Café Philosophique

[Darnoc]

I've seen a lot of debates going on and have also seen that some of them concern also parts of philosophy. But I didn't find a philosophical thread, so I'm starting one now. Here anyone can write what he wants, only exceptions are of course spam and insults. This shall be a thread of general discussion about anything that is at least some parts philosophical. You can talk about ethics (war and peace; is killing right? etc.), cognition theory, metaphysics, ideologies etc. etc.

 

May the discussions beginn!

 

(note: This thread should be edited all the times, so when a discussion dies, a new one can be started)

 

First discussion: Do you personally agree with globalization and the use of war?

[Shakkara]

If you ask that then the first question should be "what is the definition of 'right'?". ^_^

 

So, let's turn the question into "Do you personally agree with globalization and use of war?".

 

I believe that globalization could be a good thing, but at the moment I have no desire for it because I do not believe that the rulers are able to use their power wisely. Look at the state of the world today. Would you want any of the current world leaders to have any power over the whole earth? And if do know such a person, then compare him to the rest, and think about the odds of having a person like him in control. I place much value in human independance, individuality, creativity, freedom, the ability to express oneself and for the society I would like to see a drastic decrease in corporate power, deregulation, and reduction of government interference in what I consider my own business and privacy. I do not believe globalization will bring those thing at the moment. Perhaps in the future.

 

As for war, I don't think it will solve anything in the long run. On the short term it might appear that way though. It is a shame that the mob believes the ranting of warmongering leaders and their propaganda. Then go on killing people they don't even know, just because of hate and/or a false believe in their superiority put there by an external force.

[Darnoc]

In most cases I would agree that war isn't a good thing. But what is when surpressed people fight against there surpressers? What is, when someone kills a tyrant? Isn't this something good?

 

I think the reason, why globalization isn't a good thing, is, because it was a lie from the beginning. "Globalization" was an excuse for the western industries to plunder the nations of the third world, mostly in Africa. It was an excuss to bring "predator-capitalism" to those nations, to steal away their ressources and money, even when it costs millions of lives. Good examples of this you can see in Sierra Leone, Congo and Angola. I recommend to read the books of Peter Scholl-Latour on this matter (he is a German journalist, I don't know the title of his books in English), most of all the book "Afrikanische Totenklage" (African Keen).

[Malchik]

The very word 'globalisation' raises the hackles of some people because it is in the minds of many linked to capitalism. I find it difficult to imagine that without a global approach to certain problems society will find it easy to progress. There are signs of it occuring in the fighting of crime and disease but in a very small way. Over time this may change although I agree with Shakkara that there needs to be accountability.

 

The question of approach to global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer is an interesting case. The last I read the US (government) regards the whole thing as a joke. Of course it will be Australia and New Zealand that first become uninhabitable and why would that worry the US? What happens if the rest of the world believes that action has to be taken to save the planet and the US does not? Would we be justified in invading the US for the good of the planet?

 

Shakkara in another debate said there was no excuse for one soveriegn state to meddle in the affairs of another. But can we really be so dogmatic in such serious situations?

 

I have nothing but revulsion over what has been done in Iraq because that country was never a threat to the world but I would not be prepared to state categorically that there is never an excuse.

[Darnoc]

I think it's very arrogant of one country to think that they are the good guys and that they can meddle in everyones affairs. When most of all countries agree that someone is a threat, then action could be taken (invade the USA because they are a threat for the enviroment :D ). Problem is that the UNO is so inefficent. The veto should be abolished and the council of nations should have the right to decide. And when the UNO decides to take action, every country must follow and help (giving soldiers, weapons, bases etc. to the UNO). At the moment the UNO is a sharade with almost no power.

 

Globalization is a good idea, but it was always abused by the powerful and the mighty. This is, why I am against it, not because I think the fundamental idea was bad.

[Hayabusa]

I think we may speak about various aspects of globalization, like technologies that spread, or Internet, or economy and trade affairs. It`s way too general to say that globalization is bad. Finally this forum is also an effect of globalization, isn`t it ?

 

Sorry that I make it so short, I think I`ll write more later.

 

 

BTW

Darnoc :

I can`t speak Danish, but I can quite understand what You have written. :D

[Shakkara]

Malchik, it is right that the US does not care about the environment, be it the ozone layer or global warming or water pollution, my father works for the government over here, at the bureau for durable construction and renewable energy, and the US wants absolutely NOTHING to do with it, since he has been to the US a few times to raise certain issues and to combine efforts with research etc. They simply say: "Nice, really nice *YAWN*" and do nothing. He is now trying to interest Japan and the Scandinavian nations, and those seem to care a whole lot more then the US. The US simply take their trash to the other side of the world. You probably know about their ships. Oil tankers and cargo ships are sailed to asia and onto a beach, where they let people demolish them, including children, exposing them to toxic chemicals and polluting the sea. The people that do that work for a dollar a day often die within 5 years.

 

Invade the US because they rape the world? I don't think we have to do that. Stop dealing with the US alltogether will quickly stop this bullsh!t. If they don't have cheap oil then they cannot burn it so carelessly. If there is no-one else buying their products then they don't have to make them. And of course their whole economy based on exploiting other nations will collapse.

[Mojlnir]

Ah, a wonderful topic to discuss! Shakkara, you may be shocked, but this time I agree with you! Invading the United States is not the answer to any of the worlds problems, because at this point my government has wasted so much money on "defense" spending that any such attack would very quickly become extremely nasty (read possibly nuclear). Hurting the U.S. is done much more effectively with economic sanctions and cooperative efforts by foreign nations. Take for example the recent row over W's assinie steel tarriffs. The EU worked together and hit the U.S. in economic areas that are political hot-buttons and got W to remove the tarriffs. This is what needs to happen to the U.S. if anyone wants to see our corportations and government start to behave itself.

As for globalization, I think in some aspects it is good and in many others, it is bad. The WTO and the World Bank have worked together to rape the less developed world and provide every benefit possible to uber-rich Western governments and corporations. This is undeniably bad, and has lead to low prices and rampant consumerism in the U.S. and the EU (US is the worse offender in this case). However, given the fact that globalization can also mean interdependence, I think that it is good that states are relying more and more on one another. I beleive that with more cooperation among states, there is more concurrance of goals and therefore less chance that war may erupt between states.

Briefly on war. I personally feel that war is abhorrent and should not be practiced. But am also a realist in that I understand that such a world is not possible at this point and that we must make do with what we have. I think the my country is flat wrong in not signing the landmine treaty, or the genocide treaty, or Kyoto or any of the other treaties that we don't like because they're not advantageous solely to America. I think that the U.S. should also submit to the ICC (International Criminal Court) because its ludicrous to assert that there are no war criminals among the leadership of the U.S. There are more bloody hands in this country than many others.

As for global warming...it makes me so mad I can't think straight. It exists, it's really happening, and to beleive otherwise is the simple definition of clinical stupidity. We need wind power and soon, before we create seriously irreversible damage.

[Darnoc]

It seems as if the discussion has died. So I declare it officialy dead :D and give you the chance to choose the next subject of discussion. It is of course also allowed to continue the current discussion (as said in the topic, you can say what you want), but when no one does reply to it, I will really end the discussion and start a new one. If after one day no one has given a new subject of discussion, I will choose one for you, but I think that not only I should choose discussion subjects (it looks to much like a dictatorship; philosophy should be democratic :rolleyes: ).

[ctogher]

I accept the challenge!... ^_^

 

And in true philosophical style, present the following statement that we may ponder the central truth to distraction:

 

"I, being human, declare that all humans are liars!"

 

Therefore, I am lying and could be telling the truth, which means that all humans are liars, which means I am lying and telling the truth! ....and so on..... :blink:

 

Where will it end.......