Corvus
Dagobah Resident
You feel too much.
The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler
- Thread starter Turgon
- Start date
You feel too much.
Corvus, you are getting very close to an outright ad-hominem attack. That's not an acceptable counter to his argument if you want to promote real discussion. You know better.
Again, no need to be snarky. It doesn't help.
As for ideology, the way I see it is that they are both. It starts off "good" because there the intention that it is a "good" thing. However, it's in its execution where things go wrong. Horribly wrong. As time progresses the original intent gets twisted along the way and that's when it falls apart. Usually at the expense of millions of lives. As for ideals. I think you misunderstand what is meant by "ideals". By their inherent meaning - they are all 'good'. That's why it's the 'ideal'. It's what almost everyone (let's not include psychopaths) aspires to in some form or another. So I don't agree that we can call an 'ideal' 'not good' - then it would cease to be the 'ideal'..... osit
You're getting closer to thin ice Corvus...
Corvus
Dagobah Resident
That would be true if he had an argument. Ad-hominem attack you say? That could also be discussed.
So what is ideal for those aspiring to be sts, do they have ideals? So Nazism was good and then became bad? Maybe if you made a step back and used some time to think little deeper.
One thing you should not do is making threats especially when your arguments are invalid and blacken someone out of thin air.
Those are not threats. You have been warned. So far your intent has only been to remain argumentative and aren't offering any useful input to the conversation. Just because you aren't outright saying it doesn't mean that you aren't insinuating it. The only blackening that is happening here is you towards yourself by your poor attitude.
For example:
That adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you can explain in more detail the very question you are posing. Or maybe make a case for how Nazism was always bad and stayed bad, etc. Instead you answer back with a rhetorical question worded in such a way as to sound condescending, same as you were in your responses to msante.
Corvus
Dagobah Resident
Then we have nothing further to discuss anymore.
I always viewed ideology as the guiding philosophy or doctrine that governs the behavior of a certain group, which is pretty close to the actual dictionary definition of the word. Without ideology you are left with pure pragmatism. What is the goal of pure pragmatism? I'd say basically to create an economic system that distributes resources relatively evenly, without extreme inequalities, and is basically self-perpetuating. In reality, there are far more people in the world than is required to manufacture basic necessities and consumer goods and services. Once these roles in society are filled you start having unemployment, which is not a pragmatic outcome. So you have to create a market to keep people employed. Perpetual expansion and consumption of increasing resources devolves pragmatism into consumerism. People who sense that there is no underlying "point" to such a system or get left behind by it begin to get restless and look for something more. They are then vulnerable to all sorts of ideologies that are worse than no ideology at all. It is only logical that a nihilistic ideology results in a nihilistic society.
If one wished to create a new set of rules for society based on the FOTCM Statement of Principles (a thought experiment that has been tried before), this becomes the new ideology. Ideologies do not necessarily have to be dogmatic, they can be more "scientific" and flexible. Some contain more truth than others. One could perhaps devise a metric to measure the relative amounts of truth in different ideologies by comparing the amount of order/stability combined with creative achievements a given society accomplishes under different ideologies (if your definition of progress is to move closer to the thought center of Being). A society that is more creative (in a beautiful and wholesome way) contains more truth and is closer to the divine. It is impossible for any ideology or core set of ideals to be "The Truth" in 3D, however there are differing relative amounts of it that should be readily discernible with qualitative assessments. Pragmatism may be the foundation of positively oriented ideologies, but it is not the whole thing. Also, your view of pragmatism may differ based on whatever your "internal philosophy" is. Therefore, I consider myself an ideologue and not a pure pragmatist.
In the example above, one's ideology may modify how one approaches the mechanical capitalistic spiral of expansion, leading to different choices which can create alternative outcomes or different realities.
If one wished to create a new set of rules for society based on the FOTCM Statement of Principles (a thought experiment that has been tried before), this becomes the new ideology. Ideologies do not necessarily have to be dogmatic, they can be more "scientific" and flexible. Some contain more truth than others. One could perhaps devise a metric to measure the relative amounts of truth in different ideologies by comparing the amount of order/stability combined with creative achievements a given society accomplishes under different ideologies (if your definition of progress is to move closer to the thought center of Being). A society that is more creative (in a beautiful and wholesome way) contains more truth and is closer to the divine. It is impossible for any ideology or core set of ideals to be "The Truth" in 3D, however there are differing relative amounts of it that should be readily discernible with qualitative assessments. Pragmatism may be the foundation of positively oriented ideologies, but it is not the whole thing. Also, your view of pragmatism may differ based on whatever your "internal philosophy" is. Therefore, I consider myself an ideologue and not a pure pragmatist.
In the example above, one's ideology may modify how one approaches the mechanical capitalistic spiral of expansion, leading to different choices which can create alternative outcomes or different realities.
The problem with your line of reasoning, Corvus, is that you either misread or chose to see what you wanted to see in msante's original post. He never said ideology was based on something internal but that it manipulates already inherent ideals in the individual to its own ends and in that sense is an external structure that warps the individuals and groups by providing simplistic, black and white explanations to complex issues. It's no wonder authoritarian types fall in line with ideologies because at some level they do want something outside themselves to tell them what to do rather than basing their lives and choices on their own ideals that manifests through knowledge and experience. Also, people who have ideals are manipulated into accepting ideologies but usually don't realize it until it's too late and the radical elements have taken control. That's why some of the first people to go are the moderate voices in ideological movements because they aren't fanatical enough.
I don't think that being pragmatic means that one lacks ideology (or ideals), that is, I don't see pragmatism/ideology as two lines that go in opposite direction. Pragmatism IMO is rather a method or a modality for interacting with reality that is oriented towards achieving certain ends by trying to use what works. These ends may be goals derived from deeply rooted ideals.
I don't really know, but maybe we can't just say that committing to an ideology is essentially bad or good. Some people may benefit from committing to one, getting order, purpose, or some chance of having an objectively positive experience. Perhaps others who are more developed on a personal level, with better intellectual independence and emotional balance, do not need ideologies to guide their lives and progress.
Corvus
Dagobah Resident
Who is Cathy Newman? Respect is earned not given, but you are maybe right, keyboard warrior, maybe it is not for me, I ve done my part in this world.
Cathy Newman is the interviewer who kept taking what Jordan Peterson said and followed up with "So what you're saying is...?" and proceeded to bastardize his explanations through an ideological framework. In other words she didn't understand Peterson and made a number of false presumptions. You did something similar with what msante said so that's something to be aware of and why the comparison was brought up.
Added: And you were also combative about it which didn't help matters.
Last edited:
Corvus
Dagobah Resident
It is a bad example to compare because I understood what he was saying but my line of thinking was if ideology influences inherent ideals in individuals it has to have those ideals as a base in itself (but them being wrapped in lies like good misinformation)because how it is going to influence individuals if there is no resonance, that is why I said implicitly, but I was not clear enough or had not enough time to be clear it seems because of cry babies.
Can you show example where I was combative? Maybe there where there was going some implanting of thoughts about what I think from the side of others who are maybe being to sure of themselves, and it seems you see that as not "combative" but as a reasonable argument, but it is even worse because it is masked.
Last edited:
The first part of your paragraph was fine. You reiterated what your thoughts were which makes your ideas more understandable to others, and whether your correct in your line of thinking or not doesn't matter. There's a dialogue at least and you are being respectful, but when you go on to say that the reason why you weren't clear or didn't have time to be clear is seemingly because of 'crybabies', then you are being combative and insulting.
What amazes me is how many times you've made petty remarks like that aimed at msante, two in your latest post, but several before. They don't add to the conversation, causes the discussion to veer away from the original intention, which has already happened, and when people resort to backhanded remarks like that, it's usually an indication of poor character. No one forced you to say that, and you could've simply stated your ideas with honesty and without insult, but you didn't. You got personal with him rather than arguing the ideas out and that's almost always an indication of someone who is simply trying to win an argument and get the upper-hand, not develop their understanding and ideas to a greater degree.
And if you think there was 'implanting of thoughts' because you didn't have enough time to be clear about it, then the responsibility was on you to formulate your thoughts properly and coherently before posting. No one twisted your arm to respond as soon as possible and you could have easily taken a step back and thought about what you wanted to say before saying it.
Last edited:
nature
Dagobah Resident
1) about sts : Corvus, you don't seem to read. fabric has specified "psychopaths not included" :
"As for ideology, the way I see it is that they are both. It starts off "good" because there the intention that it is a "good" thing. However, it's in its execution where things go wrong. Horribly wrong. As time progresses the original intent gets twisted along the way and that's when it falls apart. Usually at the expense of millions of lives. As for ideals. I think you misunderstand what is meant by "ideals". By their inherent meaning - they are all 'good'. That's why it's the 'ideal'. It's what almost everyone (let's not include psychopaths) aspires to in some form or another. So I don't agree that we can call an 'ideal' 'not good' - then it would cease to be the 'ideal'..... osit "
2) about nazislm
In "the psychopathic god -adolf hitler" (did you read it?), the author explains why german people believed in Hitler : he really wanted to save the economy, to give social equalities, etc ; he really saw himself as a savior (we can say a SJW). What have collapsed such ideals is that he and the Party's aspirations have fallen into ideology, they moved away objective reality, they've been blinded by false ideas (race superiority -see the recommended book "Race" from V. Sarich), by paranoia (russia will invade us). Exactly the same thing happens today in USA.
The leftist ideas were initially good, then have been spoiled by blatant thinking errors. Exactly what we see today with progressist liberals.
3)
Good advice that applies to you.
You'll win if you see your own thinking (and behavior) errors
