Then how is a "tendency to create hierarchial social structures" natural absent of any evidence that that's what we do in all circumstances? — Isaac

As I explained, I don't think we gain much by examining what we do in all circumstances. It's helpful to think of culture as an indicator of what we've made of ourselves, and therefore what behaviors we'll gravitate towards.

So, are you suggesting that our natural environment has changed in the last few thousand years? — Isaac

No.

I'm not sure that I do. By all accounts, things were a lot more equal before money. Money facilitated first trade, but then capitalism, which definitely does not contribute to egalitarianism through its own nature. Capitalism concentrates wealth through money. — Pantagruel

Money was invented in Lydia around the 6th Century BC. I wasn't looking that far backward, but life was definitely hierarchial before that.

My point was that in Europe, the rise of liberalism was a movement against the aristocracy. It was an egalitarian project. The USA is product of that movement.

then it’s wrong to say that egalitarianism is against human nature — Jamal

I think that when we examine the nature of any species, it's a mistake to pull the organism out of its world. Living things not only adapt, but they actively alter their environments. In a way, you could say the cohort and its environment are a unity. For multicellular organisms, this actually starts at the beginning. After sperm meets egg, the first differentiation in the blob is to grow something like a seed pod to surround the proto-embryo. In other words, the first action of your genetic material was to create a protective structure to allow further development. You eventually discarded that shell, but ever since, you have been engaged in that same activity: altering the world to suit your needs, and we do this on a larger scale as well. Most living things do.

So if our environment is part of what we are, let's allow humanity to be a moving target as it adapts to and reforms its circumstances. What was natural for hunter gatherers, whatever that may have been, was a reflection of what worked for us at the time.

So in the OP, when I say that egalitarian causes are obstructed by something that's coming to us naturally, my point is not to argue that we can't make that kind of transition, but rather to point out that we aren't beset by evil doers when we fail. Our ambitions are being thwarted by a natural tendency to create hierarchial social structures.

Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same... — javi2541997

I don't think you're demonstrating intolerance by that attitude, though. The American governor who has attacked the use of "Latinx" is specifically trying to normalize intolerance. It's not even a dog whistle. Everyone can hear it. I see this as a result of Trump's success.

Just now read Habermas' analysis of the formation of the 'bourgeois public sphere' by and during the rise of capitalism. He describes how the "interests of capitalists engaged in manufacture prevailed over those engaged in trade," specifically because the former were directly responsible for the "employment of the country's population." — Pantagruel

Was he talking about the British Industrial Revolution? Part of that event was an intentional transformation of Ireland into a purely agrarian domain to supply food so that English and Scotch labor could be transferred off the land to work in factories.

But prior to that, trading had been the path out of serfdom. The elite was a combination of aristocrats and clergymen whose religion explained why the dominance of the aristocracy was God's will. The rise of liberalism in Europe was clearly an egalitarian project in its infancy. Money was the great equalizer. Do you agree with that?

I'd like to see more of that in OPs of this sort. — Baden

Would you really?

More like a choice between which kind of suffering one wants to experience - that which comes from pursuing good or that which comes from pursuing bad - — javra

You're looking at the issue very moralistically. As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I don't think what I'm describing is about evil people. It's our nature, which I conceive as partly genetic and partly a collection of habits that have a winning track record for us.

In other words, good never ubiquitously prevails because there is bad in the world. Therefore, we should shun a striving for that which is good; instead favoring either the bad or a magical type of eternally unchanging, self-sustained, homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction. — javra

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying.

Don't reckon this dipshit merits a discussion unless you can flesh out some generalized thesis that you think his comments illustrate. — Baden

His was the most popular comic strip in America at one time. It comes on the heels of a general increase in attempts by some Republicans to legitimatize intolerance such as making the rainbow flag illegal on public property and restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees.

It's all just fun and games till we need to start scapegoating and the door has already been open to attacking certain groups. I think the Republicans who put up with this stuff are naive.

In a selfish, individualistic and inherently distrusting society, egalitarianism gains potency. Such a state of affairs favours good will as it is unusual, and the general populous are ill equipped to deal with it. It easily overpowers as it has the advantage of being unfamiliar, understated and insidious/covert.

In an egalitarian, co-operative and trusting society, selfishness, manipulation and exploitation gains traction in much the same way.

Whatever is more difficult to detect and contend, becomes the more influential force.

At the end of the day, balance is always the go to.

Just as when everyone is Conservative, a Liberal ideal is new, fresh, appealing and a clear demonstration of potential for change, and when a society is overly Liberal, Conservative values become the hallmark of progress.

The majority is stagnancy, a stalemate, uninspiring, boring and unworkable. The minority is the forefront of innovation.

This pendulum has been swinging to and fro for millenia. — Benj96

Well said. I absolutely agree. We want what we don't have.

Many times people aren't asked who leads them and try to stay away from the dangerous mess that is politics. If your country is a failed state, the biggest problem for you isn't who claims to be the leader. — ssu

Do Finlanders go off into the tundra to avoid governmental interference?

Or if the elite weren't using the power of their resources to completely shred value of the information, to the point where most people are so obsessed with misinformation, and conspiracy theories about misinformation, that they simply have no idea what is going on, or what is actually in their own best interest. Per my post on the value and power of public information, which got zero comments. — Pantagruel

:up:

Unfortunately, if we do not at some point figure out how to manage an equitable redistribution of wealth and educate enough people to ensure it stays redistributed, hard economic realities dictate that there will be a vicious clash between "those who have literally nothing left to lose" and "those who stole the basic necessities of life from everyone else". — Pantagruel

But hasn't that happened over and over? In order to equitably redistribute wealth, a revolution would be required. Once the revolution is under way, there's a portion of the population already making their way to positions of power.

It's cyclic.

Probably this is due to a failure to recognize the true extent of the proletariat and a wish to belong to the sphere of the elite — Pantagruel

And egalitarianism is the club we use to kill the elite so we can take their place. :up:

Power is so intoxicating for some that they will hold on to it until they die. — ssu

Exactly. But they couldn't succeed if the population at large didn't want to be led, right?

Would it be easier if we accept our determinism and destiny? — javi2541997

Yes. I didn't mean to be expressing angst, though. It's just a thought that occurred to me about why the ideal of egalitarianism never seems to get far. It's not that our wills are being thwarted by greedy evil doers, it's that we naturally gravitate toward hierarchy and there are those who actively seek to turn events to their favors instead of waiting patiently for human spirit to manifest itself or whatever.

Would you rather be a rich pig or a poor horse?

"Latinx" is not even a word in Spanish. — javi2541997

Neither is ouisqui or junque. South Americans and Spaniards are so haughty about Tex Mex, but as Dr Frankenfurter explained, "We didn't make it for you!"

I think she's just saying that people who haven't read many philosophy books are likely to be more certain about various things.

frank
Oooh... the omnipotent American President and the godly powers that he has to fix things in the World. Or create every problem there is or has been. Right? :smirk: — ssu

Pretty much, yeah. :cool:

Depends on who wins the US presidential election in 2024, right?

read a lot of history of philosophy -- Copleston's and others as well as articles in various dictionaries, compendia and companions. — Dfpolis

I see.

I have heard of it, but not read Hegel, or been inclined to. I do not see him as an influence. — Dfpolis

Where did you hear of it, if you don't mind my asking?

This is a familiar idea. A number of philosophers have expressed the same sentiment. Like Hegel?
— frank
I'm pretty ignorant of 19th c. German philosophy. — Dfpolis

So you've never heard of the idea of starting with a unity that is subsequently divided into opposites?

am starting with the experience of knowing, in which things and thinking are united. The Fundamental Abstraction takes this unity, divides it, and fixes on things to the exclusion of thought. — Dfpolis

This is a familiar idea. A number of philosophers have expressed the same sentiment. Like Hegel?

:up:

Sure. Look to context to understand usage.

I was talking about the OP's article.

↪frank
You are dodging the challenge to your challenge in relation to reduction in regard to you saying, "whether a theory of consciousness is possible." — Paine

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

Why does it have no bearing when the question of what can be reduced to a function is the center of both enquiries? — Paine

Function can be reduced (explained) by neuroscience. This is Chalmers' "easy problem."

Neuroscience has been pretty successful here.

That article is behind a paywall. One of the theories mentioned in the abstract is IIT. Chalmers has offered his thoughts about the pros and cons of that approach, specifically what he thinks it would need to accomplish it's goal. At present, it's only a broad outline. I'm failing to see what point you're trying to make.

Yes. How do you see that against the background of the essay presented by DF Polis? — Paine

His article argues that functionality can't be explained by examining the physiology of the CNS. Whether or not this is true has no bearing in whether a theory of consciousness is possible.

Both, I guess. He has not presented a theory to explain consciousness, but he is saying there could be one.

Isn't that what is being sought after or abandoned as a hopeless cause? — Paine

There are those who argue that a theory of consciousness isn't possible. Chalmers believes it is possible.

Yes. Are you posting that to agree or disagree with me?

Right, he does not have a scientific theory, that is, one that has stood the test of time. — Fooloso4

He's never proposed to have a scientific theory of consciousness. One would have to be almost completely ignorant of his work to think otherwise.

If you mean he declares it true then you are right, but he does endorse it in the sense of give support to it. — Fooloso4

He's arguing that it should be on the table in our quest for a theory of consciousness. He has also praised Dennett's ingenuity as the type of creative mindset we'll need to begin creating a theory. In other words, he doesn't think there is any viable theory of consciousness at this time. Therefore, there is none to endorse.

Toward this end, I propose that conscious experience be considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic.

Yes. Again, this is what he thinks is required in order to lay the groundwork for a theory of consciousness. It isn't a theory in itself. You've misunderstood his intent if you thought so.

I have.

How can it be said the meaning is a property of the expression—its use, its context, its syntax, its content, its whatever—if Y could not derive from it its meaning, and if Z has not expressed anything? — NOS4A2

Some would identity meaning as an abstract object called a proposition.

I utter sentence S in order to express proposition P.

P isn't a property. It's an object in its own right. This approach has the advantage of starting the analysis from where we are instead of trying to build up to it from a location we can't occupy.

There's very little difference across the filters. Even Continental Europe scores 75% realist, 7% idealist. — Banno

Since the alternative appears to be some sort of solipsism, I think you'd get the same answer if you had a time machine and could go back through the history of the human race.