Agustino mistakenly has, that 'there is no individuals, only society — StreetlightX

I never said that, Baden did, I actually just quoted him. That's why there are quote marks around it, you know...

So for instance someone might purchase a work of art as a useful investment and not because they like the art, valuing capital more than art. — praxis

No difference. They still value the piece of art for one reason or another.

I mean it's the same with military technologies. Countries gotta keep up with it, even if they are peaceful. Being peaceful doesn't mean that others won't attack you.

That's what I'm getting at. The change I want to make is to create a way of interacting that is not building empires You say I must play empires to stop playing empires, and I don't believe you. — unenlightened

Impossible unenlightened... don't be naive. If you refuse to play empires, then those who do play empires can always sidetrack your efforts and your work. It's how a capitalist world works. So even if you want to stop playing empires you must play empires.

You haven't explained exactly what you mean by useful. I suggest there can be a big difference between 'useful' and 'meaningful'. — praxis

Useful is something that others find valuable.

No. I don't want to start a movement, not everyone does, I don't need capital etc. I don't want to play monopoly, or empires, I want to play happy families. — unenlightened

Right, but without capital and empires you cannot spread your work to as many people as possible. You are limited to only helping a very minor group...

I'm not interested in money for its own sake, but in capitalism you must play empires in order to create changes in the larger society.

Really, in capitalism it all revolves around money. You need more money to teach more people, so ideally you'd want to earn as much as possible if your goal is to teach.

If your goal is to nurse, ideally you won't be satisfied just with your own efforts, but would want to start a larger movement, again that requires capital, etc.

suppose they want to teach, or nurse, or something. I don't think that means that they want to be poor and despised. — unenlightened

Ok, but then they need to make sure they can influence and help a large number of people. There's teaching and there's teaching. Going to a state college or school to teach wouldn't be a way to maximise your reach, nor your wealth for that matter. If you don't really work to make a difference for a lot of people, chances are you may struggle financially. You're better off combining regular teaching with other forms of less traditional teaching, such as what Jordan Peterson does. He makes $70K+/month just from Patreon donations right now.

Okay finished it :P - not a bad read. Now time to go back to planting cabbage - the money garden ain't gonna tend for itself :D

What do you mean by useful? Playing monopoly well is useful in the sense that it keeps the game going. Also useful in that it's the path of least resistance. — praxis

In the monopoly game you don't have to do anything useful to make money. In this world, in order to get you to flip out that fat wallet of yours and hand me part of your money I need to give you something good in exchange.

There is a good article on Why Are Non-Believers Turning to Their Bibles? in Quillette which I recommend. Actually, i'm ordering you to read it. Students tend to ignore recommendations and pay more attention to orders, as in "Yes, it WILL be on the test." — Bitter Crank

I opened it, but I got scared because I saw one of Jordan Peterson's lectures in there >:O (joking I'm currently digesting it before returning shortly to making money [work])

You're speaking as though playing monopoly. What if there's a different game. A sustainable and more meaningful game. — praxis

No I'm not. In the real world, it's not money that matters, it's how useful you are to the rest of the world. If you are really really useful, then you will pretty much be rich. It's hard not to be in a capitalist world.

As for games. Different games are still games, so...

You are sitting alone in your house. You are self-employed. You are not in a romantic relationship — Zoneofnonbeing

Does this make you independent? — Zoneofnonbeing

Actually, yes, I think it does :D

Hi everyone. I am Agustino, also known as the Great Agu (please don't forget Great, I am Great because I have more than double anyone's posts :D ).

I like practical philosophy and am interested largely in ethics and religion, though I am sometimes interested in some metaphysical issues too.

You need to know that if you start saying stuff that annoys me, I will go like this:


Oh, and I'm also known for sparring with @Bitter Crank, avoiding getting banned by @Baden for way longer than expected, and I like annoying @TimeLine (I see "moral consciousness" has now replaced authenticity somewhat >:) ) and @schopenhauer1, and overall being the most hated poster in the eyes of the moderators :D

Oh, and people often think that @Thorongil is actually me :s

Or to put it another way, we are indeed playing monopoly in a society that mandates greed, and with 50% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the players, we are near the end of the game. — unenlightened

I'm not sure. Anyone can become wealthy and influential if that's what they want, provided that they have access to basic education and good health. It's easier than ever today to provide value for others at a large scale and to access the knowledge you need (although misinformation seems to be growing a lot faster than the correct information). So why does it matter if 50% of the wealth is owned by 1%? That doesn't prevent me or anyone else from acquiring wealth if that's what we're seeking. Someone else being rich does not in any way affect me.

But again, the problem is that people keep pointing fingers at others, instead of focusing on what THEY can do to change their circumstances. It's always the other - it's because the 1% own 50% of the wealth that I am poor and my life sucks. That's how they think. Instead, they should realise that the 1% owning 50% of the wealth does not stop them at all from selling to others and becoming rich themselves.

I think many people in this thread are smoking something quite potent... "there are no individuals, only society" :B

That is basically an underhanded way of saying that there is no free will - how could there be free will if there are no individuals? And how could anyone (including the speaker himself) be responsible for anything? It is refusing to acknowledge the origin of evil in the application of our free will.

The individual is much more obvious than society, he or she is the starting point. It makes no sense to go from the forest to the trees, since it is the trees which make up the forest in the first place. That is actually exactly why people can change society.

The question that follows then is not "What forms an agent of change"? but something like "How do we allow for collective change" — Baden

That's not an interesting perspective for me, since I look and see that historical change is made by the individual, not by the collective (unless again, the collective is used by the individual as a tool for change). If I don't like the society I live in, or my social conditions, it's up to me to change them. There's no one else who can change them for me.

And for that matter, why should I (or anyone else) even be interested in "collective" change?

But if you look at the macro social level and ask yourselves what social forces have led to the creation of workplaces like these and should those forces be reinforced or weakened, the answer seems clearer. — Baden

I don't see this at all being like this. Rather some individual says "I enjoy sexually teasing women, so I want to look for a workplace where this is acceptable - and if no such workplace exists, then I will make one". So the evil does, in fact, come from the individual, and not from the social structure. Sure, this individual lives in a society. So what? He wants to live as his heart desires in that society - if his heart desires that he lives like Nero in debauchery, etc. that's what he will try to do. The social structure will maybe restrict that. But his heart's desire will not change. The moment he gets an opportunity, he will act. So it just ends up being hypocrisy, just changing social structure.

It occurs to me too by the way that your constant refrain with regard to Trump is that he is a product of his society, a society that must change, and rather than focus on his failings you tend to focus on and criticize the forces that shaped him. Why then take the opposite tack here? — Baden

I criticise the hypocrisy of the media and Hollywood who point the finger at Trump, even though they are that which actually spreads this worldview. Now, I have not seen evidence that Trump is a super-effeminate guy like say, Silvio Berlusconi. So I can just assume that he wants to portray the macho-guy appearance because he's been taught that it's cool, and that's how alpha males behave. His desire is to be admired, not to have as much sex as possible. So having sex for him is part of being admired. In his case, I tend to think that it's something that he ended up doing out of a failure of character and the society he lives in.

But with regards to someone like Silvio Berlusconi, in that case, I think he's not doing it because of his society, but rather that he actually enjoys having sex with as many women as possible, and is willing to bend social structures to fulfil that wish, even if it ends up humiliating him.

So evil can flow both from society to individual and from individual to society, but its place of origin is always the individual's heart. The individual has to assent to that evil.

By the way, Bible reveals that earthly riches follow those in this world who do most work for satan. — Henri

:s :-}

That's why John D. Rockefeller or King Solomon were the wealthiest men who ever lived?

Don't you think a sensible first step in sociological critique would be to examine the lens through which you yourself view social relations instead of simply presenting it as the ultimate viewing aid? — Baden

No, actually I don't. It's not any more sensible than when writing an instruction manual for welding I would examine the lens through which I actually view the process of welding instead of simply presenting it as the actual view that must be adopted.

Likewise, I cannot separate the successful life from the way the successful man views life. If you get out of the spectacles you can see things differently, but that doesn't actually help with the process of living well. One of the goals of philosophy is the good life, and it seems to me that the lens chosen are part of what makes the good life possible.

So yes, my view of social relations is the one I use. But why do I use it? Because I've seen it be successful for me and for others.

If you don't do that you'll blindly project onto your critique the results of your own immersion in the social milieu you find yourself in and that will completely undermine your analysis. So, yes through your unexamined lens in the context of the particular society that's formed you, you think we should look at individuals rather than society as a whole when understanding social change. — Baden

Again, the question is what forms an agent of change (whether positive or negative)? And the answer is, among other things, a particular way of viewing the world. How can you disengage the process of causing change from the spectacles that permit one to see that process itself?

I was just joking lol, sorry O:)

https://goo.gl/8sYr6B

It's bizarre the way you keep repeating the same mistake as if you wanted to prove how necessary the discussion is. Thanks. I think. — Baden

Outline the mistake, show how it is a mistake, etc. - do some work. Not just pointing fingers.

Ah well I guess reality has a Marxist bent then. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I get you claim that, I'd like to see some proof. I look around, and I look through history, and I see that the big changes in society occur as a result of individuals, not collective action (unless that collective action is also driven by an individual, like Ghandi).

Marxism? Try basic social science. — StreetlightX

Marxism has by and large become identified with social science. Marx always claimed he was doing social (and economic) science, not Marxism for that matter.

You seem to confuse disagreement for misunderstanding, by the way.

Your whole reading of the video - in terms of 'society' against the 'individual', 'community' against the 'self' - is exactly what it aims to contest. It's not clear that you understood it at all, which is unfortunate. — StreetlightX

Yes, I am well aware that that's what it wants to contest. I don't see it as successfully doing that at all. Just a fantasy.

It wants to say that the self or the individual is "created" by society and the social system around, but the individual with a community of other individuals has the power to change the system. How's this different from Marxism? :s (let's see, it's not... )

Workers of the world unite. Revolution. That's what it's saying. And I say revolution is bunk, because revolution is guided by an individual, not by a community.

Actually I once considered doing some research on the influence of popular Eastern mysticism on the birth of the computer revolution. A lot of the creators of the PC and software, in the Bay Area, were into that kind of thing. It made it possible for them to think they could, as Jobs used to say, ‘make a dent in the Universe’. — Wayfarer

Hmm, that's interesting but isn't Eastern mysticism quite frequently against "making a dent in the Universe" - I mean it's not like Buddhism or Hinduism love ambition as an attitude no?

I watched it, and I really think it's BS. Obviously, the people who created such videos and theories see themselves as "stuck inside" some system that they cannot escape, because they always focus on what others are doing instead of what they're doing. Their failings are the responsibility of others - others are failing them, that's why things aren't going well for them. They always point their finger for their sucky lives to the other. They create a mental prison and a fantasy for themselves, in order to avoid addressing their own failings.

I prefer this YouTube video:

Schwarzenegger initially has the social system opposed to him, but he finds a way to convert it to his side, and then becomes unstoppable, and gets all the favouritism he needs to fulfil his goal.

In this world, nobody will put victory in your pocket. You have to earn it, you have to struggle and fight by yourself, you alone can make something of yourself. Not the community, etc. - that is nonsense. The community is always mobilised and used as a tool by individuals. By the Alexanders, the Khans, the Ghandis, the Buddhas, etc.

In Eastern Europe there is a wave of extremist politics, mostly socialist, but also some far-right movements. All these people are blaming the others - it's the fault of the others that things are bad. The politicians, etc. But that's false. It's your fault - you weren't smart enough to control all those corrupt politicians, etc. Intelligence can never blame its failings on the others. It is always its own failure to manipulate social conditions as it needed to manipulate them.

Peter Thiel wrote about this, but millennials are a failed and depressed generation, by and large, most of them will fail to make anything out of their lives. They won't even reach the levels of their parents. They are pessimistic and do not take responsibility for their failures, always looking to blame the other.

Jobs named his company ‘Apple’ partially because at the time he was a fruitarian. It is true that he postponed treatement very unwisely — Wayfarer

The strange part about this is that you'd expect someone who is pragmatic in one area of his life to be able to take this same pragmatism and apply it to other areas, but apparently not in this case. I think he overestimated his own powers.

I would never like to rely on there being miracles, but I am still inclined to believe they occur sometimes. — Wayfarer

Yeah, that's similar to my position.

Pot is basically harmless, like anything else, when used responsibly. — charleton

Let's see, do you smoke pot? >:)

I doubt you personally would need to do so. — Noble Dust

Did I say me personally? >:O

Shall we do a scientific experiment to determine it? >:O

Did that happen or didn’t you say it was a fantasy? — apokrisis

I think it was fantasy, but there are obviously some people who claim that it did happen.

Then intelligent folk would have to decide whether to attribute them to divine intervention or mere coincidence.

Where ought we draw the line would you say? — apokrisis

That is a more difficult and different than the questions I was asking in the OP. It depends on the context. If I say - "now I will walk on water" and then walk on water it will be different than if I just try to go into the water and happen to walk on it for a second or so.

on the non-occurrence of such anomalous happenings. — Wayfarer

Well, personally I rely on their very rare occurence, not their entire non-occurrence.

The fact of scientific regularity and predictability provides a kind of handle on what to consider reasonable; talk of miracles undermines that sense of certainty. — Wayfarer

If we have the miracles become frequent, day-to-day things, then certainly. Would you not say that having everyday miracles would undermine the sense of certainty we get from our scientific understanding?

You didn’t mention this, but a copy of Autobiography of a Yogi was given to every guest at Steve Jobs’ funeral 1. — Wayfarer

Thanks, interesting. I knew he liked the book and read it, but I didn't know he gave a copy at his funeral. But that even proves my point even more. I think he was influenced by such reading, which caused him to take a decision that ended in his death. He could very likely have saved himself had he listened to his doctors. So it seems strange that he was such a pragmatic person in business - obviously not some wishy-washy type who lived in a dream world and couldn't get things done - and yet, when it came to his physical health, he adopted such a wishy-washy approach instead of relying on the certainty of medical science.

Is your sting venomous?

I think your missing his point. — Noble Dust

Yeah, his point is not mentioned because I agree with it. I don't bother to mention what I agree with. And my point above is not in disagreement with his point.

Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." — Bitter Crank

Changing it requires getting a grip on the reigns of power, it's not as easy as being a philosopher :P

But the heavens are really big. Isn't there more than a modicum of hubris in thinking they reflect our mundane crawling? — Banno

Depends on the zoom level you look at them at :P .

Also, the idea would be that not only do the heavens reflect us, we also reflect the heavens, so the two are always in-step. It's not like we determine the heavens.

And the additional point is that it seems a prejudice to think that something small cannot impact something large.

No, the Chinese on the contrary, thinks his values are the greatest in the world, and that China deserves to be global hegemon.

Don't you mean, why do some "highly intelligent folk" believe in miracles rather than coincidence? — apokrisis

So materializing a palace in the middle of the Himalayas is just "coincidence"? :P

You should read Cure, Agustino. It shows some science behind the "miracles". — praxis

Thanks for the book, haven't read it. However, I should note that I have no doubt that the mind influences the physical health of the body, and can even cure the body in some cases. However, the problem is with refusing conventional medicine which has been shown in once circumstance to have good outcomes in order to attempt to heal solely through the mind.

For example, if there was a surgery with 90% chance of success that could cure you of a serious disease, would you refuse the surgery and attempt to cure yourself through the mind alone?

And I think that your definition sucks, by the way. It's too vague and inclusive. Is a power cut a miracle? Is constipation? — Sapientia

:-d - obviously I mean an interruption of the laws of physics.