Posts by steelridge58

Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

I honestly feel like this is such a profound thought because it points toward how morality is actually rooted deep within a person's own soul, emphasizing sincerity—especially that first step of being honest with oneself—as well as freedom and that heavy sense of personal responsibility we all carry. But I can't help but wonder, if we make this distinction of "true" morality against the way we usually define morality—you know, like that Wikipedia definition describing it as just a collection of unwritten rules and social customs used to judge good from evil—does that mean any moral code becomes "true" simply because it's grounded in an individual's unique personality? Or can we still draw a line even within this framework of "true" morality, distinguishing between what is genuinely moral and what is immoral, which might technically be its own kind of "morality," yet both share the common trait of disregarding the conventional, socially accepted meaning of the word?

Personally, I’d interpret this Pascalian idea by suggesting that for a human being who is inherently a moral creature (looking at you, Immanuel Kant), they don't actually need a handbook of rigid rules and regulations to act ethically; if their very essence is aligned with those universal human values—essentially, ethics—then even if they had never heard the word "morality" in their life, they would still act rightly.

To me, a Quasimoral is nothing more than hypocrisy; it's a mask, and underneath that mask, there's a human face, much like when we are finally alone with ourselves. Sometimes people try so hard to rip those masks away, but they find there's nothing underneath, or worse, some masks are crafted to look so much like real faces that you can't tell the difference, and occasionally, a person only truly finds their own human face through a mask (like a masquerade)🙂 and only then do they become more free and sincere. As Charles Baudelaire put it: Total sincerity is a means of originality.

The way I see it, the real distinction lies in how we define utility, especially if we assume pragmatism operates under the following principle:

Under this logic, the value of any idea is tied directly to its practical impact. A useless idea—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer much in terms of tangible benefits according to these pragmatists—becomes, in a sense, an untrue idea, because they reduce truth itself to mere usefulness or functional success.

So, when Camus says, "To create or not to create, it makes no difference," he’s actually highlighting a massive divide between the measurable, results-oriented world of pragmatism and the core of existentialism. In existentialism, you might talk about futility through the lens of the "absurd," staring down that ultimate, heavy question of meaning while feeling stuck on that endless, dead-end road we all find ourselves walking.

Do you think there's a clear-cut distinction there between pragmatism and existentialism, or am I missing some crucial nuance that might emerge if we looked at how the two interact differently?

Noah Johnson63 said:Look, I totally get that moderators are just regular people, but when we're talking about the Philosophy subforum, I really feel there should be a certain standard maintained, rather than having someone acting all shut down and arrogant like the moderator "steelridge58."
Who’s actually blocking me from starting a thread titled: "The Best Books by the Greatest Thinkers of All Time?"

Even after I politely asked, she still won't let the topic go live.
God forbid anyone actually discovers a brilliant book written by some genius; it's probably better if we all just stay ignorant and keep staring at idiots on TV instead.👎

It’s actually pretty straightforward: your TS was just poorly constructed, so I moved it to the most relevant existing topic because I didn't want to leave it floating aimlessly in Philosophy just because someone thinks they can post whatever random thought comes to mind and call it a valid discussion. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need moderators or any established guidelines for starting threads, which I'll share here:

Starting a Thread

• The opening post needs to be high-quality, well-argued, and clearly distinguishes personal opinion from direct quotes.
• If you quote any text, you absolutely must provide the source and a link if one exists; otherwise, a moderator has the right to delete the post or the entire thread.
• An introductory post cannot contain provocations.
• Low-quality threads will be deleted.

So, the bottom line is that I didn't delete your low-quality thread; I simply merged it into a related topic, and if you truly want to start your own discussion again, just put a little more effort into crafting a quality TS and you won't have any trouble keeping it in Philosophy.

Also, regarding those insults you threw my way—which are clearly about your own behavior rather than mine—you're more than welcome to apply those descriptions to yourself as a member of this Forum; once you manage to reach a decent "level" of conduct and drop the arrogance, you won't find yourself needing to file complaints in the Philosophy section anymore.

Mark Torres14 said:Whenever I start chewing on a new idea or concept, I don't just sit there and theorize. First thing I do? I run my conclusions against a real-world example to see if they actually hold water. Scientists would call it running an experiment. That’s how I handle everything I think about—especially the philosophical stuff.
I’m sitting here trying to remember if I’ve ever actually seen anyone reconcile or offer real forgiveness in my entire life—and then just go back to business as usual. Sure, I've seen parents forgive kids, or friends make up after some petty bullshit fight. But believe me, either I’m living in some weird bubble, or I have yet to see a victim of a serious crime actually shake hands with the criminal and call it even. That's a different beast entirely. And then there's the whole other issue: can a victim and a criminal even live side-by-side? In the same city, the same neighborhood, the same apartment building? Is that even possible?
Look, even when we’re talking about that "watered-down" scenario I brought up with Mark Torres14, I just don't see how reconciliation works unless the offender pays a much higher price than what the victim actually lost. Maybe I'm totally off base here. Maybe his altruism outweighs his ego, or maybe it's some deep-seated faith in God demanding forgiveness. But something about his story just feels off. Honestly, looking around this entire country, I haven't seen an example like that once.
Look, you have to realize that time changes things. Specifically, the younger generation—the ones who didn't actually live through the horror of those crimes—is much more likely to find a way toward reconciliation and forgiveness. Just look at history. Think about how much the English and French used to despise each other, or how bitter the relationship was between the French and the Germans after World War II. Now? They’re working side-by-side to build a unified Europe. It happens.
I won't drag this out or bore you, but look: reconciliation and forgiveness have a shelf life. There’s a "limit to forgetting," if you will. As long as the victim is still alive and can vividly remember the crime, true forgiveness and making peace just isn't possible. It simply doesn't happen.
Look, there's a difference between sociology and reality. Sure, you could argue that society—meaning the political system—is on the hook because it allowed a criminal to get a foothold and, in way too many cases, walk away scot-free. But how can you actually hold "society" accountable? It’s not a person. You can't punch it in the face. If I decide to take matters into my own hands and seek revenge for a crime, how does society as a whole feel that? It doesn't. A collective entity doesn't suffer. Only individuals do.

The only thing I truly find fault with is the society and the specific political forces that actually paved the way for genocide to happen, along with the prevailing social currents that eventually drove it to fruition; I remember being in a city under heavy bombardment, and during those first strikes, it hit me with this incredibly vivid, almost physical intensity, asking myself: who on earth gives anyone the right to strip others of their autonomy and decide whether they get to live or die? That’s the absolute number one priority any civilization has to protect: the fundamental right to freedom and the liberty to simply exist.

As for what the victims of genocide or their grieving families actually feel, there isn't much I can say other than letting them speak for themselves through their own lived experiences...

Keith Lee2 said:Forgiving (or making peace) basically means: getting rid of that awkwardness and fear you feel when you're around people
who caused that vibe in the first place.
You can handle it through rationalizing, fighting, or just running away.
Rationalizing is like trying to talk yourself out of how you actually feel—basically a mental shift.
That works if the feelings aren't too intense.
But if the emotions are super heavy? Yeah, you can't really logic your way out of that.
Fighting would be more about permanently removing that person—the source of the fear—from your life entirely, so
those scary feelings eventually fade away (think something extreme, like a lifetime ban or a prison sentence).
Then there's fleeing; which is just putting as much distance between you and them as possible, so
again, those bad vibes eventually die down because they're out of sight (like
moving to another state).

The thing is, we can only truly forgive or make peace with someone if we've also had some good times
and felt positive vibes from them before.
So, you can't really "make peace" with someone who only ever brings negativity—
you just have to create enough physical and temporal distance until you finally forget them.

I just wanted to add that I really resonate with what Liquidity wrote here, and I think it’s a vital point to keep in mind.

Brenda Cook4 said:Quincy:

Why? You asked why I’m bringing up social conditions—as if I’m trying to "relativize" their individual guilt or dodge accountability. Let me put it simply: it's about prevention. It's about learning how to spot those societal triggers before they spiral out of control again. We need to know when to act and, just as importantly, when to step back, so we don't end up burying our loved ones all over again. If we don't, someone sitting in a college seminar or a community meeting is eventually going to ask whether true forgiveness is even possible, or if there's any way to find actual justice that allows people to move forward with their lives—with or without that forgiveness.

Brenda Cook4, honestly, this feels like nothing more than empty rhetoric and trivializing a massive issue.🤷 It doesn't actually answer anything, nor does it make any sense at all.

Really? Because I honestly don't see how we can deal with consequences without also addressing the root causes. You can't separate the question of forgiveness from the very actions that made forgiveness necessary in the first place. If we want to talk about whether society—or its representatives tasked with upholding justice—should offer pardon, then we absolutely have to look at the societal failures that allowed such atrocities to happen in the first place...

Forgiveness is a deeply personal matter, and a government or a system shouldn't be able to demand or expect it, much like what people discuss regarding Rwanda, because the capacity for genocide is itself a symptom of a broken society. In a society where such horrors are even possible, I truly believe that forgiveness (which isn't happening here anyway) isn't the key to preventing future tragedies; rather, the focus should be on a society working to build the structures and conditions that ensure such things can never happen again.

So, the real question we need to tackle is: who actually enabled and facilitated this genocide? If we aren't going to discuss the social context here in the Philosophy forum—in which case this discussion belongs over in Psychology—then we're just stuck talking about psychological profiles instead of the bigger picture.

Mark Torres14 said:Forgive me, Mark Torres14. The woman who started this thread asked a very specific question about whether a victim can find forgiveness and reconciliation. She's talking about the individual level, not society.
Forgiveness and reconciliation are emotions. Don't act like I think war criminals just drop out of the sky fully formed without society having any influence on them.
Answer the actual question. Is it possible for a mother in Srebrenica to forgive Ratko Mercer? And if you think he's guilty, what kind of sentence actually serves justice for the exact same crime he committed?

Look, I've been involved in this discussion for quite a while now and I've given my answers the way I have; if I am ever called as a witness for the prosecution at The Hague, then I will address the questions demanded by the court there. On the other hand, weren't you the one who brought these kinds of examples into our discussion:

Mark Torres14 said:I'm not so sure about that.

Since we're debating this, let's look at a slightly milder example. Something "topical," if you want to use today's political jargon.
Imagine you co-signed a loan for your best friend. He stops paying it back because he decided to go out and buy a brand-new Mercedes, leaving you to deal with the bank coming after your paycheck and your assets. Because of the financial mess he caused, your marriage falls apart, your kids end up in the care of the Department of Social Services, and you're stuck dealing with diabetes and high blood pressure. Meanwhile, your "friend" still won't pay a dime, claiming he's broke because he transferred everything to his wife's name. He keeps asking, "can you forgive me?" or whatever way James Lee77 would put it, acting like nothing happened and begging to be friends again.
By your logic, it's just a question of time and "civilization" before you forgive him. We're human beings, aren't we?😁

So, why don't you try returning to the actual question of the topic, which you've "watered down" with these examples and by insisting on a discussion that leads to such a dark conclusion regarding these scenarios.

With the mothers of Chernobyl, all we can do is feel empathy and help them however we possibly can, but as for whether it's possible to forgive Osama bin Laden, those women themselves know better than anyone: certainly not. But don't forget, Osama bin Laden was only able to commit all those atrocities because nobody stopped him when they could have. In the same way that they cannot forgive him, the victims of genocide certainly cannot forgive a society that failed to react to prevent the crimes and subsequently failed to bring the direct perpetrators to justice.

As for what actually caused all of this... (or to use a Virgilian sentiment: as is often the case, it all began much earlier...) shamantrixx and I have already spoken about that, and you all are free to continue the conversation however you see fit.

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about how we define service, and honestly, I sometimes feel like I'm overcomplicating things when I should just be looking at the simple, quiet ways people show up for one another every single day. It’s easy to get caught up in the grand gestures or the loud, sweeping movements that make headlines, but there's something deeply moving about those small, almost invisible acts of devotion—the kind where someone just steps in to handle the heavy lifting without being asked, much like those dedicated staff members who keep everything running smoothly behind the scenes in a busy DC office. I know I tend to ramble when I get onto these philosophical tangents, and I'm probably being a bit too sentimental for my own good, but I truly believe that the soul of any community lies in that willingness to serve others without expecting a spotlight. It’s a humble way to live, and even if I struggle to find that level of consistency myself, I find myself constantly inspired by the people who just... do it. kaže:
The topic is this:

Here’s what I’m thinking:

And you’re honestly going to try and downplay it like that?
Why on earth would that even happen?

I feel like we’re drifting away from sociology and heading straight into the realm of pure philosophy here. The real question isn't about analyzing the specific social conditions or the systemic pressures that allowed someone like Mercer or Karr to become war criminals in the first place; rather, it’s a much deeper, more personal inquiry into whether it is even humanly possible to offer forgiveness to people who have done such things—and can we ever truly find a way to reconcile with them?
I honestly don't think it’s even possible. Maybe some future generations will eventually find a way to move past it all, but for those of us actually living through this—the ones who had to bury our own dead—there is just no way we can ever make peace with criminals.

Look, I already gave you my answer, so if you feel like you didn't quite catch my drift, maybe we just need to look at it from a different angle. My point isn't about downplaying anyone's personal guilt or dodging individual responsibility—far from it. What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at the broader societal conditions that actually allowed these atrocities to happen in the first place, much like what we saw in Rwanda or what we are witnessing in Gaza right now. That’s exactly why we can sit around in our philosophy seminars and debate whether forgiveness is even possible, or if justice has to be served before we can move on, or if "justice" through legal sanctions even means anything when you're dealing with crimes of this magnitude. If your idea of a deep philosophical contribution is just a binary "yes or no" regarding forgiveness—which, honestly, feels a bit shallow to me—then I really think we should try to engage with the actual complexity of the problem here. These aren't just abstract thought experiments; these are cycles of violence that continue to devastate millions of lives, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I honestly don't know if I'm overthinking this or if there's actually some deeper significance here, but I can't help but feel like we're all just circling around the same fundamental questions without ever really landing on an answer. It feels like we’re constantly trying to make sense of these complex social dynamics, almost like we're looking for a pattern in the static, and sometimes I catch myself wondering if my own perspective is just skewed by how much I want things to make sense. There's this persistent, nagging feeling that even when we think we've grasped the core of an issue, we're still just scratching the surface of something much larger and more complicated than any of us are prepared to admit. kaže:
I honestly don't think it's possible. Maybe some future generations will eventually find a way to move past this, but for those of us still living—the ones who actually had to bury our own dead—there's just no reconciling with criminals.

You asked me why—why I keep bringing up social conditions and why you think that somehow "relativizes" their individual guilt and responsibility. I’ll give it to you straight: I’m doing it so we don't end up right back here again. We need to be able to spot those specific societal pressures that lead to such catastrophic outcomes so we can actually decide whether to step in or stay out, ensuring that evil doesn't just grow and spiral out of control. If we don't learn how to stop it from spreading, how are we supposed to prevent survivors from burying their dead all over again, only for some philosophy professor or historian to sit around later asking the exact same questions?
I honestly find myself wondering if true forgiveness is even on the table, or if it's just an impossible ideal we chase. I can't help but dwell on whether there’s any way to actually achieve a sense of justice that doesn't just leave everyone stuck in the past—one where those who were victimized by such horrific atrocities could actually move forward and reclaim their lives, whether they choose to forgive or simply try to live alongside the memory of what happened.

Mark Torres14 said:steelridge58, Edward Flores4. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Radovan Karr and Ratko Mercer aren't responsible? You're claiming it's just society's fault for "producing" them? What a joke. If their parents hadn't been so hard on them growing than they were kids, maybe they’d be different people. Give me a break. By that logic, Adolf Hitler isn't guilty either. He was just a product of Germany losing its pride after WWI and dealing with those massive reparations imposed by the Allies.
So, your argument is basically that we blame the system instead of the individual.
Let's test that. Suppose someone kills someone close to you, totally unprovoked. And then some guy comes along and tells you, "Hey, don't blame him—blame the society that made him." What would you say to that? Would you actually agree?

No, I’m definitely not saying that Ratko Mercer or Radovan Karr aren't guilty—not by a long shot—but it is an absolute reality that "certain societal conditions must exist for individuals like that to rise unchecked into socio-political positions where they actually have the power to commit such atrocities" (quoting Edward Flores4). Or don't you see it that way?
I mean, could someone like Ratko Mercer, Radovan Karr, or even Adolf Hitler... or anyone else... have actually succeeded yesterday, today, or tomorrow if there weren't specific social circumstances that paved the way for them and allowed them to carry out all those horrific crimes in the first place?

Edward Flores4 said:It honestly baffles me how even the smartest people often fail to see that individuals—people like Ratko Mercer—are really just symptoms of the era and the society they live in.

You need a very specific set of societal conditions for someone like that to rise through the ranks unchecked, eventually reaching a position of power where they can actually carry out such atrocities.

Nothing ever happens without warning signs, but it seems like people are constantly too blind to catch those red flags when they're waving right in their faces. When we judge Ratko Mercer, we're really just judging ourselves—because we are the very society that allowed that collective subconscious to manifest through his actions and his existence.

At this point, any more philosophical debating on the subject feels pretty pointless—it just looks like a way for people to try and wash their own hands of the guilt.

I couldn't agree more; I remember talking to a friend once who said something almost identical to what you just put there, telling me, "I don't even view Karr as an individual man, but rather as a byproduct grown from the distortions of our entire culture," and honestly, she hit the nail right on the head.

At the end of the day, it’s on us to make sure we don't let that kind of evil take root again, and if there's any lesson we were supposed to learn from everything we've endured, then this really ought to be it.

Harold James9 said:Brenda Cook4, I understand you perfectly, and I’ll reiterate that sanctions alone can never deliver true justice in the face of a crime.

I agree with the quote and believe that ... after that, one simply moves on... — there is no other way. Whether forgiveness plays a role in that process is secondary.

Fortunately, I haven't lived through such horror, so I wouldn't dare lecture anyone who actually has.

🙂🙂🙂

That's a fair point; when it comes to crimes, sanctions can't deliver true justice because there's no legal remedy that can ever replace a life lost. But here's what's tripping me up: if sanctions can't bring justice, they *can* actually cause further injustice. So, how do you reconcile that tension—the idea that justice is impossible (since the only real justice would be if the crime never happened in the first place) while simultaneously acknowledging that these actions might actually create a new layer of unfairness?

Brenda Cook4 said:Peace!?!? Seriously, steelridge58, what kind of "peace" are we even talking about after someone has completely slaughtered your family? Peace!? What exactly are we discussing here?

It feels impossible to avoid falling back into those same old circular arguments, like the debate over the original topic or those typical Žižek remarks. Does it even make sense to trivialize things this much!?

Alright, look; I was just responding to bluebison70 regarding his specific point, which definitely isn't meant to be some sweeping generalization or a way to minimize actual crimes, but rather a conversation about that sense of inner peace that a person just can't seem to grasp if they haven't found a way to forgive something deep down inside themselves—if they're still carrying that weight... When you're dealing with actual atrocities, it is such an unimaginable burden; it’s this gut-wrenching pain that I imagine absolutely tears apart those who are most directly affected, those hit by the initial injustice of the act itself, and then hit a second time by the systemic injustice of how the crime is processed through inadequate punishments or just the sheer gravity of what happened... There are endless examples of this, and terrible crimes are happening all around us at any given moment, but when it comes to one's own personal peace, I truly believe it remains out of reach without forgiveness, whether that means forgiving others or even forgiving oneself for not being in the position of the victim, or for failing to protect someone you would have died for; it's so incredibly hard to talk about this in the abstract... perhaps a person has to endure their own private Calvary just to remain human and not lose their mind to the agony... but finding any kind of peace is simply impossible if there is a burning hatred or a consuming desire for revenge festering inside, especially when nothing can change the past and no lost lives can ever be brought back.

I'm actually really glad to see you diving back into philosophy.

bluebison70 said:

steelridge58:
On the flip side, I suppose you can forgive someone without actually making peace with them.

I've come to terms with it, I guess. That restless feeling... the hatred, the urge for revenge, all those heavy, negative emotions... they aren't there anymore. I don't think I could ever find any sense of peace or reconciliation if I hadn't let go first. Inner peace just seems impossible without forgiveness. It’s the forgiveness that brings the peace. I forgave him, and now I feel at peace.

That’s really the only way to find peace, isn't it? It only happens once you've truly forgiven.

James Lee77 said:So I was scrolling online the other day and stumbled upon this video of a Žižek lecture, and there was this one anecdote about apologies, forgiveness, and making up that really stuck with me. I figured I’d share it here.

Basically, Žižek tells this story about being at a party where he meets his friend—and philosophical rival—Judith Butler. Since she's a lesbian, he tries to be funny (which, knowing him, was probably a bad move) and asks if the girl standing next to her is also "degenerate." He was basically trying to joke around to see if they were lovers, you know? Well, naturally, Ms. Butler took offense. Later on, Žižek gives her a call to apologize, basically blaming his own notorious lack of tact and just being a clumsy American guy about things. But then Butler says, "Slavoj, honestly, there’s really no need to apologize."

The point Žižek makes is super interesting: she could only say "there's no need to apologize" *after* he actually apologized. Like, if he hadn't said anything, she probably wouldn't have felt like an apology wasn't necessary. It's only because he offered the apology that trust is restored, which then makes it possible to sincerely say, "Hey, don't worry about it, we're friends, I get you..."

And here’s the kicker: if she had said something like, "I forgive you, and you really should apologize because that was awful," then Žižek would have felt insulted, and they wouldn't have actually reconciled.

So, the whole ritual can look totally fake on the surface:
- he apologizes
- she says "you don't need to apologize" (even though they both know he does, otherwise she'd still be mad)
- he insists that the apology is necessary (even though he'd actually feel insulted if *she* insisted on it).

But I guess the actual words being said aren't the main thing; the whole thing is more of a ritual. The real magic is in the unspoken meaning behind those words: it's basically "I'm sorry" — "I forgive you" — "thank you."

It's kind of funny how even though these people are philosophers who are supposedly all about tearing down traditions, they still end up following this classic, traditional little social dance.

I find myself agreeing with Judith here, because it was only through that specific gesture from Žižek that such a moment of reconciliation could happen, restoring that sense of trust that allowed him to be so blunt in the first place (which is exactly what you explained so well here).

We owe one another certain words as an act of grace, much like a dear writer of mine once said regarding all those unspoken, silenced, overlooked, avoided, omitted, sunken, bypassed, and unuttered words and tones—if we don't offer them, the interest keeps mounting until the whole Tower of Babel collapses under the weight of linguistic excess and sheer communicative chaos.

Dennis Rogers6 said:I find that highly debatable, honestly; we’re stepping into the realm of pure philosophy here. 🙂
Do you seriously believe that in the mere four years since Bush took office, the collective mindset of the people has undergone some profound positive transformation? Ever since Obama was elected, I’ve lost count of how many times I've heard claims about some grand "leap in consciousness" among the American public—likely just a reaction to his race... 🤷
It makes me wonder, what percentage of these supposedly "enlightened" Americans actually know who Obama's inner circle even consists of? The man behind Obama
There has certainly been a change in the public psyche... if anything, they’ve just drifted into an even deeper slumber.

I knew someone was going to latch onto that specific word! 🙂 Honestly, I spent way too much time overthinking which phrase to use just to avoid sounding so uncertain. 🙂
Anyway, regarding everything else you mentioned, I can really only fall back on that old cliché that an optimist is just a pessimist who hasn't been properly briefed yet, so for the time being, I'm still holding onto my optimism... at least until further notice...

James Lee77 said:I gotta say, I'm pretty skeptical about this whole idea of "developing democratic awareness." I mean, Americans have been working on it for 200 years, and we still end up picking Bush and allowing Guantanamo to exist. Italians pick Berlusconi, and so on.

So, here's the thing: wouldn't it be better, in a perfect world, if only people with a fully developed political consciousness were allowed to vote or run for office?

Sure, it would be awesome if everyone was that politically savvy. But what if they just aren't?

Then again, there's the whole "Americans are different" thing. 🙂 I'm joking... mostly, but my point is that democracy is a slow, messy process, a journey, and you can't just jump onto a metaphorical subway car labeled "Democracy" overnight and suddenly find yourself fully part of it; you can't just change the outward shape of things and expect the actual substance to follow automatically.

As for the USA, we'll just have to wait and see how they voted and whether those choices were actually wise, but it seems pretty undeniable that the shifts signaled by these recent democratic elections are indeed a reflection of a genuine change in the people's mindset...

James Lee77 said:I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

But honestly, that's exactly my point; I mean, what does democracy actually look like in practice, when you strip away all those beautiful, idealized descriptions we read in textbooks and look at the gap between theory and reality—especially regarding that part I mentioned about respecting and protecting the dignity of every single human being?

I only used that specific definition (which, to be clear, isn't even mine) as a sort of benchmark, just so we could see how massive the disconnect is between that ideal and the actual world we live in.

James Lee77 said:I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

When you look at the nations that emerged from our former unified state, everything shifted almost overnight, from the sudden privatization of state industries to the immediate ability for everyone to cast a vote for their leaders. But that kind of rapid structural change hasn't been matched by a corresponding shift in political awareness or culture across the population—not everyone is on the same page, after all—and it's going to take quite a while for that political consciousness to catch up, so that the massive gap between the sheer number of voters and their actual political literacy can finally start to close.

Edward Flores4 said:We were talking about ambitions and where they actually come from, but in that equation, there just isn't any room for enthusiasm. To me, enthusiasm is pure inspiration. You can't really choose what you'll be enthusiastic about, or even if you're going to be an enthusiastic person at all. An enthusiast doesn't operate based on a pre-set goal—being enthusiastic means being struck by something, then acting immediately and spontaneously because of that spark.

Ambition is almost the polar opposite of enthusiasm. With ambition, people define their targets before they even get moving; those goals are usually long-term, and hitting them often requires grinding through tasks that don't interest you—let alone inspire you—simply because those tasks are just stepping stones toward achieving a personal objective.

Basically... enthusiasm isn't about ambition; it's about inspiration.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

Alright, it's your turn to weigh in! 🙂 I was thinking about exactly what you mentioned regarding enthusiasm—though, if I'm being honest, I don't think enthusiasm has to be completely stripped of ambition, provided those ambitions are actually aimed at the greater good. What's your take on that?

It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

James Lee77 said:If we’re talking about the philosophy sub, I feel like the questions should be framed a bit differently.

Like, take a question like "is there hope for our country?" That kind of assumes we actually know what "our country" is supposed to be hoping for. But is that even clear? I mean, wouldn't it be better to ask, "what can our country actually hope for?" Or maybe, "what kind of future would be good for us, and which ones should we avoid?" Or even, "how can 'we' decide on a direction if nobody can agree on what the best outcome actually looks like?" Something like that.

Or, instead of asking "is democracy alive in America," why not start with things like "what even is democracy?" or "does democracy exist anywhere at all?" or "is it even a good thing for democracy to exist somewhere?" or "should it be everywhere?" or "is it actually a good thing for it to exist here in the States?"... Because the way people usually ask it, they're just assuming it's obvious that democracy exists elsewhere, that we all know what it is, and that the whole point is just whether we have it or if it's better than some dictatorship or communism. Honestly, those assumptions are pretty questionable. 🤷

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

analogsurfer15 said:😘

The whole idea of forgiveness is such a slippery concept. I feel like what you're talking about here is that internal peace people crave despite the evil someone else threw at them—even when the culprit isn't asking for forgiveness (whether they won't because they don't get how bad they messed up, or they're just immoral, cruel, or whatever). I wouldn't call that forgiveness, though. To me, forgiveness only works if justice is served for the victim. And sometimes justice isn't there, or it can't be, so in those cases, there's no forgiveness. That doesn't mean a person can't let go of the culprit and move on with their life—which is a great way to put it—overcoming it through the strength of one's own spirit.

🙂

See, that would be a perfect example of using your own inner strength to release the guilty from your life. But, that's the Japanese. The question is whether they actually forgave—they definitely haven't forgotten.

🙂

🙂 Yeah, you hit the nail on the head—letting go... and everything else you said was spot on.

Anthony Watson24 said:If you can't provide a direct answer to the question, at least offer what you know regarding reconciliation from a philosophical standpoint.
😉

From a philosophical standpoint, reconciliation and forgiveness are two different animals entirely.
Reconciliation without forgiveness isn't actually real reconciliation; it's just a farce. On the flip side, though, it is absolutely possible to forgive without ever reaching reconciliation.

I honestly don't know how I managed to get myself this worked up about something so small, but here we are, staring at this whole mess together. It’s funny, really—how much energy we pour into these tiny details when life is already so chaotic, isn't it? I suppose I just find myself getting caught up in the nuances more than most people would like to admit, which probably says more about my own restless brain than the actual topic at hand. Anyway, I was thinking about what analogsurfer15 mentioned earlier, and even though I might be overthinking things, there's just something about that perspective that feels incredibly grounded. It’s easy to lose your footing when everything feels like it's shifting under your feet, but having those moments of clarity makes all the difference.

analogsurfer15 said:Whoa, hold up—of course forgiveness is possible. I'm not saying it’s always easy or even doable, but it can happen, provided certain things fall into place. And look, without getting bogged down in the philosophical definitions of what "forgiveness" actually means, I kind of agree with what someone else mentioned earlier... you need two people for this to work: the one who messed up and the victim. But here's the kicker—it’s the perpetrator who really needs the drive to seek it. Because if they don't care, then what's the point? Why would I even bother forgiving someone who doesn't give a damn? We aren't saints, after all... we can't just hand out grace to everyone left and right unless we're trying to buy our way into heaven. But I don't think we're talking about that religious, Christian type of absolution here. I mean the kind of forgiveness that fixes a broken relationship between two people in this life—where one person's actions turned the other into a victim, right?

Forgiveness works if the person at fault actually realizes they screwed someone over. And that realization only happens if they can actually step into the victim's shoes. People say emotions are the key part of that, and yeah, obviously they are... without empathy, there’s no conscience. Sure, maybe some rigid moral code could guide them, making them feel guilty because they broke some ethical rule, but honestly? I think most people's moral compasses are built on that initial, gut-level emotional connection to the victim. It's that feeling where you realize, "Man, anyone could be in their position through no fault of their own."

Bottom line? The person who did wrong has to want it, and the victim can only grant it if they are absolutely certain the other person gets what they did. They have to be able to feel the pain or the loss caused by that person... that's where a sense of justice comes in, which we were talking about before. Is that always going to happen? Probably not... except when it does.🤔

The inability to forgive is a heavy weight, but let’s be honest—it’s a burden carried exclusively by the person actually feeling that crushing pressure. Guilt works the same way; it’s an internal ache that only truly weighs on the one who feels it, unless you find a way to shift that gravity elsewhere. You can't just outsource your guilt or magically wash away the need for forgiveness through someone else, because the process really has to happen deep within yourself. In a strange way, the two sides of this coin—the one who caused the harm and the one who suffered it—eventually merge into a single entity: ourselves. We are the only ones capable of facilitating true forgiveness or finally letting go of that lingering sense of remorse. It doesn't even matter if I seek out the person I hurt to ask for their grace; if I haven't done the internal work to resolve my own actions, their response won't change my reality. My ability to move past a betrayal, an injustice, or a profound disappointment isn't dependent on the other person's repentance or their willingness to acknowledge what happened, but rather on whether I can find peace within my own soul.
But honestly, the truth is that the people actually caught up in the middle of all this—the ones whose lives are directly impacted by the situation and who wouldn't even be part of the equation if things hadn't gone down this way—they really have the power to facilitate a sense of mutual healing, provided that what you mentioned in your point below is taken seriously:

analogsurfer15 said:Whoa, hold up—of course forgiveness is possible. I'm not saying it’s always easy or even doable, but it can happen, provided certain things fall into place. And look, without getting bogged down in the philosophical definitions of what "forgiveness" actually means, I kind of agree with what someone else mentioned earlier... you need two people for this to work: the one who messed up and the victim. But here's the kicker—it’s the perpetrator who really needs the drive to seek it. Because if they don't care, then what's the point? Why would I even bother forgiving someone who doesn't give a damn? We aren't saints, after all... we can't just hand out grace to everyone left and right unless we're trying to buy our way into heaven. But I don't think we're talking about that religious, Christian type of absolution here. I mean the kind of forgiveness that fixes a broken relationship between two people in this life—where one person's actions turned the other into a victim, right?

Forgiveness works if the person at fault actually realizes they screwed someone over. And that realization only happens if they can actually step into the victim's shoes. People say emotions are the key part of that, and yeah, obviously they are... without empathy, there’s no conscience. Sure, maybe some rigid moral code could guide them, making them feel guilty because they broke some ethical rule, but honestly? I think most people's moral compasses are built on that initial, gut-level emotional connection to the victim. It's that feeling where you realize, "Man, anyone could be in their position through no fault of their own."

Bottom line? The person who did wrong has to want it, and the victim can only grant it if they are absolutely certain the other person gets what they did. They have to be able to feel the pain or the loss caused by that person... that's where a sense of justice comes in, which we were talking about before. Is that always going to happen? Probably not... except when it does.🤔

It isn't enough to just mutter "I'm sorry" and call it a day; you actually have to sit with the weight of what you did and truly grasp how much it hurt the other person. If the person who was wronged can feel that you actually understand the gravity of their pain, they might find a way toward forgiveness a little easier—and honestly, if the person responsible can truly face that heavy burden of guilt, maybe they’ll finally find a path toward forgiving themselves too, as they both walk this shared, difficult road toward healing.

When you're staring down those truly heavy, soul-crushing crimes—like the one I mentioned earlier, though honestly, I think this applies to almost any deep trauma—I've started thinking that maybe "forgiveness" isn't even the right word for it. It feels more like a raw act of survival, or perhaps a way of rising above the sheer, earthly madness that causes such violence and hits us all so hard in the gut. You have to tap into this profound strength within your own spirit just to make it through, all so that one day you can finally find peace within yourself and be able to look at the other person and simply say, "go in peace."
To forgive—it really means more than just letting go, it’s about finally overcoming your own limitations and becoming a true sanctuary for your own soul, which, if we're being honest, is often the only thing we truly have.