Again: your position is all emotion, which is fine. If you have an argument that has something logical or empirical to say about the matter, I'd be interested. — frank
The point remains that one is not faced with the choice of either laissez faire or Marxism. It's a false dichotomy. There are 1000s of points in between.I wrote several paragraphs. Your response was one weird question. — frank
But seriously... People need struggle, but surely it's preferable to be given the freedom to struggle with our own creative potential rather than to have that diverted into the life-draining swamps of impersonal bureaucracies, corporate greed, enforced poverty etc. It's the great self-defining struggle most people never get the chance to have that we should be fostering, no? And the fact that not all will take the torch passed is no excuse to blow out the light. — Baden
None of the stuff about strength and lack of mercy follows from 'mechanism' as far as I can tell. — csalisbury
By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter. — frank
The proponents of the "strong" as a right in itself do not subscribe to the concept of society.
Pick a lane. — Valentinus
My feeling is that, you're right, social darwinism and freudianism have a lot of mechanistic qualities. But that's not the same as saying mechanism entails them. — csalisbury
I would liked to have seen you engage the question earnestly, but I'm guessing you're busy. — frank
has already pointed out the obvious implication of your thesis lead to the absurd conclusion that we should live in worse conditions rather than better, why is that not earnest engagement? — boethius
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.