What do you think?

Anarchy, I think this is always a good topic to talk about. Its great to see what people have to say about it.
I am neutral in this aspect of thinking. At least at the moment. Most everyone sees anarchism as a worthless way to think. But do they ever really learn what true anarchists are striving for? Im trying to learn as much as I can on this way of thinking. It interests me very much and I always like to see what people have to say about it...

i like their passion.

dubious as to their success.

i'd like to think myself an anarchist of the subtler shades, but i doubt very much i'd fit into the conventional definition of an anarchist.

i think the smallest number is 2.

thats a personal pun.
only in that most people tend to view
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVERYTHING in terms of extremes.

enough of that, on to your Q...
(or will i?)

out of chaos, comes order
out of order, game over

i'm curious as to what you mean in the
definition of what 'true anarchists are
striving for'.

personally, i think that the term 'anarchy'
is a pipe dream. a certain 'hope' like all
others in times of rebellion.
i don't want to suggest that anarchy is
necessarily negative. in many cases, i find
that freedom(s) impose restrictions.
ok, i lie.

freedom(s) always impose restrictions.

i realize that i just uttered an absolute.
but i cannot seem to find the opposing argument.

even if the (social) convention was anarchy,
it is still convention.... which imposes
further anarchy.

i'm interested in hearing more of what
you have to say, kyle (if you come back).

Well in the definition of "what true anarchists are striving for"...
I was refurring to the people that give it no thought and shut down this way of thinking for the reason of that it is not the most popular way of thinking.
(and I assume there isnt anyone like that in here, I can tell that you are not one of those kinds of people)
In the "true anarchist" part I was trying to maybe get the certain mind set out of *the kid that walks around with a red A on his coat, then later in the day beats somebody up.* Someone that is true to what they stand for, and living his life in this belief.
As in for the "striving for" part, I was refuring to the freedom that they strive for. And all that comes with freedom.

When you said 'out of chaos, comes order
out of order, game over' are saying that the world would die off in a sence? Because if you think of it as how we live now, which would be most likely classified as order. Then next will be game over? The world started out as chaos, then now order, then if anarchy came to play it would be game over. I apologize If I put words in your mouth. I am trying to understand what you mean by this, and if thats what you meant.

What do you mean by freedoms oppose restrictions?
Some examples... not saying you are wrong, just a curious mind.

"even if the (social) convention was anarchy,
it is still convention.... which imposes
further anarchy." ...
Are you saying that anarchy is some kind of order because it is a way of thinking by a group or gathering of people?

I am trying to learn at this point, more or less discus than debate. I may sound very unsure of my self at this point, that is because I am. I am trying to keep an open mind, and hopefully come to a conclussion on what I belive. Thats why Im trying to see what people have to say about it.

hmmm.... i'm not even sure how to begin my post.

<font color=#FF0000>Someone that is true to what they stand for, and living his life in this belief.</font>

it seems to me that you may be searching for the
loss of hypocrisy in people. that is, you want to
find a person passionate enough to withstand any
and all outside social pressure/obligation in order
to maintain their passion (whatever that may be).

i agree. i'd like to find ONE person with a
conviction passionate enough to keep that belief.

<font color=#FF0000>When you said 'out of chaos, comes order
out of order, game over' are saying that the world
would die off in a sence?</font>

what i meant by that is, once order has been
established, nothing else shall become chaos
through the hands of man. even if the world were
completely destroyed due to mankind, order remains. ask nature.

<font color=#FF000>The world started out as chaos, then now order</font>

hmmm. i think that you have a common misconception.
i don't think you are wrong, merely echoing what
you have been taught to say.
there was never any chaos. before man was nature.
i don't mean nature as in that which grows in
the backyard. i'm referring to natural law.
because most people view 'nature' as that which
gives life, i'm referring to that which generates
around the other.

<font color=#FF0000>What do you mean by freedoms oppose restrictions?</font>

no no, i said freedoms IMPOSE restrictions.
think about it like this:

you have a certain 'freedom' when you shop.
that is, you have the freedom to choose between
store A and store B. also, you have the choice
between product A and product B.
however, within that delusion, you knowingly
accept the fact that this choice is all that you
have. that, in itself, is a restriction, in that
you cannot be free to choose something that isn't
on the shelves. in a sense, the store owner(s)
allow you the selection... and therefore, offer
a restriction based on their regulation.

another example of this idea:

you have a certain freedom to choose from a
buffet, but only from what the buffet offers.
if you should choose veal from which the buffet
offers only beef, then that freedom is restricted.

this idea of 'freedom' applies to television,
clothing, presidential candidates.... you name it.

if i were to get more involved in 'freedom(s)
imposing restrictions' with something less
tangible...
we could refer to the constant contradictions
within 'freedom of speech'. you are free to
say what you will, but restricted in the context
and mannerisms of that statement.

on a deeper (more philosophical) side, even if
you were absolutely free to say anything you
willed, you would still be bound to the statement
itself... not only that, but you are limited to
that which your brain can conjure.

i hope this is clear. =)

<font color=#FF0000>Are you saying that anarchy is some kind
of order because it is a way of thinking by a
group or gathering of people?</font>

hmmm, no.
what i am saying is similar to what i said earlier
in this post. you can not have true chaos.
even if we were to return to animalisms, the
closest form of true anarchy, there would still
be order in the sense that nature demands order.

now don't get me wrong, if humans went back
to true animalism, i'd be a happy person.
i would like to have the freedom from conventional
morality and social constructs.... if it were
possible. but unfortunately, semantics prevents
me from reaching my true goal of this post.

<font color=#FF0000>I am trying to learn at this point,
more or less discus than debate. I may sound
very unsure of my self at this point, that is
because I am. I am trying to keep an open mind,
and hopefully come to a conclussion on what I
belive. Thats why Im trying to see what people
have to say about it.</font>

i think you ask good questions. i also hope to
hear more of your personal views. i am interested
in what you see.
i understand being in flux between idea and idea.
however, as charles peirce persuades, one should never
settle on any given idea. when this happens,
stagnation occurs.
what this world needs is a single person going
against the stream. there will always be this
ONE, this is why we have diversity.
it is also a reason why there is an order.

i cannot stress enough why more and more people
should read neitzsche's GENEALOGY OF MORALS.

let me know what you are thinking, kyle.
your discussion(s) are welcome.

I am going to take you up on reading 'GENEALOGY OF MORALS'.

I like what you had to say on freedoms imposing restrictions. I have never thought about it that way. I tried thinking of a way that you could get out of that restriction, but then found no way. I thought maybe, If you decided to go to another store to get another product. You would also still have restricions of the stores. I like what you had to say on that.

So would you say that animalism would be a way of anarchy, only with the order of nature? And that you would enjoy returning to animalism because you belive that is as close as you could come in life ,living with what freedoms we could have? Because you said that anarchy is a pipe dream, and animalism once was in place yet we could never return to that way of living because of our advances in our way of life. That is if you call them advances. Correct me if wrong.

So what do you belive that could be done with this world?

i agree with you in a certain respect, kyle.

when the word 'anarchy' is mentioned, john q. public
usually invisions man against man in a world
of recklessness. that man is usually seen sitting
on the deck of his handmade log cabin in the woods
surrounded by marijuana groves, stock-pile bean
cans, holding a rifle with a confederate flag
waving blissfully in the wind.

hahaha, ok. maybe no one else invisions this.

i think that many people see anarchy as something
close to mutany on a ship. i feel for the public.
they are so brainwashed in cliche.

<font color=#FF0000>So would you say that animalism would
be a way of anarchy, only with the order of nature?
And that you would enjoy returning to animalism because
you belive that is as close as you could come in life,
living with what freedoms we could have?</font>

yeah, something like that.
there is no morality in animalism. there is no
compassion for a starving litter of wolf pups.

in returning to animalism, there would be no more
morality, which, in turn, causes over-population
(due to right to life), which, in turn, exploits
natural resources, which, in turn, causes greed,
which, in turn, causes war, which, in turn, causes
further distruction of the world balance, which,
in turn, creates more morality.

and the beat goes on...

in animalism, if you were born defective, you died.
if you were not clever enough to hunt, you died.
if you are able to survive, you mated.

it is completely fair.

<font color=#FF0000>So what do you belive that could be done with this world?</font>

there is no hope for this existence.
socialism is, by far, more appealing than capitalism.
it comes close to a bridge between the gaps
of human and animal.

Are you from Kansas City, Kyle?

yup, why you ask?

Just wondering.

you from around there?

Nope.

So what brings you to General Philosophy?

Well I think a lot about things, I can sit in my room for hours just staring at a wall and just think. I picked up 'Republic' one day cause I found it on a bargin shelf at a book store. I started reading it and became very facinated with it. So I just kept reading things like that and now I just want to learn more and more. Thats kinda where it got started.

what did you think of the 'republic'?

I really like what he said in it. Torwards the begining of the book he said something about people and how they are. I think an example was he asked who would be a better person to train a horse the worse. A horse trainer or another person. So he talked about how people that are good would also have the most power to do bad. And vice versa with 'bad' people. I really liked that part. Made me think alot

there is definitely alot more to gather
from the 'republic' than just that.

i would think, considering your question
of anarchy, the 'republic' would give you
some ideas...

let me know how you view the polis... (the city)
in the 'republic'.

i came in late, so pardon me for jumping from topic to topic........

1) i think anarchy is a contradiction. anarchists claim to not want rules, but you must believe certain things to be one.

2) there is no natural law. humans saw some things that seemed to hold true most of the time and labeled it 'natural law' but that does not mean that we live in an ordered world.

3) i do not believe we can return to animalism because we never left it. perhaps if we tried to be something better than animals we would be happy.

4) plato's republic would fail like every other form of government. the allegory of the cave is bullshit. no one leaves the cave, they just take different positions inside.

ok, now i am caught up.

wow....

you've posted BS before, but never have i
seen so much BS crammed into such a limited
post.

<font color=#FF0000>i came in late, so pardon me for jumping
from topic to topic........
1) i think anarchy is a contradiction.
anarchists claim to not want rules, but you must
believe certain things to be one.</font>

this was already covered.

<font color=#FF0000>2) there is no natural law. humans saw
some things that seemed to hold true most of the
time and labeled it 'natural law' but that does
not mean that we live in an ordered world.</font>

you seem to have two thoughts in this one sentence.
i'll agree with the first half in so far as to
agree that 'natural law' is a label...
but i will show your contradiction:
i could easily ramble on about the theory of
C&E (cause and effect)...
but we both know that in order for that theory
to be legitimate, there had to be an initial
cause in order to create the ball rolling...
in which case, that first cause was an effect
blah blah blah
BUT--
if you think that all that is 'nature' is merely
static, then that in itself is all that makes
up 'nature', and thus, its element...
causing that element to become absolute.

now we both also know that there are no absolutes.
however, what frees that statement is the idea
of polar opposites, in which case, if there
is an extreme, such is its opposite...
thereby creating the loop-hole in no absolutes.

you have created your own net. you are wrong.

<font color=#FF0000>3) i do not believe we can return
to animalism because we never left it. perhaps
if we tried to be something better than animals
we would be happy.</font>

you can't be serious.
your second sentence displays the fallicy.

<font color=#FF0000>4) plato's republic would fail
like every other form of government. the
allegory of the cave is bullshit. no one leaves
the cave, they just take different positions inside.</font>

the polis would fail certainly. but that is if
we were to stagnate against the original form.
the flaw i find in the polis is the idea that
several forms of 'human' could co-exist in a
certain equillibrium... feeding off each other.

you are short-sighted about the allegory.
people leave the cave all the time, the only
problem is, no one ever returns from death.

<font color=#FF0000>ok, now i am caught up.</font>

i have no doubt that you made this post with
the intentions of stirring up the pot.
we shall soon see.