[Hank Kerchief]

This is a very big post, but it is a very big subject.

I have personally found it odd that very little that is posted in this philosophy category has anything to do with philosophy. This will be a little different, I hope.

Hank

[Maedhros]

self bump for later

[freedom9]

read later bump

[DannyTN]

"We are not only surrounded by idiots, but very deadly ones. How can this be? What is nature of the disease that has driven the world mad?"

Seems Mr. Firehammer has started to realize the fallen nature of man. If and when he accepts that reality and realizes that it is not going to change, then perhaps, he will realize the necessity of making sure that we are the strongest, best armed with the best intelligence.

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him.

[PeterPrinciple]

so...............prime the pump and comment on a few observations you have about this article.

[MWS]

self bump for later

[reflecting]

Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war, live very successsful, satisfying, and usually, long lives.

Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war have done so because a zone of security has been provided for them.

[FourtySeven]

Mr. Firehammer makes an excellent case for a need in our society to broaden our horizons past intellectually enriching media, such as Joe Millionare, and biting witicisms like "All Muslims worship a false moon god". However, like DannyTN said, he does seem to ultimately fail in his grasp of the very nature of "man's insanity", which is our inherrently evil nature.

This is why we must "arm to the teeth", in this world, because there ARE "barbarians". Also, there always WILL be "barbarians", because not everyone even has the DESIRE to aspire to philisophical "greatness", much less is so able. There will always be a need for arms and arms races, until Jesus Himself returns, or until the world ends as its engulfed by the sun in approximately 5 billion years (depending on your belief system, which, as a Christian, I believe the former)

This will always be the case; our own history proves this.

However, this article is a very good read. Thanks for sharing Hank!

[x]

Long article. Three quick points:

1) When something seems to be ridiculous or absurd, yet persists and can't be gotten rid of, it's a sign that there are deeper things at work that keep it alive, so calling war "ridiculous" or "absurd" is a superficial judgement.

2) Randians have been out in front in supporting this war. A society of radical individualists will at times take up arms to defend themselves -- or even to extend their power -- just like other political units. I think this is an indication of one of the problems of Rand's philosophy. "We" are always against "them" curbing our freedom, but when the state is no longer "them" but "us" much more power is allowed to it, just like in other political philosophies.

3) We all do need philosophy, but there's a difference between "a philosophy," which may be a fixed creed or belief, and "philosophy" which looks like endless questioning and doubting. Some people have been crippled by the skepticism inherent in philosophizing. Others who have been strengthened by their philosophy are quite "unphilosophical" in their dogmatism. It maybe that the cure for all the ails of philosophy is more, or better, philosophy -- a philosophy that uses our doubts to overcome doubt -- but that looks like a lifetime endeavor.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Death and destruction is the only purpose of war.

This is so wrong, I can't even get into the rest of it.
Historically wars have had many reasons, and often there are as many purposes as participants.
As a person with a B.A. in Philosophy, nothing is more wrenching than someone positing a fallacy and then going on to prove a point. Right or wrong.

[Zon]

Good article. Your posts at 12 and 13 are also good. I'm not much into philosophy per se. I suppose I have enough philosophy to enjoy my life as do I have enough mathematics to live happily.

It seems to me that a radical individualist almost without thinking about it upholds the non-aggression principle -- do not initiate force, fraud or threat of force against another person or their property. It also occurs to me that a radical individualist would be satisfied with justice delivered for wrong doing when it amounts to the following:

The person that thinks they've been harmed takes the person that supposedly harmed them to court and does their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed by the defendant with the intent of gaining restitution for their loss, pain and suffering.

The invisible hand of the free market will encompass the best science and ideas to enhance the individual's happiness and well being as he goes about his work and that work is his best he or she puts forth to serve society. If and when another person harms them they may chose to take it to court before an impartial jury.

The vast majority of people respect themselves, their real nature and their fellow man enough to not even entertain the idea of initiating force, threat of force or fraud against another person or their property. That is enough philosophy for the vast majority of people to live happily, if -- if  -- they are left alone to go about their business as they see fit

Most unfortunate, despite abiding the non-aggression principle the vast majority of people are not left alone to go about their business as they see fit. Instead, they are bounced around from one irrational social engineering concept or idea to another -- most often bounced around by force, threat of force or fraud.

When "X" number of people become aware that they already are well enough equipped to live happily with increased well being and prosperity and, that it is not themselves but people that get paid to tell them how they need to live or how they must live because it's supposedly best for society (politicians and bureaucrats top the list) that is holding them back by violating the non-aggression principle, the parasitical elite will quickly lose their ability to wield coercive power and fraud and either reeducate or be left in the dust as the vast majority of people rapidly increase their own well being to live happily benefiting society in the process.

[galt-jw]

GREAT POST. most of the tribe here could really benefit from understanding just WHAT their philosophy is.

many who think themselves pro freedom are really statists.

[edsheppa]

Too much drivel to be worthwhile reading.

[laotzu]

Philosophy...my favorite subject. (laotzu & philosophy go way back....back to that turn-coat, lieing bastard Confucious!!)

Philosophy is a personal search for an understanding of truth. It is a quest that must be engaged and experienced; not memorized or transplanted. It is, by definition, very challenging....and provides great simplification.

Philosophy is a luxury allowed by living a secure existance.

Philosophy is a task of ingesting volumes of information, which ultimately teach that the answer was not a matter of learning at all....but a matter of realizing that which you knew all along.

Philosophy is not being able to see the forest for the trees; as truth is everywhere and does not hide.

Philosophy is the false promise of finding a great truth. There are no great truths. Truth has always been right there beside you all the time, and will always have a sense of familiarty to it.(hence, no 'great' truths)

Philosphy is the discipline of not ignoring the 800 pound gorilla(truth) sitting beside you.

[gorush]

Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement. I don't know to whom this can be attributed, but it is not me.

[laotzu]

Being able to state what is right, & wrong, is opinion.

Being able to state why something is right, or wrong, is philosophy.

[asformeandformyhouse]

It is the rational-volitional nature of man that requires everything we do as human beings to be done by conscious choice.

He's right! When I saw how long this was I chose not to finish reading it.

[P.O.E.]

The real question is "Why is Philosophy?"

Actually, I'm just self-bumping for a later read.

[tpaine]

Arthur Koestler on beng surrounded by idiots:

The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.

[P.O.E.]

Tell you the truth, I read (most) of it. I was turned off by what I'll call "simplisticisms". In that spirit, I will post my thoughts, albeit more briefly.

There are many reasons for war besides those he describes.

The whole discussion on "choice" is existentialism redux - the world will go on whether or not you will.

The overview was rather broad, but not deep.

The virtues of a liberal education have been known for centuries (I use the "L" word in it's classical sense, like the "liberal arts") - the unexamined life is not worth living and all that. However, you can develop your philosophy independent of formal education (such as by the example of caring parents).

There's really no need to drive yourself to adopt a particular "named" philosophy. I'm thinking of my eclectic furniture here, but I know what I like when I see it.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump