Nice post Obi. Although a little contradictory I see where your coming from.

The longest post ever posted on webdip, and it was all addressed to ME! (and I did read it. Have you come down with carpel tunnel yet?)

Anyway, that explains my hang-up with what you were talking about ealier. I had mis-understood you in an ealier post on this thread to mean that if a God existed, it would be obvious how a moral code would be inherent in things.
I had also mistaken you for more of a Deist, which is the other mis-communication we had.
I was arguing on to premises I thought you had accepted.

About people who vehemenently attack the other side:
Interesting. I had always taken such sensitivity to a sign of insecurity, rather than laziness. They wouldn't be able to handle it if their belief turned out to be false, which they have a sneaking fear that it might be.
As a result, they panic at the slightest suggestion that the other side might be correct and shoot like crazy.

*on premises

Perhaps for next year's first philosophy thread, you could make it about the nature of faith and knowledge, as that appears to be the over-arching theme in the Magnus Threadus.

So were not having one over Christmas?

Nah, I figured everyone would be busy with friends and family and such...

I actually hate vacation time, I've said before I love Sherlock Holmes and Dr. House, I'm sort of that way too: extremely good at one thing--literature and philosophy and essay writing and that sort of thing--and for me, that's basically my whole life... ;)

But most people are going to be occupied with Christmas, and I don't want to start one while people have holidays on their mind and actually lives to lead, lol...

You're free to start a thread, of course, but no, I don't think I'll start another such thread until the new year.

and modest too...

Better arrogant and honest in my view of myself than humble and a liar.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a philosopher and not up to the level of being ranked alongside Shakespeare's 2-month old scriblings or Nietzsche's madness-induced letters.

But I am, at my college, one of the best writers of who we have in the English Dept., and in terms of critical analysis, again, I'm used to being one of the best or the best.

I balance that out by not being able to solve x+y=z and by virtue of the fact I am doomed to the Gothic terror that is...COMMUNITY COLLEGE WITH IDIOTS! *bumbumbum!*

:p

Actually, on a philosophical note, that IS my actual belief--I prefer the people who are truthful about how they see themselves, even if they're arrogant, than those who hide behind "humility" because people praise them for being "so humble and virtuous" while meanwhile they're laughing out their ass at the world, FAR from humble.

As Holmes once said, "There is only one TRUTH."

I'd rather an arrogant truth-teller than a humble liar--and that's how I live my life and how I intend to present myself to the world. ;)

well fair enuff, you're doing a bang-up job! ;^)

don't worry about "community college with idiots" - the world is full of idiots wasting 100k of their parents money whilst flunking out. It's all about individual effort.

"There is only one TRUTH."

I know next to nothing about philosophy, but I do know a little more about science. While your remark might or might not be true agout the former, I really wouldn't know, it most definately does not apply to the latter. Philosophers are often disapponted by this state of affairs, but that's how it is I am afraid.

* Apologies for any wrong spellings I am much better at x+y=z.

@fiedler:

I know, that's part of what pisses me off--Plato had a terrible idea of where to TAKE his Republic, but he had it right on as to how to EDUCATE his people: educate by what people are good at and what they want to do...MERIT and WILL.

I KNOW, from my own writing and actually even from the ranking systems they use for it, that English/Lit./Philosophy-wise I AM about UC-level, ie UC Irvine or UCLA, great schools, whereas for x+y=z I AM community college at best...

I honestly don't know what I'll do for a living (I'll always write, but until/unless I take off as an author or earn that title of philosopher, I need a practical job) but I KNOW it won't be something that requires algebraix equations or the quadratic formula or Pythagorean equations or anything like that...

On the flip side, since I have a love of it and can do it reasonably well--at least well enough to type memos or a column if I had to--I probably WILL use my composition skills...so why do we have a system where because of a skill set I WON'T use the skill set I WILL use gets a lesser education?

It won't stop me from writing, but it DOES bother me that I can't even try for the level of English/Lit./Philosophy education I think I'd be up to--I'm a huge sports fan and a fan of epics, I'm FINE with going there and failing if it's failure because I wasn't good enough, if the UC students can honestly out-write me and if the work is too much, I'm FINE crashing and burning like Icarus, or swinging and missing for strike three.

But to never even get the chance to fly or never even get a shot at bat because of something extraneous--THAT'S what bothers me...

Maybe it's just me, but I think that's a horrible system--not logical, not fair, and not 21st Century-savvy.

@fulhamish:

First: How about I do your writiing adn you do my x+y=z, deal? ;)

Holmes uses that statement to generally mean that even if he gets three different stories from three different suspects about who killed Mr. Whoever, there's only one truth, one answer as to what REALLY happened.

Hence, I'd rather people tell me what you REALLY think about me, yourself, and whatever philosophical issue we talk about than pretend to be humble and hide something or try to tell me a take that might be more politically correct but not what you really think.

Arrogance or rudeness is fine--it's a lie or a sugar-coated opinion that bothers me.

Give it to me straight and simply as you really see it or else stay silent (which is funny, as usually when people try to sugar-coat things I can not only detect that, but circumstantially that'll help me find what they're hiding...it pisses people off sometimes, when they tell me a lie or halfptruth, I tell them what they REALLY meant or are thinking, or whatever they're hiding, and they'll get MAD! LOL...not everytime, but it takes an asshole to recognize the ways of an asshole, right?)

:p

*obiwanobiwan freely admits to being an asshole and also that he enjoys being one and that the views and accounts given by obiwanobiwan are in no way a reflection of the views of the general WebDip community...and even if they were, he wouldn't care*

;)

Holmes uses that statement to generally mean that even if he gets three different stories from three different suspects about who killed Mr. Whoever, there's only one truth, one answer as to what REALLY happened.

You miss the point I do not deny that absolute truth exists all I say is that we can never know it for sure, not even if we smoke opium in Edwardian London. :-)

A case from today's news for you -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8220766/Eddie-Gilfoyle-released-from-prison-after-18-years-but-gagged-by-parole-board.html

And they say fact is stranger than fiction!

"Detectives believed Gilfoyle fooled his wife, 32, into writing a suicide note and somehow persuaded her to climb a ladder with a noose around her neck."

Ummm...

I'm not trying to sound cold, but, in keeping with my "Speak your mind bitterly rather than a lie pleasantly" mindset:

If you are dumb enough to write a suicide note for yourself AND allow someone to not only lead you high enough up but to place a noose around your neck...

...

I'm not saying you deserve to die if you're that stupid, just that Darwin would have a strong case for "the stronger members of a species survive while the dumber ones listen to people who have them write a suicide note and then climb up to a noose and die off due to generally lack of an evolved brain." ;)

(And nice reference to Holmes' habits, but he smoked tobacco and cocaine, not opium, or at least is famous for smoking tobacco and cocaine...opiums a depressant, and Holmes only smoked the hard stuff when he was bored already and looking for a jolt of sorts, so he used cociane then and then generally tobacco when on the case...he might have had a case or two with opium, I know the Jeremy Brett series has him hang out in an opium den at least once to gain evidence and observe, but mainly it's Coke and wacky tobacky...) ;)

And while I applaud the use of the Hume-like reasoning to suggest that an absolute truth is unknowable, I'd counter and say that it's unknowable to man as he currently exists; if we take man as a changeable creature, something which might evolve into a higher form of being--and I don't mean Pokemon-esque, "Suddenly I'm a Superman!" evolution, but mental and cognitive progression over time, the evolution of man's mind--then I don't see how we can rule out experiencing something in a possible state when we have no knowledge of what it'd be like to be in that state.

"And while I applaud the use of the Hume-like reasoning to suggest that an absolute truth is unknowable, I'd counter and say that it's unknowable to man as he currently exists; if we take man as a changeable creature, something which might evolve into a higher form of being--and I don't mean Pokemon-esque, "Suddenly I'm a Superman!" evolution, but mental and cognitive progression over time, the evolution of man's mind--then I don't see how we can rule out experiencing something in a possible state when we have no knowledge of what it'd be like to be in that state. "

I am not sure about this implication that evolution is necassarily a 'progressive' force in terms of our understanding. Given that gene mutation must be random, and as far as the individual animal is concerned, the constraints placed by the environment too must be essentially random, it is strange that people cannot embrace the proposition that evolution itself lacks the qualities of a vector; i.e., it too is random. Of course when one analyses the permutations, this becomes even clearer. In a particular environment are strong legs, better vision, superior digestion or enhanced cognative abilities etc.....or any particular combination of these factors, biologically advantageous. In conclusion, just as we cannot be definitive on absolute truth, we cannot be definitive on where evolution will take the world in general or humanity as a species (don't get me started on racism and speciation!).

Also thank you for your correction on Sherlock. And the Gillfoyle example was more to illustrate the difficulties of ascertaining "The Truth" (scientifically speaking) rather than evolution, but you set me off on one of my hobby horses I am afraid!

Come on you philosophers let's have a defence of absolute truth and our ability to ascertain it, but please make it free from the 'flying teapot defence'. That actually puts back the public understanding of science (or at least the scientific process), in a very damaging way.

Oh man, this thread got away from me. Maybe I'll get back into it when I have more time.

"We're immune to nature's judgment. We might have selection pressures, but none that are really due to nature or the environment."

I don't think we're quite at that stage. I would wager that the largest current selection pressure faced by humanity is probably disease resistance. Medicine has certainly come a long way, but nature has certainly not relinquished her judgement.

If you believe that humans are basically evil, then why in gods name would you want to give one immense amounts of power over everyone else? It seems like its usually the bottom of the moral barrel that goes after those positions anyway.

@Putin

"Of course, embarrassed for serving the anti-fascists but not having for serving Tiso's pro-Nazi puppet regime."

You're quite right. People generally aren't anywhere near as embarrassed by their dead children as they can be by their living ones.

"But to be sure Frenchmen were not treated like subhuman dogs like captured Russians"

You reap what you sow. There are plenty of stories and statistics about how horribly captured soldiers and civilians (including the "liberated" Poles, Hungarians, Rumanians) were treated by the Soviets. An interesting and noteworthy point is that in spite of the harsh treatment the Germans afforded their Russian prisoners, they still found tens or hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners who were willing to defect and fight for the Nazis.

"The Poles also happily connived with the Germans to carve up Czechoslovakia (for its own survival, I'm sure) at Munich while the evil Soviets were calling for troops to be called to defend the integrity of Czechoslovakia."

Gee. You think that might've been because no one in Poland, Hungary, or Romania wanted Soviet armies rampaging through Eastern Europe, and they saw Hitler as the best way to stop that from happening? I would also note that the USSR not only declined to call for the territorial integrity of Poland when the Nazis invaded, and in fact joined in on the fun.

"The Poles invaded the USSR... they annexed territory inhabited by Ukrainians "

Actually, the Poles were allied to Petliura in the Ukraine against the Soviet invaders who were seeking to bring both the Ukraine and Poland back into the Russian orbit, and all the "territory inhabited by Ukrainians" which Poland eventually annexed had all been part of Poland prior to the "partitions" of Poland 1772-1795. And as for trying to kill a newborn nation in the cradle, it was Soviet armies besieging Warsaw in 1920 and not Polish armies besieging Moscow.

"Polish-Lithuania used to be the heartland of world Jewry and now there are barely any Jews living in Poland, whereas they returned to Germany, Hungary and other places they driven out. That's the "heroism" of the anti-Semitic Poles for you."

Those "anti-Semitic Poles" received more "Righteous Gentile" awards from Yad Vashem than any other nationality. German extermination efforts were most organized and thorough in Poland, where the major extermination camps were located. Nearly all of the Polish Jews who survived the war fled Poland's communist government during the Cold War in a series of exoduses, which is why there are so few of them today. And many of the stories of evil capitalist Poles killing Jews during and immediately after the war were really stories about conflicts between partisan groups that were very common.

I read much of the link you posted, and there were quite a few interesting quotes contained therein on Soviet historical sources:

"While many Soviet studies of the war and wartime battles and operations are
detailed, scholarly, and accurate as far as they go, they cover only what State officials
permit them to cover and either skirt or ignore those facts and events considered
embarrassing by the State. Unfortunately the most general works and those most
accessible to Western audiences tend to be the most biased, the most highly politicized,
and the least accurate. Until quite recently, official State organs routinely vetted even the most scholarly of these books for political and ideological reasons. Even now, 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, political pressure and limited archival access, prevents Russian historians from researching or revealing many events subject to censorship in the past. These sad realities have undercut the credibility of Soviet (Russian) historical works..."

"the blinders and restrictions that inhibited the work of Soviet and Russian military historians must be recognized..."

"However, the two offensives... failed to achieve their ends and have since literally disappeared from the annals of the war"

There are plenty more like this. Fascinating stuff.

PS
@Obi:
MY community college has a cafe! neener neener neener

"Come on you philosophers let's have a defence of absolute truth and our ability to ascertain it, but please make it free from the 'flying teapot defence'. That actually puts back the public understanding of science (or at least the scientific process), in a very damaging way. "

Ok, there is no certainty about anything. We like to imagine there is and use language to imply it but this is just a convenient illusion to allow us make decisions. We do not say "I believe enough to risk my life on it" we say "i'm 100% sure" - it is, i'm sure, a matter of cognition.

As for understanding science. It is not philosophy's job to go around making science easier. We live our lives with this cognitive illusion and this includes doing our science. We trust that tomorrow will be the same as today. That the gravity will still be on. Only because we have nothing else to base our beliefs on.

So far the universe has not provided us with a single counter-example.

The lack of any absolute Truth has no bearing on Science. It is covered up by an illusion which protects almost everyone and keeps them (mostly) sane.

The Kielce pogrom was the work of Polish anti-communists, and resulted in the biggest exodus of Jews from Poland, when a majority left (between July and September 1946, 60,000+ Jews fled). When the Polish Catholic Church was asked to condemn the pogrom, Cardinal Hlond said "they brought it on themselves" (not unlike your argument here). His reasoning was that because some Jews were Communists, it was entirely reasonable that Polish nationalists would kill Jews, even Jewish children. 1500 Jews were murdered by Poles after the Holocaust in 1945-1946 (and the Poles love the Jews so much that they don't even bother to mention this in their history books). There was a widespread perception that Jews had joined the Communists, and there was widespread complicity among the local Jewish population in selling out the Jews to the Nazis or killing Jews themselves.

Wladyslaw Sila-Nowicki, a human rights lawyer who has represented the anti-communist Solidarity movement, claimed that the Jews were killed by Poles because "they loved their own community more than the host community", "refused to escape", and "held the largest amount of capital in Poland". He also said the Jewish ghetto police were far more brutal than the Polish police.

That's the general Polish attitude towards the Holocaust. The Jews deserved it. The number of incidents where Polish priests are engaging in anti-Jewish diatribes has soared in "independent" Poland. The idea that the Poles somehow have some fondness for the Jews or behaved heroically to defend them, is an insult.

And I suppose the Jedwabne massacre was a myth, right? Surely the philo-Semitic Poles couldn't have massacred 1600 Jews in 1941.

The list of prominent anti-Communist anti-Semites in post-war Poland is a mile long, especially in "independent" Poland.

Henryk Jankowski (priest), who famously said in 1997 that Jews and Russians should not be allowed in the Polish government. He also said, re: Kielce pogrom that "apologizing to Jews is an insult to the Polish nation after Prime Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz had apologized 1946 Kielce pogrom.

Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, who when a hand grenade had been thrown into the local Jewish community headquarters, stated that the popular hatred of Jews was caused by Jewish support for Communism, which had also been the reason why "the Germans murdered the Jewish nation". He also supported blood libel theories.

Let's not forget Cardinal Jozef Glemp, who has made an entire career with his anti-Semitic slanders and anti-Jewish fearmongering.

These aren't nobodies, these are/were very prominent figures in the Polish Catholic Church and anti-Communist movements.

How did we get to WWII from a discussion that was originally on anarchy and dogma vs. true thought and faith?

Nice strawman, but I never argued that no Poles are anti-Semites. But you're apparently suggesting that Poles as a nation are inherently anti-Semitic. Do I have that right? I'm guessing so - Marxism, with its emphasis on class, is an ideology which lends itself quite well to a variety of hateful -isms. Who cares what is in someone's heart when you can just lump them in a nationality, occupation, economic, gender, or ethnic class-box and pass judgement on millions all in one fell swoop. It's so much more efficient that way!

And as for Kielce, far from being the work of "anti-communists" - well, let's hear from the victims themselves:

"After the police took away the weapons, the crowd broke into the Kibutz ( on the second floor) and policemen started shooting at the Jews first. They killed one and wounded several others."

"Uniformed soldiers and a number of civilians forced their way into the building. I had already been wounded. They told us to get out and form a line. Civilians, including women, were on the stairs. The soldiers hit us with their rifle butts. Civilians, men and women, also hit us."

"The military led Jews out of apartments and people began hitting them with everything they could. The armed soldiers did not react. Some returned to the building to lead other Jews outside."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html

Local soldiers and police. OF THE STALINIST PUPPET GOVERNMENT. While a Russian "advisor" looks on. If the Anti-communists were behind it, it was the greatest False Flag operation of all time. The author here also suggests that "The pogrom offered an opportunity to discredit the anti-communist Polish Peasant Party as well as the underground opposition. The pogrom also diverted public opinion within Poland and in the West away from the national referendum that the Communists had staged and rigged in June 1946 as a dry run for parliamentary elections."

Quoting you: "(and the Poles love the Jews so much that they don't even bother to mention this in their history books)" - man, you really are a caricature. From 1945-1989 Poland was run by communists. If you have a problem with stuff missing from Polish history books during the Communist period, you'll have to take it up with your Commissars, not the International Anti-Semitic Capitalist Conspiracy.

" but I never argued that no Poles are anti-Semites. But you're apparently suggesting that Poles as a nation are inherently anti-Semitic"

No, you instead claimed that they didn't engage in pogroms, that that the Jewish exodus was all the commies fault, and that the post-Holocaust massacre were just partisans killing each other. A pack of lies, all of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_11114.html

"After the war about 200 Jews went to Kielce; some were survivors of Nazi camps, or had hidden in the district, and others had come back from the interior of the U.S.S.R. Their reconstruction of the former organized Jewish community aroused anger among Polish antisemites, who opened a vituperous campaign against the existence of a renewed Jewish community in Kielce. The campaign culminated in an armed pogrom against the Jews – mostly by Polish nationalists and including a few Communists (July 4, 1946)"

Hmm, how odd that your own source would say that. And what happened to the pogrom instigators afterward? They were executed by the "puppet" government.

So who is orchestrating the false flag operation again?

"Poland was run by communists. If you have a problem with stuff missing from Polish history books during the Communist period, you'll have to take it up with your Commissars, not the International Anti-Semitic Capitalist Conspiracy."

And the Polish anti-communists had so much trouble rewriting the history books when it came to everything else, right? They couldn't find time to blame yet something else on the communists. And why would your anti-communist buddies make such a big deal about apologizing in the post-communist era, if the communists were responsible?

Oh well, I suppose making sense is optional in your fascist rewriting of history.

"How did we get to WWII from a discussion that was originally on anarchy and dogma vs. true thought and faith?"
It started with the talk of anarchy. Which lead to the talk of Authoritarianism, which lead to the talk of fascism and communism, which lead to of world war 2.

And Putin, congratulations. your now my new favorite commie. (based entirely on the posts you have made in this thread)

In that case I'll just sound off and say that I find communism, democracy, and facism all flawed systems.

Of the three communism may seem the nicest in theory, democracy, corrupt as it is, might be the nicest for some to live in, and facism might be best for war, or not, I don't know...

Tell me, before we go further--do you agree with Plato's assessment that you may have, essentially either a flawed and corrupt democracy of some kind OR a dictatorship that can very easily become a tyrannical nightmare if not for a Philosopher King? And if you do, and assuming that you'd agree that Philosopher Kingships are just not feasible, which would you prefer, honestly:

Corruption and Democracy or Tyranny and Dictatorship?

I'm not meaning to advocate for either here, it's an honest question, I genuinely want to ehar which and your rationale, since this is our focus now: Corrupted Democracy or Tyrannical Dictatorship?

"Hmm, how odd that your own source would say that."

The website obviously isn't a single monolithic source with a completely consistent narrative, dumbass. I'll take my lengthy article written by someone who put their name on it, obviously knew what they were talking about, and incorporates eyewitness testimony (specifically indicting the military, police, and Soviet advisors) over your very brief encyclopedia entry written by god-knows-who (and probably had to crank out two dozen entries a week) any day.

"And the Polish anti-communists had so much trouble rewriting the history books when it came to everything else, right?"

Aw, you just convinced me. It's all the propaganda of the massive International Anti-Communist Conspiracy! Everything. Those eyewitnesses pretending to be Jews who fingered the police? They're really undercover anti-communists! The Soviet advisor who watched the whole thing go down? Secret undercover anti-communist! Hell, I bet even Lenin's strokes were the work of secret anti-Communist agents using special Capitalist brain lasers.

"that the Jewish exodus was all the commies fault" - Okay. So all the Jews who emigrated from the Communist Bloc left because of the anti-Semitism inflicted by the all-powerful anti-Communists in Eastern Europe during the Cold War? That's some serious mental gymnastics there.