Plight of a moderate Muslim

Post Reply New Topic

Totally. It's always the same thing: "Well Israel more terror USA funded missiles Christianity morality context blah." Individual thought is dead.

Was it ever alive?

Not when it comes to this. Maybe at some point in history?

Well, I can't think when in history that would or could ever be. I mean, it would have to be in the modern era if anything yet I cannot find a point in that modern era where it would have happened, can you?

I was thinking along the lines of Italian Rennaiscance. Anyway, individuality is always discouraged, that's a given, but there are times when people have bothered to think outside the herd, I know from older literature.

No, moral equivalency doesn't = politically correct horsecrap, aparently you know nothing about what America is supposed to stand for. Political correctness is a failed attempt at equal consideration. Instead of going by balance it goes by switching the roles of the historically dominant and historically submissive. Calling things down the middle isn't being politically correct.

So your exhibiting tribalism in it's finest state eh? "my group is right, there group is wrong, don't think just follow, end of discussion" I'm not supporting islamic extremists either though.

Really? I would tend to doubt that given that. I mean, do you think that the average person from the italian renaissance was a free thinker? Really, I would not think it that free, just freer than preceding times. I do not think that the average person then even had the education to necessarily think freely, and I think that too much effort had to be done to get past the old notions which we are currently past to have free thinking.

Well, wait a second. What is free thought? I've never taken a philosophy course, but it seems to me that it isn't something that would require education or that would depend on how progressive mainstream consensus might be, as long as draws its own conclusions outside of that sphere. If, in medieval England, a throng of peasants is watching a public execution and one of them thinks, "Isn't that a little harsh?" No one thinks that, they're just glad that they aren't him. But that's what I'm talking about. If you can tell me of an individual or a book that talks about the war or terror, or the middle eastern conflict, and is independant of mainstream lines of thought, I would very much like to know.

The reason why I claim it would take education is because only through some level of education can one actually examine the ideas that one is fed throughout existence and evaluate them. Without this level of education people do end up having to accept as they cannot access knowledge above that. In today's society we have a much much greater ability for individuals to access information as they do have the requisite education to find it. I would not think that the medieval peasant would necessary break from that mold, the only reason why we end up doing so is because of progress before us in that type of direction as there is nothing that inherently leads us to that conclusion. Even if this peasant did so, it would lead nowhere. I really do not pay much attention to war on terror thought and such, however, I am certain that there are many many independent thoughts that can be accessed online about this topic and I would argue that there are more lines of thought than in previous societies given the broadly different beliefs on foreign policy from the idealism of neo-conservatives, to the idealism of liberals, to realism, and other foreign policy lines of thinking.

Well, this is just the thing; I spend all day online reading opinions, and I spend most of my time reading books, and nothing ever diverges, or at least considers new alternatives. If that sounds like very general criticism it's because it is! In everything, in general. Maybe it's because of AS, but I almost never jive with the author. Where are our groundbreaking novels, documentaries and visionaries? We have Chomsky, Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart. Having access to the internet and all other kinds of media only spreads the propaganda more efficiently. Going through the university system filter of left wing professors and students, which is currently what I'm doing, doesn't help any. The best thing for free thought is isolation; a guy can educate himself on the popular thinking and conventions by reading books in his own time.

Well, of course there is the generally accepted ideas. I would actually think that you are not reading radically enough though, there are many many very radical ideas online including the various forms of anarchism, and other ideas. Where are *any* groundbreaking novels, documentaries, and visionaries? We have Chomsky, we have neo-Naziism, we have David Friedman, we have many many radicals out there in the world, probably more so than in previous times. What propaganda? You mean porn. I mean, the amount of propaganda out there for various causes is so much that it can no longer be considered propaganda so much as background noise given the number of extremists for whatever views in existence arguing for those thing. Isolation leads to not much, you do not see the world in isolation, you may shut out the voices somewhat but that does not necessarily lead to understanding. Just think that you can read Rothbard, and then Proudhon, for differing perspectives and then afterwards can read up about whatever views you would like.

What your saying is interesting, but I'm thinking that this argument might be getting a little bit too abstract. Marx was groundbreaking. Hobbes, Proudhon, Machiavelli, all of the political science staples. In all of the 20th century, who can we compare them to? Hitler maybe? Our modern radicals only pick and combine between established idealogies and movements, but don't add anything to them. Noam Chomsky is a perfect example. And the fact that you consider propaganda to be background noise touches on the point I'm trying to make; it's so abundant that it drowns out the message. What's the message behind punk? To get out there and f**k s**t up. That's our radicalism.

Marx was ground breaking however, there have been further arguments made in the socialist direction as well such as by Abba Lerner and Oskar Lange who worked on the calculation problem within the socialist system as well there is Robin Hahnel who created an idea of a somewhat different form of left-wing economic structure to deal with the issues of a socialist society. There is an issue with the fact that many of the taboos already have been broken, however, that does not deny that change lives on. Not only that but extensive work has been done more recently with radical capitalism which was work done by modern scholars such as Rothbard and D. Friedman who both pushed for the abolishment of government in a capitalist society, something not argued for by past thinkers with the closest being the work of individualist anarchists whose thought is often considered somewhat different as it is not based on the purity of the capitalist system. As well, there is the neoconservative movement which is a relatively modern strain of thought given its focus on force, democracy, and its idealism. Now, one may not like the neo-cons but it is true that they are a relatively different strain of thought. Hitler himself and the politics of totalitarianism reflect new ideas and for a time they were stylish, and Keynes's weakening of the past economic order definitely warrants some attention as well as he completely overturned a lot of that existing thought.

All right, I'll add them to my reading list.

Ok, sure. Robin Hahnel created the idea of Parecon, which is radical, he is alive and teaches economics at American University and contributes to Z magazine, a radical newspaper. Rothbard died a decade ago but you can find a lot of his work at mises.org and his work is where most anarcho capitalism essentially comes from. David Friedman, is actually the son of major capitalist advocate Milton Friedman who is an extremist in his own right, but David goes further than his father and actually has a book out that is something like "a guide to radical capitalism" and he still lives and teaches law at some school in California, D. Friedman and Rothbard both have different views on the basis for anarcho-capitalism. Keynes and neoconservatism are new ideas but have mainstreamed somewhat so I am not sure if you really would be that interested. Naziism and state control on the level possible today although having older roots have newer aspects to them added on by the modern totalitarian state. Of course there is also Ayn Rand, who is sort of radical in her support of egoism and her work can be found in many places. There are also Post-Keynesian economists who can be found in heterodox economic work who draw off of Institutional economists who had a few of their major thinkers in the 20th century.