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?It's probably not perfectly achievable on the large (or perhaps even on the individual) scale, but as an ideal, yes. — 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?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 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.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
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?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
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
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
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.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
Agreed.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
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.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
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.In a democratic society, the genius is ignored but is able to realize his potential by being given the opportunity to do so. — Thorongil
Unfortunately not.Do you think Plato's Republic will be implemented any time soon? — 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.If not, then why not support liberal democracy? — Thorongil
How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall.There are leftists who are quite rigid in their morals, have strong family values, and so forth. — Bitter Crank
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
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
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
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
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
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
How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall. — Agustino
How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall. — Agustino
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
I don't think so - I think it's rather because they disagree morally with my behaviour.Yes, they may do, and that may be because of their limited capacities for understanding and compassion. — 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.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
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.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
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.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
No, they'd just feel jealous (this is meant to be a joke btw).Do you not think people would be offended if you did that? — John
Both.Would they feel you have offended their moral or merely their aesthetic sensibilities, do you think? — John
This depends on whether my partner is okay with me sharing such information, but yes, they'd most likely think that as well.Or would they just think you were an insensitive idiot for disregarding your sexual partners' senses of intimacy and privacy? — John
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.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
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
Marx says that he wants to destroy the bourgeois family, which is in part kept together by the economic needs between man and wife.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
See - even the dog wouldn't agree to something like this :PMy 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
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
I agree.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
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
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.