Juice

well im not a philosophy professor, and ive done my level best to explain basic humanities concepts to you. its funny because i used to make these exact same arguments that you are, and my understanding was incomplete, as it still is. i hope you dont have it figured out as much as you think you do, because then you'll likely not grow as a person. In any case I've made long arguments as well as I can make them. Thanks for the discussion

But your problems with my explanation depend on a view of reality that is completely divorced from history. Your conditions for realness depend on the existence of a real physical object and reject socially contingent objects, which is your right, but this is an example of an epistemological crisis: I insist that things that are socially real are real; you deny their existence, also denying the existence of law, value, many things that our society depends on. If you pick out parts of my argument that you don't like and act like the points that I did make just don't exist, then you are making your argument based on willful ignorance. But besides that, if your standard for what is real differs from mine we cant even have a debate, we just talk past each other smugly assuring ourselves that we are correct because our opponent is just like stupid or something. Maybe you think I'm stupid, I don't think you're stupid. My point is you can't just deny the existence of things that are real in every way but physically. If a huge proportion of people in a society believe that something is real it is the same as that thing being empirically real. You can't just throw away thousands of years of history because it disagrees with your narrow definition of objectivity. Or I guess you can, none is stopping you, but don't pretend its consistent with reality.

Maybe god exists, maybe it doesnt, maybe god is just nature, but religion exists which would be the same as if god exists

I'll try to be a little less obtuse. I thought better about getting into this in the shitpost comm, and since I'm getting massacred my first impulse was probably correct. But I'm a huge nerd, cant help it.

So I guess I don't know what you mean by epistemologically consistent. As a general rule of epistemology, people can have different, incompatible epistemologies, which basically renders communication impossible, since the participants use different models to determine what is true. This uh happens a lot since people think the way that they determine truth is the "right" one. Even my attempt to adapt different ways of thinking to different situations has limits, since I'm never going to subscribe to like flat earth theory. Not all epistemologies are equally valid or rigorous. Arithmetic is highly rigorous, whereas flat earth has a low bar for proof. Also I'll argue that the validity of various theories of knowledge are historically contingent. Empiricism isn't just "more true" than religion because it is more rigorous; in fact the hermetic tradition was extremely rigorous and scientific, but because they viewed "god" as indistinguishable from nature, they could synthesize religion and empirical science without contradiction. Their scientific inquiry was a sacred religious ritual where god learned about its own physical body (nature) through the consciousness of the scientist which was a part of the consciousness of god. This kind of monism is completely foreign to us, yet Isaac Newton was a Hermetic whose theories are still highly relevant and rigorous. But if a scientist publicly expressed these views to the academy they'd be deemed an eccentric, if not a crank of the highest order.

The second part of your question is more straightforward. How would the world change if god didn't exist the way I described, as being socially real? There'd be no churches, no religious art, no pilgrimages that attract tens of millions each year. There'd be no recognizable European medieval period. Tens or hundreds of millions of people wouldn't donate their time or money to the church. Which like, wouldn't that be fucking awesome? no indigenous "schools" no religious colonialism/imperialism.

But all these followers aren't lying in order to trick you into thinking god exists. They feel god, they experience god through their institutions, rituals, art, monuments, and yes, crimes. This exactly is the limit of pure Empiricism, it forces you to completely disregard subjectivity, or relegate it to a lower order of "realness" than a physical object. A stone in the middle of a lake will have little effect on the outside world outside of its extremely local circumstances; but a religious belief can have deadly implications for millions if it becomes the policy of a government. Laws, money are socially real, determined by their existence on paper, are upheld by sophisticated social constructs that reach into our minds and our behavior. But again, is a law not "real"? Of course it is. Try to break one in front of a cop and find out how real it is.

Well I was specific to say that you have to look at things dialectically in order to see the connection. When you describe other people's beliefs, you say they believe in something that doesn't exist. So in order for something to exist, it has to be a "thing" or an object. This is its own type of logic called "Empiricism" or more radically, "Positivism". Empiricism is a really good basis for reasoning, especially scientific reasoning. The creation of Empiricist reasoning is the intellectual basis for the (notably Atheistic) Enlightenment, which is the ideological superstructure for our current Modernist milieu.

But empiricism is actually bad at other kinds of epistemology (theory of knowledge.) For example, it necessarily divides the objective and the subjective into two separate "things", as well as the mind and body. This leads to some wonky conclusions about metaphysics and the self, particularly where human experience meets nature. Empiricism is great at categorizing, but often fails to reassemble the collection of objects back into a monistic whole. As such Empiricism's theory of social is extremely atomized and individualistic.

Like the way you describe religion, as " trust me bro this thing exists," is a perfect example. There is that part to it, the belief in a god, but there is also creation and appreciation of monuments and temples, ritual, community, social events, group study, all of these human experiences that collectively make up the very real and undeniable power of religion. But my understanding of your explanation just has a bunch of alienated individuals with the same wrong ideas, with no explanation or historical context as to how things became this way. This is also how people come to the very wrong assumption that the value of money doesn't exist. Because it doesn't have an objective form, it doesn't exist. This is just completely untrue. It is socially real, which is as real as any object. In fact religious belief and power is just another form of social currency.

Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm and countless other philosopher theologians imbued Christianity with a consistent, self supporting logic. That was their job, and they have been extremely successful. We can discuss the limitations and shortcomings of that logic, but denying that it is logical is just willful ignorance.

Dialectics has its own shortcomings, so I'm not arguing that one is better than the other. But each form of epistemic reasoning, of which religious belief undeniably contains a vast epistemology, has certain advantages and shortcomings. In my opinion our task isn't to find one way of reasoning and then brow beat others into accepting that reasoning, this is a form of fundamentalism -- a way of determining knowledge, meaning and truth that supercedes all others in every way; which is exactly what religious fundamentalists want people to believe (so those people can be exploited, as fundamentalism always serves some higher power whether it be religious or economic.) Instead I think we should learn as much as we can, acknowledge the strengths and shortcomings of each way of conducting analysis, as well as our own strengths and weaknesses in doing so, and use them as tools to help us understand the world that exists. Leave nothing out, embrace contradiction, and learn how to become the most fulfilled, practical and honest selves.

But then again, everyone is on a different path ;)

Well I accept your criticism that I haven't done enough hard research to thoroughly and convincingly dispute your theory of fundamentalism as the driving force behind all these conflicts. I don't agree with it, and earlier I tried stitching together previous points that I've made, such as western support for fundamentalism as a destabilizing force, as well as a history of propping up islamists and sabotaging popular secular leaders such as Mahmoud Barghouti, who has been imprisoned for decades and undergoes constant torture by the Israelis for a crime he almost certainly did not commit. But there are uncertainties I'm not comfortable with and I'm not going to waste our time grasping at straws. So I deleted that comment and wrote this one.

So I'm going to study, find the through lines or understand in greater depth the parts that are missing from my analysis so that when the dust settles and all the facts come in, maybe I'll be able to furnish a useful analysis for the people I work with to oppose imperialism here in the States.

So thanks for the discussion. Take care.

Never forget that during the George Floyd protests, Seattle activists were all over social media saying, "Don't follow Antifa, no one knows who these people are, they're likely all cops" right before they became a household name and right wing bugbear.

I've got two houses facing each other on my street who have been in a fascist flag competition for as long is I can remember. One of them even has an RFK sign next to his Trump yard sign. But yeah what I described above I saw on my way through a neighborhood in my small town. Its distressing!

Okay well I agree it came across that way, like I'm waffling. But I don't think any economic/political system is a pure archetype, these are all abstracts. Every system is going to be blended and contain a multitude of different elements that change over time. Even any given system usually contains competing factions and struggles. I'm not an academic, I'm just some guy who reads and has a lot of discussions about world events, politics, history, etc., I'm also not proficient in debate, although I've sort of exhibited that tone at times. Its fun and stimulating, as I think you would probably agree. I also agree that people arent just "blank puppets" in fact i stress this exact point frequently, however I acknowledge that the intellectual tradition I draw from has developed in such a way that we do a piss poor job of orienting the individual within the system. That's more epistemology than the rest of our discussion, but if you've noticed that tendency in my comments I appreciate the push for clarity, as well as contribution to discussion.

ANYWAY, Iran uses capitalist accumulation, their ruling classes sell resources on an international marketplace for profit and accumulate those profits for the benefit of those ruling factions. I imagine their political economy is a blend of the kind of religious fundamentalism and capital accumulation, with unique historical expressions (along with probably a ton of other things I have no idea about.) I'm not an expert on Iran and I'd be skeptical of any layperson who claimed to be, also the fog of war obscures everything but the most blatant propaganda. We won't know the facts until the dust of this particular chain of events starts to settle.

But I don't support islamist fundamentalists, but I also don't support Israels indiscriminate bombing campaign against Gaza and Lebanon. As I've already expressed, Iran was reluctant to enter this conflict despite Hezbollah asking for intervention much earlier, so I don't think your assertion that Iran is trying to destabilize the region holds much water. Its hard to imagine why Iran would want to attack Israel knowing that doing so would prompt escalation with aforementioned western hegemony, the USA, Germany, NATO allies, etc., unless you want to assert that Iran is just illogical and so chaotically evil they can't function in their own best Interest, which doesn't match the history of a western enemy who has persevered under decades of severe sanctions. They wouldn't attack Israel unless the alternative would be worse. The Netanyahu regime however is facing immense domestic pressure to step down, and international pressure to step down or cease the genocide in Gaza, so it makes sense that they would want to draw in the USA and western allies, as it strengthens Bibi's and his administration's position domestically in a number of ways.

However there have been political in roads made in the last decade toward normalized relations, although since countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had been economically partnering with Israeli interests for a number of years prior to normalization, mediated through western partners, this points toward the preeminence of the economic element of global conflict over the religious justifications, which also throws your whole thesis into question. So maybe we could both learn a thing or two.

Considering further, normalized relations between Israel and Lebanon would not bode well for Hezbollah and their sponsors, so the situation presented could cut many different ways. Both the Netanyahu regime and Hezbollah could desire escalation of conflict! Definitely worth looking into in more detail. Thanks for your perspective.

People are still falling all over themselves to vote for this turd; to buy a huge stars and stripes decal of him and stick it on the back window of their Ford Raptor next to their Three Percenter decal. Buy a huge flag that says Trump 2024 FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and hang it on a flagpole by the front door to their house, on the street with kids riding their bikes outside.

And there's an ever growing uncertainty about whether or not this meatball is going to actually win or not.

No I don't think that, I think they are somewhat outside the systems I've described. The Iranian revolution was the result of exactly the sort of finance imperialist exploitation and mass immiseration I've described taking place under the pro-western puppet government of the Shah, installed in a coup carried out by the Americans and British intelligence services in 1953.

"Opening of the markets for development" led to severe and widespread disparity and by 1979_ the people had enough. It was a legitimate popular uprising, but islamists were overtly powerful and able to consolidate power into the fundamentalist islamist government of Ayatolla Khomeini. Since the Ayatollah is opposed to western meddling, Iran had come under severe sanctions by western imperialist countries, affecting mostly regular people. I'm not an expert on Iran but I don't advocate for Islamic fundamentalism as an alternative to capitalism. Like I alluded to elsewhere, its just another institution controlling peoples minds in order to exploit them, which benefits a few powerful religious leaders instead of powerful corporate executives. But I also don't think opening the country back up to be raided by neoliberal imperialists is what is best for the Iranian people either.

I think their regime is attempting to survive under severe sanctions, but the country is actually moderately wealthy in resources and productive capacity. No I don't think it benefits Iran if Lebanon or the Gaza strip is controlled by secular liberals, they would prefer to have Islamic fundamentalists who share their form of governance, with which to support with weapons and resources. Israel is the proxy of western imperialism in the region and they support groups that will fight with Israel when its politically advantageous.

But Iran is also a separate entity from Hezbollah or Hamas. Hezbollah has asked Iran for aid and military intervention in the last year as the conflict between Israel and Lebanon has worsened, and Iran had left them hanging out to dry for most of that time, so Hezbollah is more than just a puppet of Iran. Like Israel is more than just a puppet of the USA, clearly Bibi's regime is using their own playbook to preserve power, which seems to involve escalating regional conflicts and committing even more mass deaths.

So even if Iran isn't actively trying to stabilize the region, the Israeli government under Bibi is actively trying to destabilize and destroy as much as possible. Not that a more moderate flavor of Zionism would make much difference, the Nakba was carried out by a relatively more left wing government, so called "labor Zionists."

Can confirm, I have spent a lot of time in Columbus Ohio.