It's probably not perfectly achievable on the large (or perhaps even on the individual) scale, but as an ideal, yes.

It's probably not perfectly achievable on the large (or perhaps even on the individual) scale, but as an ideal, yes. — John

I fail to see how people shouldn't be prescribed how to behave at all (I agree people should have freedoms to choose their behaviors, but not unlimited freedoms). If I want to go and shag the dog in the street, you will let me? You will encourage me?

If you are not too embarrassed to shag the dog publicly, and the dog consents to being shagged, then I wouldn't stop you. You would be the main victim, having to then live with the stigma of being a renowned 'dog-shagger' for the rest of your life.

If you are not too embarrassed to shag the dog publicly, and the dog consents to being shagged, then I wouldn't stop you. You would be the main victim, having to then live with the stigma of being a renowned 'dog-shagger' for the rest of your life. — John

So - you will oppress me afterwards for shagging the dog by means of social exclusion no? Would you not thus break your own philosophy?

I wouldn't oppress you, but others might. They have a right to shun you if you have offended their sensibilities. There is no way to legislate against that. If you want to shag a dog in public, the question also needs to be asked as to why doing it in private is not enough for you, given that you might offend people's sensibilities. Homosexual behavior, or any sexual behavior, in private should not offend anyone's sensibilities. It would at least be incumbent on you to ensure that no children were to witness you shagging the dog, as witnessing such a thing could damage a delicate sensibility. And what about the dog? How do you know it consents?

I wouldn't oppress you, but others might. They have a right to shun you if you have offended their sensibilities. There is no way to legislate against that. If you want to shag a dog in public, the question also needs to be asked as to why doing it in private is not enough for you, given that you might offend people's sensibilities. Homosexual behavior, or any sexual behavior, in private should not offend anyone's sensibilities. It would at least be incumbent on you to ensure that no children were to witness you shagging the dog, as witnessing such a thing could damage a delicate sensibility. — John

So according to you, it is normal to disconsider homosexuals if they offend our personal sensibilities? This, to my mind, is barbaric. One should not let one's personal sensibilities act as judgements upon others. I hate country music. Yet I would find it horrible to disconsider people who love it.

You are a terrible (and I think, tendentious) mis-reader. I clearly stated that no private sexual behavior should offend anyone's sensibilities. How could it, if it is private? If you shagged, not in extremis, a dog, but merely your girlfriend in public that would offend many people. You may hate country music, but why should it offend you that others listen to it, provided they don't force you to?

You are a terrible (and I think, tendentious) mis-reader. I clearly stated that no private sexual behavior should offend anyone's sensibilities. How could it, if it is private? If you shagged, not in extremis, a dog, but merely your girlfriend in public that would offend many people. You may hate country music, but why should it offend you that others listen to it, provided they don't force you to? — John

Okay, sorry if I misread, as indeed I have. So if I privately shagged a dog, and told other people I did (because why not - I want to express and talk about my sexuality freely), would they not disconsider me?

No I don't. I simply take advantage of an opportunity I happen to have. I may not agree with having such an opportunity in the first place. — Agustino

We may just disagree on this point. I'm trying to say that there is such a thing as practical assent and that you exercise it in this case by speaking freely. It's also called implied assent under social contract theory and is the basis of the state's power and authority over you in a democracy. And from what I can tell, you clearly do accept the state's authority over you, do you not? On what else might it rest in a democratic polity, assuming you do accept its authority?

The masses will never be sufficiently enlightened, hence why they need rulers in the first place. I wonder - have you encountered real human stupidity? — Agustino

Agustino, my friend, there is no need to give me your pessimistic bona fides with respect to someone like me. ;)

Yes, the human race is monstrously, painfully, and willfully ignorant, superstitious, and cruel, but where are these Platonic Kings going to come from and how are they to be maintained? Plato's Republic is very beautiful but it strikes me as even more utopian than the project of educating the masses and giving them political power.

Rousseau famously wrote that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. In the context of today's free societies, it seems to me that this phrase needs to be amended to say that everyone is born free but then exercises their liberty to put themselves in chains. People throw away the opportunity to be educated and express their opinions and don't realize just how precious these and other freedoms are until they're gone. But if they do disappear and society returns to autocracy, then how many potential geniuses are lost due to being born into the wrong social status, never getting a chance to kindle their abilities? In a democratic society, the genius is ignored but is able to realize his potential by being given the opportunity to do so. This is tragic, to be sure, but to be preferred in my opinion to an aristocratic or autocratic society in which only those of economic and political privilege can realize their potential. The philosopher kings among us are never and will never be in a position to exercise real power. Those that have done so have been the flukes of history, such as Marcus Aurelius.

I once made a thread in the old forum proposing a theory of constitutional autocracy, since like you, I thought a strong, powerful central monarch in charge best suited the human race, since the latter in democracies always chooses to elect blatantly inept charlatans out of ignorance, but I also wanted to ensure the protection of basic human rights. But this will never happen, and I have effectively abandoned it. Do you think Plato's Republic will be implemented any time soon? If so, then you are more optimistic than I, despite your seeming pessimism above. If not, then why not support liberal democracy? (Or maybe you do but I haven't seen it yet.)

Yes, they may do, and that may be because of their limited capacities for understanding and compassion. The onus would be on you to exercise your discriminatory intelligence when considering who to tell. I personally would not "disconsider" you, as long as I believed you caused no pain to the dog, although I might think your sexual tastes were somewhat deviant insofar as your libido was not directed towards fellow humans, and I might feel somewhat sorry for the dog even though no pain was suffered by him or her, since he or she had no say in the matter.

In any case, being offended by witnessing or hearing about, sexual acts, no matter what their kind, is not ethically equivalent to blanket condemning of specific kinds of sexual behavior that involves consenting participants behind closed doors.

We may just disagree on this point. I'm trying to say that there is such a thing as practical assent and that you exercise it in this case by speaking freely. It's also called implied assent under social contract theory and is the basis of the state's power and authority over you in a democracy. And from what I can tell, you clearly do accept the state's authority over you, do you not? On what else might it rest in a democratic polity, assuming you do accept its authority? — Thorongil

Okay I somewhat follow your point. So you're right on this and I have been somewhat wrong. I'll give you this - although I will still reply that me accepting it even in practice does not mean that I necessarily think it should be accepted in practice by everyone else.

In the context of today's free societies, it seems to me that this phrase needs to be amended to say that everyone is born free but then exercises their liberty to put themselves in chains. — Thorongil

Agreed.

But if they do disappear and society returns to autocracy, then how many potential geniuses are lost due to being born into the wrong social status, never getting a chance to kindle their abilities? — Thorongil

I don't know if geniuses will be lost. As far as I know, most geniuses happened in the Renaissance/Enlightenment, which wasn't exactly the most libertarian and democratic stage in European history. If I look around today - there's hardly any geniuses left - all I see is mass idiocy. Does a Stephen Hawking compare even to someone like Einstein, much less to a genius of the stature of Newton? Does the best painter in the world today compare to a Leonardo Da Vinci? Of course not.

In a democratic society, the genius is ignored but is able to realize his potential by being given the opportunity to do so. — Thorongil

In theory - practice shows us that the temptations of democracies are so great that the genius will become stuck in the easy life, instead of take up his yoke and follow the hard and difficult ascent up the mountain - hence he will be stuck with a puerile and undeveloped intelligence, as he will lack the seriousness needed, and would much prefer bread and circus.

Do you think Plato's Republic will be implemented any time soon? — Thorongil

Unfortunately not.

If not, then why not support liberal democracy? — Thorongil

I would support them in certain regions of the world, but not everywhere. There are cultural issues that are largely at play. Some people just cannot be governed by liberal democracy.

I think none of the political systems available today are adequate though. We need a different way of organisation, probably closer to a monarchy/meritocracy than a liberal democracy is. It is in fact that that we should be looking for instead of admiring liberal democracy. That is coming up with a different system.

There are leftists who are quite rigid in their morals, have strong family values, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall.

I don't know if geniuses will be lost. As far as I know, most geniuses happened in the Renaissance/Enlightenment, which wasn't exactly the most libertarian and democratic stage in European history. If I look around today - there's hardly any geniuses left - all I see is mass idiocy. Does a Stephen Hawking compare even to someone like Einstein, much less to a genius of the stature of Newton? Does the best painter in the world today compare to a Leonardo Da Vinci? Of course not. — Agustino

I think you have a skewed notion of genius, science and painting. It always takes considerable time to see whether particular artists or scientists have been, in fact, great. You should not consider your own limited view to be a very good indicator in such matters.

So if I privately shagged a dog, and told other people I did (because why not - I want to express and talk about my sexuality freely), would they not disconsider me? — Agustino

How far do you want to be able to go in your descriptions of your sexual activity? Do you want to be able to vividly describe everything you and your sexual partners do with one another during your sexual encounters? Do you not think people would be offended if you did that? Would they feel you have offended their moral or merely their aesthetic sensibilities, do you think? Or would they just think you were an insensitive idiot for disregarding your sexual partners' senses of intimacy and privacy?

although I will still reply that me accepting it even in practice does not mean that I necessarily think it should be accepted in practice by everyone else. — Agustino

Certainly, though that's a shame.

practice shows us that the temptations of democracies are so great that the genius will become stuck in the easy life, instead of take up his yoke and follow the hard and difficult ascent up the mountain - hence he will be stuck with a puerile and undeveloped intelligence, as he will lack the seriousness needed, and would much prefer bread and circus. — Agustino

Yes, but how is this any different from the same person being tempted by aristocratic privileges in a non-democratic society of the kind you envision and then squandering their abilities?

I think none of the political systems available today are adequate though. We need a different way of organisation, probably closer to a monarchy/meritocracy than a liberal democracy is. It is in fact that that we should be looking for instead of admiring liberal democracy. That is coming up with a different system. — Agustino

See, I think we've exhausted all the possibilities and are now faced with choosing the least possible evil. The forms of government that Aristotle wrote about in the Politics are the very same ones we have with us today, and I know of no real exceptions to his taxonomy. This is why I argue for liberal democracy, for it is the best means of preserving and protecting human rights. It seems you might be chasing after a utopia more than I am.

Finally, communism has been achieved. We all shag our sisters, live in free love, and have the same lack of resources that everyone else has. — Agustino

This level of knownothingism really can't get much lower.

How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall. — Agustino

If you're so intellectually lazy you can't even read a Wikipedia entry on how socialism's origins predate Marxism, and how it would obviously be more accurate to say socialism led to Marxism, at least you should forebear exposing your laziness in public.

But watch - you'll continue with this idiotic meme despite the facts. It's what conservatives do.

How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall. — Agustino

What Marxist hate for the family are you talking about? What passage in Karl Marx's writings leads you to think that Marxism hates families?

Are you talking about the abuse of the individual and the family common in dictatorial, authoritarian, regimes? Or, are you talking about the abuse of the individual and the family common in exploitative capitalist regimes? Look, large scale regimented organizations -- corporate, governmental, military, or ecclesiastical -- tend not to nurture individuals and families, regardless of what their ideological orientation.

So if I privately shagged a dog, and told other people I did (because why not - I want to express and talk about my sexuality freely), would they not disconsider me? — Agustino

My dog has very refined sensibilities. If you insult her by taking liberties she may employ her big sharp canine teeth to correct your indiscretion.

Yes, they may do, and that may be because of their limited capacities for understanding and compassion. — John

I don't think so - I think it's rather because they disagree morally with my behaviour.

I personally would not "disconsider" you, as long as I believed you caused no pain to the dog, although I might think your sexual tastes were somewhat deviant insofar as your libido was not directed towards fellow humans — John

So Muslim people may feel that homosexuals are somewhat deviant insofar as their libido is not directed towards females, as, according to them, God directs it.

In any case, being offended by witnessing or hearing about, sexual acts, no matter what their kind, is not ethically equivalent to blanket condemning of specific kinds of sexual behavior that involves consenting participants behind closed doors. — John

I personally agree. But then this is because we share the same values - there is no philosophical necessity in other people sharing the same values that we do.

I think you have a skewed notion of genius, science and painting. It always takes considerable time to see whether particular artists or scientists have been, in fact, great. You should not consider your own limited view to be a very good indicator in such matters. — John

Since when is it a necessity that genius is not recognized during their own life? Einstein for example was recognized during his life. In the past it often was the case that genius went unrecognized because they didn't have the means to communicate to a wide enough audience, and it took time for their work to spread.

Do you not think people would be offended if you did that? — John

No, they'd just feel jealous (this is meant to be a joke btw).

Would they feel you have offended their moral or merely their aesthetic sensibilities, do you think? — John

Both.

Or would they just think you were an insensitive idiot for disregarding your sexual partners' senses of intimacy and privacy? — John

This depends on whether my partner is okay with me sharing such information, but yes, they'd most likely think that as well.

Yes, but how is this any different from the same person being tempted by aristocratic privileges in a non-democratic society of the kind you envision and then squandering their abilities? — Thorongil

There were more geniuses produced by aristocratic societies than by democratic ones if you look through history. So practically, it seems to have better results at least.

What Marxist hate for the family are you talking about? What passage in Karl Marx's writings leads you to think that Marxism hates families? — Bitter Crank

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. — Communist Manifesto Chapter 2

Marx says that he wants to destroy the bourgeois family, which is in part kept together by the economic needs between man and wife.

He admits that non-communists fear that this will lead to a community of women, where women are free for any to take. He doesn't think that this will happen, however - he admits that it may. At worst, he says, a hypocritically concealed system of "wives in common" will be substituted for an "openly legalised community of women".

Marx fails to see that once economic needs no longer press on him and somehow "force" him to remain with his wife, he is much more likely not to, given man's nature. He also fails to see that the "hypocritically concealed" system is better than the "openly legalised" one, because at least in the hypocritically concealed this is condemned, giving another control mechanism that in the "openly legalised" one will be completely removed.

Most people are too weak emotionally to be able to live a life of virtue. Even the strongest of us will have temptations. Whatever mechanisms can help restrain our temptations in our moments of weakness - those mechanisms should be there. Many times, when I was tempted to do something wrong, I didn't just because I was afraid of the consequences. The mechanism was good - now I thank it - if it wasn't for it, I would've done a lot more wrong than I did even with it.

My dog has very refined sensibilities. If you insult her by taking liberties she may employ her big sharp canine teeth to correct your indiscretion. — Bitter Crank

See - even the dog wouldn't agree to something like this :P

There were more geniuses produced by aristocratic societies than by democratic ones if you look through history. So practically, it seems to have better results at least. — Agustino

How exactly do you conclude such a thing? Do you keep a running list?

It is my intuition, but let's attempt to test it. Name me 10 geniuses from 1900 onwards.

I will name you 10 geniuses from 1550-1650

1. Newton (1642-1726)
2. Galileo Galiei (1564-1642)
3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
4. Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564)
5. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
6. William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
7. Spinoza (1632-1677)
8. Leibniz (1646-1716)
9. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
10. Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)

Probably some of the greatest writers, poets, philosophers, scientists, and artists in history there.

I will start your list:
1. Einstein
2. Wittgenstein

Also your idea of keeping a running list is interesting... maybe I should!

Einstein, Schrödinger, Plank, Bohr, Picasso, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Orwell, Steinbeck, Eliot, off the top of my head.

Fair enough - I would disagree though with Heidegger, Orwell, Eliot. They aren't anywhere near Spinoza (for Heidegger), Shakespeare (for Eliot) or Cervantes (Orwell). I'll give you that Heidegger is arguable though. The other two definitely not.

I will need to compile a full list sometime soon to check this matter.

With these lists, especially if they include writers of fictional prose and philosophers whose views one disagrees with, you can't judge based on your own aesthetic preferences. I think Heidegger is mostly a hack, Picasso an unappealing painter, and Steinbeck a bit dry at times, but that doesn't negate their status as geniuses, it seems to me. I am not the sole arbiter of that distinction.

I have always read that section of the Communist Manifesto as a criticism of bourgeois hypocrisy about the family, and not as a proposal to emulate the bourgeois hypocrisy.

What Marx was saying (this in 1844, remember) was that the bourgeoisie (big factory operators) didn't give a rat's ass about the family, and were perfectly willing to exploit men, women, and children for sexual or productive purposes. The bourgeois accused the revolutionaries of the day of wanting to do away with the family, but in fact, the bourgeoisie was already doing precisely that thing.

What Marx was saying (this in 1844, remember) was that the bourgeoisie (big factory operators) didn't give a rat's ass about the family, and were perfectly willing to exploit men, women, and children for sexual or productive purposes. The bourgeois accused the revolutionaries of the day of wanting to do away with the family, but in fact, the bourgeoisie was already doing precisely that thing. — Bitter Crank

Very well - but I've argued, and you haven't responded to the argument, that the bourgeoisie doing this behind closed scenes was better than the revolutionaries doing this openly.

With these lists, especially if they include writers of fictional prose and philosophers whose views one disagrees with, you can't judge based on your own aesthetic preferences. I think Heidegger is mostly a hack, Picasso an unappealing painter, and Steinbeck a bit dry at times, but that doesn't negate their status as geniuses, it seems to me. I am not the sole arbiter of that distinction. — Thorongil

I agree.

It also occurred to me that if you think geniuses are cultivated more in aristocratic societies, then how do you account for the Middle Ages? There are some centuries, like say the 7th, where I doubt you could compose a list of 10 geniuses of the caliber you seem to want, anywhere in the world, where such societies were clearly the norm.

It also occurred to me that if you think geniuses are cultivated more in aristocratic societies, then how do you account for the Middle Ages? There are some centuries, like say the 7th, where I doubt you could compose a list of 10 geniuses of the caliber you seem to want, anywhere in the world, where such societies were clearly the norm. — Thorongil

Poverty, lack of access to intellectual resources, lack of cultural values, high levels of oppression, military conflict.

Just like I attribute the lack of genius in today's world to:
too much social pressure, commercialisation of sex, high levels of misinformation, too much comfort, too much counter culture.

What is best is a median between those two extremes. You don't want an affluent hyper-democrato-capitalist rule of the mob state of affairs as we have now. Neither do you want a closed down monarchy with no regard for the people and full of poverty.

So, from the top one poverty needs to be removed, such that people have access to reasonable amounts of resources, intellectual resources need to be easily available, cultural values need to be promoted, levels of oppression need to be maintained to a minimum, and military conflict must be avoided. From the bottom one, you don't want social pressure (mob-rule via ostracisation and social exclusion), unregulated sex (which is almost enforced via mob-rule) - which increases conflicts between people and prevents them from developing their intelligence, high levels of misinformation so that people can no longer distinguish truth from falsity, too much comfort such that people aren't pushed to do anything useful, and irrational disregard for authority (other geniuses) (this doesn't mean that the authority shouldn't ever be questioned though).