It just seems like the problem is that people are being divided and not that they are divided. When you emphasize that fact that they are divided instead of the fact that they are being divided it seems like you’re criticizing the victims for their inability to unite. — Average
The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is — Average
I won’t criticize you or call you silly for believing that the truth can be bitter. — Average
I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.' — universeness
Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not — Average
But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite? — Average
I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth. — universeness
I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.' — universeness
I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean — Average
People who take 18th century values seriously are against concentration of power. After all the doctrines of the enlightenment held that individuals should be free from the coercion of concentrated power. The kind of concentrated power that they were thinking about was the church, and the state, and the feudal system, and so on, and you could kind of imagine a population of relatively equal people who would not be controlled by those private powers. But in the subsequent era, a new form of power developed — namely, corporations — with highly concentrated power over decision making in economic life, i.e., what’s produced, what’s distributed, what’s invested, and so forth, is narrowly concentrated.
The public mind might have funny ideas about democracy, which says that we should not be forced to simply rent ourselves to the people who own the country and own its institutions, rather that we should play a role in determining what those institutions do — that’s democracy. If we were to move towards democracy (and I think “democracy” even in the 18th century sense) we would say that there should be no maldistribution of power in determining what’s produced and distributed, etc. — rather that’s a problem for the entire community.
And in my own personal view, unless we move in that direction, human society probably isn’t going to survive.
I mean, the idea of care for others, and concern for other people’s needs, and concern for a fragile environment that must sustain future generations — all of these things are part of human nature. These are elements of human nature that are suppressed in a social and cultural system which is designed to maximize personal gain, and I think we must try to overcome that suppression, and that’s in fact what democracy could bring about — it could lead to the expression of other human needs and values that tend to be suppressed under the institutional structure of private power and private profit.
The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption? — ChatteringMonkey
They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. — Xtrix
The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness
I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values. — Xtrix
II can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under. — Xtrix
They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term.
— Xtrix
The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness
All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige. — ChatteringMonkey
Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway — ChatteringMonkey
So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.
The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power — ChatteringMonkey
Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold. — ChatteringMonkey
If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that. — ChatteringMonkey
Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. — Xtrix
The goal isn't to make everything the same. — Xtrix
The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team. — Xtrix
It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle — Xtrix
What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties. — universeness
And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case — ChatteringMonkey
I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes — ChatteringMonkey
They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake. — universeness
One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.' — universeness
Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake. — universeness
There is an absolutely disgusting TV show where — EugeneW
Man, I could kick him in the ass, or slap him on his solarium-browned face! I would be arrested by the police — EugeneW
If they are not careful, they will need a lot more Police because they will need to arrest me too and as time goes on, too many others for them to handle. — universeness
If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin — ChatteringMonkey
when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary — ChatteringMonkey
I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions — ChatteringMonkey
but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend. — ChatteringMonkey
But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical. — ChatteringMonkey
I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists! — universeness
I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current. — universeness
I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it. — universeness
Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. — universeness
What would "true" socialism be, in your view? — Xtrix
I like meritocracy as well — Xtrix
So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans. — universeness
Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism. — universeness
We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing. — universeness
No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies. — universeness
Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view. — ChatteringMonkey
And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...
I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers. — ChatteringMonkey
We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are — ChatteringMonkey
Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced — ChatteringMonkey
Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there. — ChatteringMonkey
Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer. — universeness
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.