Also I disagree with the equalizing and trivializing of the personal value and meaning of different forms of work you have to give me an argument for why they have the same meaning and end in despair for the individual — aporiap
Now the burden is to show when things weren't bad, and why they weren't, and how we can maybe fix that. It's easy to decry things. It's very hard to explain how to make things better. — csalisbury
Would I do a better job of providing all of these requirements myself? Emphatically no! I cannot be an expert in everything. — Shatter
Indeed! Specialization (along with automation) has allowed the standard of living to go way up, for all of us unfortunate souls who get to be alienated. Not saying it's a perfect result, but I would say it's generally less bad than what came before.
Although I have no idea what life was a hunter/gatherer would be like, but at least with civilized life, the standard of living is much better now, for those who have access. — Marchesk
The point of my post was to address the fact that we are mostly ignorant of the very processes and things we take utilize in daily life. We become passive participants and eventually become beholden to the given which is: — schopenhauer1
But is it worse than what we had before?
Maybe a smith would know everything about how an object was made. Was their life better off overall? — Marchesk
I am not advocating going backwards in time. I am just pointing to our ignorance and how beholden we are to larger forces we had no hand in and did not create ourselves but certainly dictate modern life for us. I can't explain its significance more than there is an alienation or atomization to this. — schopenhauer1
On a different note, are we really, relatively speaking, all that alienated? Does a monkey know how fruit is produced? — Shatter
Chomsky argues that anarchism is not disorganised, but is instead organisation without hierarchy. Fanciful as this may sound, it does offer a potential to alleviate the "inherently bad" aspect of (corporate) organisation without the wanton destruction of everything we rely on for our survival. — Shatter
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that this is at least theoretically true, is a consequence of this that alienation from production is not an important factor in our lives? — Shatter
However, I find the recognised alternatives, such as socialism or communism, to be worse than the problems they solve.
This, not least, because the various factions tend to collapse into mutual antagonism. The Communist Manifesto (which isn't a manifesto at all - it's a prophecy) provides a quintessential example. — Shatter
Workers in capitalist economies are definitely alienated from production. They may be, and probably are alienated in other ways too, where alienation is a psychological phenomenon. — Bitter Crank
This conflict of efficiency vs well-being has been somewhat addressed in private industry with certain progressive companies - google, venmo, tesla- designing their employment positions to include more worker freedom and project autonomy. This could quell the well being issue without unduly hampering efficient production, it just needs to be more widespread. Or, automating the algorithmic steps and creating new jobs that require critical input. I'm not sure the latter can do the same as the former but it's a start.This result arises from a need for more products and efficient production. Failure to adhere to these principles means perhaps more fulfilling work conditions but fewer goods and services.
Whether the employee works the assembly line as co-owner of The People's Communal Motorcars or as a peon Ford Motor Company grunt, in either event, the employee goes equally unfulfilled. — Hanover
The alienation, it seems to me arises from being relegated to being a cog, not from lacking joint ownership in the enterprise. — Hanover
This alienation from factors of production is a problem as we are atomized from the sources of production- reduced to a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the larger pie. — schopenhauer1
It would be nice to not work for anyone, read, write, watch good TV, enjoy a variety of sex partners, never age, have lots of profound friendships, be admired for my creativity, and so on and so on. As I get some of this, it doesn't exactly keep me from wanting more of this. And if I could make a living strictly from my creativity, I still find something to gripe about (lack of immortality, the imperfection of friends and lovers, etc.) That monstrous, infinite hole of abstract appetite is just something one puts up with and is maybe even grateful for. — syntax
I anticipate a pessimistic response, and I grant that pessimists have noted the way that desire expands with possession. But this surplus desire or frustration isn't exactly unpleasant. It's the like the tension felt in trying to beat a video game or solve a puzzle. — syntax
Interesting point and I think there is something to it. This is why there should be existential communities- we can call it "The Joy of Pessimism" akin to the Joy of Cooking or the Joy of Painting :D. — schopenhauer1
As for the production idea of this thread, the point is that we can never have full knowledge of the very world we use to keep us alive. Hunter/gatherers know the man-made tools that they use. Our ancestors did at least. But here we are, using this computer, and I am sure most of us wouldn't know much except generalities about processors, RAM, binary code, source code, etc. that still wouldn't scratch the surface of all the functionalities. Of course, SOMEONE might know every piece of information that goes into how the computer functions (still doubtful because of the programming aspect), but they don't know about some other phenomena that they use in daily life. It is a very subtle point I am making that I think people have missed. — schopenhauer1
This ignorance of the @apokrisismachine as a whole is still something that I think I would like more than digging in the dirt with tools I understand. Even in a simpler world, the presence of that world must remain mysterious. — syntax
We are born into the given- an accumulation of general processes over time. We can only work within that given and never create it whole out of cloth. Thus the demands of life are largely not ours to create, only work within. The demands of a particular economy is already there presented to us as well. The economy can only work within a particular physical reality that is also presented to us. — schopenhauer1
Again though, this has no justification other than this is a preference- a preference for seeing the same thing continue into the future. — schopenhauer1
apokrisis seems to think there is this smooth balance of the individual with the whole- as if human social relations are simply a machine. — schopenhauer1
It is you who desire the smooth and frictionless existence here. Funny that. Folk are always projecting. — apokrisis
I do not agree about how smooth this balance is. It is a constant realigning one's values with the social ones. It is not a complete subjugation of one's own will to the economic/social demands. It is a constant need to create habits to work with the group. This is not a smooth process. Individuals have an inclination for freedom of their own thought. Thus, not recognizing people's tendency for their own freedom of thought, is tacitly just putting the "is" of group dynamics as the "ought" of individuals conforming to demands of the given. Rather, though people must acquiesce to the given, the situation is still the given. Why create more situations where individuals must encounter the given? apokrisis suggests that this is something that should be done, but other than describing how individuals and groups have to negotiate, the reasoning for why it should be done is not explained. Again, it is not a smooth process. Either there is a denial of this bumpiness, or there is a preference-writ-large to make new people experience this bumpiness. Again though, this has no justification other than this is a preference- a preference for seeing the same thing continue into the future. — schopenhauer1
Well, it is simply a preference of yours. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.