|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote:On April 01 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 23:27 LightSpectra wrote:On March 31 2017 23:19 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 23:06 LightSpectra wrote:On March 31 2017 22:40 Silvanel wrote:USSR perfromed numerous atrocities both on its own population and on nations under their control. Holodomor alone has more victims than Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorIs the fact that some people were happy in USSR somehow offsets that? Newsflash some people were happy in Nazi germany, that makes Hitler ok guy? Nobody here is denying (at least from what I have seen) that the USSR is responsible for many atrocities, especially under Stalin. The claim however is that towards the end of its lifespan, i.e. under Brezhnev and Gorbachev, the USSR was a total shithole in terms of quality-of-life. That is not the whole case. Certainly many people saw it that way, but also there were many who think life was better in the '70s and '80s. So again, are we to write off their opinions entirely because those people are ignorant or liars? Should we write off their opinions because of atrocities the USSR committed? Well then people can talk about those eras without referencing Stalin, who died in 1953 and had little to do with the state of the USSR in the 70s and 80s. We are not disregarding those opinions either. Of course there were people who loved the USSR. There always are. The only reason anybody is talking about Stalin is because you tried to bait LL by saying "He is only moments away from saying "Look Stalin wasn't that bad. He got a lot of things right." " The problem with this is that everyone is pushing for selective topics for discussion. We can discuss the USSR in the 70s and 80s, but only their domestic issues. The fact that they split Germany in half for the better part of 40 years is off the table. But all of US’s actions are up for grabs anytime someone wants to point out the US/EU are bad too. It is fine to discuss things, but we should do it with the understanding that none of us were alive in that era. I am likely the oldest person in this thread and I wasn’t alive for the majority of what we are talking about. I remember watching the Berlin wall fall when I was 9 and thinking it was weird people would be so angry at a wall. I don't think anything is off the table. I'm for 100% truth and reconciliation. If you want to talk about all of the evils done by and under Stalin and Khrushchev and Brezhnev, by all means. I used to teach history before deciding that I hated US schools. US and EU history were my focuses for my masters before I stopped. Truth isn’t something you can find in history. People who are looking for that should look to philosophy because that is the only field that even dares to try to find truth. History is the study of flawed, imperfect information in an effort to have some vague understanding of our past. That is why I am so resistant to this discussion that “looks beyond the propaganda”. The propaganda is part of it and can’t be disregarded. It shaped peoples understanding of it. There is no objective observer in history and never will be.
Slightly off topic- on philosophy.
+ Show Spoiler +
Philosophy isgreat place for looking for "Truth" but You aint going to find one. Philosophy will only leave You with more questions. And if You are smart You will realize some questions are meaningless, some cannot be answered and some are improperly formuleted. If You are not so smart You will turn to religion or even more likely You will make one of philosophical teories Your religion.
|
On April 01 2017 02:32 Silvanel wrote:
Philosophy isgreat place for looking for "Truth" but You aint going to find one. Philosophy will only leave You with more questions. And if You are smart You will realize some questions are meaningless, some cannot be answered and some are improperly formuleted. If You are not so smart You will turn to religion or even more likely You will make one of philosophical teories Your religion.
You heard it here folks, all people interested in philosophy and theology are Not Smart and should pack up their bags and go home. Because Silvanel said so.
Because why be dumb and try to find answers when you can just take some guy on the Internet's word for it?
|
He's got a point that you likely cannot find Truth in doing philosophy. You should change the goals from Truth to "get a better understanding of difficulties in X" or something similar.
|
I only have masters in philosophy what the heck do i know 
|
"you likely cannot find Truth in doing philosophy" is demonstrably false.
Maybe if you think "philosophy" is obscurantist babel in the likes of G.W.F. Hegel, sure.
On April 01 2017 03:02 Silvanel wrote:I only have masters in philosophy what the heck do i know
And there are people with higher degrees than you who disagree vociferously.
|
Thats really offtopis but:
+ Show Spoiler +
1.There are argumnents against every point of view and every know philosophical school has some serious weaknesses. And if it has weaknes can it really claim it is the "Truth".
2. Some of the "schools" even dispute the possibility of something like truth existing (pragmatist - with their aproximisation of truth and postmdoernists
3.There is Tarski's definition of truth, but i doubt You meant that. Its hardly usefull outise of logic. And in any coase dont warrant capital T. It more truth than "Truth".
4.I am going out, can elaborate later if someone is intrested in my opinion.
|
So your argument seems to be:
1. Some philosophers have contradictory opinions.
2. Therefore philosophy is useless to ascertain the truth, or if there even is a singular Truth.
Is this right?
|
On April 01 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"you likely cannot find Truth in doing philosophy" is demonstrably false. Maybe if you think "philosophy" is obscurantist babel in the likes of G.W.F. Hegel, sure. Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:02 Silvanel wrote:I only have masters in philosophy what the heck do i know And there are people with higher degrees than you who disagree vociferously.
Can you give some examples of philosophy bringing us closer to finding the Truth?
|
We construct a system of assumptions that we define as true, logical operations that link assumptions and deduce other things with either the status true or not true. What the truth is is not relevant. What's relevant is that when we assume something to be true we can find other truths. 
|
Philosophers can go on and asking their question and we'll go on making progress (c) Lawrence Krauss
by that he meant philosophy is good only for asking a questions, not for definitions
|
On April 01 2017 03:23 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"you likely cannot find Truth in doing philosophy" is demonstrably false. Maybe if you think "philosophy" is obscurantist babel in the likes of G.W.F. Hegel, sure. On April 01 2017 03:02 Silvanel wrote:I only have masters in philosophy what the heck do i know And there are people with higher degrees than you who disagree vociferously. Can you give some examples of philosophy bringing us closer to finding the Truth?
Anything demonstrated with prepositional logic, for instance?
|
What a strange topic of discussion. Here I was, thinking this thread was for the purpose of debating the merits of racism and/or dictatorship...
|
On April 01 2017 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:On April 01 2017 01:28 Plansix wrote:
But people protested both those military actions in the US and of our history books do not paint those invasions as justified. Are we unable to discuss Russia because we sinned in the past and only the pure may critique other nations? At this point I'm either completely missing the point of the discussion or you are being incredibly obtuse. Of course you are welcome to critique whatever you want (using sound arguments and not stupid one-liners). That does not, however, mean that just because some things are deserving of critique bars everything with which these things are associated from being worthy of praise. Of course, I agree. The cold war and US/USSR relations took place over the span of 50 years. An entire generation of people grew up in that era, which was as varied as any other part of history. Every nation had their moments of glory and failure. The history of the cold war and its end has been discussed and studied by the very people who lived through it. It was a war based on fear, a lack of understanding and no reliable way to obtain creditable information the other nation. At the end of WW2, there were fewer than 30 Russian historians in the US. And their information was comically incomplete. The same was true for Russia. Critiquing the actions of either country has to be done with the full context of the era they existed in, not based on current sentiments. Neither nations were saints during that conflict. But there is a huge difference between trying understand their motivations and saying the US was wrong to be wary of Stalin(or something along those lines).
I don't think anyone has made a statement to the effect that the US was wrong to be wary of Stalin. I'm frankly unsure what you are arguing (or who you are arguing against). My apologies if I missed such a statement.
But just to make sure I understand you correctly, because it seems to be a deviation from your usual opinion: You argue that actions should be judged based on historical context and not based on modern day values?
|
On April 01 2017 04:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 02:09 Plansix wrote:On April 01 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:On April 01 2017 01:28 Plansix wrote:
But people protested both those military actions in the US and of our history books do not paint those invasions as justified. Are we unable to discuss Russia because we sinned in the past and only the pure may critique other nations? At this point I'm either completely missing the point of the discussion or you are being incredibly obtuse. Of course you are welcome to critique whatever you want (using sound arguments and not stupid one-liners). That does not, however, mean that just because some things are deserving of critique bars everything with which these things are associated from being worthy of praise. Of course, I agree. The cold war and US/USSR relations took place over the span of 50 years. An entire generation of people grew up in that era, which was as varied as any other part of history. Every nation had their moments of glory and failure. The history of the cold war and its end has been discussed and studied by the very people who lived through it. It was a war based on fear, a lack of understanding and no reliable way to obtain creditable information the other nation. At the end of WW2, there were fewer than 30 Russian historians in the US. And their information was comically incomplete. The same was true for Russia. Critiquing the actions of either country has to be done with the full context of the era they existed in, not based on current sentiments. Neither nations were saints during that conflict. But there is a huge difference between trying understand their motivations and saying the US was wrong to be wary of Stalin(or something along those lines). I don't think anyone has made a statement to the effect that the US was wrong to be wary of Stalin. I'm frankly unsure what you are arguing (or who you are arguing against). My apologies if I missed such a statement. But just to make sure I understand you correctly, because it seems to be a deviation from your usual opinion: You argue that actions should be judged based on historical context and not based on modern day values?
The best way to put it is that historians find modern viewpoints informative, but not prescriptive. They can provide insight, but only when use sparingly. The Cold War is a good example of this. It is a war that is difficult to explain to the modern, internet saturated population. We have the ability to communicate that was unheard of in that era. Not only that, but even phones or other communications were limited back then. There was a time in the 60s that calling the UK required the caller to ask the connection to be set up in the morning and the phone company would tell you when it was ready in the afternoon. In that world, Russia could have been the surface of Mar and it would have seemed as obtainable to the average US citizen.
As I have said before, there are points in history where modern concepts that we accept as common place didn’t exist. Paper money used to be this outlandish idea that people felt was some sort of scam. As exotic as the modern day mortgage swap option. Basic Human Rights was a new and revolutionary idea at one point. The same with the concept of a “nation” and Nationalism (that one has a bit of a cycle, but let’s take the last 1000 years). So on and so on.
So if someone wants to understand the Cold War, they can’t do it through the lens of their modern viewpoints. If the Cold War started in about 1945(which is debatable), that is the same time that mass market paperback books of all types were this new and crazy concept. No longer just dime novels to be thrown away. Before that time, only rich people owned “books” and they were all hard cover.
|
A simple "yes" would have sufficed, but thank you for the full explanation regardless and thank you for answering.
By the way, you really aren't much older than quite a few of us (you have like 3 years on me).
|
A yes would have been enough for you. If it was sufficient to answer a pretty complex question is another matter. That question is the everlasting and ongoing debate among historians. And I cited my age because even I only vaguely remember a time when long distance phone calls were a thing we all worried about.
|
Or let's just call him a troll. Same thing.
|
We're out of EU's political and economic matters, an't we?
|
What does the "QA" in "European politico-economics QA mega thread" mean?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 01 2017 09:05 Agathon wrote:
We're out of EU's political and economic matters, an't we?
Not much to say about an ill-conceived union on its deathbed. The Regrexiteers failed and it won't take much more of a shock before the entire pyramid scheme falls apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
