Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470178
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 28th, 2024, 12:21 pm
Sy Borg wrote: November 25th, 2024, 4:14 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 25th, 2024, 8:35 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 23rd, 2024, 11:51 pm I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.
"Jealous"? Do you really think that is why I (or others) have replied as I (we) have? I think that here, our context is rather broader, and we're considering most if not all of humanity, not just a few envious individuals. Is that not so?

But to get to the heart of this, perhaps we could usefully consider what we mean by "successful"? We started off with the end result — wealth; riches — and tracked back to see where that wealth came from. Then, setting aside those who merely inherited family wealth, you looked at capable and 'successful' people. But what is it about those people that leads you to describe them as "successful"? Is it just that they have obtained or achieved wealth, or is there more to it than that?
Okay, to be financially successful. Whatever. And yes, you seem to be jealous.
If "successful" means acquiring and retaining personal wealth — the capitalist's mantra — then I personally reject it. And I have lived my life (in the capitalist country in which I was born and raised) accordingly. I have tried to give priority to the happiness and wellbeing of me and my family, over financial 'success'.

I find that my attitude to "success", as you describe it, is closer to despising it than to being "jealous" of the poor misguided souls who have (IMO!) wasted their lives chasing $$$.🤑🤑🤑
It seems to me that you protest too much. If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.

Worldly success often involves more than it seems on face value - greater involvement, understanding and connection than is average. So I don't reject financial success, rather I accept that I never had the kinds of skills and aptitudes needed to achieve in that area.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470235
Sy Borg wrote: November 28th, 2024, 2:02 pm If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.
I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470248
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2024, 8:52 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 28th, 2024, 2:02 pm If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.
I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.
You have been hammering the rich as keenly as any of the other socialists on this board. I do not decry the wealth of people who are lucky enough to have interests that are well-paid, or who are prepared to work very hard for what they have, or who are simply lucky, or who persist through hardships. Good for them. Nor do I consider the less well-off as being morally superior to the wealthy. It always depends on the individual. That's what matters.

The wealthy are just like everyone else - varied individuals, with some commonalities listed above. I consider intersectionality to be largely philosophically invalid - just facts about humans that they overrate. Class, race, gender, sexuality - these are categories for demographers, politicians and advertisers, that cares nothing for one's internality.

MLK's view is more philosophically sound and rational than DEI, but this views are treated with contempt by the emerging hive mind, for now.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470267
Sy Borg wrote: November 28th, 2024, 2:02 pm If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2024, 8:52 am I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.
Sy Borg wrote: November 30th, 2024, 3:15 pm You have been hammering the rich as keenly as any of the other socialists on this board.
Ah. I see a difference between "the rich", and the poor misguided souls who live — and choose to live — their lives in pursuit of (financial) "success". [For a start, "the rich" are a group of people, hopefully a small group, considered as such. While these other souls are individuals, also considered as such.]


Sy Borg wrote: November 30th, 2024, 3:15 pm I do not decry the wealth of people who are lucky enough to have interests that are well-paid, or who are prepared to work very hard for what they have, or who are simply lucky, or who persist through hardships. Good for them. Nor do I consider the less well-off as being morally superior to the wealthy. It always depends on the individual. That's what matters.

The wealthy are just like everyone else - varied individuals, with some commonalities listed above. I consider intersectionality to be largely philosophically invalid - just facts about humans that they overrate. Class, race, gender, sexuality - these are categories for demographers, politicians and advertisers, that cares nothing for one's internality.

MLK's view is more philosophically sound and rational than DEI, but this views are treated with contempt by the emerging hive mind, for now.
I know that such views are fairly common, but they are not my views, which is what you seem to be saying here. There is some truth in those views, I think, but mixed with other stuff too, maybe other stuff that confuses what we're seeing or discussing?

As for MLK, I wonder if he simply expressed himself in terms that are not as popular now as they were then?
Martin Luther King Jr wrote: A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470447
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 1st, 2024, 8:46 am As for MLK, I wonder if he simply expressed himself in terms that are not as popular now as they were then?
Martin Luther King Jr wrote: ... All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

To my mind, if you have a vacant position, choose the person you think is likely to do the best job. Simple.

If renting a home, offer it to those you see as most reliable, capable and willing to keep up to date with rent, and least likely to damage the property. Simple.

If creating art, aim for strong characterisation, plot, ideas and originality - and ignore DEI messaging. If a story organically leads to messaging that could be interpreted as DEI-friendly, fine, but don't force it the way Disney and others have done. It's pandering, it's condescending, manipulative and insincere. It usually leads to lazy and sloppy writing of coloured, gay and disabled characters, and Strong Female Leads being written without personality - their personality is their victim status, and their goal is not to grow, as in old-school character arcs, only to realise that they already perfect. This issue is more complicated and threatens the future of art and creativity, especially comedy/satire.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470466
Sy Borg wrote: December 5th, 2024, 7:07 pm That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.
That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470475
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 6th, 2024, 9:07 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 5th, 2024, 7:07 pm That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.
That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?
The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do. You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.

Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic for the fact that people who looked most like them out-competed those who did not look like them. No, many white males have no more connection to dominant citizens of the past than anyone else. They are actually different people, different individuals.

Your attitude treats all white people as the same, and it also treats all "people of colour" as the same, even though many people of colour have nothing else in common with others. However, if there is extra melanin, they are deemed victims.

By your reckoning, Obama is a victim and he is Oppressed but a suicidal white fentanyl addict male prostitute living on the streets is deemed to be the Oppressor, and must pay restitution to the Obamas.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470519
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 6th, 2024, 9:07 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 5th, 2024, 7:07 pm That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.
That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?
Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do.
You're at it again! You (clearly 👆) don't know what I think. Why not confine yourself to telling me/us what *YOU* think? That is something of which you have reliable knowledge, after all. 👍


Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.
I truly and sincerely hope not.


Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic...
I choose not to respond to these accusations. This is not philosophy. This is ... discourteous and hurtful.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470543
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 7th, 2024, 8:58 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 6th, 2024, 9:07 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 5th, 2024, 7:07 pm That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.
That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?
Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do.
You're at it again! You (clearly 👆) don't know what I think. Why not confine yourself to telling me/us what *YOU* think? That is something of which you have reliable knowledge, after all. 👍
What a load of gaslighting. You advocate for wrongs to be committed to address former wrongs to make a right, but whine when this is pointed out.

You know my view. Treat people as individuals, not to punish innocents for the imagined crimes of people who looked a bit like them. You ignore or dismiss the fact that ALL people have forebears who committed atrocities in this competitive world.

By your approach, all people should be in an endless state of war, demanding restitution for the past. So you simplify it and just blame Evil Whites.

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 7th, 2024, 8:58 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.
I truly and sincerely hope not.
You are - see above.

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 7th, 2024, 8:58 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 6th, 2024, 2:27 pm Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic...
I choose not to respond to these accusations. This is not philosophy. This is ... discourteous and hurtful.
Speaking honestly on a philosophy forum is not discourteous. However, your attempts to gaslight me are disrespectful. You seek to punish everyone in particular demographics, but then pretend that you don't - when it suits.

You have the option to reflect on your obvious racism - where you advocate the punishing of young pale-skinned people for the imagined sins of their forefathers, and why you have developed racist attitudes. However, it's easier to simply play the guilt game and blame me for being mean, seeing your racism as a necessary tool against Evil Oppressors.

Marxism 101.
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470581
Sy Borg wrote: December 7th, 2024, 2:44 pm You know my view.
Actually, I/we don't. I/We know your views on others' views — angry and often discourteous — but little of what you think.

There is little point continuing this exchange, that promises only ill-tempered disagreement.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470589
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 8th, 2024, 11:58 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 7th, 2024, 2:44 pm You know my view.
Actually, I/we don't. I/We know your views on others' views — angry and often discourteous — but little of what you think.

There is little point continuing this exchange, that promises only ill-tempered disagreement.
Don't lie about me and then expect me to be quiet because you say so. This is not about me of my imagined ill-temper. This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past. That is simply racism.

I am just calling the situation for what it is, without any level of the anger you falsely claim. Rather than play victim, you might try debating, you know, like a philosopher.
By Good_Egg
#470606
Sy Borg wrote: December 8th, 2024, 3:02 pm This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past.
We may differ about how distant the past is.
But that some people hold this belief - that those who have committed no crime should be punished for the sins of their ancestors - seems an undeniable fact

It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).

Our enemies are the wrong ideas to which our friends have been exposed and have uncritically accepted. Criticism is the business of philosophy - does the idea really hold water ? In this case it evidently doesn't. "Justice between races" requires injustice to individuals, and is - as you say - racism (= treating people as an instance of a race rather than as a person).
User avatar
By Pattern-chaser
#470621
Good_Egg wrote: December 9th, 2024, 7:32 am It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).
I hope Pattern-Chaser has already expressed clearly and openly, his beliefs as they apply to this topic.

Your final jibe does you no credit, though. I am surprised and disappointed to read it.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#470645
Good_Egg wrote: December 9th, 2024, 7:32 am
Sy Borg wrote: December 8th, 2024, 3:02 pm This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past.
We may differ about how distant the past is.
But that some people hold this belief - that those who have committed no crime should be punished for the sins of their ancestors - seems an undeniable fact

It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).

Our enemies are the wrong ideas to which our friends have been exposed and have uncritically accepted. Criticism is the business of philosophy - does the idea really hold water ? In this case it evidently doesn't. "Justice between races" requires injustice to individuals, and is - as you say - racism (= treating people as an instance of a race rather than as a person).
No, it's not just about what one's ancestors did, it's about the actions of people who look something like one's ancestors. Our ancestors need not to have done any crime for us to be deemed guilty. It is pure racism.

Racism is about judging people by race, not their individuality. That's the main reason why I left the left - it had not only abandoned the MLK ideation that I always believed in but now treats such "colour blindness" with contempt. I didn't change - the left did.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


SCIENCE and SCIENTISM

Moreover, universal claims aren’t just unsupp[…]

One way to think of a black hole’s core being blue[…]

Emergence can't do that!!

Yes, my examples of snow flakes etc. are of "[…]

The people I've known whom I see as good people te[…]