The Philosophers

Key issue is democracy. It seems most Clan members agree on the idea now that democracy is to be understood int he terms from which it emerged, rather than the principle of elections as a means to fair distribution of power. Compare what Zoot says in the first video to what Capable says in Democracy 2.0, that “democracy has only ever truly existed where it wasn’t needed, certainly where there existed no need for a concept of democracy – if the people place themselves first they simply act, and secure by constant effort that society which is really theirs, however most people prefer not to put on such an effort and would instead like to participate in pre-established society, trusting its maintenance and administration to others.” Both interpretations point to the idea that democracy function on two levels: B, in the minds of those who aren’t being represented as a system that ensures fair representation, and A, in balancing power between actual interests, as for example a Congress functions, but also the first democracy itself, which was only open to the most wealthy, ‘pentekosiomedemnoi’, let’s say the highest tax scale, a democracy of those who are happy to burden themselves. (Reminds me of the Nietzschean Camel, which is his first form of nobility).

I suppose that we are establishing our own democracy, a philosophical society, with he aim of securing and enhancing the power of its members. The Philosophers are people bound in loyalty, not some arbitrary form of brotherly love but the shared love of a similar thing, a kind of western oversoul, related to the ancient democracy but in archaic ways that we can not fully trace yet, except the one among us who have gone beyond a point of no return into history, and is our deepest well of … ‘mystery’ as it was known back then. This depth is invaluable to the joy that philosophy is - depth which as often finds ways outside of writing as within it. Nazdrovje.

Whereas I understand avoiding google bot,

It appears that I was wrong about Lev. I just reduce him to trolling.
All these goddamned consequences… why philosophers are so wary.

The point is that we can not be anonymous, that in fact philosophy must be more like a “1 percent”.
The question is what exactly is the currency.

sendvid.com/2sgfywga

sendvid.com/sxuuzq0a

Obviously not all these videos will be philosophically oriented, Fixed. When I eventually start a youtube account I will categorize the videos according to their content. Meanwhile, as I experiment with making these I’ll just post them here.

You are a born entertainer Zoot, you know that?

And as Parodites indicates, philosophy is not a questioning, but the characteristic of driving what it is to be human to its ultimate consequence. “Daemonism”. In as far as the political question of Aristocracy you quickly sketched goes, I do have an answer to that, which is introduced here - -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfKji1rM3s8 Happily taking the backseat of the cinematographic machine. This thread is already more than worth it. The philosophical probing itself is slow, this is my first actual response to you in fact (and the actual response begins somewhere halfway), but the aim is to create the body of which at this point only the neocortex has been designed.


HIC SUNT DRACONES

Jakob wrote:

Noble people think of themselves as the ‘origin’ of things, they think they have the ability to make the decisions on what is good or what is not good. What is being advocated here is a kind of herd mentality, i.e ‘hood’ mentality a gathering together as a show of strength.

Slave morality rejects master morality, it does not and cannot stand on its own and the traits of the noble person are evil and what is good is their absence.

Yet have you considered that both master and slave moralities, continue, evolved and mixed up in us today. Is it possible to sift through these and separate Master and Slave morality.

If this is possible then I see it as two sides of a coin. The majority will choose slave morality, for its perceived ‘safeness’ (not getting banned or kicked off a Forum) while the master morality requires some sacrifice, determination and true grit to hold fast to its beliefs in the face of adversity, (getting kicked of the Forum). Yet neither one presents itself to me as being more or less inferior, as a human being still has its weaknesses and fears.

The ideal state is to travel the road alone.

Gathering with friends in the name of a code to become stronger and protect each other is not slave morality, it is tribe forming.
It is modern to think of philosophy as something one should do alone. The Greeks (and Vikings, and all strong tribes) knew better.

facebook.com/rulephilosophy/

Encouraging others to form groups of people who are likeminded, in my mind only creates the death knell of challenging.

Heraclitus chose to live as a hermit away from the city in a hut.

Indeed: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

And, based on my own experience with these “like minded folks”, that’s often just one more rendition of this: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5&t=185296

The “are you one of us” or “one of them” mentality of the objectivists.

And you’re on this forum… to be alone?
You’re both, evidently, a bit full of beans.

Fears may rule you, but that’s not a virtue, friends. Heal yourselves.

Me, I’m here looking for an antidote to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And I have generally found that those of the objectivist persuasion are inclined to suggest that to be “healed” is to think like they do. Which is to say that they are in touch with their True Self; and their True Self more or less revolves around this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the Ideal
3] I have access to the Ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World
4] I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World because I am rational

My “thing” here is the existential relationship between 1] identity 2] value judgments and 3] political economy.

Perhaps you can address them in your next video.

Well I assume you’re at least smart enough to realize from what I’ve said that this does not apply to me.
One of my enormous problems with the current climate here is the ridiculous levels of distrust. Even of philosophy, the activity, itself.

Not talking about you, but people come here a lot to say how much they hate the site. I don’t get it. I don’t like it. And I don’t accept it as being what this site is about, even though that’s what it has become. Let’s turn it back into a real philosophy-lovers forum!

I can do that, in a quite short video. If there are people here who think in this way, that is pretty sad, I’ll admit. I don’t think I’ve run into them a lot here.

Iambig -
Im pretty sure I didn’t get the point of that argument, but I tried to be clear about my position vis a vis each component.

youtube.com/watch?v=fQH1p0BEzHA
youtube.com/watch?v=ie8thpFyXIc

Tell me [what goes wrong here

  • I made a very long video about analytical vs objective truth, but in the end I couldn’t finish my sentence. I’ll give it another try.
    Your question about objectivity iss so persistent that I feel compelled to resolve it.]

The Leprechaun Speaks Again
Regarding the objective world
youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3GJ2BEdLo
Regarding Daseinian morality
youtube.com/watch?v=pQ2Uxz2r9IU

Another subject.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnuZnnr49xU[/youtube]

What you hear aren’t my joints. My arms would have fallen off by now.

Fixed Cross: August 2014

and one year later

Jakob: October 2015

I don’t think there are any here who ‘hate’ ILP and if they do they usually leave.

‘Even though that’s what it has become’ as you say. So soon, because I question, you accuse me of fear and advise me to heal myself. You see this is the perfect example of cultivating the viewpoint that ‘few’ have knowledge and most do not, this is what creates the uncomfortable spectre of elitism. This is not a new problem. The ideas of a few persons who claim to have special knowledge has always been with us, as long as there have been philosophers on this planet. The need to distance oneself from people who have the same opinion, is necessary, or a person will plod on in ignorance and be what it may, at least there is diversity here. In matters of knowing the truth or truths, nothing should stand between it and the person seeking it. Getting back to Heraclitus, no doubt he led a life that was lonely and searching and full of inner reflection and admittedly some of his observations were harsh, but the need for complete separation from the unvaried is crucial. To what degree of withdrawal, well that is unique for each person.

These things that act as challengers among individuals also act among and between groups… so while the individual identity of the person is aligned with a group, the group itself is in a struggle against other groups in some way or another. Think of a group as a macrocosmic individual. There will always be some available conflict and challenge which will work to challenge and evolve those in the group.

Besides, it’s just a philosophy forum… it isn’t like the dude is recruiting to invade a planet in the fourth sector of the tralax5 system. It’s just some forum addicts doing the same thing everyday… just in a different digital space.