Vă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link
Archive for Febbraio, 2020:
Defining love philosophically.
Apollodorus relates to an unnamed companion a story he heard from Aristodemus about a symposium, or dinner party, held in honor of the playwright Agathon. Besides Aristodemus and Agathon, the guests include Agathon’s lover Pausanias, the doctor Eryximachus, the great comic poet Aristophanes, and the young Phaedrus. Socrates arrives late, having been lost in thought on a neighboring porch. Once they have finished eating, Eryximachus proposes that, instead of the usual entertainments, the guests should take turns giving speeches in praise of the god of Love.
Phaedrus speaks first, praising Love as the oldest of all the gods and the one that does the most to promote virtue in people. Pausanias speaks next, distinguishing the base desires involved in Common Love from the purity of Heavenly Love, which only ever exists between a man and a boy. In exchange for sexual gratification from the boy, the man acts as a mentor, teaching him wisdom and virtue. Eryximachus, the third speaker, argues that Love promotes order and moderation, not only in people but also in all things. Thus, Love can exist in such fields as music and medicine.
Aristophanes is the next to speak, and he presents his conception of Love in the form of a myth. Humans once had four legs, four arms, two heads, and so on, he says. Some were male, with two sets of male sexual organs; some were females; and some were hermaphrodites, with one set each of male and female sexual organs. We were twice the people we are now, and the gods were jealous, afraid we would overthrow them. Zeus decided to cut us in half to reduce our power, and ever since we have been running all over the earth trying to rejoin with our other half. When we do, we cling to that other half with all our might, and we call this Love.
Agathon speaks next, giving an elaborate and flowery speech about Love, which he describes as young, sensitive, beautiful, and wise. All our virtues are gifts that we receive from this god. Socrates questions Agathon, doubting his speech and suggesting that Agathon has described the object of Love, not Love itself.
To correct him, Socrates explains he once held the same beliefs until he met Diotima of Mantinea, a wise woman who taught him everything he knows about Love. According to Diotima, Love is neither a god nor a mortal but rather a spirit born of a coupling between Resource and Poverty. Love itself is not wise or beautiful and does not have any of the other attributes Agathon ascribed to it. Rather, it is the desire for all these things. As such, Love wishes to give birth to Beauty, and so Diotima associates Love with pregnancy and reproduction. Some seek to reproduce sexually, while other seek to give birth to ideas, the children of their minds. We first learn about Beauty by seeing and desiring beautiful people or objects, but our desire for Beauty can be gradually refined until ultimately we love Beauty itself, which is the highest love there is.
As Socrates concludes his speech, the famous politician Alcibiades bursts in completely drunk. He complains that he has consistently tried to seduce Socrates in order to glean wisdom from him but that Socrates resists any kind of sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, more revelers arrive and the party descends into drunken chaos. When Aristodemus wakes up the next morning, he sees Socrates, Agathon, and Aristophanes still engaged in sober conversation. Eventually, Agathon and Aristophanes fall asleep, and Socrates leaves and goes about his daily business.
Analysis
In the Symposium, Plato presents the love of wisdom as the highest form of love and philosophy as a refinement of our sexual urges that leads us to desire wisdom over sex. That is, we do not seek wisdom by first suppressing sexual desire and other distractions but rather by refining that desire and training it on a higher purpose. Plato sets his dialogue at a symposium, which was one of the highlights of Athenian social life, and amidst a discussion about Love to show us that philosophy is not removed from the business of everyday life. On the contrary, philosophy is the highest expression of the loves and desires that motivate us in everyday activities. If we could see things clearly, Plato suggests, we would see that our attraction to beautiful people or good music or exciting movies is really an attraction to Beauty itself and that philosophy is the most direct route to getting at what we most desire.
Diotima describes love as the pursuit of beauty in a gradual ascent from the particular to the general, culminating in an understanding of the Form of Beauty. Even the most ignorant soul is drawn to beauty on some level. What most of us don’t realize, she suggests, is that what attracts us to a beautiful person, for instance, is that we perceive in that person an idea of the greater Form of Beauty. That is, we are attracted not to the person but to the beauty in the person. If our love is keen enough, we will not be satisfied by beautiful people but will seek out beauty in more generalized forms: in minds, in the structure of a well-ordered state, and ultimately in the Form of Beauty itself, the most generalized form that beauty takes. Once we have come to grasp the Form of Beauty, we will have grasped the fundamental truth that the reality of our experience is just a shadow world compared with the ideal, eternal, and unchanging world of Forms. This Theory of Forms is presented in greater detail in the Phaedo and the Republic. Here, we get the hint that the way to an understanding of Forms is through a love of beauty.
The dialogue’s structure mirrors the progression Diotima describes of pursuing beauty in increasingly refined and generalized forms. Each speech in the dialogue takes us a step closer to understanding the true nature of love. Phaedrus gives us a simple enthusiasm for the value of love; Pausanias distinguishes between good and bad forms of love; Eryximachus expands the definition to cover other fields of inquiry; Aristophanes gives us a delightful account of the urgency of love; and Agathon applies the refined art of rhetoric to understanding love. Only by first considering and seeing the limitations in these earlier speeches can we then appreciate the importance of Socrates’ speech. We should also note that, in Eryximachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon, we have representatives of medicine, comedy, and tragedy, all three of which are important components of a healthy life. By having Socrates trump these other three, Plato is suggesting that philosophy is more important to our well-being than these other disciplines.
The original Greek text contains a number of untranslatable puns that enhance our understanding of the relationship between love, desire, and philosophy. The Greek word eros, translated as “love,” is also the root of our word erotic and can be used in Greek to describe sexual desire. Socrates is thus being coy when he explains that Diotima taught him everything he knows about eros, a coyness that is enhanced when we discover that Diotima of Mantinea was the name of a well-known temple prostitute in ancient Greece. The implication is that Socrates came to Diotima seeking sex, but she instead taught him about beauty and wisdom. This implication further reinforces the suggestion that the desire for wisdom is a refinement, and not a denial, of our desire for sex. In the dialogue, Diotima becomes the model of Beauty, which every lover seeks, while Socrates becomes the model of Love, being himself neither beautiful nor satisfied but constantly seeking more. This picture of Socrates the lover further plays on the word philosopher, which literally means “lover of wisdom.”
Source:
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/plato/section4/?fbclid=IwAR0CyOM8z87yfgIdsOiTxzn0OqCdSHMRbnfjxshAAsBsHuNRMcX_pgUUNRg
Negative Liberty vs Positive Liberty
Eva Omega în Hyperianism – The Outer Circle (Activism and Optimization)
13 ore ·
Negative Liberty vs Positive Liberty
Capitalism is a negative liberty system. It wants ultimate freedom to do as it pleases and fuck everyone else. This is a freedom from mentality. Freedom from regulations, freedom from rules, and, crucially, freedom from government interference. It is driven solely on private interests, namely, the interests of the super rich elite in maximizing profits, for their own selfish benefit.
Democracy is a disgrace. Politicians are bought and sold by lobbyists, lobbying for their own private interests, to keep maximum profits flowing. Unfortunately, negative liberty freedom also means the freedom to exploit others on a global scale, the freedom to let religion indoctrinate and brainwash children, the freedom to let our fellow humans die of poverty and lack of medical access, the freedom to steal the land and all of its resources from under the people and sell it back to them at a premium, enslaving them in the process, and the freedom to threaten the very existence of all life on the planet for ever higher profit margins. Capitalism is steering this ship right into a global catastrophe of epic scale. This is a thoroughly disgusting state of affairs.
A Hyperian meritocracy, on the other hand, is a positive liberty system. It is predicated on freedom for. The government in this type of system entails maximum involvement in the lives of its citizens, in order to help them become the best versions of themselves they can possibly be.
Before you get all antsy about the prospect of statism, understand that a government led by power-hungry, selfish, narrow-minded individuals interested in pursuing only their own private interests, could never be equivalent in any way to a government led by meritocratic, altruistic, talented, brilliant individuals whose mandate is to protect and advance the general will at all times. There’s an easy way to do this. Let’s say government officials make 60K a year. Assuming that this was a reasonable living wage, this would automatically exclude those looking for power through the acquisition of wealth and to serve their own ends. Civil servants must be motivated purely by their desire to change the world for the better, for everyone, and they must prove it through their actions. If they can’t – fire them! All politicians in the future must be driven to advance the general will, the will of the people, and what is good for a society and all of its citizens, not just a chosen few at the top. No more of these empty promises and lies where nothing ever changes.
A positive liberty society delivers freedom by way of universal basic income, universal health care, and ensuring the people have access to all the resources required to discover their skills and passions and reach for their goals. No one gets to rig the game in their favor. Everyone gets an equal opportunity to succeed – EVERYONE.
Imagine a government led by a council of philosopher geniuses, each one of them a genius and expert in their respective field, and every sector of society led by the most talented individuals, elected by their peers, ensuring only those with highest merit, talent, and compassion, take positions of power.
Imagine a government that assigned each person and family in society a coach or a therapist to help them overcome personal difficulties. Imagine if schools employed people to help kids discover what they were really good at and what they were passionate about, and coached them on how they could achieve their goals.
Imagine if science and technology were geared towards actually understanding the world in order to make peoples’ lives and society better, instead of geared towards maximum profit for industry, like most of the current fields of science.
Imagine if the people were employed in fulfilling work of their choosing, instead of being forced to work meaningless, soul-sucking jobs just to pay the rent. Imagine if people didn’t have to work their life away, and had their needs taken care of by the government, so everyone was free to pursue their talents and passions without worrying about how they’re going to eat or pay the bills.
Imagine if the whole purpose of the system was to maximally invest in its citizenry, to create activated, fulfilled, actualized and strong people. Imagine how much happier and fulfilled our whole society would be if we had infinitely more power over our lives, and could start directing our energy towards advancing society for everyone. Imagine if we all had a collective goal to make society the best possible world and the government employed the most talented individuals to provide us with the best resources in order to achieve that.
We can design an entirely different world.
This is a radically different vision than the system which we currently have, and it has to be. It’s not even reasonably comparable. This planet is a hellish nightmare for everyone but a few.
We’re not reformists, tweaking things here and there to make things a little bit better. The system is rotten to the core. We need a complete overhaul of the current operating system, and replacement with the only rational option, the only system that’s never been put into actual practice.
Laughably, the elites in power believe themselves to be a meritocracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current system is built purely on dynastic wealth and inheritance, nepotism, cronyism, and privilege – the total opposite of merit.
Make no mistake, we are here to change the fucking world. It’s time for Hyperian rationalism to take the drivers seat. There is no other option, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
It’s all or nothing.
EXISTENCE
EXISTENCE
by Thomas Foster
Existence (ontological zero) ‘beats’ non-existence (abstract zero), hands down. There is no sufficient reason to prevent ontological zero (infinity, everything, the universe) from existing.
Non-existence, by definition, CANNOT exist. It has no properties, no ontology. Only ‘existence’ exists. Non-existence does not exist. This makes no sense. It would violate the PSR. It has no means to exist.
*****
“Existence can be modelled mathematically as infinite zeros of infinite content.
Non-existence can be modelled mathematically as infinite zeros of zero content.
What do we mean by non-existence? We mean a universe with no content, no features, no capabilities, no possibilities – where nothing can ever happen. This, of course, is not a universe at all – it’s absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness is infinite contentless zeros.
Existence is absolute somethingness – infinite zeros but of infinite rather than content.
If we bring the respective sets of zeros together (i.e. those with infinite content and those with no content), the ones without content have no effect, so they cede the stage to the zeros with infinite content. Existence and non-existence are thus locked together, but the latter has no observable or conceivable effect, hence existence is left to itself to provide all possible causes and effects.
This is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. This is why we exist. There is no sufficient reason for non-existence to defeat existence but there is a sufficient reason for existence to defeat non-existence.” (Mike Hockney, Hyperreality)
*****
“Since it’s absurd to assert that there was neither non-existence nor existence (one or other must be true), perhaps we are to understand this as a claim that there was no clear distinction between the two: they were so intermixed that they could not be defined separately. Yet, logically, this cannot be the case. Existence and non-existence can never mix. They can never be together. One permanently excludes the other, unless we take the view that non-existence is that which has no possible effect on existence, has no consequences of any kind, is entirely empty, contentless and redundant; in which case an infinite “amount” of non-existence could be forever “present” with an infinite amount of existence. But since it would have no impact whatever, why say it was “there” at all? We could simply conclude that existence was on its own.
Either non-existence has no consequences with regard to existence (in which case it’s a superfluous hypothesis and can be dismissed) or it excludes the possibility of existence, in which case we wouldn’t be here. Since we are, non-existence can be safely dismissed. Whatever way you look at it, non-existence is refuted.
When we use words such as “nothing”, “space”, “void” and “vacuum”, we certainly can’t mean “non-existence” since this is an impossible or 100% ineffectual concept.” (Mike Hockney, Hyperreality)
*****
“Abstract zero, the zero of non-existence, has no properties, qualities or consequences.
Ontological zero, the zero of existence, has infinite energy.
We can think of the two types of 0 coexisting, in a manner of speaking, but abstract zero (non-existence) adds nothing to ontological zero (existence), hence has no observable consequences.
Science treats zero as non-existence. Ontological mathematics treats it as pure existence, containing infinity. To be infinite means to contain all numbers (all frequencies of energy).
Zero is the origin. From the zero of non-existence, nothing comes. From the zero of existence, everything comes.” (Mike Hockney, Hyperreality)
Both are wrong
One of the defining issues of our time is the attitude towards the Other. For the last few decades, the globalist agenda of predatory capitalism – seeking to have maximum markets and thus maximum profits for all capitalist products and services – has demanded maximum migration and acceptance of the Other. This has dialectically generated a nationalist response, with the complete demonization of the Other, summed up in the mantra “Build the Wall” (to keep them out).
Right wingers hate the Other, while liberals roll out the red carpet for the Other. Both are wrong.
We are meritocrats. We don’t care about anyone’s race, sex, sexuality, or background. We do care about their merit. We want the most talented people, regardless of where they come from. What we certainly don’t want – for any country in the world – is an influx of those who subscribe to vile and unacceptable religious beliefs and cultural practices, and have no discernible talents.
Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” It’s therefore essential for any sane society to wage war on absurd beliefs, not to give them a free pass in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The Liberals – because of their extreme hostility towards judgment – have refused to make any distinction between migrants. They are all accepted equally, regardless of their merits.
We are meritocrats and that means we are all about judgement. If we applied no judgment, how else would we establish who is meritorious? There are no free passes in our system. You have to work hard and achieve. That’s what meritorious people do. We don’t want freeloaders and deadheads. Such people are repulsive, a burden on society. We don’t want people that believe in toxic ancient superstitions.
The Other must be subjected to judgment, just like everyone else. The Other might be the best thing since sliced bread, or something sinister and grotesque. Let’s have the former, and not the latter.
In Europe, every nation has a problem with Islam, an historical enemy of Europe, against which Europe fought many savage wars. The most prominent Muslims – those wearing burqas, hijabs, niqabs, big beards, religious garb – are plainly showing their allegiance and promotion of a religion and culture incompatible with the West, which has sought to conquer the West.
Islam is not compossible with the values of the Western Enlightenment. There has been no Islamic Enlightenment. The two systems cannot coexist. The tragedy is that the politically correct, multicultural, postmodern Liberals believe that they can, and they have inflicted a nightmare on Europe that has resulted in a resurgence of extreme nationalism. They have refused to admit their error and have even doubled down on it. Now we are where we are.
Liberal globalism – based on uncritical acceptance of all religions and cultures in order to advance predatory capitalist interests by keeping costs down (by employing the cheapest workers in the cheapest nations) – must be definitively refuted. Only then can we undermine insane nationalism.
In the Star Trek vision of the future, all of the backward religions and cultures have gone. No one on a starship wears a burqa. Silly beliefs and superstitions WILL die out if humanity promotes reason and logic. In the long run, it’s inevitable. The only alternative is war and extinction.
Star Trek is a dazzling vision of a meritocracy. Let’s make it happen for real. It will never happen if we do not pass judgment on bad ideas, bad opinions, bad beliefs, bad cultures. The Liberals, with their “all truths” system of relativism and subjectivism, refuse to pass judgment. That’s why they must be decisively defeated.
No matter what part of the world you live in, you can apply a standard formula to the Other (i.e. to whoever seeks to come into your country). You should never unconditionally hate the Other as the right-wingers do, or unconditionally love them as the liberals do. You should apply fair and just criteria. Are these migrants good for your country and culture? Do they have merit? If so, why wouldn’t you want to welcome them in? Or are they importing religious beliefs and cultural practices that will create antagonism in your society? If so, why wouldn’t you block them?
Will migrants fit in and improve your society, or will they live in ghettos and undermine the social cohesion of your country? That’s what has to be determined.
We live in a world of compossibilities, not possibilities. You can’t get to do something just because it’s possible. It must be compossible. People must be cognizant of reality, and not keep pushing their own agenda down the throats of others who are never going to accept it. That’s why we are now in such a polarized world. Various groups pushed various agendas that were never going to succeed. People need to restrain themselves, to not expect to get their own way all the time. The general will must prevail, not the particular wills of individuals and groups.
We live in a world of “self-expression” where every identity group believes it has the absolute right for its particular will to prevail. No such right exists.
What do you want – a permanently polarized world where we are all at each other’s throats (as we are now), or a world where we try to achieve a synthesis? That means that we all have to make sacrifices. Unfortunately, in our consumer society where people can buy whatever they want, have whatever they want and say whatever they want, they are no longer capable of denying themselves anything. They will have to learn. As Kafka said, “In man’s struggle against the world, bet on the world.”
We live in a culture devoted to the particular will, but only the general will allows us to live in harmony with each other. The general will demands compromise. How many people are willing to compromise these days?
