On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jaromil <jaromil@???> wrote:

> not at all, pure is even worst :^) it has even racist traits in some
> contexts. a clear trait in anarchist philosophy is the criticism of
> purity and the question of truth. its in the ethymology itself: an-arche
> means without an origin... it questions religious beliefs, central
> powers and authority, patriarchy and, allow me the free interpretation,
> the naive tendency of men to ask "who started the war" - as if it would
> matter for anyone to find a solution for peace...
>

Yes, all values and ideas should be challenged critically and often
throughout life. Any invalidity should be discarded, within reason of
accepting ones ignorance.

... injustice is a process, not a cause - and yes, injustice is common
> ground. the debate on universalism is long and tedious, but you did hit
> the spot, it is about that. While I do understand the need for
> (secularized) universals, well argued by restectable philosophers as
> alasdair mcintyre, I still don't agree with them - and him. Which may
> make me an anarchist and/or libertarian in this context of discussion.
>
>
Does injustice imply justice? What would be the 'bounds' of justice?


> > BUT, I do relish in the deeds of Assange, Snowden, and Manning. I
> > guess I'm all about challenging 'unrighteous' authority. You know,
> > stickin it to the man.
>
> right on. yet beware that common enemies are never a long-standing
> political strategy. It always comes to the point in which the power
> vacuum gets filled by someone with less doubts about universals.
> usually not an anarchist.
>
> Can't we all just be friends? :p