Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

What is radical thought now?

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 2:37:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What would you consider a radical, or at least a non-conformist ideology today? I doubt there is any original thoughts, but what thinking would create the most disruption to our current paradigms of doctrine?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 2:46:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The ideology of no ideology at all. One that destroys all conventional ideologies. One that transcends the left/right paradigm that is being manipulated by divide and rule.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." - J. Krishnamurti
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 2:51:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 2:37:53 PM, innomen wrote:
What would you consider a radical, or at least a non-conformist ideology today?
Ideologies are by their nature not radical. Radical is something that describes a single idea cannot be fully integrated into any of the then-existing belief systems. As for non-conformist ideologies, there are plenty. Let's go with Anarcho-Capitalism for this one.
I doubt there is any original thoughts, but what thinking would create the most disruption to our current paradigms of doctrine?
A "return" the "supernatural" in a way not currently being done by any cults or mainstream religions. I don't mean to say it has to be original, it just has to not have been heard of before by the masses.

Here's one I found intriguing.

Think of this universe as a fragment, a crystal shard. Everything that's ever happened within the space-time bounds created 14BYA by what's known as the big bang, to everything that will ever be. All within a crystal shard. Now imagine that shard in something akin to deep space. And there are crystal shards everywhere, scattered like stars and galaxies in our space. Every one of those shards is a universe. Every time a choice or an event happens, a new shard forms for every other possible outcome. And in this vast eternal ocean, there are sentient beings. Perhaps they control the outcomes of things? Perhaps they pit shards against one another? Perhaps they travel from one to another? Etc...

I've seen that in some anime and I believe Men In Black before, and I'm sure it's in plenty of philosophies here and there, but I don't think people have ever take the idea seriously. What if they did? What would happen to our era's worldview?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 3:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 2:51:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Think of this universe as a fragment, a crystal shard. Everything that's ever happened within the space-time bounds created 14BYA by what's known as the big bang, to everything that will ever be. All within a crystal shard. Now imagine that shard in something akin to deep space. And there are crystal shards everywhere, scattered like stars and galaxies in our space. Every one of those shards is a universe. Every time a choice or an event happens, a new shard forms for every other possible outcome. And in this vast eternal ocean, there are sentient beings. Perhaps they control the outcomes of things? Perhaps they pit shards against one another? Perhaps they travel from one to another? Etc...

Sounds like theism multiplied. Many gods controlling many universes.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 3:12:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 3:01:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2010 2:51:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Think of this universe as a fragment, a crystal shard. Everything that's ever happened within the space-time bounds created 14BYA by what's known as the big bang, to everything that will ever be. All within a crystal shard. Now imagine that shard in something akin to deep space. And there are crystal shards everywhere, scattered like stars and galaxies in our space. Every one of those shards is a universe. Every time a choice or an event happens, a new shard forms for every other possible outcome. And in this vast eternal ocean, there are sentient beings. Perhaps they control the outcomes of things? Perhaps they pit shards against one another? Perhaps they travel from one to another? Etc...

Sounds like theism multiplied. Many gods controlling many universes.

Doesn't mean things don't inherently change. Saying a single god controlling a single universe is the same as "many gods controlling many universes" is, to me, about as same as a totalitarian state is to a free market anarchy. There's still a hierarchy to be sure, but that should not diminish all the other differences.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 3:16:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 2:46:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The ideology of no ideology at all. One that destroys all conventional ideologies. One that transcends the left/right paradigm that is being manipulated by divide and rule.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." - J. Krishnamurti

Uhh... How exactly do you plan to live if you don't think in terms of concepts, and have no way to determine how to choose anything/any course of action?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 3:22:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 3:16:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/9/2010 2:46:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The ideology of no ideology at all. One that destroys all conventional ideologies. One that transcends the left/right paradigm that is being manipulated by divide and rule.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." - J. Krishnamurti

Uhh... How exactly do you plan to live if you don't think in terms of concepts, and have no way to determine how to choose anything/any course of action?

Concepts are not reality. They are attempts to either perceive reality or mold reality into something it's not. They are necessary when trying to communicate, but even words cannot fully explain things. You ask, how can you live if you don't think in terms of concepts. Well, you can live if you don't think in terms of concepts. However, you cannot communicate without using concepts.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 3:30:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 3:22:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2010 3:16:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/9/2010 2:46:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The ideology of no ideology at all. One that destroys all conventional ideologies. One that transcends the left/right paradigm that is being manipulated by divide and rule.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." - J. Krishnamurti

Uhh... How exactly do you plan to live if you don't think in terms of concepts, and have no way to determine how to choose anything/any course of action?

Concepts are not reality. They are attempts to either perceive reality or mold reality into something it's not.

When did I claim that concepts were reality? I didn't. What we perceive of reality is integrated into our mind as conceptual knowledge. Those concepts are a "reference point", if you will, so that we might deal with reality. If you take away concepts, you're damning man to an existence roughly equivalent to running in circles in a dark room while trying to find a light switch which doesn't exist.

They are necessary when trying to communicate, but even words cannot fully explain things.

Words represent concepts transmitted between people; however, concepts don't exist solely for communicative purposes.

You ask, how can you live if you don't think in terms of concepts. Well, you can live if you don't think in terms of concepts. However, you cannot communicate without using concepts.

That makes no sense, Geo.

Me: "How can you live if your mind never references conceptual knowledge?"

You: "You can live if you don't think in terms of concepts."

All you're doing is answering my question by parroting your original assertion. I didn't ask whether you could live without conceptual knowledge. I asked you how it's possible to do so. HOW is the key word.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 2:46:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The ideology of no ideology at all.
Obvious contradiction is far too obvious.

One that transcends the left/right paradigm that is being manipulated by divide and rule.
Both libertarianism and authoritarianism fulfill that criteria.

You cannot think without concepts Geolaureate. If you would like to be without ideology, your best bet is inhaling gasoline or shotgun mouthwash.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 5:26:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 2:37:53 PM, innomen wrote:
What would you consider a radical, or at least a non-conformist ideology today?

In b4 people talk about their own beliefs...

Oh, too late. Nobody has a belief they consider to be conformity on DDO :)
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 5:28:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 5:26:16 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/9/2010 2:37:53 PM, innomen wrote:
What would you consider a radical, or at least a non-conformist ideology today?

In b4 people talk about their own beliefs...

Oh, too late. Nobody has a belief they consider to be conformity on DDO :)

You think you're unique by being a conformist amongst a large group of nonconformists. Congratulations.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 5:34:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 5:28:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2010 5:26:16 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/9/2010 2:37:53 PM, innomen wrote:
What would you consider a radical, or at least a non-conformist ideology today?

In b4 people talk about their own beliefs...

Oh, too late. Nobody has a belief they consider to be conformity on DDO :)

You think you're unique by being a conformist amongst a large group of nonconformists. Congratulations.

*mindblown*
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 5:38:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 5:28:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You think you're unique by being a conformist amongst a large group of nonconformists. Congratulations.

*Ding Ding Ding* Let's get him the "State the obvious" award.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 8:17:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 3:30:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That makes no sense, Geo.

Me: "How can you live if your mind never references conceptual knowledge?"

You: "You can live if you don't think in terms of concepts."

All you're doing is answering my question by parroting your original assertion. I didn't ask whether you could live without conceptual knowledge. I asked you how it's possible to do so. HOW is the key word.

Think, and act, according to concepts...

but don't cling to them past their time. Be open to new understandings. Understand that your understanding is limited.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 8:42:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 8:17:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Think, and act, according to concepts...

but don't cling to them past their time. Be open to new understandings. Understand that your understanding is limited.

Agreed. Not every action needs to be contemplated with a philosophical treatise. Keeping your mind open, absorbing experiences, and having your philosophy reflect your life, this brings you far more happiness.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 5:34:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 8:17:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/9/2010 3:30:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That makes no sense, Geo.

Me: "How can you live if your mind never references conceptual knowledge?"

You: "You can live if you don't think in terms of concepts."

All you're doing is answering my question by parroting your original assertion. I didn't ask whether you could live without conceptual knowledge. I asked you how it's possible to do so. HOW is the key word.

Think, and act, according to concepts...

but don't cling to them past their time.

New concepts are still concepts. Geo is advocating the abandonment of concepts, I think. At least, he's dissing them pretty hard.

Be open to new understandings.

As long as those understandings are rational - as in, based in reality. I'm not open to just any new belief that floats my way.

Understand that your understanding is limited.

A man's mind is limited, sure; but abandoning the mind altogether (i.e. dropping concepts altogether, as Geo seems to advocate) will not make one's "understanding" omnipotent.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 9:41:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 5:34:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
New concepts are still concepts. Geo is advocating the abandonment of concepts, I think. At least, he's dissing them pretty hard.

Geo's just doing that thing where people pretend to be deep by unrealistically withdrawing what we take for granted/as a given.

Example:

A: XYZ is tied to our reality
B: But how do you know this reality is a true reality?

It's philosophically irrelevant, has no purpose, and helps no one.

Geo's advocating that we abandon concepts because they don't adequately portray truth. Instead, he advocates self-enclosed and perfected thinking to avoid the bias of our perception and conceptualization of what surrounds us.

Great. What the hell does it mean? It essentially means: Stop living in this world. Stop processing data, stop interacting with the environment. Geo is advocating the ultimate impracticality, which is to stop concerning yourself with what manifests as a reality before your eyes and to concern yourself only in the self-contained philosophical fairy-land where you can process and reprocess purified thinking.

(And even then, what's to say that your thoughts themselves aren't just as imperfect and irrational as concepts which are flawed through assumptions about sensory input?)
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 9:57:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You guys are way ethereal here (well not so much you Kleptin). I'll give you an example of something that a professor caught a lot of crap for when i was in school. It wasn't novel thought, and it was surprising that he got so much flack considering it was at a Jesuit college, but...He proposed that "the pill" was responsible for hurting society. Without the pill women would have to deal with shame if they got pregnant, with the pill women could have sex without worrying about getting pregnant, and have sex as recreation with very little consequence. This brought promiscuity into our society at a greater level than before. Going hand in hand with that was the change in abortion law, and in his view our value of human life. He actually went into far greater depth into the changes of our society as a result of the pill, but i will hold off on those details, but you can probably imagine.

This professor was almost let go for his teaching, and the protests that resulted. I am thinking that in schools today the most radical thought is the least politically correct.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 2:32:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 9:41:18 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/10/2010 5:34:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
New concepts are still concepts. Geo is advocating the abandonment of concepts, I think. At least, he's dissing them pretty hard.

Geo's just doing that thing where people pretend to be deep by unrealistically withdrawing what we take for granted/as a given.

Example:

A: XYZ is tied to our reality
B: But how do you know this reality is a true reality?

It's philosophically irrelevant, has no purpose, and helps no one.

Definitely. My response to that whole "how do you know" thing is usually to say something like "Go jump off of a building. If this is a false reality, it doesn't matter what happens to you - nor do I care."

Geo's advocating that we abandon concepts because they don't adequately portray truth. Instead, he advocates self-enclosed and perfected thinking to avoid the bias of our perception and conceptualization of what surrounds us.

Great. What the hell does it mean? It essentially means: Stop living in this world. Stop processing data, stop interacting with the environment. Geo is advocating the ultimate impracticality, which is to stop concerning yourself with what manifests as a reality before your eyes and to concern yourself only in the self-contained philosophical fairy-land where you can process and reprocess purified thinking.

(And even then, what's to say that your thoughts themselves aren't just as imperfect and irrational as concepts which are flawed through assumptions about sensory input?)

Yep. Geo's got some pretty crazy beliefs - and I mean this in a sense entirely divorced from the conspiracy theories and the lizard-people.