The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

I re-read him every few months for that reason: his system is the system governing the age. He epitomized a hidden defect or disease in philosophy in general, he's also useful in that regard: a medical text.

If you can get through him anyway. I had pharmaceutical aid.

I prefer to catalogue philosophers by smell. Hegel smells to me like old dust covering quaint pictures of ducks and duck hunters.

We are all aware of the maze.

Some, it is true, rather experience it as a prison or lifeitself or something.

The real problem is Hegel never made me live. A good book, you live. I don't mean you go back outside after reading it and have an experience; experiencing things- that's not living. Kierkegaard said you could only think backwards, you had to live forwards. Not very Hegelian of him!

So the ol' Heidegger then, eh?

I like Capable precicely because there is infinitely more richness in French philosophy than in German philosophy.

Between those who do while thinking backwards and those who chill while thinking allwards... Well, the choice is clear. Germans fall too easily into the trap of the thing itsef.

If Capable is seriously undertaking a reading of Hegel- read Kierkegaard too. K. was the only intentionally anti-hegelian I know of. His approach though: attack Hegel with Hegel. Do the, apply the dialectic to the dialectic itself thing I was talking about. Kierkegaard is fun to read though.

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I perceive a mistreatment of Trump and misreading of where his support comes from. I am logically bound to defend the guy.

Trump, we can do little about.

Reaching back in history and stealing whatever treasure Hegel found sounds more achievable, at least in Capable's case. The only thing I see missing from Cap is joy, which is reflected in his support of a soul-less machine.

To think crankyness is the thing to rescue from Hegel is possibly the noblest faliure possible, but I suggest against it. Because my priority is people, not weird philosophical grails that have no care for what is good or bad but only intricate.

So Pezer, you maintain that Nietzsche isnt German?

You really need to learn German to make such judgments.

I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.

There is a hard line between Greece-Rome-Germany, through grammar. Old Greek, Latin and German all work with the case-system. They divide the subject and object into 4, or in Latin 5 cases, and build their sentences from these understandings, rather than from an object-subject relation such as we have.

Philosophy as a thing of power has never been French - only with a vast sense of humor and sex can a French philosopher become vaguely interesting. Camus and Lacan are the only ones that manage, for me. But it isnt what I'd regard as philosophy.

Deleuze may be an exception - yet in his pure French contentedness and taunting to hierarchy as such, he avoided entirely the vertical plane that the Greeks, Romans and Germans have cultivated, and that creates living concepts.

The main value of French philosophy is for it to pronounce itself in a nice French accent. Hence, il n'y a pas de hors-texte. This is its positivism, its affirmation, and from this dancing surface, a womanly thing, some joys arise, like the men I mentioned.

Lacan has been the one to look at his own nature, and realize he was the Cokey itself.

Quote :

I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.

Yes you are. A philosopher necessarily contradicts his people. How else could he possible discerned as a philosopher, as an outstanding man?  I am a philosopher of the North Sea coast.

I speak Spanish indeed. My linguistic powers far outstrip English speakers. Like Germans, but passionate instead of fastidious. German passion seems to lie in the elevation of fastidiousness until, in Odin, it actually becomes holy.

Our task is not to find languages. It is to make 'em.

Unfortunately that is indeed what seems to be the German path. They micromanage the whole, which has no essential micro-parts, and they disregard the parts, the humans, for the sake of the imagined whole - "The more I love humanity as a whole, the less I find that I like them in particular" as Dostoyevsky said.

But the German genius is the opposite. From Mozart to Nietzsche, Germans have far surpassed all other modern countries in terms of producing cultural marble.

Not to mention Johan S and Luwig Van.

Greatness is in Germany, but only when it is not German.

To be human first, before anything, is itself to cleanse one's self of the original crime.

Just to be clear, if we're still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

http://giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn't anywhere near my main argument against him, my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery. I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn't be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of "either Trump or Clinton" holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I'll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I'm not at all interested in ideology from any "side" of if, so I guess that's gotta be that.

Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don't we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don't really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole "base value". That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.

Parodites wrote:

This is the "danger" in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don't form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man's intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable's talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.


Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.

Your idea here is that the articulation of the genetics as Hegel is after, is entirely formal and empty; this is not correct, because as soon as this 'empty' system is set up, and through being set up in the first place at all, it immediately starts appropriating contents to itself, like a low pressure system into which a high pressure naturally moves. And the system isn't used to push to the far End as you seem to imply, that would indeed terminate in evaporation, although not of truth or meaning, but of the human mind which is far too finite to handle such an attenuation. Rather, the system is used in the initial first stage to set itself up and naturally gathers contents to itself, the most salient ones available; then in the second stage these contents are "deconstructed" and becomes the empty forms into which other, now more refined and subtler contents move. But this deconstruction is not the kind of postmodern destruction into non-being that we think of today, it is simply an opening up of a content to see what is inside it, and figuring out how it works. Like opening up a clock and examining it for the first time. And this kind of opening-up does not destroy that which is examined, since we are talking about ideations and not about material clocks with fixed spatiotemporal existence.

Concepts may form spontaneously but that is only from our perspective on them, in fact concepts have their own genesis and causation-history. Rather it is the idea of a pure affirmation of being "as such" and as baseline, ground state that seems erroneous here. There is no "given" pure affirmation of being because even the initial (subjectively, immediate) givenness of this affirmation is itself already molded as excess by those forms and contents that preceded it and caused it into being. In the case of actual human beings and their instinctive biology, this is genetics; in the case of psyche and mind and learned emotions, this is the vast history of culture and ideas, in part recorded in myth but also in language and largely in how we pick up subtle non-verbal cues from our caregivers while we are in early infancy.

We model others that we encounter, especially when we are younger. The category of the individual is not absolute, nor given; it is created. Likewise the affirmation of Being from the pure breakthrough of the excess-as-such is indeed "given and immediate" as you say, but it is only so from the perspective of the already-setup subjectivity, the very immediacy itself is the lack of a true 'immediacy' on the part of the subject-as-excess-breakthrough-into-liminal-partitions; what you call the intuiting of the pure affirmation of being is really as I see it the fact that the immediacy appears precisely because this subject has not yet become distant from itself, and not because that immediacy holds any kind of special ontological-epistemological status.

What is immediate and given is basically what is still "only just itself", A=A, a kind of thing simply because it is also a non-thing, a pure self-equality which is therefore in that sense also purely empty. This is nice, but not any kind of philosophical Holy Grail around which everything rotates. This state of initial immediacy and self-identity that we might associate to an intuition of pure affirmation is really: 1) as intuition a kind of collapsed immediacy-for-self, the fact that self-division has not yet occurred, and 2) as pure affirmation is basically a clinging to this initiate state of immediacy-for-itself.

The way I see it, the pure affirmation of being is like an implicit fidelity to the excess. Yes the excess exists, it exists both objectively as well as for a subject; and subjects are implicitly and always oriented toward that excess which is for them. However, this implicit orientation to that excess which is for the subject itself represents a kind of naivety in which the subject is self-identical in such a way that it is itself precisely and only because of how that excess which is for the subject is not yet at all resisted in any way. Being at this stage is nearly empty, and could never progress without ceaseless division of its substance, just like an embryonic cluster of cells dividing over and over to ultimately make a baby.

The "purity" of the affirmation of being rests precisely on this fact that division has not yet taken place, and after we have become subjects in our own own right, grown up and learned philosophy for instance, there is no real way to get back to that initial stage of naive purity. But religion attempts to hold this as a value and ideal, a return to a state of grace in which we were self-identical with our own excess which is for us in so far as we were "ourselves" in the first place and at all. Yet time only moves forward and never backward, we may unwind ideas at the conceptual level but we cannot unwind the substrata on which concepts move, nor can we unwind the body backward in time either.

The way I see it, is that the excess changes as being changes: as the subject ages and grows, that which is excess for it also changes, expands as well as differentiates into different excess-types. These types arent defined by different kinds of excess but by different ways in which excess is delimited and channeled effectively to the ends of being. The excess itself, as object-cause of the intuition of the pure affirmation of being, is always already split up within itself along the very same lines of the developing being itself, this is precisely what subjectivity is and means.

First of all, Hegel's system of philosophy cannot destroy an idea, because upon examining an idea that idea is not destroyed into non-being, the original idea remains there unchanged even as it is also in the mind being dissected; second of all, Hegel identifies that this kind of immediacy of being to and for itself, a kind of "intuition of pure affirmation as such" which is firstly a feeling (sentimental experience) and secondly a kind of "idea", is both productive of subjectivity in the first round and both productive and destructive of it in the second and derivative rounds: productive and destructive in precisely the sense that being-for-itself or the self-identity of a being with itself at the formal level is both productive of being qua being as well as highly limiting and destructive of being in so far as this self-identity prevents further differentiation and change, closes off possibilities and forces fetishized clinging to various specific contents and forms that are, in the particular moment that happens to be the case right now, constitutive of that subjectivity as itself as such thus far. This is basically what Hegel was referring to in that passage that is in my signature quote right now... we cling to ourselves because we are not yet ourselves, just as we must search for freedom precisely because we are not yet free, as Nietzsche said.

Back to Trump, I just realized something important: part of his appeal is, like any demagogue or fake populist, he makes politics look easy. He makes you think that you can understand and do politics just as well and even better than anyone else, precisely because you aren't an "insider".

The very fact that we lack knowledge prescient to politics is spun around into a kind of strength of capacity for politics, by people like Trump.

In a way there is a continuum based on knowledge of politics in both the general and specific. Those at the bottom know next to nothing about anything related to politics in reality, but these people still believe they understand foreign policy better than the president, for example; these people are now supporting Trump because they feel empowered by his braggadocio and demagogue status (religious pulpit approach) into thinking they now understand far more than they actually do.

Like I said before, mostly this is about bringing back manufacturing jobs, which is a bit ironic since Trump himself has used Chinese steel in his buildings. Feel free to look up the investigative reporting that uncovered this recently, I'm not going to waste my time referencing things when I don't think the desire is even there to look at the facts like that, but I hope I am wrong about that. In any case Trump could have used American steel but he didn't, on massive multi million dollar projects. Likewise as I have already pointed out, he uses third world labor in manufacturing his clothing and he owns stock in Ford and GM and Nabisco and all these companies he rips on for outsourcing. But anyway, I am getting back into facts, which I didn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

My point is simply that Trump gives voice to this feeling that one can become an armchair expert on just about anything just because one tells oneself it. "I understand geopolitics better than the political class!" is basically the line of thinking, and in typical Trump droning mind-control they just repeat this over and over and over and over again until they believe it.

"Terrific, just terrific, really I am so intelligent, I understand so much, really I do, you wouldn't believe if I told you, so good, I am so good at politics it is unreal, just unreal folks, no one has ever been as good at politics as me, believe me when I say I'm the top, the best there is, top notch, terrific, just the best folks."

It really is a form of "mind-control". One that he seemingly does to himself 24/7. And I cannot believe that you think this is normal human-level speech. Trump doesnt talk like a robotic Hillary institution, but neither does he talk like any person I've ever met.

I am seriously not at all trying to be a dick here. This is a serious point that must be addressed: Why is politics the only field in which one is supposedly qualified precisely because A) they do not even like that field as a general rule, and B) they have little to no experience in it?

Can you imagine an electrician, or a mechanic, or a philosopher, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a pilot, demeaning their own field and bragging that they're an "outsider" with little to no experience in that field, woud you hire an electrician who hates the field and has little to no experience in it?

Why is politics supposed to be different? Trump and his kind of "little guy, good old regular person" crowd seriously believe that government is the problem and seriously believe that not having experience in government is a requirement for being in government. This is a problem. Government is far more complex and multi-faceted than we realize, Trump's brand of "small guy conservatism" of armchair experts on everything from war to international trade to foreign policy to taxes and budgets to social issues seriously believe they and their man Trump are more qualified to run the government, and this belief is based on a seriously oversimplified view of what it actually takes to keep a government running. You can't treat government like a business, the government exists for exactly the opposite purpose as business exists; business makes profit, increases Capital, whereas government fulfills those roles that are either not capitalizable like that or should not be. We shouldn't be either defending or not defending other nations based on whether or not they've pay us; we should not be condemning global neoliberal colonialism in the ME simply because its expensive for us to be there. Yet these are precisely Trump's positions on those issues.

In case it isn't obvious, I raise these points to help break down the false dichotomy of EITHER Trump OR Clinton. We need to reject that way of thinking. Once we get past the fallacy of excluded middle here we are able to start to see what might potentially constitute a true political approach and value to political issues and problems. Clinton's sociopathy and lapdog to the neoliberal globalism status, and Trump's proud lack of experience and being part of a political class that hates the government in principle and narcissistically believes they are true experts on the subject, neither of these two clowns are a reasonable choice. Trump represents the very international globalized business that he apparently opposes, his "business success" was to inherit millions from his dad, go bankrupt a few times, lose a billion dollars in one year and then have the taxpayers bail him out of that, and now he brags about it -- "Hey I am on your side, believe me, but if I can screw you over in the process well hey folks that's just good business." Plenty of contractors were never paid by Trump for their work. Again feel free to look up the facts.

So what i am saying is: let's get past the false dichotomy. What would real political insight, skill and leadership really look like?

Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don't believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don't want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn't like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.V_UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming's existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.

Quick restatement of purpose here for me:

While I reject the false dichotomy of the choice between Trump and Clinton, because this dichotomy is logically based on a fallacy of excluded middle that is all but deliberately created by the US political system, I of course do understand that practically speaking this dichotomy is forced upon us because realistically either Trump or Clinton will win the election. I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils in this situation, I don't condemn anyone for doing that. Clarify our values and try to reason out consequences and ends for each candidate being elected, and then vote for the lesser of two evils. That's perfectly fine, but it's not what I'm going to do. Neither candidate is close enough to my own values therefore I will vote for neither one.

But I think I'll withdraw from this thread, mostly because it isn't psychologically healthy for me to continue here; this unhealth is based on the fact that each of our respective positions and values have now been adequately clarified and I can't see that our positions or values will change as a result of my continuing to post in this thread. The exception is that I will gladly offer rationale and factual evidence backing up any of my claims made in this thread, if requested; I will do so happily, and if I cannot find fact and evidence for any claim, or a least a valid and solid rational defense, but really there must also be hard fact and evidence to support these positions too-- if I cannot find any to back up a claim that I've made here then I will absolutely and happily abandon that claim.

I reject ideology and psychological motives here, I want to uncover truths to "build thought to disclose the future". My positions so far are based on what is most justified based on the evidence, facts and rationale that I have to far: I would gladly yield any position that I've made here if new facts or evidence is brought to counter them. I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I'm happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now.

So I'll leave this thread but with the caveat that a call for facts, evidence or philosophical reasoning in defense of anything I've said here will be met by me with a sincere attempt to provide as such. Otherwise, thanks to everyone here for engaging so openly in these ideas. I hope no feelings were injured in the course of those engagements.

In the Hegel discussion points, let's move that over to the Hegel thread I made, if possible.

Here goes: an attempt at an apology for Trump.

That his tactics are disgusting is the reason he should be president.

Trump understands that a lot of people with what we might call disgusting opinions, or just a lot of pain from being mistreated, are getting angrier and angrier and holding more and more sway over the capital of the world, which the USA still is. Instead then of attempting to psychically eliminate them from the world with philosophy or somethin, Trump wants to give them a voice and integrate them into the fold.

I honestly think that a guy like Trump, distasteful as he might be, must win and must be coopted, as he has been, by movements like Black Lives Matter, Millenial Feminism, and generally speaking philosophers. We must respect that his supporters, too, were brought into this world, and there is enough cool shit in it for us to understand eachother. We just have to be gentle. That's all that the cranky people of the world want: we want gentleness. We know we have had a hard time showing it, thus all the more reason to show us how.

So. Respect your neighbours son. Otherwise, they might not respect YOU!

Capable wrote:

Just to be clear, if we're still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

http://giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

The one who made that gif is tasteless - certainly.
I think Trump was sick of the emotional chokehold that forced us all to pretend that people with disabilities are Gods. That he doesn't give a shit about slave-moral codes about vulnerabilities is clear.
That he would be wise to keep this as an incident and not a pattern, is clear.

Quote :

As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn't anywhere near my main argument against him,

Good, as no one had conceded that he is racist. You'd have to argue that. These claims aren't meaningful. I know he's not a racist. I know Islam is not a race, and "Mexican" isnt a race.

I know that virtually all Clinton supporters are racist. Here entire social agenda is the essence of racism. Its just 'racism that is okay because it hurts Trump'.
Fuck that man.

Quote :

my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery.

Clearly I disagree. I dont understand why you assume that such naked claims hold weight for a philosopher.

Quote :

I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn't be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of "either Trump or Clinton" holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not "evil") must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

How is that?
I am just asking you to consider the lethal fascist your nation is about to elect. It is your responsibility as Americans.  I dont care much for aloofness at this point.

Quote :

With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I'll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I'm not at all interested in ideology from any "side" of if, so I guess that's gotta be that.

Ive been articularing my arguments, as has Parodites, you havent addressed any of them. Your claims have been refuted, and still you keep making them as if they are evidently true. I think you are truly wrong here.

Quote :

Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don't we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don't really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole "base value". That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

We just disagree fundamentally on this political cycle.

Of course all this is a minute part of my philosophizing - this brilliant stuff about the Doric is deeply pertinent to the core, though.

Quote :

You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.

I consider no values universal except self-valuing itself- VO would not allow for another thing.