:up:

While discussing the definition of capitalism, it's preferable in my opinion to put political debates to the side. First start with common terminology unless all you wanted was useless verbal spew. — frank

I'd hold the view that any discussion of capitalism, all the terms used and their relationships to each other and how they are understood systemically involve presuppositions. There is no free world of 'terminology' without perspectival relationships.

There's no political debate here. I'm not sure why you think there is. — frank

Bible versus again, Frank? I can't see how one can construct observations on economics without the perspectives and values from political discourse. :wink: There is no value free discourse.

So, you don't really have any thoughts about the prevailing economic structure of your times? — frank

Course not. :wink: You'll note that I said this subject becomes like debating the meaning of Bible versus.

For me your car example only hints at the surface of such discussions. My questions would be - who made the car, the labor conditions and how were they paid? Where did the materials come from to make the car and under what circumstances where they obtained? What businesses supplied the components? Who gets the profit from every point during this process and the selling of these vehicles? What were the tax concessions and tariffs loaded into the manufacturing and selling process? Etc. There's an entire ecosystem in operation. But I'll leave this to people who care more about political debate than me. This site is fun mainly for its more trivial issues like theism or what Nietzsche might have actually said.

It's debating Bible verse time, Frank. No thanks.

Streetlight's views seem outdated to me, like he's in the 19th Century or something. — frank

Well, you know what they say, truth doesn't have a 'use by' date. I'm sure Street will clarify anything you throw at him. I can't comment at any depth (debating this stuff begins to resemble arguments about the meaning of Bible verses) as I don't study politics or history closely. But so far nothing I have read here strikes me as egregious.

I think our reactions to content like this will be indicative of where a person comes from politically, no?

Interesting, I frequently don't understand the point (or content) of threads here but this one seems clear to me - how best to understand the principles of capitalism, taking us through key concepts - markets, financialization, neoliberalism, etc.

For me these two points are important and often overlooked.

Capitalism on the other hand, cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. It is precisely because capitalism has to do with production (and not just exchange), that capitalism cannot be understood apart from changes in labour, in how labourers go about producing things, along with the conditions under which they labour. — Streetlight

The birth of 'the individual' follows quite nicely from the birth of generalized market-society. It is no surprise that liberalism - whose unit of analysis is precisely the individual, upon whom rights and obligation accrue (and property rights above all!) - is born exactly at the end of feudalism at the point at which markets become ascendant. — Streetlight

Many of us forget that our values and sense of self are a product of this ideology.

n my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. — Marvin Katz

Thanks Marvin. My fault, I was just making some general, ill-educated comments without clearly addressing your point. I understand your reference to communities of intersubjecive agreement and have applied this notion to a range of subjects. Some postmodernists would say this intersubjectivity applies to science, not just morality or history. While I am interested in the subject, I am not a student of philosophy and don't read much on the subject. I am not a philosophical idealist, nor do I have reason to accept any transcendental realities, so for me morality can only come down to humans establishing value based agreements about how we should live together.

By the way, who doesn't like chaos? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I don't. I like calm predictability and boredom.

there has been the ongoing activity of creating and animating private life and personal interests.
The omnipresent deterritorization has been compensated, balanced, and concealed by the all-embracing territorization. — Number2018

Examples?

Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value? — Agent Smith

Personally I don't think it much matters. But perhaps the only 'meaningful' response to such a question would be in locating happiness in the context of the transcendentals.

I think a good first step in the 'happiness' caper is reflecting upon what you think would make you happy and why this is. It might well be that money, mansions and fast cars (or any other cliché) actually don't matter to you - you might just want to be liked and you think that gaudy things will make that happen. Then of course you could reflect upon why you want to be liked and what that means. And on we go...

Not convinced anyone has access to an objective morality - even the religious, who might argue that morality (in theory) has a foundational guarantor (god/s). But the problem for them is establishing what god thinks is moral. Religious folk, like all people, have to fall back on constructed ethical systems built from subjective preferences. This is why some Christians hold that fags are for hating and conversion, while other Christians fly a rainbow flag and practice inclusion.

Humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. If everyone agrees to a foundational principle (eg, human flourishing) then a type of objective moral system can probably be built, subject to this foundation. But the initial presupposition that underpins such a system is a subjective preference.

What is it exactly that goes to make a joke that much more “dad” level cringe but laughable all the same? — Benj96

I don't think Dad jokes are a thing. There are just mediocre jokes that when uttered by a middle aged man are dad jokes and when said by a young and ostensibly cool person either flop or succeed. We may arrive at a place where any mediocre joke is known as a dad joke in the same way that every complaint now seems to be made by a Karen.

Nicely done and helpful.

Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism. — baker

That's a witty line. :wink:

but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, — Jack Cummins

What's interesting here is that you say 'utmost rigour' - which I do not disagree with. But what does utmost rigour look like in this domain? Judgements based almost entirely on... empiricism, perhaps? Life and death matters may not be found in Platonism, say, which is perhaps where we find consolation and myths to make life (seem) more meaningful. Not unimportant of itself, but a different job.

I try, Banno, but it keeps drawing me in. :groan: This philosophy stuff is really fuckin' hard...

Thanks - this does propel me once again towards the phenomenologists, of which I suspect I am an inchoate and untheorized variation.

What is information? It has no meaning if not in the context of a context from which a piece of information in transmitted and another, completely separate context, in which it is received. — Pantagruel

I guess for a person everything around them is information; everything one can sense is providing us with information about our environment and informs that which attracts or repels us. What gets hard for me is when we try to isolate information to fit in with our assumptions - when we assemble or choreograph information to provide us with a justification for a belief, especially regarding transcendental matters. I'm very much taken by that curious transformative process when information becomes evidence.

This is an engaging and interesting thread and it's also beginning to resemble one of those slippery debates with Christians - especially fundamentalists - about just how to understand Bible versus.

Why did Jews NOT lose their faith in a (benevolent) God?

Horrific atrocities were committed against the Jewish community in Europe between 1939 and 1945 (WW2) by Nazi Germany. — Agent Smith

Very many did lose their faith and the enormous cultural or secular Jewish diaspora is, in part, testament to this.

:up:

This doesn't mean a masculine man can't be a nice guy — Wittgenstein

Totally agree.

I would say those men who are toxic are by no means in the majority.

This is proving to be a fascinating thread. Seems that Nietzsche is still a source of acrimonious and contested views. I wish I could read him but I find his writing unpalatable. Even the easier aphoristic stuff. I guess like Heidegger and Derrida you need interpreters to discover what is really being said, right? Wish I had a better attention span.

A few scholars have nevertheless dared to read Nietzsche as he ought to be read and l can drop their names in this thread but you will dismiss their interpretation..... — Wittgenstein

Please do, I'd be interested even if it results in a brawl over credibility.

I've seen numerous examples of toxic masculinity over the years. The term may be controversial to some and even misused, but the behavior exists. Examples include - using physical strength and height to intimidate other people (especially women), hatred of gay people; hyper masculinity - sexually inappropriate towards women; use of violence (or threats thereof) to influence behavior or punish others; inability to access and fear of emotions (except aggression and anger). When I used to drink in bars, I sometimes got into scraps with such guys, who would bully others or come onto women using appalling and unwanted approaches (sometimes I had to channel my own toxic masculinity to sort things out. Fortunately I am a big guy with a buzz cut and a temper.) And yes, women can be badly behaved too but, from what I've seen, not quite in the same pugnacious manner or as frequently.

A piece of advice a monk gave me: Fake it till ya make it! — Agent Smith

A piece of advice a monk gave me: if you get caught sleeping at work, slowly raise your hand and say, 'In the name of Jesus, Amen."

Sisyphus was duped. — schopenhauer1

I prefer my T-Shirt - "Sisyphus was a patsy!"

The verification of mystical knowledge has got nothing to do with philosophy as its beyond its reach. — Wittgenstein

I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?

I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. — Wittgenstein

I would have thought that these kinds of transcendental 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?

There may be blindspots in judgments. — Jack Cummins

There are blindspots in everything - that's where the light gets in... (Sorry Leonard).

Think on this - how do you tell the difference between a blind spot and someone practicing discernment?

Get over it and keep buggering on. — Banno

I prefer to imagine Sisyphus happy...

I take the view that we probably don't have access to absolute truth or reality. These ideas are likely to be constructions of human minds. What we do have is language and ideas which may or may not be useful in certain contexts. Judgement is really an umbrella term for a range of different activities. How do you compare the judgement of a priest about the question of sin to that of a geographer and the prediction of earthquakes? Is judgement just opinion in formal clothing, or is it expertise being practiced? Depends on the example and worldview, right?

Epicureanism has come to commonly signify today. — javra

Yes, for some it means pretentious gluttony and fat restaurant reviewers. :gasp:

Funny in its oddness but true: Epicurus’ hedonism was pretty much about aiming to be an ascetic to obtain the greatest state of pleasure that could be obtained. — javra

Not really odd when you think about it. Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era.

You see the world with what's in you. — Wittgenstein

Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.

However, an aesthetic contemplation/experience has certain limitations. — skyblack

I generally find art more confronting and uncomfortable than real life, so I generally avoid it. The idea of aesthetic contemplation does not seem restful or preferable to just getting on with it.

OK. I was actually responding to your comment on his comment about the need for personal experience :up:

How much should ‘some wine’ be for one to drink a moderate amount — I like sushi

Moderate drinking is defined fairly clearly in clinical services as 2 to 4 standard drinks in a single day. No more than 10 standard drinks a week. You don't even need to be a drinker to understand this. But standards such as these are intended as guidelines only, they are not divine judgement.

Indeed. And flawed too, right?