Ahmed wrote:Gfgh31, you say: "the great Class, no capital letter for God and capital letter for Revolution and People".
This is not a typo: god, character are undefined in the context I have chosen. It is a god or a character of some kind, whereas the Revolution or the People referred to abstractions identifiable in recent history.
I specify, since
I encouraged the debate, that my comments here are non-intrusive, peaceful in the sense of the debate of ideas corresponding to this thread, I hope that like Ahmed, everyone will be animated by “good dispositions of mind” going towards “good” and without “allowing themselves” to do anything (under any pretext) leaning towards the bad side (in which case the posts will be instantly ignored). I am not even going to respond to “hit-and-run” at least I will try.
And it's very strange to have to specify these things which should go without saying.
Peterr wrote:Ahmed wrote:By definition, every language is a cultural construct, so capital letters...

Inventions of man =
mind formatting = allergic reactions!!
= mental illnesses

Here we are not far from the heart of Etienne Klein's quote. Although the formatting of the mind can be voluntary as a victory over oneself and in this case it is
emancipatory (And not iatrogenic)
Let's start again. What was bothering me at the beginning (although I fully understand that we need to set a context, but without it being automatic by imposing itself on us and not at any price), was this sort of "
of assumed and conditioned intentionality" from the register of good to “allow oneself to do evil” which was precisely alienating in a certain type of context. At first glance (and after having kept in mind the initial quote, always seen as shocking) a zoom out as proposed by his “
re-formulation “in his own way” by Ahmed fortunately leads to a sort of spotlight on two distinct levels:
—
of the explanation given in the strict sense, and which refocuses on the arguments described, as honestly as possible because they are perfectly plausible if we admit the context, and which almost automatically slip up at a given moment (on the summary in the sentence and its conclusion), which is held by Aristotelian reasoning: if […] “
this condition [i]of too precise an idea of what is good” would be gathered in the context described[/i] […] THEN […]
we would de facto move towards the written effect of “allowing oneself to”….— the risk of building arguments which,
instead of exploring good and evil in a broad sense and in all honesty, ended up
project mental constructs (tinged with adversity based on the initial context set) rather than actual facts, because there is a big “catch”: since no one would force anyone to follow said context, I tell myself that…
the worst is not certain —
if billions of individuals on the planet settle their course without (too much) clashes in their small and humble lives, because thanks to the sense of responsibility and education, thanks also to the laws (no Ahmed, we are not starting from nothing) things are going well in general, as evidenced by the very low police numbers compared to the population density — so I see that
no longer as a philosophical reflection but as a theoretical debate (because indeed, why on earth start from an implausible situation to end up in such an extreme situation?)
if not to find their justification for
finitude than in their own discourse? Their own theorization and conceptualization This illustrates a dissociation between theoretical reflection and human reality, where empathy and responsibility should prevail. In short, we have here a kind of theorizing ex nihilo, which generally does not hold true in everyday life... Which suddenly tips over into the opposite of what was expected...
This is not true, unless there is a “proper mental projection, or unless there is… an extreme case…
(and here I am not targeting anyone in this debate, and not even those who practice the “Rain Dance” since it is seen as a blessing for agriculture but perhaps seen as a curse for tourism, which explains why I am receptive to different angles of attack on the problem! But there you go, in this conceptualization, the worst is far from certain in view of the above) the extreme case is given by Roland Gori: the tipping point due to a psychopathic character.
(So the mental illness aspect intuitively detected by Peterr… Even if there again, the worst is not certain, Macron still has not “succeeded in his coup” of leading France into the chaos of war (he always does it on the sly, but it is well advanced)…

Thus, except in extreme cases such as the overthrow of governments (putsch), wars, and other manipulations of spheres of influence and power, known cases when an entire society falls into chaos, when reason has already lost the game and the irrational causes people to lose their way and tip the balance of power of the entire society to the dark side, the docile and civic side instilled in the population since childhood, creating the illusion of momentary normality (since the whole of society is skidding at the same time, a bit like during confinement). This is what I think about it in a first draft.
If there is "mental projection" in contextualization, it is by no means inevitable. No one is forcing anyone to take this type of perilous path... Juggling such extremes has rarely been seen in history...
(To be continued,,,)