• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Most Controversial thinker(s) you know?

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
11,466
Simply for the Eco-issue we are in & how both sides think they are right I will kick off with Pentti Linkola.

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”

“Man has learned almost nothing even when confronted with the impending end of the world. The majority of people continue to make their daily choices on the basis of what they desire and what pleases them. Democracy caters to the whims of man: the will of the people. The consequences of this are frightening: what democracy leads to is the kind of suicidal society that we see all around us. Democracy is the most miserable of all known societal systems, the building block of doom. Therein the unmanageable freedom of production and consumption and the passions of the people are not only tolerated, but cherished as the highest values. The most serious environmental disasters occur in democracies.”

“How can anyone think so insanely that the human life has the same value and mankind, the same morality, independent of numbers? It is lucid to me that every time a new child is born, the value of every human in world decreases slightly. It is obvious to me that the morality of the population explosion is wholly unlike than when man was a sparse, noble species in its beginning.”
4bc95e4eeddf6ed4edc06d4f9a0122b0.gif


“It is an unpleasant surprise to discover that in the treatment of animals raised for slaughter, of fur animals and farmed fish the level of cruelty has reached an all time high, and yet such practices continue to be tolerated. I am not referring here to the most excessive among excessive practices: things like accelerating the growth of cattle with hormones, the use of artificial light night and day or the artificial swelling of livers in geese. These matters are too repulsive — "over the top" — and I do not wish to write about them. A simple order would suffice to deal with similar practices: death penalty for those responsible! (…) The cruelty involved in rearing caged [animals] differs from any other form of hunting, even the worst — in one fundamental respect: hunting affects animals that have lived a full life according to their own needs, perhaps for decades; when death arrives, it is sometimes painless, sometimes agonising — just as in nature. When hunting, man is a predator in the food chain, one cause of death among others… By contrast, caged animals spend their whole lives, from birth to death, in unnatural anguish, not like animals but like objects. In this case, the very character and pride of the animal has utterly been devastated. Nothing could be worse than this.
 
My boy Linkola Who thought all People should be killed.
Now I call that a True thinker for "humanitarian reasons"
 
“Man has learned almost nothing even when confronted with the impending end of the world. The majority of people continue to make their daily choices on the basis of what they desire and what pleases them. Democracy caters to the whims of man: the will of the people. The consequences of this are frightening: what democracy leads to is the kind of suicidal society that we see all around us. Democracy is the most miserable of all known societal systems, the building block of doom. Therein the unmanageable freedom of production and consumption and the passions of the people are not only tolerated, but cherished as the highest values. The most serious environmental disasters occur in democracies.”

That's basically what Plato was saying -

Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.


Looks like it has already been purged from Wikiped[ophil]ia

EDIT: it's still there but the meaning has been perverted to cleverly imply that democracy's only failing is that it might allow right-wing populists to seize power -

As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, the poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, and democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class, who can exploit them to take power in order to maintain order. Democracy then degenerates into tyranny where no one has discipline and society exists in chaos. In a tyrannical government, the city is enslaved to the tyrant, who uses his guards to remove the best social elements and individuals from the city to retain power (since they pose a threat), while leaving the worst. He will also provoke warfare to consolidate his position as leader. In this way, tyranny is the most unjust regime of all.

There you have it, proof that liberals are crazy enough to openly retcon history because it threatens their miserable vision for the future
 
Last edited:
That's basically what Plato was saying -




Looks like it has already been purged from Wikiped[ophil]ia

EDIT: it's still there but the meaning has been perverted to cleverly imply that democracy's only failing is that it might allow right-wing populists to seize power -



There you have it, proof that liberals are crazy enough to openly retcon history because it threatens their miserable vision for the future
I had no idea Plato had those ideas, I have to learn more about this person.
 
It's gotta be either Slavoj Zizek or Norman Finkelstein.

Eco-primitivism fails culturally because it can't decide whether it wants to be a weird uncle at the consequentialist dinner party or the QAnon Shaman.
 
Less than fifty thousand years ago mankind had no art, no religion, no sophisticated symbolism, no innovative thinking. Then, in a dramatic and electrifying change, described by scientists as "the greatest riddle in human history," all the skills and qualities that we value most highly in ourselves appeared already fully formed, as though bestowed on us by hidden powers.

In Supernatural Graham Hancock sets out to investigate this mysterious "beforeandafter moment" and to discover the truth about the influences that gave birth to the modern human mind.


hwVOOTe.png
 
Less than fifty thousand years ago mankind had no art, no religion, no sophisticated symbolism, no innovative thinking. Then, in a dramatic and electrifying change, described by scientists as "the greatest riddle in human history," all the skills and qualities that we value most highly in ourselves appeared already fully formed, as though bestowed on us by hidden powers.

In Supernatural Graham Hancock sets out to investigate this mysterious "beforeandafter moment" and to discover the truth about the influences that gave birth to the modern human mind.


hwVOOTe.png
Nice story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
:ROFLMAO:

I love this.

I love and enjoy very much the spiritualism and the transformations of the ancient philosophies though.

I always do. So much !! enjoy.

 
I never read much that wasn't written for entertainment. Only recently I discovered my interest in metaphysics, but lacked people with whom to exchange ideas. Felt a little like talking to myself. Then along came my brother, and he jumped at the topic and voila... the most controversial thinkers I now are him and me.
 
:ROFLMAO:

I love this.

I love and enjoy very much the spiritualism and the transformations of the ancient philosophies though.

I always do. So much !! enjoy.


This seems quite interesting. I will save it for when my brain isn't fried from working eight hours nonstop.
 
I never read much that wasn't written for entertainment. Only recently I discovered my interest in metaphysics, but lacked people with whom to exchange ideas. Felt a little like talking to myself. Then along came my brother, and he jumped at the topic and voila... the most controversial thinkers I now are him and me.
Me too !!!

my bro is pretty supernatural lol but smart i mean yes. and then well, hell yeah too !!!!!!

he won't go extraterrestrial too much though. well jesus could be considered extraterrestrial.

a psychedelic mushroom definitely. :cool:👍<3
 
There you have it, proof that liberals are crazy enough to openly retcon history because it threatens their miserable vision for the future
I had no idea Plato had those ideas, I have to learn more about this person.
There you go

https://iep.utm.edu/platopol/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/

The IEP and the SEP are peer reviewed, the entries are written by leading scholars in the field, Wikipedia at least when it comes to Philosophy and History is as reliable as I am sober living
 
It's gotta be either Slavoj Zizek or Norman Finkelstein.

Eco-primitivism fails culturally because it can't decide whether it wants to be a weird uncle at the consequentialist dinner party or the QAnon Shaman.

How is Zizek controversial? I've caught a few of his interviews and his ideas seem quite well received in the academic community, which is unsurprising given the political bias of that community aligns with that direction.

And what is eco-primitivism? Eco is already implied by primitivism, or do you mean eco-fascism?
 
How is Zizek controversial? I've caught a few of his interviews and his ideas seem quite well received in the academic community, which is unsurprising given the political bias of that community aligns with that direction.
Zizek made the list because he commands a lot of attention and respect as a Marxist while doing stuff that offends the mainstream left, like when he was asked to name his ten favorite movies he included The Fountainhead and during the 2016 election campaign he said he would vote for Donald Trump if he were American. He's now an editor of Compact Magazine, which is sticking forks in various eyes. You don't cause controversy if nobody listens to you but Z-sniff has a solid following.

And what is eco-primitivism? Eco is already implied by primitivism, or do you mean eco-fascism?
What? There are definitely other kinds of primitivism, primarily religious (e.g. Anabaptists) or libertarian (Uncle Ted said his goal was to restore human freedom, not protect the environment). Eco-primitivism is definitely the most popular version, but as I was saying, its proponents advocate many different incompatible visions of the future.
 
Zizek made the list because he commands a lot of attention and respect as a Marxist while doing stuff that offends the mainstream left, like when he was asked to name his ten favorite movies he included The Fountainhead and during the 2016 election campaign he said he would vote for Donald Trump if he were American. He's now an editor of Compact Magazine, which is sticking forks in various eyes. You don't cause controversy if nobody listens to you but Z-sniff has a solid following.

Interesting, I didn't know this. Come to think of it, I don't really hear much about any European thinkers here in the anglosphere. Instead we get drowned in a deluge of OpEds by people with an axe to grind :\

What? There are definitely other kinds of primitivism, primarily religious (e.g. Anabaptists) or libertarian (Uncle Ted said his goal was to restore human freedom, not protect the environment). Eco-primitivism is definitely the most popular version, but as I was saying, its proponents advocate many different incompatible visions of the future.

I just haven't heard that term before, eco-primitivism. Normally just primitivism, which doesn't necessarily include politics, and anarcho-primitivism, which is the category TK would fall under.

TBH I can't really imagine a need for anything outside of primitivism (neutral), anarcho-primitivism (left) and eco-fascism (right). Not saying that there is no need, just that I'm having trouble thinking of one
 
That's basically what Plato was saying -




Looks like it has already been purged from Wikiped[ophil]ia

EDIT: it's still there but the meaning has been perverted to cleverly imply that democracy's only failing is that it might allow right-wing populists to seize power -



There you have it, proof that liberals are crazy enough to openly retcon history because it threatens their miserable vision for the future
Oh Christ... y'know... it would help you to try to view the world in a way that doesn't elevate culture war nonsense and political partisanism to some kind of holy, tribal war between the forces of fundamental good, and fundamental evil, even though admittedly it is difficult to understand exactly what kind of future is envisioned by people who use the kind of hyperbolic language about the crimes of the libtards such as you.

Plato, I think, would be turning in his grave to see his ideas made part of the conflict in this imaginary battlefield of peak human fear and delusion.

On that note, as I know this is off-topic to the thread... neither of the interpretations you offered really suggested what you claimed. There was shift of nuance, but nothing substantially twisted or even absurdly inarguable.

We can't ever know exactly how Plato would have thought his ideas applied to today's world but I think we can be pretty sure he wouldn't be aiming unsubtle barbs at a voluntarily run, free global encyclopedia because he thought it was being corrupted by "crazy liberals".

Although if he was magically resurrected somehow, and failed to agree with the importance of the things you mentioned, some people surely call him "woke" while pushing to stop teaching about Plato in schools because... I dunno, he was probably bisexual and therefore if we let him exercise his free speech on an unrelated topic, kids will be randomly deciding to be gay and the future will be miserable because of it.
.
 
On that note, as I know this is off-topic to the thread... neither of the interpretations you offered really suggested what you claimed. There was shift of nuance, but nothing substantially twisted or even absurdly inarguable.

For years I've been seeing these subtle "shifts of nuance" where perception is gradually manipulated piecemeal here and there. They always seem to go in one direction, attacking Western tradition and minimizing its achievements.

Plato is absolutely an ideological battlefield, as the pre-eminent Western philosopher. I've even alluded before to Open Society and its Enemies, which specifically attacks Plato, and to the machinations of the Open Society Foundation, which has funded leftist activism and "donated" serious coin to Wikipedia.

So, no, it's not hyperbole to think there might be some ideologically motivated editors at Wikipedia, unless you really think it's appropriate to believe that "philanthropic" organizations throw around millions of dollars without expecting it to have an impact in line with their stated fucking ideals.
 
So, no, it's not hyperbole to think there might be some ideologically motivated editors at Wikipedia, unless you really think it's appropriate to believe that "philanthropic" organizations throw around millions of dollars without expecting it to have an impact in line with their stated fucking ideals.
For sure - I think there are likely SOME. I just don't find arguments that it's a significant issue very persuasive. Especially since most of the people who say that it is have their own far more obvious and overtly sinister agendas. ie, whatever it was Elon Musk said, Wokepedia or Dickipeda or something. Your mention of "funding of leftist activism" I admit is another example of this to me since I don't think "leftist activism" is an issue we should be that concerned about either.

As for Plato though, I admit I'm not well versed on the fine details, so can't comment further on that and will concede perhaps you're right. Although just about that point specifically - not the broader point about leftist activism on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should read a few books and then make an assessment.

.
 
Top