So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? — schopenhauer1

No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered.

I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, you failed to illustrate how this digging leads you to conclude to boredom and survival as the only motivators of human behavior.

Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention? — schopenhauer1

Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty?

In other words, we need to always be doing. — schopenhauer1

Not 'need'. We choose to.

motivated from an angst. — schopenhauer1

You have not shown this to be the case.

I perhaps see — schopenhauer1

Yes, you perhaps see red herrings, but you don't see that your theory claims to explain human motivators, but it clearly doesn't explain my motivations at all. It fails, because it is too narrow and dogmatic.

or what justification we have — schopenhauer1

Well, what's wrong with asking you what justification you have for believing what you believe?

My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures). — schopenhauer1

I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine.

First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response.. — schopenhauer1

What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.

I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation. — schopenhauer1

Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.

This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being. — schopenhauer1

Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:

A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:O — Agustino

The question is why do we seek goals in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s

We do not sit there like a rock. — schopenhauer1

Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?

Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality. — schopenhauer1

No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.

That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.

Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.

Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc.

For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats. — CasKev

For you, but I experience my purpose as given, not as chosen. I also choose to pursue it, but I experience it as given first, and chosen later.

Hold on, I have to do some intermediate goals now (for survival's sake) so I'll let you know in a bit ;)! — schopenhauer1

Why do you bother to survive? ;) ;) ;)

A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:O

Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. — schopenhauer1

How do you know this is the ultimate underlying motivation? By what criteria have you established that? Why do you discount the answers people generally give? What reasons do you have to doubt those answers?

The intermediary goal-seeking that we find pleasure in from our own personalities that create these linguistically based goals, has an underlying cause. You jumped from the intermediary right to the root. We are barely conscious of the root underlying cause, because the goal-seeking is usually the most present in our minds as we go through the day. It takes a bit more digging to get to the root of the goals themselves. — schopenhauer1

You do realize that this presupposes its own anthropological conception of man, which is the one given by materialistic evolutionary biology of the 60s-80s right? Things have moved on from back then.

You create the concept of "intermediary goal-seeking", "linguistic goals", etc. and then attribute to them an underlying cause. And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. What reasons does anyone have to believe you? :s

So, we are goal-seeking creatures. Goals come from our ability to use language to construct meaning in the world. The underlying angst of boredom manifests in our linguistic brains as the myriad of intricate goals we can pursue to alleviate this angsty dissatisfaction of just being. We can't just "be" in the world like a rock, we must "do". So what does doing require? Well, it requires goals of all sorts- goals that come from one's own personality shaped by experience/genetics/contingent circumstances of events in ones life. So one is exposed to certain people, experiences which provide a framework for building on interests and goals, etc.. Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. All together it is a general angst of just "being". If we were content in and of itself, we would not need to pursue any goals. You buy into the end product of some of the goals (beautiful works of art, etc.) but not the underlying causes. — schopenhauer1

Again, the problem with this is that it doesn't reflect reality.

Beethoven doesn't write the 5th Symphony because in the absence of writing it he would get bored. Rather, he takes positive pleasure in doing it. I don't get out of bed in the morning because I'd get bored if I stayed there. I get out of bed because I take positive pleasure in doing some of the things at least that I have to do every day. Desire plays a positive role, not just a negative role motivated by boredom. I don't desire just because I'd be bored otherwise.

"This emptiness finds its expression in the whole form of existence, in the infiniteness of Time and Space as opposed to the finiteness of the individual in both; in the flitting present as the only manner of real existence; in the dependence and relativity of all things; in constantly Becoming without Being; in continually wishing without being satisfied; in an incessant thwarting of one’s efforts, which go to make up life, until victory is won. — Schopenhauer

You should read my post here. — Agustino

Nope, this is all romanticization. It's layers upon layers of obfuscation. It obfuscates the Real. The Real is the survival and boredom. All desires are essentially to run from one of the other. — schopenhauer1

Nope, you're merely asserting this now. That doesn't hold water with me. There's no argumentation at all. Nor have you shown how eros can be reduced to survival and boredom.

producing works of intricate art is one of the most engrossing activities you can do. — schopenhauer1

Sure.

Why wouldn't one want to find the best way to alleviate boredom? — schopenhauer1

Does the person who creates great art do it to "alleviate boredom"? Ask them - I think you'll be surprised by what they tell you.

No one wants to hear survival and boredom. That just depresses people, so you can go on with your rhetorical romanticizations and throw more pleasant sounding buzz words, I just don't buy it. — schopenhauer1

It's not about what you want or don't want to hear. It's about the truth.

It covers up the pretty simple idea that we are not content just existing — schopenhauer1

Being content just to exist (doing nothing) sounds like some form of mental illness to me. That's not eudaimonia.

I believe that all premises must be reasoned, most come from inductive reason. If a "first principle" is not reasoned, then it is most likely random and unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

That depends what you mean by "inductive reason". Can you give an example of this, or explain it further?

That's what "true falsehood" is, contradiction, and the other description you provided involved contradictory premises. It's actually quite common for people to believe contradictory things. When we just accept the words without properly understanding what the words mean, we can have that problem. In other words, when we simply believe what has been said, without taken the time to properly understand it, we can believe contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wait. No, this isn't it. The "true falsehood" is the one that is actually believed in its meaning. It is the one that would prevent the person who believes it from seeing and apprehending reality as it is. It's not merely the acceptance of words whose meaning isn't fully grasped.

The "object" desired is always a state of being within the person who desires, so there is no such thing as the power of an external object causing the desire. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree. Take the love of God - it is directed towards God. God is the final cause of the whole of creation, thus the whole of creation is "drawn" to God as it were.

But that 'is only because you've made a false representation of desire, by separating it from the thing desired, when in reality desire does not exist without a thing desired. — Metaphysician Undercover

You do realise that this is one of those 'first principles' which have to be seen, and cannot be deduced, right? If someone lacks the noetic insight into their own desire, then they cannot be 'reasoned to' it. It's disagreement over basic premises. Both Plato and Aristotle struggled with this problem of how to arrive at correct/true first premises.

But that 'is only because you've made a false representation of desire, by separating it from the thing desired, when in reality desire does not exist without a thing desired. So of course it's going to end up looking like a vain striving to no end, because it has been separated from its end in this description. But that's a false description — Metaphysician Undercover

The more interesting thing to look at, is why does one end up believing such a true falsehood?

We should dismiss yours and examine mine to see if perhaps it is right. If not, we should continue to seek a better one. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do tend to see desire as something produced in us - or aroused in us - by the object desired. But this is to give power at a distance as it were to the object desired. It is to accept some sort of teleology, where the object desired can orient my being towards it. Not many people today would be willing to accept that.

You misunderstand what it is like. — intrapersona

If meditation, on the other hand, is a limited practice that you undertake in order to better exist in the world, that is a different story. — Agustino

It seems like you fall under this latter category that I was describing.

It carries over into real world much like the relief from sex carries over. — intrapersona

I don't follow this. It hasn't been my experience that 'relief' from sex carries over.

It doesn't breed apathy, it's the exact opposite. — intrapersona

When I do it (meditation), it often does because I feel I should be spending my time doing something different. I always have so much to do...

The issue is that it is like going for a run, its an effort and hard to sustain unless you have "that" kind of personality. — intrapersona

Well I often go running, so I do enjoy effort that is productive. But by running you get results in terms of better fitness, better vitality, and just feeling stronger in your will and your body. It teaches you not to give up - it's an essential training for the will.

I guess meditation would be similar with regards to boredom?

Then argue it with wikipedia, its the first paragraph. — intrapersona

I see. Have you read Plato? Plato's theory is quite different from what I understand it from the Republic. Wikipedia and secondary sources give misleading information, generally, not just about Plato. I can't remember for how many philosophers I've read Wikipedia, and then read their works and was like :-O 'what was that summary even about?! This is totally different'. Plato's tripartite conception is introduced to show how different drives of the psyche can be brought into harmony with each other. And for example, Plato does address this, which you claim he doesn't:

it still doesn't intrude on whether or not our reasoning has any iota of resemblance on ultimate truth or meaning if such a thing exists (but i feel it is somewhat self-evident). — intrapersona

It's right towards the beginning of the Republic when Socrates proves that the God does not lie or deceive. He calls the real lie - the lie in the soul which affects our reasoning and prevents us from seeing reality as it is - as the true falsehood. And since our faculty of reason - in-so-far as it is reason - is from the God and shares with the divine - then it cannot induce us into error in and of itself.

wouldnt self affirmation be weaker than survival? — intrapersona

No. You don't self-affirm in order to survive, rather you survive in order to self-affirm. Self-affirmation, the top of the pyramid, is much stronger than the bottom in terms of motivating factors. The higher your rise in the pyramid, the stronger the motivating factors become. I would even invert the pyramid upside down actually, just rotate it 180 degrees. Because having the top done, enables you to more easily take care of the bottom.

I wrote an essay about this actually. People who are at the lowest stages aren't very motivated at all. They're merely getting by, but they live in a kind of "depressed" state, where they don't have much energy in life. The kind of energy they have at that stage, disappears once they get to the food.

You can even see this from suicide. Suicide, as Schopenhauer says, is an attempt at self-affirmation, and definitely not at survival. If survival was stronger, then suicide would be impossible. But it's not. So when other means of self-affirmation become impossible, most non-religious people at least will look towards suicide. For example, if they become paralysed for their whole life, I'm sure many people will choose euthanasia over living that way. Clearly survival at any costs is not their goal - something matters more than survival.

Maslow's hierarchy is anyway just another relic of modernity. You should read my post here. This reconception of the human being that subordinates eros - erotic longing - to thymos - the will and self-affirmation - is a modern reconception of the human. Eros and thymos are, by the way, part of the Platonic tripartite conception of the soul.

to obey the directions of 2 while ferociously defending the whole from external invasion and internal disorder — intrapersona

This is thymos. But it's not described very well...

You are right, it all very much exploded fully into force from 2000-present. Today, computers and computing technology are pretty much everywhere.

Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom. We survive and get bored- our two great motivations. — schopenhauer1

Of course, you're omitting and forgetting about eros. Eros draws us out of ourselves. The object of our love acts - at a distance as it were - and draws us to it. It is by far a truly motivating factor - so motivating that many have even died for it. And the object of Eros can be God, another person, and so on.

Survival and boredom aren't very good motivators in the first place. It's not very difficult to survive in society. So that problem, for most of the time at least, isn't a problem for the majority of us in the West.

Boredom is not strong enough to motivate one to withstand pain. And all great achievement entails great pain. Boredom may motivate someone to hit the club for example. But it won't motivate them to write Bethoveen's 5th Symphony.

Self-affirmation is another source of motivation that is generally stronger than survival and boredom but weaker than eros.

I have had moments in meditation where I completely happy with just existing and what a present that is to have. — intrapersona

But you can't stay "in meditation" your whole life, just existing. You have to do things. So that apathetic state, as far as I'm concerned, is not good. It's like taking drugs. If meditation, on the other hand, is a limited practice that you undertake in order to better exist in the world, that is a different story.

1 to produce and seek pleasure. 2 to gently rule through the love of learning. 3 to obey the directions of 2 while ferociously defending the whole from external invasion and internal disorder. — intrapersona

That's not Plato's conception.

What is the most life changing technology to effect the quality of human life so far? — Ponderer

Computers. They changed pretty much every single other field when they came on. That includes medicine, cars, shoemaking, mathematics, military - anything you could think of. Apart from possibly philosophy LOL :P

If not computers, then certainly the internet.

And she is blind too, for Fortune shines on the wicked and on the good.

That also explains why teleology of the Aristotelian/Platonic kind has been jettisoned in modernity.

If there is an inner void, then it is impossible that desire is pointed inward, because there is nothing there to be desired. Desire is always point toward what is desired. So you have put together two opposing, or contradictory premises, to create a desire which is circular. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now to address your remarks on your own terms. Here's how the argument would go.

The inner void is constitutive of desire - it is desire. Desire just is the inner void trying to affirm itself - make itself actual - and failing to do so. Desire in this conception is not conceived with reference to any external or internal OBJECT. Rather it is conceived only with reference to itself. That is why, according to Spinoza for example, or Nietzsche, will-to-power or the conatus is the essence of man. This vain striving to no end - striving for its own sake.

Either the subject has an inner void and desire is necessarily directed outward from this void, perhaps in an attempt to fill the void, or, if desire is directed inward then there must be a perceived object there which is desired. We could say that one or the other is an illusion, either that the void is an illusion, or that the inner thing desired is an illusion, but we cannot suppose the reality of both. Therefore you cannot propose such a circular desire without involving contradiction in your proposition. So your conclusion of frustration and "no end", is just a product of contradictory premises. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here you illustrate that you're using a different conception of desire.

There appears to be something incorrect in this description. If there is an inner void, then it is impossible that desire is pointed inward, because there is nothing there to be desired. Desire is always point toward what is desired. So you have put together two opposing, or contradictory premises, to create a desire which is circular.

Either the subject has an inner void and desire is necessarily directed outward from this void, perhaps in an attempt to fill the void, or, if desire is directed inward then there must be a perceived object there which is desired. We could say that one or the other is an illusion, either that the void is an illusion, or that the inner thing desired is an illusion, but we cannot suppose the reality of both. Therefore you cannot propose such a circular desire without involving contradiction in your proposition. So your conclusion of frustration and "no end", is just a product of contradictory premises. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not my conclusion, I was drawing and spelling out a difference that is present in the thinking of modernity as opposed to more Ancient thinking.

Modernity does conceive subjectivity to be self-affirming desire, which is turned inwards on itself. I have explained how they have arrived at this conception, whether it is right or wrong I haven't much addressed, but I do think, same as you, that it isn't right. My post should have suggested that.

So Dawkins, here, actually grasps the futility and uselessness of his 'selfish gene' metaphor as a guiding philosophy, and seems to pine for something else - namely, 'pure and disinterested altruism'. — Wayfarer

Dawkins is not alone. Pretty much all the more cultured and intelligent atheists adopt a similar point of view. This is a very good book I read awhile ago about decision making and business. It's philosophical in its themes, so it's different than your run of the mill business book.

The idea is that the "selfish gene" marks our starting position. We start by being controlled by the "selfish gene" and we can only gain independence through sustained effort and education. This is similar to the doctrine often found in religions of the Fall of man. We are thrown into the world in a fallen state, and only recover and clean the surface of the mirror so to speak with time and intense effort.

So according to these atheists, we need to understand our chains - what binds us to the purposes of the selfish genes - in order to be able to free ourselves and find our own, true independence. The difference from this narrative, compared to the Platonic/Christian one is that the driving force is thymos (will) not eros (love).

And in this, the atheist is actually a spiritual person. It is a very Hegelian/Schopenhaurian spirituality, and I say that because I've started to read the two as essentially the same. Both Hegel and Schopenhauer develop a system that is driven by self-affirmation. For Schopenhauer, the will seeks to affirm itself. For Hegel, Spirit seeks its own self-affirmation in history through the negation of the other. It seeks to prove its own certainty - to make its certainty truth. Spirit never seeks the other out of love - it seeks the other to posit its own self - perhaps to find its own self in the other. It is very violent to the other.

The atheist becomes merely the - perhaps final - expression of the logos of modernity. The essence of modernity seems to be the will - and in this, our two last great metaphysicians agree. Love - altruism - is made subservient to the will. The will becomes fundamental. And this is a great inversion from the earlier Platonic thinkers where eros was the fundamental driving force, where desire was other-directed instead of self-directed. In modernity, desire is purely self-directed. Subjectivity becomes pure negativity - it is negation that is constitutive of the subject.

Indeed, the journey of the subject is fueled by this inner void that compels the subject to bring itself into being as it were. To make itself real. To transform itself - the void - into something substantial. Desire is pointed inward - desire itself is circular. Pure non-being becomes the active force. The end of desire or the will isn't the object anymore - but rather desire itself - its own self-affirmation. Obtaining the object desired is not the essential aspect anymore - rather it is the affirmation of the desire itself - which is exactly why desire is always frustrated in obtaining its object because self-affirmation knows no end.

That's why Schopenhauer decries the tragedy and cruelty of the Will. It is why Hegel states that Spirit develops only through intense suffering, and suffering is essential to its own development. It is why Marx states that capitalism devours itself. It is why we take suffering for granted in the modern world and dispense it without regard, especially to those closest to us. Even the noblest of modern thinkers can only go so far as the complete self-devouring of the Will - its quietus.

And all this ends in Nietzsche's will-to-power and Spinoza's conatus. Will turned inwards on itself. Desire is no longer conceived in terms of being caused by the external object, as it is for Platonists, where the Agathon pulls a being out of itself into the external world. But rather desire becomes the in-itself, self-sustaining and driving force of everything. It has to - for otherwise self-consciousness, which is desire, can never make itself all by itself. This is but the necessary result of the denial of transcendence (God), and the effect of spiritual pride. Desire is perverted and becomes demonic, and hence spiritual.

The self is no longer drawn out by the object through desire. Rather the self doesn't exist - it is anatta, a void. A process, not a being, constituted by desire itself. Objects become merely the opportunity for desire to objectify itself, and hence they're seen only as techne, as tools. Being - as Heidegger would say - is forgotten.

For all these thinkers, love is self-affirmation. Altruism is finding one's SELF in the other.
This is a lethe of the Platonic eros, where thymos - or will - takes its place entirely.

Yeah I agree with Mariner, that's why I was arguing that point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well no, reading your clarification here makes me think that you rather agree with both of us. On the one hand, you agree with Mariner that order is primary and chaos secondary (thus answering my original question), BUT you don't agree with Mariner that chaos corresponds to infinite potential (since well, the latter is impossible). It seems to me that you're saying that chaos is relative to different degrees of order.

Rather your argument is that to have order is to have form, and there can be no matter without form, so, therefore, there can be no absolute absence of order, only relative. I grant you that, I agree. That does seem to suggest that there can be no absolute chaos.

the possibility of pure infinite potential, as not actually possible, it is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Though it is to be noted that perhaps most people on this forum would disagree with us on that point.

There's a reason why I said:

According to you, chaos corresponds to silence, which metaphorically is pure potential for sound. — Agustino

Now the only question really is whether you agree with @Mariner that chaos corresponds to pure, infinite potential, and order corresponds to act? Or do you agree with me, that chaos/order is a different dichotomy that is less general than the potential/act dichotomy? Or do you disagree with both of us?

You are only trying saying that non-musical sound is "chaotic" in relation to the structured sounds of music. It doesn't have the required structure to call it music, so you just call it noise. But noise isn't chaotic, it's very nature is that it has its own cause and structure such that it is highly intelligible, and therefore not chaotic. — Metaphysician Undercover

:s ... so music isn't sound? Both music and noise are different kinds of sound. What makes one music and the other noise are order and chaos respectively.

I see. But that's just semantics. Music just is ordered sound as opposed to chaotic sound (which goes by the name of noise).

Show me some ordinary sentences in which chaos is something which acts. (I want to get a grip on what you mean by chaos, to translate it into my own lexicon). — Mariner

Okay, let's think in terms of music. According to you, chaos corresponds to silence, which metaphorically is pure potential for sound. According to me, this is wrong, because silence in music is more primordial than chaos. A musical rhythm is order. Pure noise, without meaning or purpose, that would be chaos. But pure noise, just like a musical rhythm, is still an act, and not a potency, as silence metaphorically would be.

I keep reading the title as "Why I'm getting out of existentialism" which is as good as "What I'm getting out of existentialism". — Bitter Crank

LOL! I've been meaning for several days to say the same thing, but thought that I'm the only one >:O

Your comments on socialism indicate you did not understand the kind of socialism I was talking about.

The example of socialism that you are referencing is the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Everyone except hard core soviet communists have repudiated--or never accepted--the USSR/PRC/Cuban model of socialism. — Bitter Crank

That is easy for you to say, but my family lived through Communism, so I don't have many good things to say about it. If I were an adult during Communist times I probably would have had an extremely miserable life.

Someone introverted, religious and independent like me would very likely have ended up a political prisoner or worse. Even if I escaped that, I'd be forced to work with very little independence to go my own path and pursue my own interests. Even today that is largely the case - Im lucky to be able to work as self-employed. Most of the people I know work as wage slaves, having very little control over their type of work and what they have to do to earn a living. They are told when to show up to work, when to leave (sometimes with very long hours), how to dress, and so on so forth. In Communism that was even worse! You had almost no means of escape from that. At least, now there is a path, even if it's narrow and hard to walk.

In Communist times, you probably couldn't have been in a worse place than to be someone like me. So I have built an instinctive revulsion towards it, and towards society's control over the individual.

The whole business of wages and prices would largely be eliminated. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" might not work out well (it hasn't been tried in a secular setting) but there is no reason to presume that it would result in dictatorship or wage slavery. — Bitter Crank

Okay, so where is the place of artists and creators in your type of socialism? An artist or a creator must create. Must make something new, something different - they must be independent. They cannot be told what to create. They must find it themselves.

In one sense, in terms of production, the entrepreneur is a creator. Steve Jobs said that the customer - or the people - don't know what they want. You have to show it to them first. And that's indeed right. The business of the entrepreneur is largely to discover what the economy needs, and only secondarily to find a way to fulfil it. That's why I think no functional economy can exist without the entrepreneur.

The American socialist alternative model (developed towards the end of Marx's life) is democratic self-management, self-ownership of industry, where the workers for example of the Malt-O-Meal breakfast cereal plant would own and operate the now-privately-owned plant. The Malt-O-Meal workers would negotiate with distribution coops to determine what kinds, and how much, cereal to make. There is a difference in producing for human need and producing for profit. If there are orders for 100 tons of cereal, that's all they would make. They wouldn't make 200 tons and try to under cut Post or Kellogg workers; there wouldn't be any rationale to compete that way. — Bitter Crank

Right but much more important than this is that the Malt-O-Meal workers must first get in touch with those who need cereal and find out how much they need. This is in a sense the job of the entrepreneur - to find out what people need and then provide it to them.

What I think would be best is if entrepreneurship didn't have profit as the criteria of its existence, but rather fulfilling society's needs. There must exist people who think what we need, and then provide it to us. Not everyone can be such a person. If the profit motive is eliminated in the entrepreneur, and we cease having a society where the economy rules our social life instead of our social life ruling the economy, then I think in such a society money would lose its power. To be an influential person in such a society you'd have to be someone who fulfils its needs, not someone with a lot of money.

Money would be treated much like it was in many of the Ancient societies. It would confer only limited powers to its possessor, much more important back then was family background, and social position, which had less to do with money, but your role in sustaining the community.

The principal difference between distributism and socialism is that socialism is dictatorial and - in my view - tries to force everyone into being a wage slave. There are no business owners (or everyone is the owner, same thing), but precisely because of that everyone becomes a wage slave. The problem with this, just like in capitalism, is that people have no economic freedom/independence.

Didn't you say you liked the Shire from Lord of the Rings? Was that you or somebody else?

The shire -- a very low-population rural area--is ideal for distributism. It seems to look back to the English village of the 17th century and earlier, a time when many products were produced at home. There are two critical problems: First, very few people live in self-sufficient villages, these days. Most people don't produce many products at home. They still could, but it seems wildly inefficient. I could, for instance, make several kinds of bar soap--one for laundry and heavy cleaning, one for bathing, and possibly one for hair. But small batch soap making doesn't yield the kind of soap people like to use.

There are far too many people living without much (if any) connection to raw materials that can be turned into useful products. For instance, where would the several million residents of London obtain fiber to make so much as shoe strings for each other? Animal skin for leather? Vegetable or animal fat for soap making? Raw wool or raw cotton to clean, card, spin into yarn, and then weave into cloth? Hides to tan into leather? Food?

Distributism seems more difficult than socialism to implement.

Some people could live in a distributist economy. Most people would have to have died off to make it work (just in terms of the amount of raw material that could be turned into finished products" by highly decentralized household manufacturing. \ — Bitter Crank

Distributism can and does include worker owned cooperatives, and other manufacturing businesses that can work on a larger scale. The scale isn't the problem. Distributism doesn't say that everything is to be produced by individuals.

However, we do produce a lot more than we need today. Do we really need 100s of brands of cereal for example?

The bitter American is jealous of people with a lot of money. The Bitter American resents that a lot of money and power is centralized in the hands of a relative few. — szardosszemagad

@Bitter Crank

I think this post is a more or less underhanded attack at you!

And to a large extent, corporations have taken on a life of their own - they're no longer controllable at the moment. — Agustino

And this is even more true in less developed countries where the corruption is 10 times higher than in the US, and the state is 10 times more likely to be bought.

How do we get there? — Bitter Crank

Well, first of all, I would suggest we get there by getting rid of democracy, which has become, and will continue to be ruled by politicians who are bought and sold by corporations. I think corporatism is the biggest obstacle to getting there. That includes both working for corporations, and the political mechanism that favours them and keeps things rigged in their favour. And to a large extent, corporations have taken on a life of their own - they're no longer controllable at the moment.

Technically, the mechanics tools are income producing property, not personal domestic property -- unless working on cars is a hobby. — Bitter Crank

Okay, but can the mechanic own that income producing property?

As I said, production would be coordinated by producers and consumers, collectively. — Bitter Crank

This "collective coordination" sounds quite scary. It reminds me of communism in Eastern Europe. What is this "coordination" going to look like, and who will supervise it?

You could design your car, but whether it got built or not would be a collective decision. — Bitter Crank

Okay I think I see. But what if the collective decides that I shouldn't get to build that car, but I go to my garage and over time acquire the tools etc. necessary and build one myself. Is that allowed?

If you were a car designer, you would need to be part of a product design group. The abolition of private property (factors, stores, railroads, etc.) also means the abolition of private income, and private entrepreneurship. — Bitter Crank

Ahh, but see I think this is a problem for it impinges upon individual liberty too much. Should I be coerced to be part of the product design group if I don't like it and want to work independently?

And what is wrong with private income? If I am a shepherd and I have 10 sheep, why can't I go find comrades around who need wool and sell it to them or exchange it with them for other goods?

Own the store where you sell imported cashmere sweaters? Are you out of your mind? Hell, no! — Bitter Crank

>:O >:O No no, I didn't mean to sell already made cashmere sweaters which were produced on the backbone of slave labour in India. What I meant is that I would go to India, buy the Cashmere WOOL, and then sell that wool back home to tailors and other people who needed it.

pubic property — Bitter Crank

:-O What's this type of property?! I never heard of it before. Can you have that kind of property?

I don't think many miles of railroad were ever built on land which the rail companies actually bought from owners. Usually, the government granted the land to railroads as part of the drive for internal development. The survivor railroads (like Burlington Northern Santa Fe) which have been around more than a century, are still profiting from the land they were given, which is often forested or has coal, oil, or minerals. The railroads also sold off the land they were given in farm-sized lots to immigrants, so they would have customers along the road to ship from, and to. — Bitter Crank

Right, you see, again the state is the problem. It is because the state is controlled by these corporate interests that strangle the small natural producer and the normal (not capitalist) exchange of goods.

In a distributist economy entrepreneurship (within limits) would make sense. — Bitter Crank

In a distributist society there is no centralised control though (whether by the state or by the collective). Rather it is more like the aim is for the highest number of people to have access to economic freedom - not having to work as a wage slave for others. In other words, freedom to work as they desire.

Now there would be no private banks in distributism. Nor would there be monopolies, corporations or the like. Distributism involves local production meant to satisfy local needs - not mass production meant to simply (apart from other considerations) make more money.

The principle of subsidiarity which is central to distributism would require matters to be settled locally and among the people directly involved - not by some central committee of "the people". So that basically means that what me and my family produce isn't dictated by anyone else, but it's something we decide upon as a family. And similarly for you and for all other groups of people. Things that are the benefit of everyone in a community - I suppose public utilities would fit here - would obviously be decided at the local community level by such a thing as "cooperation" as you call it :P

Now I guess you can see that this system is very much entrepreneurial, since everyone is free and encouraged to act locally in their economies. People can freely form trade relationships with each other, so long as the aim isn't just making money for money's sake, but rather the production of something useful in the needed quantities.

Entrepreneurship is the trait par excellent of capitalism. Capitalist economies are organized around facilitating entrepreneurship (including small entrepreneurs being crushed by bigger entrepreneurs). — Bitter Crank

I disagree here. I think capitalism as practiced today at least is profoundly anti-entrepreneurial. There is nothing that makes life more difficult for today's entrepreneur than the combination of state + corporations. Together these two entities create an octopus which strangles the small entrepreneur before he can even get started. It's hard to open a local fast food when McDonald's forces all suppliers not to supply to you if they want to work with them. Who makes all this possible? The state.

Capitalism is organised around facilitating one thing: wage slavery. The end of capitalism isn't all of us becoming entrepreneurs, but rather all of us becoming wage slaves. That's where we're headed now.

Harris hates Christianity. You should know that. — Wayfarer

Okay, so what does that have to do with my agreement with him over the existence of moral facts? If he hates Christianity he's wrong about moral facts because he hates Christianity?

Harris is no different to utilitarianism. He would have nothing but utter contempt for your Orthodox faith, he thinks it is a brain-destroying delusion. Choose your allies carefully. — Wayfarer

:s

Harris is not my ally. I just agree with him that there are moral facts. Most religious people agree as well. I don't see what's the problem with it. If he's wrong about one thing, it doesn't mean that he can't be right about others.

Whose capital? Surely only your own? — Benkei

Yes, exactly. The point is that if the capital is not your own - and it is the bank's, etc. etc. - then you don't really get to do what you want with it, and hence it's not a form of economic power. That's why being rich - as opposed to merely being able to influence how capital is allocated - is part of economic power in my view.

But we see economic power expands itself and coerces other actors to accept the burden of costs that should reasonably not be borne by them. — Benkei

This is a different point, but yes, I agree that the costs should be borne by you, and not by others, especially if they haven't risked anything in the first place (for example if they haven't financed your project).

Take for example Exxon Mobil's standard terms and conditions for contractors who supply and administer additives to increase the yield of oil fields. If the contractor discovers a better compound or a better method that increases the yield, the IP to that is owned by Exxon Mobil. If you don't accept the general terms and conditions, they'll go to another contractor. Not exactly fair or reasonable since its the contractors work and knowledge that is leveraged to develop the new compound or method but if you have sufficient economic power, fair and reasonable don't play a role any more. — Benkei

Ahh yes, I see what you mean. Yes I've come across similar practices quite frequently, and I think they should be illegal. Pretty much anyone who controls a distribution channel of some sort tends to set such unfair conditions. Supermarkets do it very frequently. If you don't like their conditions, take your product elsewhere. But of course, they already have the infrastructure set up, and it's very expensive to set it up yourself (not to mention it would take very long), so you're pretty much stuck with having to accept their terms if you want to get your product to market. It's a hard situation to fix - I'm not sure if merely implementing a law against it would be sufficient. Such practices can be masked in different, not so obvious, ways.

I suppose my choice of words that it's "natural" was bad. I mean to say that I would consider it far more appropriate that a bright and successful person has influence in his area of expertise because of his being bright and successful than because of the money he has (or the connections he might have). — Benkei

Yes, I agree with you.

Money has become the measure for all things but it's a bad one for most things that matter. — Benkei

Indeed, this is another side of it as well. Money confers social status, the way other expertise quite frequently doesn't, and I think that's wrong too.

Property is theft. — unenlightened

Said Proudhon wrongly. Without property, there can be no theft, because what's there to steal? So quite the contrary, property itself cannot be theft, but rather it is the opposite of theft.

To claim possession of some part of the world is to seek to deprive others of it. — unenlightened

Yes, and rightfully so. It's MINE!

Therefore taxation is partial restitution. — unenlightened

Ah, so property isn't theft when owned by the government, I see :P

Why should being rich equate with (economic) power? — Benkei

Well what would economic power equate with then? Economic power means the power to decide how capital is allocated and to what uses it is allocated. If I have economic power, I decide if we're going to start making trains, or we're going to produce toys. I decide if we're going to build a hospital, or a school. I decide if a restaurant employing homeless people gets opened. And so on so forth. A lot of these activities require money to finance themselves before they can start pulling income to be self-sustaining. Without economic power, they are impossible to achieve.

If I had $1 million for example, I wouldn't mind risking even 100K to get such a business off the ground. Like a restaurant employing the homeless, or a school for the disadvantaged that had a different business model, and so on so forth. But as a middle class person, who lacks the capital, I lack the courage to take such actions, because if they don't work out, I could be put in a perilous situation.

I consider it natural that a bright and successful person has influence due to the fact that he's bright and seems to know what he's doing business wise. — Benkei

Being bright and successful isn't sufficient to make you influential. For example, I think I am not that stupid of a person, but I generally don't have the patience to cultivate the long-term relationships and make the necessary compromises that are often required to be influential quickly. Influence is much more a factor of having the right connections - OR - having a lot of capital (economic power). That's why many people who enter politics end up corrupt for example, even if they start out honest. Gaining the right connections often requires compromise.

In a society where the "economic reality" trumps reality, economic power is too much to be awarded for the simple status of being rich (which, btw, more often than not is a matter of luck). — Benkei

In terms of massive wealth (let's say $50 million+) you're quite correct, I would agree. But I think wealth in terms of $1-5 million is achievable by pretty much anyone who wants it and who works long enough on it assuming they are healthy and a circumstance like war and the like doesn't interfere with their wealth building.

Therefore, taxation is theft. — Jacob

Well yes, I agree. I don't "willingly" pay my taxes.

I've gone far enough down the rabbit hole. — praxis

Actually, you yourself have argued to me that morality is objective before, so I don't see why you're going back on it now. You sent me the Sam Harris video which argued that there are moral FACTS in the world, that are just as much facts as the facts studied by physics. So what happened? Did you change your mind or are you choosing what your position will be depending on what you want to argue against?

No. However, 'no state' presents a problem if a need for external defense or recovery from a cataclysmic event was necessary. Some kind of responsive structure would be needed for such purposes — Bitter Crank

Okay. What do you think about distributism then? I'm trying to gauge how your position is different from mine.

If you are defining "private property" as clothing, a dog, a house... that's called personal property. — Bitter Crank

Okay so what if I am a mechanic and I have my own tools and garage where I fix cars? Does that count as personal or private property? What if I design my own car and then start getting some factories to build it - do I get to keep rights to my invention? What if I go to India and bring good Cashmere Indian quality from there which I sell in a shop I setup? Do I get to own the store?

meaning railroads, factories, warehouses, stores, etc. — Bitter Crank

I would disagree with some of those being "private property". Railroads and such are public property.

Because that is the way Marx referenced the class of people who are capitalists. Most people do not have a clue about how to use "class" properly. — Bitter Crank

I don't think entrepreneurship can only exist in capitalism. Do you? I think many more people would be entrepreneurs under distributism for example.

Problem being, as you know, that people don't all agree on what's moral and immoral.

So your statement makes sense to me with a slight revision... — praxis

No, morality is objective.

Who said they looked forward to the last monarch being strangled with the intestines of the last priest? — Bitter Crank

Diderot!