Your knowledge, though is not mine, so why would I, through taxes, fund you? — Tobias

Right. I would suggest that should think about why anyone would want to pay him to study simply for the sake of studying, whether that payment occurs through individuals or through groups.

For example, he says:

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

The idea here is that robots will handle productive labor, and robots will essentially pay humans. It's a form of slavery, where the robot provides everything the human needs and the human is devoted to leisure (except without the moral problem of enslaving a free being).

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. Therefore it is not the robot slave who "pays" you to study, go on vacation, etc. It is the owner of the robot slave who effectively "pays" you to [do nothing especially productive].

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? The whole notion of "payment" is thrown into question if the one "paying" does not receive anything in return.

You're paving the way for future artists with your work and theories which would be used by academia. — Copernicus

Well, during the Great Depression, Roosevelt's way of getting the economy going was to create jobs. There were many different kinds of jobs, including art. Our university library building was one of the results, and we can enjoy the amazing works of art. The huge doors are works of art. Going up a stairwell is a huge mural. Around the top of the building are the heads of the great intellectual leaders, starting with the Greeks and Romans, and more. It makes me proud to see what can be accomplished with a good president and the American people.

Art and music go with math and science, and should be part of every child's education.

why would I, through taxes, fund you? — Tobias

Because you're an enlightened being, not a motoric unicell organism.

I beg to differ... why would it not be? — Tobias

- What do you do for a living?
- I'm a student.

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? — Leontiskos

Because in an enlightened society humans don't search for selfish material gains but the sacred things like education and knowledge.

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics.

The question for many smaller societies, just like mine, having any artists, authors or poets around is crucial for our own language and identity. Without them there's no Finnish culture. Without culture, then next in line is the survival of your language and with it the whole existence of your people. In these kind of cases it's totally understandable that the government itself sees a healthy culture. And we have a lot of Fenno-Ugric people as clear examples what happens when that language and culture isn't upheld, but transformed to be Russian. — ssu

That is a marvelous argument. I sent your argument to myself so I can easily find it. I think what you said is one of the most important things ever said.

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics. — Copernicus

I have my concerns about recent political decisions. This might fit in a forum for philosophy if we speak of the importance of attitudes. What I saw in your post was a valuable human sentiment. It is the kind of sentiment that makes people feel good about working together and, therefore, good about their national/tribal identity and the beautiful results that are possible. I don't think those positives are part of what is happening in the US today.

Cutting off grants to colleges that are needed for medical research, because someone uses money to force others to comply with his demands, could be damaging to the US status and its future. I think to some extent, this kind of self-serving behavior of people in high places played into the fall of Rome.

Plato wrote of the importance of having philosopher-leaders who are not self-serving. Funding liberal education and colleges is essential to a healthy civilization, and comparing the progress the US has made with what is happening today might lead a person to think about what Plato's argument.

Perhaps attitude is not the right word, but this is not just about logic; there is an important emotional component. One might even say an evil component. I hope someone can say this better. A leader who is okay with denying people medical care and argues for letting people, including children, starve is a heinous power play. I don't think the leadership of the US today is compatible with Plato's understanding of good leadership.

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? — Leontiskos

Because in an enlightened society humans don't search for selfish material gains but the sacred things like education and knowledge. — Copernicus

But you've answered a different question, namely the question, "Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in a selfish, material way?" The question I asked was this: "Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way?" For example, people will fund university scholarships, but only if they believe in the mission of the university.

We have a word for giving people things for their own benefit, and that word is not "payment." It is "charity" or "almsgiving."

If we think about the sort of knowledge that is good in itself (and not as a means to an end), then by that very fact it makes no sense to pay people to pursue such knowledge. Payment is a way of incentivizing someone as a means to an end. An end in itself is not susceptible to payment. This is precisely why Socrates objected to the Sophists.

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. Therefore it is not the robot slave who "pays" you to study, go on vacation, etc. It is the owner of the robot slave who effectively "pays" you to [do nothing, especially productive]. — Leontiskos

It is my understanding that when civilizations had money, their governments put a tax on the property that was the source of income. Associating a machine with a human slave seems excessive. A machine is not a human, and I think it makes sense to tax them, as we have a history of taxing the source of income. As we replace tax-paying citizens with machines, we need to adjust.

When I was in high school, and a liberal education (starting when a child is 6) was replaced with education for technology, a teacher who explained this change in the purpose of education, told us to prepare for a time when we would not work 40-hour weeks because our labor would not be needed.
The obvious is happening, and we seem to be blind to it. We aren't making any progress in adjusting to a radically changed reality. How intelligent is that? :brow:

:

Because you're an enlightened being, not a motoric unicell organism. — Copernicus

I do not know if I can be called enlightened. But still, just like motoric unicell organisms, enlightened beings need to eat. Still, you assume that knowledge is the highest good. It may be, and it is in any case reiterating a frequent assumption in both philosophy and religion, but two questions remain: a. Why do you think the pursuit of knowledge is the highest goal? Isn't the pursuit of love perhaps greater? b. Why do you think someone else should fund your pursuit of knowledge? I very much agree that we should make space for knowledge, but we simply cannot afford to have everyone lead lives in pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake.

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

Even if that were possible, then you might unwittingly deprive people of a great source of knowledge. Practical skill, getting to know the world through work, may well be a source of knowledge. Not only are you prioritizing knowledge, but also a specific kind of knowledge. Your preference is for theoretical knowledge, not practical.

- What do you do for a living?
- I'm a student. — Copernicus

I teach students and I am a researcher. It comes as a package deal.

A government could implement a robot tax, but the person responsible for paying such a tax is the robot's owner, not the robot (just as the property tax you speak of is paid by the owner of the property, not the property itself).

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. True, there aren't an abundance of them, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of folks interested in research.

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. — LuckyR

The problem could be seen by understanding that no one is paid to, "push back the frontiers of ignorance." Modern research along with the modern research university that it comes from are not oriented to truth per se. They are oriented to advances in particular fields for particular ends. For example, the reason STEM institutions (such as universities) receive so much funding from the government is because the government wants technological advances for the sake of security, industry, warfare, etc.

No one is paying for the end of, "pushing back the frontiers of ignorance." Ignorance is in a very real sense infinite. We could redirect all intellectual effort in the world towards studying ants, and we would never learn all there is to know about ants. The aim is not to, "push back the frontiers of ignorance," but rather to learn some specific thing for some specific reason, such as developing technology for the sake of human prosperity, national security, etc.

But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study.

I agree with your observations. My point is that if making new discoveries and getting paid are someone's goals, they can be met currently. If someone wants to make new discoveries and make them in the field of their choice, that is also possible a la Edison, Jobs et al ie garage researchers. But having all three, 1)research of your own choosing 2) and getting paid 3) is a bridge too far, otherwise folks would want to research Michelin starred restaurant's dessert menus.

But having all three, 1)research of your own choosing 2) and getting paid 3) is a bridge too far, otherwise folks would want to research Michelin starred restaurant's dessert menus. — LuckyR

Yep. :grin:

No one is paying for the end of, "pushing back the frontiers of ignorance." Ignorance is in a very real sense infinite. We could redirect all intellectual effort in the world towards studying ants, and we would never learn all there is to know about ants. The aim is not to, "push back the frontiers of ignorance," but rather to learn some specific thing for some specific reason, such as developing technology for the sake of human prosperity, national security, etc.

But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study. — Leontiskos

The subject of philosophy does come to mind. There are other directions in which one performs research without having a direct practical implication in mind, for instance archeology or history, literature studies and what have you. It is just that society can spend some amount of money for such endeavours, but indeed we also need defense, sewage, court houses and what not. Of course, we could nationalize the field of robotics. Private property in itself is not a necessary institution, though it would entail a lot of restructuring of the economy. If scarcity is thoroughly eliminated than your endeavor might work Copernicus but until then we need to set precious funds aside, no matter the property regime.

In the US, do we have such a deficiency in academics and artists that we need to subsidize these industries in order to obtain more? My understanding is that we get far more philsophers (for example) than we need each year, leaving many highly qualified people without work.

So, setting aside the question of what a good capitalistic, socialistic, or even communistic country ideologically might be inclined to do, shouldn't we first decide if need more of X before we produce more of X?

But, if the question is whether I think we ought all get paid for what we do here (research, discuss, learn), then of course. I've been here like 10 years, and still no paycheck. The problem of course is that I keep showing up, and they won't pay me if I'm going to show up anyway. My guess though is that if I said I needed to get paid in order to keep showing up, I'd still not get paid.

So, setting aside the question of what a good capitalistic, socialistic, or even communistic country ideologically might be inclined to do, shouldn't we first decide if need more of X before we produce more of X? — Hanover

The problem is who or what decides what we need? Do we need more content managers? Do we need more diversity officers? Do we need more oil drillers, do we need more art historians? The need for X is defined by the institutional structure of society.

The problem is who or what decides what we need? Do we need more content managers? Do we need more diversity officers? Do we need more oil drillers, do we need more art historians? The need for X is defined by the institutional structure of society. — Tobias

The invisible hand decides and provides.

Your preference is for theoretical knowledge, not practical. — Tobias

Yes. Because I believe theoretical knowledge is the purest form of knowledge.

I teach students and I am a researcher. It comes as a package deal. — Tobias

Does it pay enough to never having to get a job?

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. — Leontiskos

No. They're federal robots in a socialist type setting.

We have a word for giving people things for their own benefit, and that word is not "payment." It is "charity" or "almsgiving." — Leontiskos

Tax and government spending is charity? Well, if yes, then that's what I'm proposing. Federally funded education (government job).

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. True, there aren't an abundance of them, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of folks interested in research. — LuckyR

That should be good, right? Then people won't have to worry about their taxes going to the "wrong" hands.

But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study. — Leontiskos

No one paid Newton to discover gravity. Look where that took us.

Yes. Because I believe theoretical knowledge is the purest form of knowledge. — Copernicus

Ohhh Copernicus just believes it. Well that takes away any need for the justification of the claim. Great that that is settled!

Does it pay enough to never having to get a job? — Copernicus

In my neck of the woods, that is considered a job. Full-time, I might add. It pays enough to live happily. As you are a student, maybe you should try talking to someone like that since it seems some further edification on the subject is in order.

The way how distinct people and their cultures die isn't usually talked about.

It's by cultural assimilation, not by some dramatic and brutal action like genocide. Likely those violent attempts fail and only increase the cohesion of the persecuted people as they then have a common history. But children going to school and learning a language that isn't spoken at home doesn't seem as a hostile issue. The state usually has a central role in this assimilation starting from the crucial decision of which is or are the official languages and if education is given in a local language or not. Hence language politics matters.

One good example is the state of France and the French language. During the French Revolution it is estimated that only half of the people in the Kingdom of France could speak actually French. You had many other languages like Occitan in the south, which now less than a million people speak as a native tongue. When you have a centralized and universal education system in France in French and the only official language is French, then that language is a tool for that cultural assimilation. Same thing in Russia. One of the first things that now Putin's Russia has done in the occupied Ukrainian territories starting from Crimea is to replace Ukrainian schoolbooks with Russian ones and start to demand that Russian is used in schools and that Russian curriculum is followed in schools.

Attempts to assimilate Native Americans in the US caused great suffering, and today we have to deal with that. On the other hand, the determination to maintain racial separation between dark and light skin colored people has also caused serious problems.

Unfortunately, I can not use AI that explains several ways philosophy has been used to understand the behaviors, problems, and resolutions. I don't feel a need to think on this too much because the democratic principle of equality and my grandmother's three rules are enough for me. Beginning with, we respect everyone. We protect the dignity of others, and we do everything with integrity. This is what supposedly separates humans from apes.

Our morality is in question, and capitalism, based on dominating and exploiting others, should get our attention. Should affirmative action and reparations be considered? Can we imagine a more moral world and act on that?

In some countries, education through college is free or at least far more affordable than a college education in the US. The way out of poverty is education. However, next to ignorance is the bad of elitist education that justifies inequality and contributes to the moral problems, such as dominating and exploiting others.

I don't think it's socialistic because then taxes would also be. — Copernicus

This is a rather confusing statement, especially when later on you mention socialist federal robots...

I don't think you are taking this proposal very seriously :) The reason why university is so expensive are the teacher's wages.

I guess what you could do is go around your neighborhood, being like "hey! Ill fix your stuff through various experiments, like your cars, like your HVAC, like your plumbing, but you have to let me break it first...just trust me, we can learn this together!", and they would probably just tell you to fuck off and go to trade school.

The problem of course is that I keep showing up, and they won't pay me if I'm going to show up anyway. — Hanover

Yeah. Granted, I think a society does value citizens who care about truth, but I don't think care for truth is incentivized in overtly material ways, such as by giving out money. People who care about truth are valued because they care about truth whether or not they are given money. They are valued because they cannot be bought, and it's pretty hard to give people money for intellectual work without biasing that intellectual work (although we do try, and one example would be university tenure).

Some may find it odd, but there is a direct parallel to the Old Testament prophets, especially when one compares the "employed prophets" to the prophets who are not being employed by the king and must therefore work out their subsistence in some other way.

They are valued because they cannot be bought, and it's pretty hard to give people money for intellectual work without biasing that intellectual work (although we do try, and one example would be university tenure). — Leontiskos

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature.

It could be like bug bounties, in software? I suppose a problem there would be having to pay people to sift through all the bad answers.

A professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't see that as a problem at all.