Hegel, Cicero, Trump, and the end of civilization

[ernestm]

I popped bakc to let you know the results of my survey of Facebook groups.

The background is this. In October 2020 I wrote "Hegel said eras end when the owl of Minerva spreads its wings. Trump has embodied the teaching of Cicero on oratory, and Cicero's wisdom has already heralded the end of the Roman Republic and the Dark Ages. A crucial question now confronting the entire world is whether Trump's rule signifies the end of the USA as we have known it, just as Cicero's rule eclipsed the republic, and Henry VIII's ended the dark ages. If a new empire is to be acknowledged openly in the USA, then it is not only Puerto Rico and other US territories that will suffer the most, just as the provinces suffered in Roman times, and the French dominions of England suffered from Henry VIII's rebellion against the Holy Roman church; yet in both cases, many more suffered and were killed in the resulting wars of change."

After seeing the level of knowledge on philosophy here was a bit thinner than I expected, I went on facebook philosophy groups and posted some detailed analysis of Dawkins 'God Delusion,' which was the ONLY book discussed in the forums besides the bible.

When I reached 800 comments, I counted them up.
* 98% didn't read anything after the first sentence, until I pointed to a specific paragraph (I had to number every single paragraph to get any response)
* 80% derided me directly.
* All but two people falsely believed I was deist when Im Buddhist. 70& derided me for believing in God when nothing I wrote said I do.
* NO ONE acknowledged that more knowledge in science just increases evidence for intelligent design.
* NO ONE acknowledged that the most evolution can do is show that any God which might exist knows how to use evolution as a tool.
^ NO ONE knew that Dostoevsky's and Camus' position are that reality is fundamentally irrational.
* About 90% were atheist, stating the burden of proof is scientific, and blocked me rather than read the Wikipedia article saying it isn't.
* About 5% were Christian and just made statements about how their belief in God being irrefutable.

I have to say, social media is doing a far better job at destroying civilization than it was even two years ago. I have to agree with the growing public opinion there will be a world war. More specifically, I can say when it will be, due to an imminent near-extinction event when the disappearance of all Arctic Ice during the summers of 2035-2040 cause catastrophic weather changes worldwide. China is insisting that the USA pass a Consitutional Amendment assuring another Trump will not flip flop on reducing carbon emissions before it does anything more. There's no way a supermajority can pass a constitutional amendment before 2028, which leaves only seven years to get all gas and diesel vehicles off the road and close all coal fire plants. It's not going to happen. Other countries are going to blame the USA. The UsA is going to blame China.

[remainder of post removed due to ad hominems]

[Alan Masterman]

christ, more mysticism...

[Rende]

˝The world is everything, I am the world, I am everything˝. So why should one's individuality make illusory dependance on such independance and, as a result, consequences. I think there are variables in this world, like I'm not Putin nor Trump. Expanding possibilities like time is what the description of what I believe in look like. So the options will always be there. I believe that knowledge should not be used to realize the annihilation of lives on such a large scale as war. But you made me think that maybe knowledge is something that will end all of human life at some point. 

War is something that those who are afraid of it don't know what it is. The one who's not afraid of it also doesn't know what it is. Where is the point to think about war?

[Rende]

I will write something a little off topic but related to my previous post. 

Words in our heads have an outcome, so words are real. But still, when I say the entire world, what I say and think, life, peeing, eating, cold water is cold are facts unavoidable in this world. It is logical, but is just a game of words, and we act upon these words, which are just a natural necessity of life. So autocriticism is desirable in this world. Words are there to describe, so we can also describe words, and so on and on and on. There its not a big point at the end. But our lifes are to be lived and then to die.

Some common sense is better than words to me.

[Rende]

If I can, I would like to add my response to what means life to me. Life is something serious. I started to think that the world is dead. Between me and a stone, there is no difference between the two, and I am alive but dead. Because one's self can exist only if there is a body, and if there is a body without a self, it is a dead man, in short. A body is just a body then. But it can be alive or dead and still be a body.

Then I look at an empty wall, meditate, and realize that I must be something. I feel it, I experience it. I am experiencing my own self. It is pretty simple. Then, after this, I said to myself that thinking about the world has no significant use. Experiencing my own self and that a mind understands it is a mind in my own manner of description. It is something wonderful.

But still, I don't know what I am truly. 

[ernestm]

christ, more mysticism...

Im not sure what that means. Hegel and Cicero are generally not considered mystics.

[Atla]

* NO ONE acknowledged that more knowledge in science just increases evidence for intelligent design.
* NO ONE acknowledged that the most evolution can do is show that any God which might exist knows how to use evolution as a tool.

Again: probably a God much more complex than us, using tools from a universe much bigger and much more complex than ours.

Compare the size and complexity of the models and simulations humans are able to create, to the size and complexity of humans and the universe they inhabit. The world we do know is the only thing we can extrapolate from, and here to create another world (inside ours), a much bigger and more complex world is needed.

That's how dumb and self-refuting the idea of intelligent design is. It's for people who are bad at math.

[ernestm]

* NO ONE acknowledged that more knowledge in science just increases evidence for intelligent design.
* NO ONE acknowledged that the most evolution can do is show that any God which might exist knows how to use evolution as a tool.

Again: probably a God much more complex than us, using tools from a universe much bigger and much more complex than ours.

Compare the size and complexity of the models and simulations humans are able to create, to the size and complexity of humans and the universe they inhabit. The world we do know is the only thing we can extrapolate from, and here to create another world (inside ours), a much bigger and more complex world is needed.

That's how dumb and self-refuting the idea of intelligent design is. It's for people who are bad at math.

What you state about intelligent design is a gross arrogance, Atla, you could have no idea what the purpose is of any intelligent being that might exist would be. As I say, the more science advances, the more it appears that the design is intelligent. There is no necessity for any laws of physical reality to exist at all.

[Atla]

* NO ONE acknowledged that more knowledge in science just increases evidence for intelligent design.
* NO ONE acknowledged that the most evolution can do is show that any God which might exist knows how to use evolution as a tool.

Again: probably a God much more complex than us, using tools from a universe much bigger and much more complex than ours.

Compare the size and complexity of the models and simulations humans are able to create, to the size and complexity of humans and the universe they inhabit. The world we do know is the only thing we can extrapolate from, and here to create another world (inside ours), a much bigger and more complex world is needed.

That's how dumb and self-refuting the idea of intelligent design is. It's for people who are bad at math.

What you state about intelligent design is a gross arrogance, Atla, you could have no idea what the purpose is of any intelligent being that might exist would be. As I say, the more science advances, the more it appears that the design is intelligent. There is no necessity for any laws of physical reality to exist at all.

That didn't address what I wrote at all.

[Sy Borg]

I don't see an altercation on Facebook as an indication of anything but divisions, and that's no surprise. If you take Camus seriously, then you will be sanguine. SNAFU.

However, I do see Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a potential trigger for larger war. Ultimately, given the amount that humans consume, their population is unsustainable.

What does overpopulation mean? It means that people will find it ever harder to do many things because there is so much more competition. It means extinctions and ecosystem breakdown. It means inflation as demand grows and resources diminish. It also means acceleration of technological development. It means war, climate change, disease, pestilence, plague etc etc.

Basically, overpopulation is an imbalance in a planetary system that swings to and fro past balance points (such as the stable climate enjoyed as humanity rose to dominance). All of the pressure is now pushing towards more death, a correction of the imbalance. That is what you are perceiving.

It should be said that intelligent design is just repackaged creationism, and is utterly non-credible, so I see no problem with the group refuting your ideas.

Generally speaking, if one enters a community, coming on strong and ready to rumble, one should not be surprised when one does indeed get into a rumble. People are not as simple as you seem to imagine. Depending on your own behaviour, you can draw all manner of different responses from people. Provocateurs naturally find conflict, regardless of the crowd.

Which brings us back to population and competition. Had you entered the Facebook group quietly and humbly and presented your ideas without being didactic, you would have probably been ignored. It's a shame, but sometimes the only way to be noticed above the "white noise" of a thousand voices trying to be heard all at once is to be a bit outrageous. To be loud, brash, challenging, in people's faces. While the attention one gains in this way is often negative, many prefer negative attention to none. At least it is some kind of connection.

BTW, while I am less convinced about materialism than he is, I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins since the 1990s, when I first read The Selfish Gene, which I still love for its amazing perceptions and intellectual honesty.

[LuckyR]

I popped bakc to let you know the results of my survey of Facebook groups.

The background is this. In October 2020 I wrote "Hegel said eras end when the owl of Minerva spreads its wings. Trump has embodied the teaching of Cicero on oratory, and Cicero's wisdom has already heralded the end of the Roman Republic and the Dark Ages. A crucial question now confronting the entire world is whether Trump's rule signifies the end of the USA as we have known it, just as Cicero's rule eclipsed the republic, and Henry VIII's ended the dark ages. If a new empire is to be acknowledged openly in the USA, then it is not only Puerto Rico and other US territories that will suffer the most, just as the provinces suffered in Roman times, and the French dominions of England suffered from Henry VIII's rebellion against the Holy Roman church; yet in both cases, many more suffered and were killed in the resulting wars of change."

After seeing the level of knowledge on philosophy here was a bit thinner than I expected, I went on facebook philosophy groups and posted some detailed analysis of Dawkins 'God Delusion,' which was the ONLY book discussed in the forums besides the bible.

When I reached 800 comments, I counted them up.
* 98% didn't read anything after the first sentence, until I pointed to a specific paragraph (I had to number every single paragraph to get any response)
* 80% derided me directly.
* All but two people falsely believed I was deist when Im Buddhist. 70& derided me for believing in God when nothing I wrote said I do.
* NO ONE acknowledged that more knowledge in science just increases evidence for intelligent design.
* NO ONE acknowledged that the most evolution can do is show that any God which might exist knows how to use evolution as a tool.
^ NO ONE knew that Dostoevsky's and Camus' position are that reality is fundamentally irrational.
* About 90% were atheist, stating the burden of proof is scientific, and blocked me rather than read the Wikipedia article saying it isn't.
* About 5% were Christian and just made statements about how their belief in God being irrefutable.

I have to say, social media is doing a far better job at destroying civilization than it was even two years ago. I have to agree with the growing public opinion there will be a world war. More specifically, I can say when it will be, due to an imminent near-extinction event when the disappearance of all Arctic Ice during the summers of 2035-2040 cause catastrophic weather changes worldwide. China is insisting that the USA pass a Consitutional Amendment assuring another Trump will not flip flop on reducing carbon emissions before it does anything more. There's no way a supermajority can pass a constitutional amendment before 2028, which leaves only seven years to get all gas and diesel vehicles off the road and close all coal fire plants. It's not going to happen. Other countries are going to blame the USA. The UsA is going to blame China.

[remainder of post removed due to ad hominems]

Dude, KISS. What do you want to discuss? Forum members' philosophical credentials? Their short attention spans? Global warming? The evils of social media?

All are reasonable, just make a simpler thread to cover the topic you care about.