Scholar

But how do we make people aware of this? I watched the self-deception series but I didn't have this post hoc rationalization realization until now for some reason. Is it possible to make someone aware of it by trying to explain it to them or does it take time for it to actualize into an actual awareness of what is going on? So many of us here are doing it and I feel like it's such an obvious thing that somehow we should be able to avoid, right? But how?

No I will not, there is no point in arguing it. I gave you some critique of your system in the first post, you can ponder whether that is valid or not. If you want to know about the limitations of libertarianism you can read some books on it, or maybe someone else will explain. I don't have the time, we would argue for days.

Christ living now would be a vegan hippie who would mobilize entire societies to act against capitalism and greed, in the ideal scenario.

I think Leo would say that Bernie's criticism would contribute to raising the level of consciousness of people in the US and thus increase future likelihood of implementing these ideas. Whereas other leaders might not raise people's consciousness as much, and in the case of Trump might even lower it. The priority however is to raise consciousness in general, as that is what will lead to more stable progress. Bernie like Trump is very much a populist, just that his is pulling us towards green while Trump is pulling us towards blue and orange.

I think there is, what else would be the point of discussing Napoleon but raising people's consciousness? Look, I am not saying you are a lesser being because you don't value Christ more than Napoleon. I am just telling you that one day, following this path, you will actually change your values and be valuing someone like Christ the most. There is a reason for why you value Napoleon more so than Christ. And again, that reason is determined by your level of consciousness. Don't forget that your idenity if closely connected to your consciousness and how you perceive the world. This means that because you admire and maybe even idolize Napoleon so much, it might actually have an influence on your consciousness (it certainly has). Once you will let go of that, you can still look at Napoleon and see the good things he did, but you will see his low level of consciousness, you will see his egoism, and it will quite unattractive to you. That's just how it goes.

I know that is your understanding of compassion, but that is a very Stage Orange way of looking at compassion. You will only be compassionate as long as it does not restrict your individualistic needs. Once you have enough of these individualstic aspects you might one day start to think it isn't as important after all, and that maybe compassion is more important than freedom. I never told you what I value. I am explaining to you the difference between Stage Orange and Stage Green. All of your justifications are established post-hoc. It means that the arguments you are giving me are not actually what inform what you value, but what you value informs which arguments you will use to justify what you value. It would be senseless to discuss the arguments because you will not be compelled as long as your values do not change. I could give you reasons for why for example it will not end in disaster, or why your arguments are strawmanns and don't really reflect any position. But that would be useless, because you would just come with another argument to support your values and debunk mine. All I can do is make you question why you value freedom, and have you consider that any rational reason you will give is actually a result of that value rather than a true reason for why you value freedom. You entire consciousness is structured to perceive the world through an individualstic lense, there is no argument in the world that can change that. Which is fine, maybe you need to fullfill your current needs because you lack something in your life. But remember, once you fullfill that need for freedom, you will move onto other things. And that is good, that is how values evolve.

But that is not an unbiased description of what Hitler did. First, what are evil reasons? Hitler, and actually the germans in general, thought it was a very justifiable reason. They thought the Jews were a threat to the world and the wanted to get rid of them. You call them innocent, but to Hitler they were all a threat, they were like an infestation to him. Hitler genuinely thought he did the best for Germany and even mankind. Sure his beliefs were misguided, and surely we all disagree with his solutions. But to just say he was pure evil I don't think is a very accurate analysis. I am not judging you. You said Napoleon is one of your top 5 human beings ever. Clearly you value something in Napoleon, and clearly there is a reason for it. And the reason for it must be your level of consciousness, as it determines what you value and how you perceive the world. And because he is in your top 5 it does not really allow a lot of room for people who I think someone would value if they had a higher consciousness. One day you might find yourself to start disliking Napoleon, when your perspective evolves and you find new things that you admire. Always be open to that. You have no true control over what you value and who you admire. Question why you admire Napoleon in particular. And then question why you value these particularities. If your values stay rigid, you will not evolve your consciousness.

Maybe you don't think it is accurate because you still view the world through a very individualistic lense? Be open-minded that there is a reason for why you value what you value, for why you find certain argument compelling and others not, for why you agree with John Glubb instead of someone like Ken Wilber. What you value will determine how you will perceive the world. And how you perceive the world will determine what you will think to be true and false.

I have stopped to admire people for their grand achievements, I don't see anything special in Napoleon other than unfortunate genetics that allowed him to accomplish his egotistical needs. Someone who has the capacity to spare a creature like a spider despite fearing it to me is more admirable than Napoleon could have ever been, even if he conquered the entire world. I wonder how you would have talked about Hilter if he did succeed in creating the Third Reich. What if the world indeed would be better off without the jews? Would you then be sitting here and arguing for why Hilter had admiring qualities despite his relative cruelness? I could list a hundred people who I find far more extraoridnary than Napoleon. What you value, what you find extraoridnary and admirable, depends on your level of consciousness. Do you think Jesus would have listed Napoleon in his top 5 human beings ever? To me it seems like you are very biased towards Napoleon because you are attached to him. Especially because you have been reading about him from such a young age, it is likely that you have attached your identity to him.

Yes but then would you not agree that Napoleon was exceptionally ruthless and egotistical?

Yes but I don't think we also should just relativize everything to a point where everyone is basically just a person with some flaws. I would state that Napoleon and people like him were exceptionally egotistical and ruthless, otherwise they could have not assumed the positions of power they did. If I for example would compare Napoleon to Marcus Aurelius, I would say Marcus was definitely less egoic than him. But even he was embedded in a culture of imperialism. When you ask the people who had to live with the consequences of what Napoleon did and what Hitler did, you will probably get very similar responses. This is even true in contemporary contexts, where the imperialism of the US in the middle east is viewed as pure evil by those who are effected by it. Sure Hilter was more ruthless, but he also existed in a different historical context. We have to recognize that both of them were basically pure evil in the eyes of those who suffered greatly as a result of their conduct. Would you ever argue that a person who rapes children but also runs a non-profit charity that cures cancer is a person with some flaws?

Alright, I have not done too much research into it so you could be right. I think the entire point Leo was making was that this attitude of war and exploitation is so normalized that we don't even look at it like it was particulary egotistical. "Oh Napoleon just fought for france, he was just good at his job! And besides he did so many good things for france!" This entire attitude is a result of completely blatant self-bias. How could Napoleon have done what he did if he had not been ruthless? It's not like Napoleon stayed in france and defended it from foreign invasions. He was the conqueror. To be imperialistic you have to be egotistical.

So what did he say in the video that was unfactual?

Watch the video I posted above, about Napoleon's greatest foe. You can then research the names of the villages he mentions to verify it for yourself.

Napoleon destroyed entire villiages of innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, who were completely neutral, and from whoms destruction he gained no strategic advantage at all. He killed thousands of people because he felt like it. I think you really need to read up on Napoleon, the guy was a narssicistic maniac. Sure, he was also a strategic genius and fought for france, but in what world is that a justification for murdering innocent people, conquering and invading countries etc.? Napoleon is highly romanticized. Noone here is using barbaric as a description of Goths. I think you know what we mean when we say barbaric here.

I think any historian would call Agustus Caesar barbaric, in the common sense of the word. By the way you are arguing, you could say Hitler just did what was best for Germany. The only difference would be that Hitler failed while Napoleon had some temporary success.

@Nemo28 Essentially the answer is "Because Nemo28ness is not Dogness". It's like asking "How can there be individual atoms when the universe is one unified field or wave-function?". It's like asking "How can there be green while there is red?" By framing it this way you are already begging the question. You already assume that there is such a thing as possession, or some sort of metaphysical idenity. This right here is like a grain of sand. Look at how many grains of sand there are. Each grain of sand is it's own grain of sand, how is that even possible? Instead of buying into your thoughts of seperation, question them, look at them. What is "two thing"-ness? What is the substance of "two-thing"-ness? What is the substance of "me-vs-the-dog"-ness?

I think this is a very Stage Orange way of looking at politics. You seek to increase freedom while protecting the non-aggression principle, and that way you seek to structure your political system. A stage Green political system would be structured around compassion, cooperations and equality. It would limit freedom whenever it would compromise these three values. Direct democracy would not be possible because the majority will vote against the minority. Freedom will not be possible because it allows for systems of discrimination and inequality to propogate. It's not simply about "As long as you don't hurt anyone, you are fine." it's about "We have to help each other as long as we are unequal.". In the extreme, a stage orange system would allow starving people to death while you have the capacity to help them. A strage green system on the other hand would enforce the world so as that this could not take place. Also, a problem of direct democracy is that the population is not perfectly informed, allowing established forces of power to control the information flow and thus control the will of the population, an example of this is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but it goes far deeper than that. Freedom leads to destabilization due to the natural way powerstructures evolve. A stage green political system would seek the well-being of their citizens as a priority, even if that meant limiting their freedom. A stage orange system based on freedom however might allow people to self-destruct if it was their will. Yet, stage Green recognizes the futulity of choice, and knows that no choice is truly free, especially in systems that are governed by misinformation and opressive power structures.

Give that a listen. Especially the part when Napeleon exterminated an entire village just because he was frustrated. Hitler established animal welfare regulations, like requiring breaks for the transportation of pigs. There was also this prominent figure who didn't like when soldiers would treat the jews badly before executing them. That hardly makes them saints.

Which is why I told you that it is paramount to find a meat-replacement, like lab grown meat, instead of waiting for cultural changes that might take decades. Again, even if we are the soy that the animals ate, we would reduce the amount of it being produced substantially. Cows require far, far more soy to produce the same amount of calories in meat. Whether people want to eat soy or not is their choice, even if everyone ate soy instead of meat we would be far better off than now. But you yourself recognize that this is not a solution that can be implemented in time. So again, meat replacement is of utmost importance.

Exactly. This is what we are doing here. Figuring it out.

How do you propose to fix the issue?

Because Brazilian forests are not the only thing people are worried about, aside from the fact that humanitarian organisations don't save forests.

Yes but the problem is that the market will find solutions to cheapen the prices at all costs. They will lobby, they will invade other countries and burn their forests down. They will incentivise goverments to support them. Don't forget that they are being funded by everyone who buys meat. That's billions of people. That won't just go away by regulation, especially when people aren't even informed that the problem is the meat industry. Currently you have western goverments subsidizing the costs of meat. Because of the demand of entire populations, goverments will use taxes to make meat affordable. And they have to, it's what the people want. The people want meat. Either we change the people's wants, or we find a better way to produce meat. I don't see any other viable option that will solve this problem in any meaningful way. If we had all the time in the world it would be different. But the facts are that our time is very limited. The only way to stop this it to create radical change.

Ban soy to feed the animals? What else are you going to feed them with? Grass, that requires far more land use than soy? Soy already is the most efficient way of feeding landstock. Again, these solutions will do nothing to change anything as long as people demand and pay for this industry every single day of their life. "I don't want you to burn down the forests!" "Here, take my money, I want me beef." These two actions are contradictory. You can't have both. It's not possible. Sometimes there are no regulations to be made, sometimes the population needs to sacrifice it's own comfort for the greater good. Or atleast be smart about the solutions. Regulations will be effective once there will be an alternative to animal farming, because then we will be able to satisfy the populations need. Do you still consume beef? If so, how can you possibly expect brazil to make a huge economic sacrifice to save their forests when you can't even let go of your steak to do the same?