Karl

Our experience with fascists is that they are racists, purity of race and all that crap. Collectivism is not 'collective ownership'. It's the state over the individual. Your final paragraph is precisely what I alluded to previously. Stalin and Hitler were both totalitarian leaders of a collectivist ideology. In the case of communism the means of production are explicitly in the hands of the people. This resulted in shortages and chaos. Hitler saw that and altered the economic model. Business remained in private hands only nominally. There is a good book called the Vampire state which describes the life of a business owner under The Nazi party. It certainly wasn't capitalism( never mind free market). The party controlled all aspects of production and prices as well as the monetary system. There is a sliding scale of totalitarian to anarchy. If you know the fallacy of the false mean you will see how persuasive the argument is for those who do not have the tools of logic. Just put it somewhere in the centre- but the centre of what? different political rhetorical speakers will give there description of the 'extremes' which have been carefully restricted to left/right paradigm by press and education systems. They decided where the limits were and now refer to 'the centre ground'.

I can't see his argument for a creator. He seems to be selling his book in which he reveals all. Typical marketing blurb but more high brow than the usual thing.

They can always be applied successfully to human arguments/ concepts on the human level because it we who are thinking them.

Yes 'who can say' doesn't give a clear answer to the question. It just says 'I don't know'. That's effectively allowing the possibility of anyone's Gods to be implemented and thus preserves the philosophy without conflict and allows it to merge with other philosophies and religions. The Chinese were damned good at the integration game. I don't trust 'knowings' or 'feelings' as a method of understanding objective reality. We came a long way with inductive reasoning and the scientific method as well as the Aristotelian method of deductive logical reasoning so ignoring all that and going on 'feeling' is really dark age stuff. It shouldn't be beyond your level. A sentient, conscious creator would need to be conscious of some thing. Consciousness does not exist of and by itself. We are always 'conscious of' something. If there was nothing to be conscious of there would simply be nothing and that's not what we have. Well we are trying to discover the truth. We have a few excellent tools in reasoning and direct perception. We can use scientific and logical methods to arrive at the answer ' is there a creator' ?

The answer presupposes that something did though, but a nice political answer.

There in lies the dilemma. I define it as creator of all. By logical deduction there isn't a creator. I've read Aquinas who got pretty close to creating a valid argument, it's pretty good, but hides a fallacy that is very hard to spot. I'm also unimpressed with those who reason God does not exist because 'well he just doesn't'. The conclusion must be reached by logical deduction otherwise it's just another form mysticism and might as well be regarded as an alternative belief system. I shall wander through your list. First one is by Thomas Aquinas - not surprisingly it came first and goes " there is no case know ( neither is it indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for it would be prior to itself which is impossible." As it stands it is a mixed hypothetical argument denying the consequent and is valid when applied to 'things' in the universe, but not true of the universe. However the universe contains ALL things, it isn't a thing within itself or we get Russian dolls. It posits causality as the existence of the creator. So, now apply Aquinas argument to God. :-) God cannot then be a cause of himself and prior to himself, so there must be a creator of God and so on and so on.

Well thank you for giving it a go. Can I guide you a bit here to see if it can be improved ? At present it's as broad as a broad thing. Here is my go at fascism as its only fair I do likewise. A form of collectivism which is totalitarian, racist, nationalist and preserves the facade of private property. The genus is collectivism ( your example 'gather around', but collectivism is what you seem to be implying ). The differentia are those things which are specific and differentiate fascism from other forms of collectivism such as communism/socialism.

The universe is existent, it is totality. It has no number. The number one appears within totality, totality is not bound by it, it is a truism to say there is one universe, it's the same as saying there is one everything. Things do not cease to exist within the universe, they are transformed from one thing to another thing. The universe remains the universe however things change within it. Our counting system contains a zero to indicate the abscence of something. We don't say an absence of something equals an infinity of absence, it's just a semantic play on words. There isn't a creator. Creation is infinite doesn't register. Creativity is infinite. The universe is the universe it is totality it required no benediction. I am certainly in the universe and therefore part of it, but separate from the other bits floating about. Source of the finite is the infinite looks good on toast, but needs pepper and Worcester sauce. Well one subdivided is parts, fractions, decimal places.

Do you think he is racist ? I mean in terms of fascistic racism of the type that believes in deportation or genocide. He isn't ultra masculine and promotes feminism. The corporations and banks control him and not he them. He doesn't really do the glory of war thing, he seems pushed into it. None of those things seem particularly fascist. When I consider it seems to me that it isn't unlike the British Empire at its point of collapse. The corporations run the Government, which is different to the Nazi state in which it was the Government that decreed what the corporations must do. The direction of travel is dictated by power and money, there isn't as such - a vision- just some rather grubby deals backed up by the threat of violence.

Yet you know your true self is your only self ? There is no other. Anger, shame, desire and guilt are realities to you they are not hijackers - it is the thought that these are hijackers and that you should be something different where the collision occurs. However, I understand where you are at. Indeed a wrote an semi philosophical autobiography called 'A square peg in a round hole' . In light of the present it looks kinda kooky and it's now not representative, but it stands as a testament to what I was thinking a few years ago. Might be a help to you from the perspective of seeing someone in a similar mindset.

Well he isn't nationalist or racist so that can't be fascist.

Mine neither. Today's liberals aren't yesterday's liberals. It's like they started with twix and came out with Starbursts.

I spent what felt like a lifetime detesting that woman. Looking back she did some good things and also some bloody terrible things. That said, she led the Government, but ultimately didn't have the same control of it after the first few years.

Similar. They share a number of characteristics and some stark differences, but essentially the things we are talking about here which is mostly economic differences and collectivism they are hard to split except in application. I don't spilt socialism and communism they were simply Marx extension by degree. They were never intended as stand alone models but as a process.

Just hate the thought they are twins don't you ? Too much to bare. It's like I've accused God of being the Devil. Back to the request which neither hard line socialist appears to want to take up: Please define facism and socialism. Then it's possible to see what you believe to be the differences and end the argument for good.

It's thatcher what done it. Even in death it appears socialists still blame her for everything. Great set of demands that Greece should embrace even if the other countries don't. However, they could do all that outside of the EU anyway.

LOL Yes there are other reasons, but I didn't say invade, I said pass through. A heavily armed population is far more problematic than say the UK where we aren't even allowed pen knives these days. It won't be long until we can only have plastic cutlery and tool ownership will require safes and licenses.

Because it meant house to house fighting. Swiss fighters had a hard reputation and still do. The German army needed speed and to be bogged down fighting house to house didn't afford them that. It was easier to give it a wide birth. If they had wanted to go through Switzerland the gold would not have been a barrier.

I meant the French Government not your guys. :-)

It's a fact that all their citizens were armed and trained. It's my opinion and many other historians, that this was one of the reasons that the Germans did not use it as a beach head or corridor. Does that suit master ? I copied and pasted that from my head. Bleeding brilliant these mind to iPad devices. Now, if I throw you a biscuit will you stop following me about like a love lorn spectre :-)

Very nicely said.

LOL I'm sure the mods can check the IP's and all that good stuff. I'm afraid I'm not devious and never been on this forum before. That will probably be a huge disappointment to you, but I'm sure it won't stop your paranoia. :-) And no I'm not cutting and pasting, in fact I can't even work the damned multi quote system.

Your government can't even handle a flood. When France fell during the Second World War you might guess who had made haste and left the country. It's also noteworthy that the German army skirted neutral Switzerland. Not because it was neutral, but because every one of its citizens are armed and trained to use arms. A German army wandering into a country full of armed citizens would suffer substantial losses. House to house, street to street, field to field. Once it becomes clear that a country has lost a war you can guarantee they are bunkered up somewhere and tough luck on the citizens the swore to defend. The politicians and their court will bolt like terrified sheep. What's left but an army composed of men, who without pay will continue to fight without the state being present. They are just you and me standing shoulder to shoulder to protect what is ours by right, not by privilidge.

So you don't need Government for you, but only to keep others in line, which they aren't doing, but they are racking up immense amounts of debt on your behalf and I wonder how you would feel-if like Greece-they decided not to pay you that pension anymore. Government not for me but for them. Hmmm. Doesn't that deny the antecedent ? Government is, by its nature for all. You cannot exclude yourself from it and in at least one way you are dependent upon it. I would say you have rationalised two conflicting concepts, but they certainly aren't resolved. If they were then you would not care if the state took away your pension and quadrupled its current debt. My guess is you wouldn't like that. It looks to me as if you tolerate Government because that's what is there and it provides you an income ( I know you paid in and will answer that it is your due, but it still can be taken away if the state chooses to excercise it's powers ). I've found that when I deny reality or in other words, hold conflicting concepts, then I become angry when things don't go the way I want them to. I only hold one concept and that is one which does not include Government as it currently is. That does not mean the I deny governance or law, they are uniquely different operators. So then I accept all those things that government/state supposedly does well, will vanish. I do not hold the concept that my life will be improved by its demise, only that it is not logical for me to support it in any sense or form. Like you I can take care of myself and if I can't then it is insignificant. I'm more than capable of defending myself if needed, but unlike the U.S. we are denied that option. The state has pulled our teeth and claws and left us at the mercy of whatever wolves it has created.

We can never be false, we are what we are. The irony is being unprepared to accept that which we are and so think we are some other.