts are followed.

Efficiency is less wasteful. The strongest argument made for Socialism is efficiency. (Democracy is necessarily less optimized as potentially every member who may disagree must be convinced.)

You might think of it as the open hand of Capitalism versus the fist of Socialism. A Libertarian assumes people in society don’t want to harm others; Socialism assumes others are dangerous and need to be controlled. Trust versus Fear.

Common purpose binds even enemies to a goal, yet there remains the thorny problem of those who do not subscribe to the line items of an authoritarian agenda; those who ignore the carrot (social status) and require the stick (Zersetzung) —— socialists always need a Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.

The three Abrahamic faiths (Monotheistic religions that revere Abraham) are a complex study. The Prophet sought refuge with, and was protected by, the early Orthodox Church and hence there is a close bond there that is usually overlooked. It was Saint Paul who wished not to exclude the philistines from becoming Christians. The Great Schism was, inevitably, a result of political ructions (which also saw the early Christian stronghold of Egypt lose prominence a half-millennium earlier).

The Judeo-Christian West seems to have most successful divorced political power from the ruling clan. Truly, the separation of power requires breaking the bonds of kith. (This is a fundamental weakness in Confucian ethics, where the respect for relatives is correlated to their propinquity.) Political power is linked to filial piety in Islamic culture because this has not occurred in their society.

But what you are referring to is something else.

oikophobia
The late Roger Scruton identified (and named) this process (scilicet, when an individual decides that there is more to gain by attacking her host society, rather than binding with her neighbour to defend it, they become the medical equivalent to a cancer on the community, seeking to gain from its loss.) It is a natural part of the lifecycle of every civilization. (Just as strangers bind together at the rise of a civilization because they determine gain from this cooperation.) Freud Civilization and Its Discontents, (trans. James Strachey), VII, p.52.

The French intelligentsia, in an effort to bring about Trotskyite global revolution, working on plans first elucidated by the Frankfurter Schule (specifically the Sardinian Gramsci, a century ago) to attack the West through its institutions (the Church & the (nuclear) family, education and even objective truth) have been trying to enhance and accelerate this process since the formulation of Postmodernism in the 1960s, because of the failure of socialism, in every attempt to “fix” society. (If the Germans can’t get it to work, I doubt anyone ever will :)

Paul Moroni has written a good summary, here.

All enthusiastic revolutionaries readily attack their political enemies, fully expecting to be in possession of the whip hand after the revolution. As Robespierre found, the revolution eats its children. Shills for the new world order take advantage of people:
“[…] One thing only do I know for certain and that is that man’s judgements of value follow directly his wishes for happiness—that, accordingly, they are an attempt to support his illusions with arguments. […]” (loc. cit.)

There exists a social dynamic process that has since been identified by Rene Girard in his (2005) Mimetic Theory. Briefly, when a group starts to splinter, a scapegoat will help refocus the group with a common enemy.
Until about a generation ago, queerness was regarded as a species of mental defect.

There is an undeniable political component to (organized) religion. Many times (temporal) leaders have attempted to limit or control this aspect, like the C19 Kulturekampf between Bismarck and Pope Pius IX. The conflict over control of the Investiture of bishops, as seen in the conflict between Pope Gregorius VII and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, rages to this day, since the CCP have control over who is ordained and not the Pope. (This has been a major flashpoint ever since the death of Julius Caesar —— who first united faith and executive power —— Who is top dog: Pope or Emperor?)

edit: added Girard mimetic theory

I am sorry, but as a philosopher, I can say your philosophical arguments aren't very good. Anything else?

"Do you hate evil and fight against it?"

Oh....no.... i love being evil... <3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oq6LE1OE

I'm sorry you're philosophical criticism isn't very good. Anything else?

Correct, my criticism is the best.

If you want to make better claims, then you should actually make arguments which are logically sound, and most important of all, don't make mistake which many in this thread make (myself included) and just state something and just assume it to be a fact, especially when it's ideological propaganda and conspiracy theory. Philosophy must examine every single step and assume nothing for granted.

Then surely you can prove it by offering solid counters to that user's points, and not just doing the equivalent of the "I win!" game.

-

To everyone else who doesn't know what I meant above:

Even in mathematics, there isn't really any true notion of absolute truth.

The best we can say is whether something is true given our axioms and rules of inference, or more precisely, whether something can be proven given our axioms and rules of inference.

As an example, the statement that the angles in a triangle sum to 180 degrees is true given our axioms of Euclidean geometry. In other words, you need to take the axioms of Euclidean geometry, including the parallel postulate (or something equivalent, like the angles of a triangle summing to 180) in order to prove this fact, and if we don't have said axiom, then the statement made can't be said to be true. (In fact, it is false in non-Euclidean geometry.)

because everything needs a basic to build on and math does with said axioms
we have our own physical axioms what the universe provides , just the different is reversed , we have the results, and we want to find out what those axioms are , in math we have the axioms, and we see what we can achieve with those

1. I can. 2. I don't need to prove. 3. I don't need to win.
However, for your enjoyment, and my own exercise I will try.

Majority of statements about capitalism/socialism is ideologically biased, but then again so is the Marxist analysis (but from the different ideological perspective) so I won't complain about that. But I would assume that one who seeks objective truth (whatever that may be) would try to comparatively analyze many different ideological positions. Then again, I am just Nietzschean existentialist specializing in Ethics and Metaphysics who considery Philosophy of Politics and Social Philosophy and to be beneath him, who am I to judge? (sarcasm) However there is presentation of many claims from philosophers (such as John Locke) as a definitive facts, despite those claims being metaphysical/ontological and as such always remain claims, not to mention criticized and "disapproved" by many latter philosophers. There are also some highly dubious claims about Immanuel Kant.

Now, citing NATO Handbook against a Soviet propaganda is highly dubious, Warsaw Pact and NATO countries were enemies during the Cold War, and as such were necessarily biased against each other. A) propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true; B) propaganda doesn't mean it isn't at least partially true C) it is highly probable NATO handbook is/can contain Western propaganda. This is example of using ideological propaganda an actual fact.

Now about something which is both ideological propaganda and conspiracy theory are statements about Frankfurt School, postmodern and sabotage of core Western values. This is not something I heard outside of Right-wing conspiracy theorists, which don't get me wrong, may actually be "true", but not something I would use or hear in "serious" academic discussion. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, propaganda can be at least partially true, and perhaps those attacks on Western values have some substance to it? Or are we just trying to dismiss, distort, distract and dismay? Also, I would say Western values have already died in 19th or 18th century, but death of god/God isn't the topic here.

It may be so, but scientiae talks about objective, not absolute truth.

Thank you.

I just dislike when people(in general) say or claim that something is wrong and don't provide any proof as to why(sometimes, but not always, such people are boasting and cannot actually counter what is being said).

So thanks for offering a counter to what the other user posted.

Those who claim they are fighting evil frighten me, a lot.

Its cute in games and on TV. In real life, it tends to lead to a "us vs them" divisive tribal mindset.

I prefer to frame the discourse as: "Endeavouring to improve the life of my fellow humans and other forms of life"

It is still extremely vague and begs for further elaboration but it starts from a better place I think.

depends on people or at least what they mean under evil
for some those are the unbelievers yep those frighten me too, happens lately too much especially in political parties
for some those are the dictators + friends who enslave people, fighting these kinds of evil should be mandatory for everybody

For some unknown reason, i never got a notification for your response. Also, can i suggest when you omit, for brevity and gog posting glitches, that you include the beginning and ending of your quote, so I (and others) can identify what it is that you're focused on? I actually got confused at a few points.

Interesting year for that quote. Juri Bezmenov said our governments would be subverted with beaurocracy at the time, citing that it's ineptitude would disillusion us and make us ripe for further subversion. But notice the constant presense of a belief that we're "post scarcity" by the propagandists? This is clear sophistry and example of will to power. Which brings us to the age old issue with "equality" where we have to acknowledge the clear separation between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome." Should've known before i typed the above, but, we're on the same page it seems. Then the realization that humans will inevitably conflict, bar some significant change to our being (which is likely to make us fail natural selection tests). It is the conflict, the separate of outcomes, that motivates us to aim high and higher. The secret, however, is to harness the motivational power of jealousy, and prevent "back channels" to solving that jealousy. The irony is that the state is hardly efficient, yet indeed the argument is often efficiency. Frequently, we see huage amounts of hubris, either that somehow the government always knows best, is always more efficient, that somehow it holds all the answers to human happiness, including among those whom it doesn't even know personally. To that end, I've often question, looking at society now, when separation of church and state was declared necessary, if it was really the church that corrupted the state, as argued, or if the state had corrupted the church. When one looks at Christianity, the small denominations seem far, far less corrupt than the larger ones, and still infinitely less corrupt than the state. Oddly enough, 1 Samuel Chapter 8 explicitly warns of the dangers of the state. Keep in mind 18: people like Dr. Peterson (I can't say so, myself, because I am Christian) suggest the "collective unconscious" explanation for biblical stories. The various "gods" of the religions appear to be "the collective wisdom" of those whom said god represents. In this case, an otherwise nomadic people. We're most definitely seeing this right now, otuside of explictly the connection to religion.

However, in respect to religion, this is, perhaps, partly the case. As seen in the quotes above, the judeo-christian tradition is fundamentally anti-state: the idea of humans being imperfect and thus needing guidance would have more potential to be either infinitely more corrupt, or infinitely less corrupt, depending on the leader of said state. Instead, what we're seeing is what religious people call "temptation." The christians were tempted with the power to make those around them "become good" (the impossibility of which i vaguely [can't think of the quote specifically enough to actually pull it up] recall Jesus discussing). The whole mentality of God not "making people good" is also fundamental, as how can one truly "be good" when coerced to do so? Instead, it seems most logical to focus on securing one's potential to choose to do so (thus Christianity's stance on abortion makes perfect sense, because that is potential). I'm very familair with the school. The people whose ideas were so bad, they lost elections to (the actual, as opposed to the usual ad hominem) Adolf Hitler, then fleeing to the US. Their re-emergence to powre appears to have come from "the sexual revolution" starting with "Eros and Civilization." It would be no surprise to anyone looking at the "non-governmental issues" facing society and notice that, specifically, the family has fallen the most. The sexes are at complete odds with each other, and both "race" and "LGBTQIA+" most heavily represent the "revolution" in the US and Europe. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be no shortage of "colored people" and "non-straight peoples" whom are in direct opposition to "their groups," which thus get many pejoritives in response (usually something along the lines of "traitor"). I find the latter group more interesting, because the beurocracy has 'caused so much division that it has managed to even split at least once (see "LGB Alliance" [which seems to have trouble reconciling the fact that it's mostly made up of political lesbians whom appear to mostly be supported by straight white men, due to the obvious issue of "entrapment"]). See Washington, DC on January 6th, 2021, for the whiplash. The LGB Alliance suggests that said prediction didn't age well. They've tried, but, as far as i'm aware, the main group has become the scapegoat. There's been attempts, but I don't think they can reconcile (note: I haven't looked them up in a while). I will actually actually go as far as to say that there is evidence i've seen that suggests this conclusion might be wrong, but I know better than to discuss this on GOG. I don't have anything conclusive, but I have some scientific evidence (and lost some, but not all of it, due to bad log management on my part). I doubt you're interested, but if you actually are, feel free to contact me via more private means (either via PMs or we can establish something even more reliable via PMs). There's some (anecdotes and experiemnts with small sample sizes) evidence to suggeste that over 50% of the western population (can't refer to anyone else due to lack of data) has (not exclusively, of course) homosexual attraction (not "tendencies," but attraction). This obviously either indicates an error on previous thought or wide-spread damage to the mental faculties of humanity well beyond our current predictions (and i honestly can't decide which it is, though it appears to be rather lopsided and far more prevelant in the female population). True separation of church and state is almost impossible. However, some religions are more open to this than others, which can easily be pressured much, much further.

"Useful idiots" make this not so black and white. There's also the reasonable question of what is "reasonable" retaliation prior to "becoming evil." Take The DC "attack" for example. We had several years of Antifa and BLM killing people, burning down buildings, destroying other property, hurting people, bullying companies into firing employees, etc. The overwhelming message we got back from the corporations and the western governments was "we will bend to violence." Hell, the last election has plenty of absolute proof of voting (not voter) fraud, and the argument wasn't "there aws none" so much as "well, it was there, but there wasn't enough to make a difference, and we aren't going to investigate, because we're afraid of civil upheval." Come January 6th, 2021, and people are surprised. We werne't told "violence isn't the answer," we weren't told "violence isn't the only answer," we were told "violence is the only answer." I want to say this is evil, and certainly it looks that way, but, on the other hand, the violence was far lower than what had been going on all summer (what stores were looted or burned down, and everyone who died [yes, including the cop] were supporters of the figurehead blamed for the event), and it's certainly easy to defend as "well, most people don't like double standards, and our standard against rioting is obviously trumped by government's policy to capitulate to it." For those who said that they preferred "gray areas" in games, well, welcome to the real-life gray area. Fundamental principles are in conflict, here, and it becomes reasonable to ask which ones are more important. I honestly wish it never came to this, but I think we're going to live to see the day where we become our own villains.

The ultimate question we should start asking ourselves, and see representation in games as microcosms of reality, is whether or not we are willing to hate and fight evil if it requires becoming evil ourselves.