Total posts: 906
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I get what you’re saying—it’s about appreciating the basic concept of AI attempting to perform a task. With neural networks, it’s straightforward. Picture electricity flowing through a vast circuit of wires and resistors, each with different conductivity. By tweaking those components, you guide the current to different outputs based on the input. Neural networks work similarly: we adjust weights and thresholds to transform inputs into the right outputs, helping the network learn and improve. The way electricity flows from input to output, seeking balance, reflects how these networks process data to achieve their goals.
I wouldn't consider why neural networks perform their tasks a marvel. Still, the deeper idea that the universe, like electricity, is always striving for equilibrium? That’s a fascinating concept worth exploring further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
AI is not an emulation of human conversation.
Can you explain? To my understanding, and I it understand quite a bit, it certainly is. I'll need something more than just hearing your stance to convince me otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I didn't know you had a background in AI. It sounds like you know more about its mechanics than myself. I am aware that deep neural networks are comprised of massive arrays of weighted nodes than pass values on to others with gated thresholds and conductivity levels.
Knowing this, I'd say that AI LLMs are getting more impressive and capable, making them as much a human mind as a camera is a human eye. They are fundamentally different, but they have the same functions. Would you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
As an AI enthusiast and software engineer, I assure you that modern Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) operate differently from older, basic chat models with pre-defined responses. Simply put, GPT models leverage machine learning to predict the next word or character in a text sequence, drawing from a vast dataset of human-written conversations for training. This means they are programmed to unpredictably emulate human conversations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Those are all very good points, and you have swayed me to think that history has many possible practical uses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What do you think of natural history?
I think that if natural history is defined as the historical records of observations on living organisms for scientific progress, then natural history is practical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Nothing is false if you think its true. If what you think about history is true, then it is.
I think what you mean is, if a person has a conviction stronger than reason, no one can tell them otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is good to think about, and it's given me more to consider.
Do you think that the knowledge extracted as result from action is contextual, and if so, how is it applicable in a modern context?
Do you agree that the older history is the less practical it is since there are not only fewer accounts but even a greated deviance in context?
For example, the last ten years of history are probably more important or relevant than the ten previous to it.
Do you think that the knowledge extracted as result from action is contextual, and if so, how is it applicable in a modern context?
Do you agree that the older history is the less practical it is since there are not only fewer accounts but even a greated deviance in context?
For example, the last ten years of history are probably more important or relevant than the ten previous to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If history is whatever we think it is, then wouldn't we believing it is practical be beneficial?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'm very interested in what history you're referring to. I would think at least some old books would contain this history you're speaking of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you say there is no official version of history, does this include objective information like dates? Often there are not more than one written account of an event, especially in acient times when less people could read and write; what then if not the only source would be considered accepted history? I suppose when we are lucky enough to have multiple sources we still cannot know if they both were correct, only an increase in odds it is true if they align.
I guess the real question is, can history of only one account be taken with any amount of certainty for practical decision making?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Regardless of if its true, I don't think ownership of the book, or reading it, is necessarily bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot.You assume there is only one account and no corroborating evidence. That is not the case.In fact the accompaniment of archeology has proven skepticism of even single-account or myth-level history to be overdone. The existence of Troy or Nineveh come to mind.
I don't consider multiple accounts to be mainstream, only the offically accepted version, but I'm not saying the official or otherwise is more correct than the other.
It's hard to say what is actual accounts and what is tall tales spread by word of mouth.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Wasn't the source of his ownership a disgruntled ex? Additionally, when a topic is too emotional for someone to read, they will never understand and will always be baffled by the topic. Part of my reasoning for being here at debate art is because I want to engage in enlightening debates and understand the most about the world and put my emotions in check while not disregarding them but understanding them and allowing myself to comprehend the world with the least skewed view possible. I have read the book, and before having done so I couldn't understand why Hitler did such things based on everything I was told about him. This is because no one could provide me accurate information because their emotions were too disturbed to comprehend. I recommend that people challenge themselves to face things that they normally couldn't and regardless of what it is try to accept it from the perspective of another until you can understand why it was done and then decide whether this new perspective is more accurate or not than your original and even if you discover that it is nothing more than a subjective skew, at least you can now say I understand. This is my ultimate goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I would go as far as saying everything in history is true if understood correctly. For example, someone tells you it is 10:00 o'clock when it is 11:00; after that, someone asks you what time it is and you truthfully tell, them I was told it is 10:00 o'clock. My point is truth can be found everywhere, though it is often ambiguous or impractical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
History, like everything else, is nothing but a vast conspiracy with you at the center, the past is there to fool you, there are tremendous nefarious forces in the shadows and they are all focused all on you. Only the conspiracy is real, only you are in the know.
Not everything is a conspiracy, otherwise the conspiracy itself would be a conspiracy, making nothing a conspiracy, but then yet again this would be the conspiracy, leaving an endless logical cycle.
I disagree history is completely centered on the reader, as this would require a multicentric plot. Not everyone can be in focus at once, otherwise you wouldn't consider anyone to be in focus since focus is a relative standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If we were to correctly understand how far skewed history is, we could approximate what it would have been correctly documented as; then, from this educated guess, we could construct an accurate description of the past, bacing our decisions off of it. Do you think history could have any practical application whatsoever if this correct understanding of the past was successful and could be known as true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Understanding mechanics allows for predictions valid in future contexts, or for things present but not known. For example you can make predictions about where coal or oil will be found by understanding the mechanics of geology, but there is no way to understand the mechanics of geology without discovering millions of years of geological history.
I agree that history as a concept is an important and practical study, but the aspect that is taught in school is only that nations history from the founding including selective events. I'm curious if the history taught in school is practical, an indoctrination, or both, and if we even should care if it is indoctrination.
Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded.How would you be aware of such skewing if no one studied history?
This is where I would disagree. You could never know history is skewed by only reading history. I would imagine this is similar to determining whether a ruler is warped by comparing it to itself, you cannot. People are able to determine that the past was most probably skewed by comparing it to the present and how people act and socialize in our current time and then we place those ideas conceptually in the past and assume with best approximation that the past was skewed. My idea is that history is not useful in teaching its own flaws, it is the present that does this.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure where I stand, currently I'm uncertain and wish someone to sway me one way or the other. Of course though, I will critically challenge a sway of either direction.
Here are my notes, some ideas may have changed since I wrote them, but I figure they will stimulate your thoughts and bring about a conversation.
I believe on the importance of short-term History such as business decisions based on a company's past, but not in long-term history since the present environment is never the same as the past, making the past decision only a guestimation of what is appropriate for the present, not an assured prediction.
Here is my speculative definition:
History is (potentially) simply a propaganda made to inspire or strike pride in a nation's political, religious, or technological identity.
Here is a commonly recognized definition of history:
A nuanced and practical definition of history, acknowledging its complexities and multiple facets, could be articulated as follows:History is the systematic study and interpretation of past events, cultures, and societies, aimed at understanding the complexities of human behavior, social structures, and the forces that have shaped the world. It encompasses a wide range of subjects, including economic, social, technological, and environmental aspects, beyond its traditional focus on politics, national pride, or religious identity. While history can be used to inspire or instill pride, its primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive, critical examination of the past, offering insights into the present and guiding considerations for the future. This approach recognizes the potential for multiple interpretations and the influence of historiography, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and analysis in discerning historical truths.
Firstly, history is not a systematic study but a documentation of historical events; a historian uses a systematic study of history.
Secondly, history is not complete with everyday documented, only what was selected as important; it is these events than are related to a nation's religious, political, or technological progression.
Thirdly, almost nothing of history is factual, it is primarily subjective interpretation. Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded. Of the interpretations, what of it can be learned but an opinion. If I recorded that blue is the prettiest color the only conclusion to be derived is some ancient person thought blue was the prettiest color. This makes the practical application of learning from history is close to zero, since it is mostly opinions, and the minuscule objective evidence is potentially skewed.
Finally, even if by a miracle the history was interpreted in the same perspective as the author and the objective facts were true, the learning part of history requires drawing effects from cause, which also includes context. It is this context that is consistently changing in the present and never matching the past, making direct cause and effect impossible to be certain. This leaves us with a highly improbable potentially flawed and contextually different solution that may help interpret our future. It is from this I believe that we would do just as well with what we think is best given our intuition and present experience, effectively rendering history as a practically useless propagandic study.
Created:
What is the typical accuracy of someone's personal outlook on life? In general, do people overestimate their troubles and more often focus on the negative, do they accurately estimate their satisfaction with their life ahead, or do they underestimate their troubles and focus on the positive? Do people commonly live with a ball of emotional dissatisfaction that they ignore so they can be happier, or is it more common that people live comfortably in the moment? Are the differences in these perspectives largely dependent on a person's philosophy and the culture of their childhood?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?I’m saying a person can act selflessly without a self-centred purpose of enhancing their moral self-image.
This would be categorized as an accident approach to selflessness, and I don't agree that a person who accidentally acts in such a way that it benefits another is considered selfless. You could imagine a person who trades stocks accidentally makes the wrong decision and another benefits would not be considered selfless.
I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.I was using a two pronged approach in pointing out your flawed reasoning in both thinking emergentism is religious and that deductive evidence is one of the only things you need to discuss.
Why do we think if not to deduce or induce knowledge? It sounds like you are suggesting we rely on non-logically derived conclusions, which I can't understand. I can't currently agree with the validity of emergentism in this debate as it touches upon the bounds of sound judgement and the supernatural.
I cannot be of use to conclude or support ideas that cannot be tested and derived by evident knowledge known as evidence as it would otherwise be considered a philosophy or conviction rather than a rational deduction. At this point, I can agree that we disagree, and thank you for expressing your ideas enough that I can understand your position and reasoning.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That sounds interesting, but I don't understand your point.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I don't see why waves aren't considered to exist. Are you referring to the Cambridge definition of exist?
Cambridge definition of exist: "to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood"
Considering you know that everything is waves, it has the ability to be known or recognized, so reality does exist.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I would say the contrary; everything is real. It is only a matter of incorrectly classifying what something is that would give the illusion it is fake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The brain is not life, jellyfish have life, trees have life; I agree that the brain's purpose is to understand the world in order to support and better ensure a creature's genes thrive, but I think it's incorrect to derive that this is the purpose of life itself.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things.One requires forethought, the other doesn’t.
As I said before: "The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed selfish in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless."
As I understand it, a person can approach being selfless in two ways, intentionally or unintentionally (accidentally); this is a mutually exclusive condition, making it impossible for any other variation. Of these two, which are you suggesting lies the act of true selflessness? Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.The world wouldn’t make much sense if all we had to go off was quantum mechanics. Hence why (like it or not) we look back at the bigger picture.
I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.Read some philosophy on emergent properties, and then come back to me. You have no idea what i’m talking about. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, don’t be afraid to ask.
I didn't know that you were refering to a philosophy, so I wouldn't have known to ask. I'm here to learn, so thank you for teaching me something new.
Here is what I found, please clarify this is correctly representing your belief:The case made by emergent thought philosophy is that some aspects of reality, such as life, mind, and society, are not explainable by the simpler components that make them up, but rather arise from the complex interactions of those components. Emergent thought philosophy argues that these aspects of reality have their own properties, laws, and meanings that cannot be reduced to the lower levels of reality.To say that something is reducible means that it can be explained or derived from something else that is more fundamental or basic. For example, some philosophers think that mental states are reducible to brain states, meaning that they can be fully accounted for by the physical processes in the brain.To say that there are different levels of reality means that there are different kinds or categories of things that exist, each with their own properties and laws. For example, some philosophers distinguish between the level of quantum reality, where subatomic particles behave in strange ways, and the level of medium-sized objects, where we encounter things like tables and chairs.The question of whether something is reducible or not, and whether there are different levels of reality or not, is a major topic in philosophy. Some philosophers are reductionists, who think that everything can be reduced to the most basic level of reality, such as physics. Other philosophers are emergentists, who think that some things, such as life, mind, or society, are not reducible to the lower levels of reality, but rather emerge from the complex interactions of those lower levels
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.
I don't mean to discredit supernatural believers, but the supernatural is unexplainable being defined as supernatural, so it is not worth the time trying to understand.
If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing…That’s after the fact. I don't even have to read anything else in that regard. Read some cognitive science on rationalisation if you don’t want to deal with straight common sense.
Why does it matter that it is after the fact? I don't think that after or before would differ, she would say the same.
When you say read some cognitive science, you are refering to a vast subject, with almost no direction beside rationality, which is a philosophical topic, not a cognitive science. Would you clarify your point?
I don't think it is appropriate to treat any commonly accepted idea as obvious or apparent without thorough examination; otherwise, we are simply following the cultural norm without thinking. Cognitive science is a fascinating and complex topic with much uncertainty, would you explain what you think about cognitive science is common sense?
It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed selfish in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things.
Simply telling me this teaches me nothing but that you disagree; would you precisely explain how they are different, and what makes this discernment valid?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Reece101
In times of war, like a mother saving their child scenario. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9860/posts/425691
If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing, the answer would be no; but if you then asked another mother who people would consider heartless having not cared for the child's life the exact same question, the answer would be "Of course I could live with myself, I'm living right now." The answer to whether the mother saved the child was not by intent, nor was it by selflessness, but by whether it was what the mother felt that she had to do. People know that their feelings aren't within their control, only their actions; but in both cases the mother only acted upon the path of least effort to accomplish their emotional desires.
The least effort principle is obvious when explained with the analogy that you would never see a person outside digging a hole in the ground if not for enjoyment or another purpose. This is because humans only act upon a goal, being their emotional fulfillment.
The least effort principle is obvious when explained with the analogy that you would never see a person outside digging a hole in the ground if not for enjoyment or another purpose. This is because humans only act upon a goal, being their emotional fulfillment.
How do you get around the intention problem? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9860/posts/425547
It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed self-less in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I've already made what I believe to be a strong stance, and you saying yes people don't always act selfishly since they sometimes act selflessly is a self-supported idea. If you read back a bit in the history of this thread, I will try to respond to any particular questions you have, the more tangible or practical the better.
Created:
-->
@Godblessus
Sorry for the delay, I've been less active lately; but if you get me more engaged I'll check more often :)
I don't really think that we have to disagree when we don't share the same opinion. This is a characteristic of subjective ideas. If I think green is the prettiest color and you think blue, we don't have to disagree since you and I agree I like green the best and you like blue the best. Worth is how much one thing is valued by another, indicating worth is a subjective concept. This can be made clear with the analogy that you may say diamonds have worth, but to the man in the desert water is more valuable, making worth and value contextual and subjective. Back to the quote...
I don't really think that we have to disagree when we don't share the same opinion. This is a characteristic of subjective ideas. If I think green is the prettiest color and you think blue, we don't have to disagree since you and I agree I like green the best and you like blue the best. Worth is how much one thing is valued by another, indicating worth is a subjective concept. This can be made clear with the analogy that you may say diamonds have worth, but to the man in the desert water is more valuable, making worth and value contextual and subjective. Back to the quote...
My favorite quote: "A man's worth is determined by how much truth he can tolerate." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I can agree that you don't find the value of a person based on the truth they can tolerate while I still find the value by this. The quote is not wrong or right just the same as if I said green is the prettiest color. In this sense, I don't think we have any disputes.
Attacking you Critical-Tim in your ideas because if you beat up the biggest strongest guy then you know that you have completed a difficult act. And if I lose then I'll have made an enemy out of meanest kid on the block and I can learn how to win when I take my beatings.
I'm glad you find me to have the the strongest arguments, since I put a lot of effort into trying to better and more accurately understand the world. Interestingly, this is not far from my own saying, and I love taking on the best: "Challenge the best and you have nothing to lose with everything to gain".
So selfishly I encourage you to introduce me to my first online debate by introducing me to the bottom of your foot sharply. Best of luck!
Not in the least. I respect everyone who puts effort into understanding. If you can find a better understanding than me I would be delighted to know I now have an even better understanding, but in that I must put my best attempt to prove my current thoughts in order to know they are wrong and must be corrected. I even like, for deep meditation excercises, holding two contrary beliefs symaltaneously. I will imagine I am each contender, by embodying a belief you will find ways of thinking and proving an idea better than you ever could from a distance. I will try and form the best argument for both case going back and forth until I hit a dead end and I can't counter one of the arguments of an idea, and for the time being the one wins. Sometimes a few days later I randomly get a spark and have the counter and the debate goes on. I hope this helps give you an idea on how to better understand, fortify, and challenge ideas in order to find the more rigid of philosophies.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
"Lebensraum," a term deeply rooted in the historical and philosophical discourse, translates directly from German as "living space." Originally used in the context of biology and human geography, it referred to the habitat or territory required by an organism or a population to thrive. The concept encapsulates the idea that populations grow and, as a result, require more space to continue their development and maintain their existence.
However, the term gained infamy and a specific political connotation in the early 20th century, particularly through its adoption by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. In this context, Lebensraum became a key ideological element underpinning the regime's policies and expansionist aims. It was used to justify the territorial expansion of Germany, under the pretext that the German people needed more space to live, grow, and prosper. This justification was employed to legitimize the annexation of territories and the displacement or extermination of their inhabitants, based on a belief in the racial superiority of the Aryan race and the perceived necessity for its growth.
Thus, while "Lebensraum" can be understood in a neutral, ecological sense, its historical usage imbues it with a much darker significance, reflecting ideologies of expansionism, racial discrimination, and the justification of aggression under the guise of natural and national necessity.
In summary, "Lebensraum" refers to the concept of living space necessary for populations to thrive, but is historically notorious for its appropriation by Nazi ideology to justify territorial expansion and associated atrocities, marking it as a term laden with implications of aggression and racial discrimination.
- ChatGPT4
Conviction is the enemy of understanding. - Myself
Conviction is the enemy of understanding. - Myself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I don't think it's just the word Zionism but most words that people have their subtle distinct definitions that lead to a majority of disputes in debates. I see it happening all the time when people discuss gender, religion, morality. If you pay attention to the way that someone uses a word you can almost always discover what they meant by it, but yes, people almost never seek to understand what I call, " the communication breakdown". I believe it is the source of all logically founded disputes. Of course, emotional disputes arise from personal feelings, which are to be expected, but logical disputes are always the result of a communication breakdown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I do understand your point but just because there is no universally agreed definition does not mean that the whole of people is unable to communicate practically. Let's say that 50% of people have an agreed upon definition, and there are many other definitions with fewer percentages of agreement. This does not stop people from being able to use the most agreed upon definition, it only excludes the people who refuse to use it. Your example that one person may use the correct definition, and another use their own personal definition, well, so goes the same for anyone who chooses to define anything by their own personal definition, they are excluded from community dialog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I think it's true to say that many subgenres exist but considering what that means Is everyone means something different when they say the same thing. Essentially, it's refusal to cooperate with an agreed upon definition. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a most broadly accepted definition which by definition would be the correct definition, since no word has the definition except by acceptance, and no word can have multiple definitions, indicating that the most accepted definition is the only correct definition. I don't claim to know which definition is the most acceptable, but I do believe that relying on official resources is a safe way to start, rather than considering abstract sub-genre and personal definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Do you have a better definition? It was the strongest argument I could pose for each side, including the most reliable and accurate definitions I could find.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would say that intelligence has benefited our ability to problem solve, but it hasn't inhibited our emotional and primitive drives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you mean by the downside of intelligence is stupidity, and how do you believe it relates?
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
Allowing/mandating gender-affirming care to minors is troubling. Professionals recommending sex-reassignment surgery (sterilization) as a cure for depressed/anxious/lonely people is also problematic.
It definitely doesn't seem like a proper solution to the problem. I think it may be intentional to remove the reproductive abilities of people with sexual health conditions, at least until a real solution is found.
Created:
Posted in:
The point of this is to establish a well-rounded and informed view on the subject before choosing sides, so I have attempted to create the strongest case for each side while remaining concise.
Argument for Zionism: Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism that posits Jews are a nation and that Jews should receive national rights on the basis of this identity. Zionists believe that the location for these rights or sovereignty should be the Land of Israel, which religious Jewish tradition regarded as Jews’ ancient and ultimate homeland. Zionism is based on the following arguments:
- Zionism is a legitimate and natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and national liberation, as recognized by international law and human rights. Jews have a unique and special connection to the Land of Israel, which is their ancestral and historical homeland, and where they have maintained a continuous presence and culture for thousands of years. Jews have a natural and divine right to return to their land and to create a sovereign state there (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003).
- Zionism is a necessary and justified response to the centuries of persecution, oppression, and discrimination that Jews have faced in the diaspora, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as a reaction to the rise of antisemitism and nationalism in Europe, which threatened the security and the identity of the Jewish minority. Zionism also emerged as a reaction to the decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which left the Jewish population in Palestine vulnerable and unprotected. Zionism sought to provide a safe haven and a homeland for the Jewish people, where they could live in dignity and freedom (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003).
- Zionism is supported by scientific evidence and research that confirms the genetic, cultural, and historical continuity of the Jewish people, and their link to the Land of Israel. Zionism is based on the idea that Jews are not only a religious group, but also a distinct ethnic and racial group, that originated in Palestine (ancient Canaan) and that shares a common ancestry and heritage. Zionism is also based on the idea that Jews have contributed to the development and civilization of the world, especially in the fields of science, art, and religion. Zionism is validated by various sources, such as the Bible, the archaeology, the history, and the genetics (Benziman & Mansour, 2012; Golan, 2011; Laqueur, 2003; Ostrer, 2012).
- Zionism is a movement to restore the Jewish presence and sovereignty in Israel, the ancestral and historical homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism is fair because it fulfills the religious and national aspirations of the Jews, who have maintained a continuous and unbreakable connection to the land for thousands of years. Zionism is also fair because it offers refuge and protection to the Jews, who have faced persecution and genocide in many parts of the world. Zionism is based on justice, truth, and peace.
References:
- Benziman, U., & Mansour, A. (2012). Haaretz e-books: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd.
- Golan, A. (2011). Zionism and the origins of Israeli diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
- Laqueur, W. (2003). A history of Zionism. Schocken Books.
- Ostrer, H. (2012). Legacy: A genetic history of the Jewish people. Oxford University Press.
Argument for anti-Zionism: Anti-Zionism is a political and ideological movement that opposes the existence and the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and the Zionist project of creating and maintaining a Jewish national state in Palestine. Anti-Zionists believe that Zionism is a form of colonialism, racism, and apartheid, that violates the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, and that threatens the peace and stability of the region and the world. Anti-Zionism is based on the following arguments:
- Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, but a legitimate criticism of a political ideology and a state that violates the rights and dignity of the Palestinians. Anti-Zionism does not deny the existence or the history of the Jewish people, but challenges the claim that they have a superior or exclusive right to the land of Palestine. Anti-Zionism also recognizes the diversity and complexity of Jewish identity and opinion, and does not conflate them with the actions and policies of Israel (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003).
- Zionism is a form of colonialism, racism, and apartheid, that displaces, oppresses, and discriminates against the indigenous people of Palestine. Zionism relies on the myths of a “land without a people” and a “chosen people” to justify the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of Palestine. Zionism also violates the principles of international law and human rights, and threatens the peace and stability of the region and the world (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003; Pappe, 2006).
- Zionism is a self-defeating and unsustainable project, that undermines the security and the morality of the Jewish people. Zionism isolates and alienates Israel from the international community, and exposes it to constant violence and hostility. Zionism also corrupts and distorts the Jewish values and traditions, and makes them subservient to a nationalist and militarist agenda. Zionism also ignores the reality and the diversity of the Palestinian people, and denies them their legitimate aspirations and claims (Abunimah, 2014; Chomsky, 2015; Finkelstein, 2003; Pappe, 2006).
- Zionism is a favoritist and immoral movement. Favoritism is the unfair preference for a group or individual over others. Zionism prefers the Jews over other nations and claims that they have a special right to Palestine. Zionism also imposes the Jewish culture, religion, and identity on the native Palestinians. Zionism is based on myths, lies, and violence . Immorality is the violation of justice and fairness in human relations. Zionism disregards the rights and dignity of the Palestinians and treats them as inferior or disposable. Zionism also contradicts the values and traditions of the Jewish people and makes them oppressors and killers of the Palestinians. Zionism is based on selfishness, greed, and hatred .
References:
- Abunimah, A. (2014). The battle for justice in Palestine. Haymarket Books.
- Chomsky, N. (2015). On Palestine. Penguin Books.
- Finkelstein, N. G. (2003). Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Verso.
- Pappe, I. (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.
Created:
The book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler has the following origin, time, and title:
- Origin: The book was written by Hitler while he was imprisoned in Landsberg am Lech, a town in Bavaria, Germany, after his failed coup attempt in Munich in November 1923. He was sentenced to five years in prison for high treason, but he was released after nine months. He wrote the book with the help of his secretary Rudolf Hess and his publisher Max Amann.
- Time: The book was written in two parts. The first part was written in 1924, and the second part was written in 1926. The first part was published in July 1925, and the second part was published in December 1926. The book was edited and revised several times, and different editions had different lengths and contents. The book was banned in Germany after World War II, but it was reprinted and translated in many countries.
- Title: The title Mein Kampf means “My Struggle” or “My Fight” in German. It reflects Hitler’s personal and political struggle to achieve his goals and to overcome his enemies. It also implies that his struggle is the struggle of the German nation and the Aryan race. The title was suggested by Hitler’s publisher Max Amann, who thought that the original title, “Four and a Half Years (of Struggle) Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice”, was too long and boring.
- Intent: Hitler’s intent for the book Mein Kampf was to present his political manifesto and autobiography, in which he reveals his plans and ambitions for Germany and the world. He also used the book to assert his authority, to settle accounts with his rivals, and to expound his racial and political ideology. He hoped that the book would run into many editions, thus enabling him to fulfill his financial obligations and to defray the expenses incurred at the time of his trial. He also wanted to influence and convince the masses and the elites of his worldview and his leadership. He believed that his book was a phenomenon that the world would ponder for centuries to come.
- Effect: The effect of the book Mein Kampf on Germany was significant and profound. The book became the bible of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany's Third Reich, and influenced millions of followers and helpers of Hitler's ideology and regime. The book also became a source of Hitler's private fortune, as it became a best-seller and a compulsory gift in Nazi Germany. The book also shaped the education and propaganda of Nazi Germany, as it outlined Hitler's views and plans for Germany and the world. The book also justified and foreshadowed Hitler's violent and oppressive policies against the Jews and other races, which led to the Holocaust and World War II.
Created:
For everyone who hasn't the time to read a full book, here is a detailed summary generated by Bing.
This part of the current page is an introduction to the book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
Part 1 of 7:
- The author’s background and motivation: The introduction gives a brief overview of Hitler’s life, from his birth in Braunau on the Inn, a border town between Germany and Austria, to his rise as the leader of the Nazi Party. It also explains why he wrote the book, which was to assert his authority, to settle accounts with his rivals, and to expound his racial and political ideology.
- The book’s content and style: The introduction describes the main themes and topics of the book, such as the German nation, the Jewish question, the struggle for power, the foreign policy, and the methods of propaganda and violence. It also comments on the book’s style, which is characterized by hatred, personalism, illogic, and bombast. It points out some of the changes and inconsistencies between different editions of the book.
- The book’s impact and significance: The introduction evaluates the book as a kind of “satanic Bible” that reveals Hitler’s plans and ambitions, and that influenced millions of followers and helpers. It also notes that the book was a source of Hitler’s private fortune, as it became a best-seller and a compulsory gift in Nazi Germany. It concludes that the book is a phenomenon that the world will ponder for centuries to come.
Part 2 of 7:
- Hitler’s rejection from the Academy of Art. He wanted to become a painter, but he was told that he had no talent for painting and that he should study architecture instead. He was shocked and disappointed by this verdict.
- Hitler’s loss of his father and mother. His father died when he was thirteen, and his mother died two years later after a long illness. He was left alone and poor, and had to struggle for his existence in Vienna. He had no formal education or training in architecture.
- Hitler’s social and political awakening. He witnessed the economic misery, moral coarseness, and intellectual lowliness of the Viennese workers. He also learned to hate the Austrian state, which he blamed for the degeneration of the German people. He developed a nationalist and anti-Semitic worldview, based on his historical studies and personal experiences.
- Hitler’s artistic and philosophical aspirations. He continued to pursue his dream of becoming an architect, despite the hardships and obstacles. He also read a lot of books and formed his own philosophy, which he regarded as the foundation of his future actions. He claimed that he had acquired all the essential knowledge and ideas in his youth.
Part 3 of 7:
- The author’s views on the French education system. The author criticizes the French education system for instilling a subjective and biased view of the greatness of France, and neglecting the objective facts and values of other nations. The author claims that this education is limited and superficial, and does not foster a genuine sense of patriotism or respect for other peoples.
- The author’s experiences with the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions. The author recounts how he was exposed to the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions as a building worker in Vienna, and how he was repelled by their doctrines and methods. He argues that the Social Democrats are a destructive force that uses lies, slander, terror, and violence to undermine the national economy, the state, and the culture. He also accuses them of exploiting the workers and preventing any real social improvement. He contrasts the trade unions as a legitimate means of defending the social rights of the workers, and the trade unions as an instrument of the class struggle. He blames the bourgeoisie for failing to recognize the importance of the trade unions and allowing the Social Democrats to take over them.
- The author’s discovery of the Jewish question. The author describes how he became aware of the Jewish question as a result of his political discussions and his study of the Social Democratic literature and press. He claims that he was initially indifferent or sympathetic to the Jews, but later he came to see them as the enemies of the nation and the driving force behind Social Democracy. He asserts that only by knowing the Jews can one understand the true aims and nature of Social Democracy, and that the Jews are a parasitic and corrupting people that must be eliminated.
Part 4 of 7:
- The author’s political awakening: The author describes how he became interested in politics and developed his anti-Semitic views after living in Vienna and observing the Jewish influence in various fields. He claims that he was acting in accordance with the will of God by fighting against the Jews.
- The author’s admiration for Joseph II: The author praises Joseph II, the Holy Roman Emperor, as the only one of the Habsburg dynasty who tried to unify and modernize the Austrian Empire by imposing a central and German policy. He laments that Joseph II died too soon and his successors were incompetent and weak.
- The author’s analysis of the Austrian state: The author argues that the Austrian state, composed of different nationalities, was doomed to fail unless it adopted a ruthless and persistent policy of centralization and Germanization. He criticizes the Habsburg rulers for neglecting this task and allowing the centrifugal forces of the individual peoples to grow stronger. He contrasts the Austrian state with the German Reich, which had a common cultural and racial foundation.
Part 5 of 7:
- The revolution of 1848 in Austria was driven by national rather than social or political causes, and it weakened the German dominance in the monarchy.
- The parliamentary system of the Austrian Reichsrat was based on the British model, but it was corrupted by the influence of the Jewish press and the lack of responsibility and ability of the deputies.
- The author criticizes the democratic principle of majority rule and the manipulation of public opinion by the press, which he considers to be a Jewish tool to undermine the German nation.
- The author contrasts the parliamentary democracy with the Germanic democracy, which he defines as the free election of a leader who assumes full responsibility for his actions.
- The author blames the House of Habsburg, especially Archduke Francis Ferdinand, for pursuing a policy of de-Germanization and Czechization, and for using religion as a political instrument.
- The author praises the Pan-German movement in Austria, which emerged as a reaction to the threat of the German nation in the monarchy. He also expresses his admiration for the German Empire and its military achievements.
Part 6 of 7:
- The Pan-German movement in Austria: A political party that aimed to unite all German-speaking people in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and join the German Reich. It was led by Georg von Schonerer, a nationalist and anti-Catholic politician.
- The Christian Social Party: A rival party that emerged in the late 19th century and gained popularity among the middle class and the Catholic clergy. It was led by Karl Lueger, a charismatic and pragmatic mayor of Vienna who wanted to reform the monarchy and preserve its multi-national character.
- The comparison of the two leaders and parties: The author analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of Schonerer and Lueger, and their different approaches to the social, national, and religious issues of their time. He criticizes the Pan-German movement for being too radical, dogmatic, and isolated from the masses, and praises the Christian Social Party for being more realistic, flexible, and appealing to the people.
- The failure of both movements to achieve their goals: The author concludes that neither movement was able to save Austria from its decline and disintegration. He blames the Pan-German movement for neglecting the importance of the masses and the social question, and for attacking the Catholic Church without offering a religious alternative. He blames the Christian Social Party for being too late and too limited in its efforts to reform the monarchy and resist the Slavic domination.
Part 7 of 7:
- The importance of propaganda for the movement. Hitler argues that propaganda is essential to win over the masses and influence their opinions. He says that propaganda must be simple, emotional, and repetitive, and that it must address only one side of the audience. He also says that propaganda must be consistent with the goals and methods of the movement, and that it must not contradict itself or the facts.
- The role of the press and the picture in propaganda. Hitler criticizes the press as a tool of the enemies of the nation, and says that it must be controlled by the movement. He says that the press must not only inform, but also educate and mobilize the people. He also praises the picture as a more effective means of propaganda than the written word, because it appeals to the masses more easily and quickly. He says that the picture can convey a general world view and a sense of beauty and strength.
- The art of correct reading and writing. Hitler says that reading and writing are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. He says that reading should help to fill the gaps in one’s knowledge and to form a coherent world picture. He says that writing should aim at influencing and convincing the audience, and that it should be adapted to their level and nature. He says that a good speaker can write better than a good writer can speak, unless the writer practices the art of speaking.
I hope this is at least an interesting read, but perhaps it could spark further conversation.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think it's that we can't continue reprogramming, but that it gets tiresome and the reward of conforming is no longer worth the effort.
It's simply easier to just say this is how it's always been and stand on that.
I'm not for or against ongoing conformation; instead, I think that people choose the path that is better for themself.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I have not heard of his exemption and that is fascinating. It begs the question of why.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Hitler claimed his hatred for the Jews was because he blamed them for Germany's loss in World War 1, mainly because the US weapons supplier was a Jew and said he foresaw a war with Germany and wanted to be a part of it.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
The quote by the Rommel Papers seem to be accurate with his publicly announced belief in fighting to leave a dominant nation. By recognizing that Germany may lose, he understood it meant Germany was not the worthy champion by his own terms of a supreme nation.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I think it's also important to gain both perspective and perceived introspection.
What was Hilter's political view could become:
How did Hitler see his political group?
How did Germans see Hitler's political group?
How did other nations see Hitler's political group?
An example of this could be related to Thanos.
People often see Thanos as genocidal.
Thanos saw himself as a utilitarian martyr.
I think in the case of Thanos, both perspectives are correct.
In the long-term the sum of happiness was increased, along with a decrease in suffering, but he was also a mass murderer.
This doesn't help us answer the question of what is right, but it does give us a clearer understanding of the situation, such as how Thanos could believe he was a savior, and how others could dislike him despite his results.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I agree and like that you highlight beliefs and values evolve, especially after influential events.
Survival of the fittest was one of Hitler's slogans, he claimed that in order to prepare humanity against future disasters inevitable in our infinite future we must find the strongest and smartest by combative elimination in order to reproduce and evolve the populus to be stronger and smarter genetically.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I believe we are touching on a bit of metaphysics, which asks the question about the nature of what reality we are describing.
I believe the strongest argument could be held that there is only one relavent reality, intersubjective phenomenological reality, aka, common human experience.
In the idea that we are positing a reality whose nature is the common human experience, We couldn't consider dreams, concepts, and ideas as examples of real aspects of reality that transcend the natural world, physical world.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Professing one's nihilism is not a contradiction in itself.
Nihilism is the philosophical perspective that posits the absence of inherent meaning, objective purpose, or intrinsic value in the universe. It contends that traditional beliefs, moral values, and societal structures are ultimately baseless and without objective foundation. Nihilism often asserts that life lacks inherent significance, and any assigned meaning is a subjective and arbitrary construct rather than an inherent truth. This worldview challenges conventional notions of purpose and meaning, suggesting a fundamental emptiness or lack of inherent order in existence.
Therefore, a person can openly claim to be nihilistic and find subjective value in doing so, meanwhile not contradicting their stance of nihilism.
I used nihilistic atheist to describe an atheist who is nihilistic, knowing they are two seperate terms, necessitating my use of both for precision. I described him as not a nihilistic atheist upon my theory that being nihilistic he would not believe in true purpose or meaning to fuel his motivation, and atheist in that he would also need to believe his efforts were a path of righteousness that must be fulfilled, such as in manifest destiny.
Created: