Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

  1. #21
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    Jack; "Schmitt defines the enemy as one who threatens one's existence and way of life to the extent that physical violence or killing becomes a definite option. The friend is defined as one who is willing to risk his life for the elimination of the enemy".

    Moody; And how many wars can REALLY be justified on this basis?
    Did you really believe that Saddam's Iraq threatened your "existence and way of life"?

    Jack; "More importantly, the execution of decisions. A man alone can make a decision as to who are his friends and enemies".

    Moody; Are the decisions made by the "man alone" political or personal?

    Jack; "Every decision is based on the extra-personal? So how exactly does selfishness exist, Moody?"

    Moody; The extra-personal means that we are ALL the result of past decisions made by others [as are they ad infinitum]. So there is no 'clean' decision that is not in some way coloured by the extra-personal.
    Selfishness is then a nihilistic delusion.
    Most philosophers/ religionists accept that we are all part of some kind of chain of being - even Nietzsche.

    Jack; "It takes at least 18 years for those 'few shots of semen in a whorehouse' to mature into a soldier".

    Moody; The point is that WASTED semen [as whores don't tend to get pregnant] would make an army [as would all the semen spilled in masturbation]. The illustration is not meant so literally as you take it; it just means, 'why cry over mass slaughter, when your average male wastes zillions of sperm every day!'.

    Jack; "Religion is not necessarily political, nor are human relations".

    Moody; 'Not necessarily' being the qualifying phrase. However, we see the increasing politicisation of EVERYTHING. To this extent, everything is POTENTIALLY political.

    Jack; "The act of trade (money for vodka) is not political. It is economic".

    Moody; The separation of economics as a specific discipline is rather recent; it is very much part of politics; indeed, we are refering to the political economy here.
    The price of alcohol is affected by the type of politics in power; indeed, whether or not you are ALLOWED to buy alcohol is down to politics [and this would be influenced by religion, showing how economics-politics-religion all interact].

    Jack; "The State interfering in the economy is political".

    Moody; And when doesn't the state "interfere" in the economy?
    Unless you are buying the bottle on the black market; and even then you are partaking in a criminal act - itself a politicised category. If caught you could be punished for buying a bottle - political once again.

    Jack; "Love:the evaluation of something for which one is willing to stake one's life".

    Moody; That sounds like altruism, not love.

    Jack; "The State is an important part of the political, though not the center. A man acting on his own to kill his enemy is not the State".

    Moody; But he is within the State [you keep sneaking the word 'centre' in there; the agreed upon term for this discussion was 'nexus'], and he will have to take the consequences FROM THE STATE should he be charged with murder.

    Jack; "That's why I say the State is not the center [of the political]. It is quite important, I agree. But an organisation cannot be seperated from the individuals which comprise it. One cannot demand everyone in a community die for 'the community'. That would be either stupidity or a lie".

    Moody; By your own reasoning; if the State cannot be separated from the community and the individuals which compose that community, and they all feel threatened enough by an enemy to kill/or be killed by that enemy .... Then they have exercised 'love' in your sense via the political.
    So clearly, they have fulfilled the demand that everyone die for the State. So how is that [by your own train of thought] a stupidity or a lie?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  2. #22
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Jack; "Schmitt defines the enemy as one who threatens one's existence and way of life to the extent that physical violence or killing becomes a definite option. The friend is defined as one who is willing to risk his life for the elimination of the enemy".

    Moody; And how many wars can REALLY be justified on this basis?
    Justice is what whoever has power says it is.

    Did you really believe that Saddam's Iraq threatened your "existence and way of life"?
    Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued.

    Jack; "More importantly, the execution of decisions. A man alone can make a decision as to who are his friends and enemies".

    Moody; Are the decisions made by the "man alone" political or personal?
    I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility.

    Jack; "Every decision is based on the extra-personal? So how exactly does selfishness exist, Moody?"

    Moody; The extra-personal means that we are ALL the result of past decisions made by others [as are they ad infinitum]. So there is no 'clean' decision that is not in some way coloured by the extra-personal.
    Selfishness is then a nihilistic delusion.
    Most philosophers/ religionists accept that we are all part of some kind of chain of being - even Nietzsche.
    So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will.

    Jack; "It takes at least 18 years for those 'few shots of semen in a whorehouse' to mature into a soldier".

    Moody; The point is that WASTED semen [as whores don't tend to get pregnant] would make an army [as would all the semen spilled in masturbation]. The illustration is not meant so literally as you take it; it just means, 'why cry over mass slaughter, when your average male wastes zillions of sperm every day!'.
    Is murder acceptable, Moody? What about parracide? Gotta die sooner or later, right?

    Jack; "Religion is not necessarily political, nor are human relations".

    Moody; 'Not necessarily' being the qualifying phrase. However, we see the increasing politicisation of EVERYTHING. To this extent, everything is POTENTIALLY political.
    I never denied everything is potentially political.

    Jack; "The act of trade (money for vodka) is not political. It is economic".

    Moody; The separation of economics as a specific discipline is rather recent; it is very much part of politics; indeed, we are refering to the political economy here.
    The price of alcohol is affected by the type of politics in power; indeed, whether or not you are ALLOWED to buy alcohol is down to politics [and this would be influenced by religion, showing how economics-politics-religion all interact].
    "It's not illegal until you get caught"
    - Eminem.

    Jack; "The State interfering in the economy is political".

    Moody; And when doesn't the state "interfere" in the economy?
    Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical.

    Unless you are buying the bottle on the black market; and even then you are partaking in a criminal act - itself a politicised category. If caught you could be punished for buying a bottle - political once again.
    Because one group of thugs issue a decree saying such-and-such is wrong, therefore whoever partakes in such-and-such shall be punished. I might decide buying vodka underage is perfectly acceptable and go ahead and do so.

    Jack; "Love: the evaluation of something for which one is willing to stake one's life".

    Moody; That sounds like altruism, not love.
    I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish. Suppose person X loves person Y to the extent that his life would be unbearable, to him (for one reason or another), if person Y died. In a drive-by shooting, person X steps in front and takes half a dozen bullets in the chest. Is that altruism or love, Moody? Was person X doing it for the sake of person Y, or because he had an interest in person Y staying alive, to the extent that if he died in the process, he thought that an acceptable loss? Altruism is BS.

    Jack; "The State is an important part of the political, though not the center. A man acting on his own to kill his enemy is not the State".

    Moody; But he is within the State [you keep sneaking the word 'centre' in there; the agreed upon term for this discussion was 'nexus'], and he will have to take the consequences FROM THE STATE should he be charged with murder.
    He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?

    Jack; "That's why I say the State is not the center [of the political]. It is quite important, I agree. But an organisation cannot be seperated from the individuals which comprise it. One cannot demand everyone in a community die for 'the community'. That would be either stupidity or a lie".

    Moody; By your own reasoning; if the State cannot be separated from the community and the individuals which compose that community, and they all feel threatened enough by an enemy to kill/or be killed by that enemy .... Then they have exercised 'love' in your sense via the political.
    So clearly, they have fulfilled the demand that everyone die for the State. So how is that [by your own train of thought] a stupidity or a lie?
    The State is easily seperated from the community. You haven't provided a definition though. If everyone is to die for the State, and the State is an organisation comprised of humans, then the State is committing suicide (after all, everyone, INCLUDING the members of this organisation called the State, are dying for this organisation called the State - is it really that hard to figure out why it's stupid?), and the question should be asked why mass suicide became attractive - what exactly were they dying for, again? For a suicidal group of people? Or alternatively, members of the organisation called the State decided to utilize non-members towards their own ends by appealing to 'the community' for the 'common good'.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    Jack; "Justice is what whoever has power says it is".

    Moody; I have long maintained on this thread that Power is a far more convincing candidate for a nexus of the political.

    Jack; "Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued".

    Moody; The case made by the British state, for example, - that he was an immediate threat has been shown to be false - we went to war anyway.

    Jack; "I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility".

    Moody; 'Not mutually exclusive'? - there is NO poltics without people [and there is no people without politics].

    Jack; "So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will".

    Moody; Even all those you name see free will operating within the limitations of cause and effect. If one looks at he whole concatenations of cause and effect within the world, within the Universe, then one will see there is very little 'freedom' of any kind. Indeed, if it were possible to compute all previous activity, then the actions of most would be entirely predicatable. And yet those who act predictably think themselves possessors of free-will!
    Free-will is just a feeling that derives from an excess of strength [just as listnessness is the result of a lack of the same].
    As Nietzsche said, there is only Strong Will and Weak Will - not 'free' Will.

    Jack; "Is murder acceptable, Moody? What about parracide? Gotta die sooner or later, right?"

    Moody; Such things are always accepted - even if they are called different names.

    Jack; "I never denied everything is potentially political".

    Moody; This is why 'human relations' works as a broad political nexus.

    Jack; "Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical".

    Moody; Violence is not a nexus of the political anymore than love is.

    Jack; "I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish".

    Moody; And yet you define love in terms of altruism ["love is something for which one is willing to stake one's life"]; this altruistic [alter=other] version of love is supposedly your nexus of the Political!

    Jack; "He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?"

    Moody; All those named belong to a State, and use the in-stit-utions of the State, which are run according to the stat-utes of the State.

    Jack; "The State is easily seperated from the community. You haven't provided a definition though. If everyone is to die for the State, and the State is an organisation comprised of humans, then the State is committing suicide (after all, everyone, INCLUDING the members of this organisation called the State, are dying for this organisation called the State - is it really that hard to figure out why it's stupid?), and the question should be asked why mass suicide became attractive - what exactly were they dying for, again? For a suicidal group of people? Or alternatively, members of the organisation called the State decided to utilize non-members towards their own ends by appealing to 'the community' for the 'common good' ".

    Moody; According to you they were willing to die to defend their State from the threat of violence; they were, to use your own definition, 'willing to stake their lives' for something.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  4. #24
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    Jack; "Justice is what whoever has power says it is".

    Moody; I have long maintained on this thread that Power is a far more convincing candidate for a nexus of the political.
    Power is meaningless without intention. Once there is intention, there needs to be will (usually will arrives out of the intention), and then there is action. Power is the field upon which politics is played out. Intention, political or not, comes from an evaluation of importance. The political evaluation (love) is something for which one accepts the possibility of dying and/or killing.

    Jack; "Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued".

    Moody; The case made by the British state, for example, - that he was an immediate threat has been shown to be false - we went to war anyway.
    The excuses the British elite have used have been proven to be incorrect, but were successful into manipulating the British masses into making them accept its happening. Someone's interests were served and I believe they're happy it happened regardless.

    Jack; "I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility".

    Moody; 'Not mutually exclusive'? - there is NO poltics without people [and there is no people without politics].
    Then what about 'impersonal politics', Moody?

    Jack; "So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will".

    Moody; Even all those you name see free will operating within the limitations of cause and effect. If one looks at he whole concatenations of cause and effect within the world, within the Universe, then one will see there is very little 'freedom' of any kind. Indeed, if it were possible to compute all previous activity, then the actions of most would be entirely predicatable. And yet those who act predictably think themselves possessors of free-will!
    Free-will is just a feeling that derives from an excess of strength [just as listnessness is the result of a lack of the same].
    As Nietzsche said, there is only Strong Will and Weak Will - not 'free' Will.
    In either case [strong will/weak will], you still maintain they are propelled by forces over which they have no control, and the decision doesn't exist, it is undefinable.

    Jack; "I never denied everything is potentially political".

    Moody; This is why 'human relations' works as a broad political nexus.
    One that I believe is too broad.

    Jack; "Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical".

    Moody; Violence is not a nexus of the political anymore than love is.
    Yes, it is. A knight loves his honour and has agreed to serve his lord, he is willing to die for the fact that he has agreed to serve his lord. Love does not necessarily mean romantic relationships between two individuals, Moody.

    Jack; "I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish".

    Moody; And yet you define love in terms of altruism ["love is something for which one is willing to stake one's life"]; this altruistic [alter=other] version of love is supposedly your nexus of the Political!
    And this love is directly tied (nay, is) the individual's relationship with the other - it is selfishness, and that cannot be unavoided.

    Jack; "He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?"

    Moody; All those named belong to a State, and use the in-stit-utions of the State, which are run according to the stat-utes of the State.
    Define the 'State'. These 'statutes' and 'laws' ultimately hinge on the decision of a sole individual. That's what Carl Schmitt focused a lot of his work on, and why the Nazis were interested in his work.

    Moody; According to you they were willing to die to defend their State from the threat of violence; they were, to use your own definition, 'willing to stake their lives' for something.
    Even the members of this state? Interesting - a self-consuming organism. That is mass-suicide Moody. Someone plants that idea in their heads, and that's manipulation, because that someone has little intention of having everyone including himself die for something when a subgroup of people (the State's functionaries), who are going to die, are that something. Either that or mass-stupidity.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    Jack; "Power is meaningless without intention".

    Moody; Power exists with or without intention. 'Intention' is the arena where man puffs himself up; even if he did nothing intentionally, Power would operate in its totality regardless.

    Jack; "The political evaluation (love) is something for which one accepts the possibility of dying and/or killing".

    Moody; A strange parenthesis! Are we to accept that love='political evaluation'? I think not: such is utterly perverse. In such cases I would advise you to coin a neologism, rather than distort commonplace words.

    Jack; "The excuses the British elite have used have been proven to be incorrect, but were successful into manipulating the British masses into making them accept its happening. Someone's interests were served and I believe they're happy it happened regardless".

    Moody; "Interests" is a much weaker word than you used before.

    Jack; "Then what about 'impersonal politics', Moody?"

    Moody; Misunderstanding of the word 'impersonal'; it does not mean without people, it means dealing with people in an unemotional way. So personal relations are still paramount.

    Jack; "In either case [strong will/weak will], you still maintain they are propelled by forces over which they have no control, and the decision doesn't exist, it is undefinable".

    Moody; Those forces are ultimately non-human. We are mere actors on a stage etc., etc.,

    Jack; "A knight loves his honour and has agreed to serve his lord, he is willing to die for the fact that he has agreed to serve his lord. Love does not necessarily mean romantic relationships between two individuals, Moody".

    Moody; Oh dear; the days of knights etc., have long gone. Who was the last European king to fight at the head of his troops?
    No, 'dying for your country' is a very impersonal affair these days. Indeed, the parents of some British soldiers are attempting to take the government to court over the death of their sons. How many people join the forces today expecting to die for their country?
    How many of those officials who sanction wars are ever caught up in the fighting?
    No, you view is too romanticised - we no longer live in the Middle Ages.

    Jack; "And this love is directly tied (nay, is) the individual's relationship with the other - it is selfishness, and that cannot be unavoided".

    Moody; Staking one's life for an-other, is by definition altruism. You previously defined love as just that. Selfishness admits of NO OTHER.

    Jack; "Define the 'State'. These 'statutes' and 'laws' ultimately hinge on the decision of a sole individual. That's what Carl Schmitt focused a lot of his work on, and why the Nazis were interested in his work".

    Moody; I disagree; the origin of law is lost in the mists of time. Law, like language, is a collective enterprise. I define State via usage; the fact that we can use the term extensively in a multitude of discussions shows that we know what it means. Go to a dictionary if you need a working definition.

    Jack; "Even the members of this state? Interesting - a self-consuming organism. That is mass-suicide Moody".

    Moody; As Jim Morrison said, "it's the difference between suicide and a slow capitulation". Essentially all organisms are programmed for death - I wouldn't call that suicide as such, rather 'inevitable extinction'.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2005 @ 07:10 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    dunno
    Posts
    37
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Question on the Polarity of Human Thought

    i am quite happy this topic is here! Yes it is dualty of eXperience. Our physical reality is created by elctromagnetic energy - thus must have poles, polararity - positve/negative, male/female, goog/bad, yin/yang etc etc.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 07:11 PM
  2. A Question About Human Evolution
    By Andrew man in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 7th, 2009, 05:02 PM
  3. Question: German Opinion Re: Thought & Speech Crimes
    By Zauberspruch in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, January 26th, 2009, 12:07 PM
  4. Human genome more variable than previously thought
    By Q. in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, November 25th, 2006, 04:35 PM
  5. Bronze Age Ritual Human Sacrifice was rarer than thought (Lichtenstein cave, Lower Saxony)
    By Johannes de León in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 06:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •