That's an answer to why we are required, not why we should be. — Pfhorrest
Well are you a woman or disabled? — BitconnectCarlos
There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not.
— Xtrix
My point is you or I do not know what the real reasons are. — ChatteringMonkey
Doesn't it seems strange to you to judge something you only have partial knowledge about at best? — ChatteringMonkey
The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you.
— Xtrix
No you did, in asking for a justification for something to exist. — ChatteringMonkey
That was my point, that you seemed to advocate some kind of flat a-historical evaluation via the principles set out in the OP. If that's not what you are advocating, than my point is moot and I apologize for the trouble. — ChatteringMonkey
Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. — Xtrix
When does history begin? — Bitter Crank
His is at least an interesting proposal to think about. — Bitter Crank
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.
(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.) — Bitter Crank
The idea that there is a "driving force" behind history leads to teleological delusions -- like those embedded in the cliché that so-and-so or such-and-such "changed the course of history". The invention of dynamite changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy's assassination (or 9/11) changed the course of history. Facebook changed the course of history. As if anyone knew where history intending to go before dynamite, JFK, 9/11, or Facebook came along, from outside of history, to redirect the course of time. — Bitter Crank
So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world. — BitconnectCarlos
When does history begin?
— Bitter Crank
Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. — BitconnectCarlos
The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.) — Xtrix
I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. — Xtrix
It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. — BitconnectCarlos
It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." — BitconnectCarlos
True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. — Xtrix
One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today. — BitconnectCarlos
The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. — BitconnectCarlos
It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. — Xtrix
No amount of wealth can enslave you or I because the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on violence. The wealthy are subject to the same laws, and, at least where the law is faithfully executed, the same punishments. So I cannot see how the wealthy are the “masters of mankind” when they are unable to force mankind to do anything. — NOS4A2
Rather, we must look to which class has expropriated the means of political organization and domination, and have convinced us of its legitimacy. These people can force us to give it our earnings, can imprison us if we disobey, and kill us should it choose to do so.
This master is the state. — NOS4A2
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.