When does history begin? — Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. Sure these communities may not have had economies in the sense that we have, but they still needed to ask themselves questions concerning resource distribution and storing resources vs. consuming them immediately. I think humans have always had to make economic choices.

His is at least an interesting proposal to think about. — Bitter Crank

Certainly. It was always my understanding that agriculture allowed for the ancient city-state to flourish. It also tied people to the land. I've never heard that it was a conspiracy but it's an interesting idea.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.

(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.) — Bitter Crank

It's been a while since I've read Marx but I think he does dig into history to try to push for his thesis, like for instance he talks about feudalism at some length. I certainly think one could account for human history in economic terms, as Marx does, but it would seem incomplete.

But yeah, you may not be a rank-and-file Marxist. Off to the firing squad.

This is the idea that the U.S. should remain somewhat isolated and try to influence, contain, and exert power on other nations while remaining 'off-shore.' — The Questioning Bookworm

That's interesting, what exactly is meant by "off shore?" Do they just mean "soft power?" Do you consider the new realists and the old ones to be on essentially the same page ideologically speaking? It's been a while since I've engaged in this.

This is exactly right. Power is what determines a realist's course of action. The world is a chessboard, and the nations that are playing the game are concerned with power and power alone. Cheers! — The Questioning Bookworm

Cheers. This reminds me Kissinger's Diplomacy a bit, which I guess I would consider a realist's bible. It's certainly where my understanding of realism comes from.

I believe Marxism does have teleological underpinnings, taking after Hegel who is definitely teleological. Marx basically flipped Hegelism on its head: He replaced the focus on the immaterial and the idealism of Hegel with the materialism of the economic system, but the teleological implications remain, i.e. the idea that history is inevitably trending somewhere.

I think its a very difficult question to ask "What's the driving force behind history? Is it Economics? Sexuality? Gender relations? Etc." So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world.

But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions? — Xtrix

There was still an economy at those times, there has always been economy. Marx definitely doesn't believe in any permanent, immutable human nature. I'm just conveying Marx's stance here.

Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes. — Xtrix

I don't know what the footnote says because I don't have the text on me, but of course Marx believes in the existence other aspects of human history. It's that he places the economic as the overriding one, i.e. the one which is the ultimate determinant of the others. That's a Marxist view. It's been a while since I've read Marx but make no mistake about it, the economic super-structure of a society is primary, according to Marx. I'm not seeking to misrepresent Marx.

That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. — Xtrix

I wasn't doing that. I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. Again, this isn't me this is Marx.

If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground. — Xtrix

Tell that to Marx.

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. — Xtrix

Well are you a woman or disabled? If not then of course you wouldn't see these things as important as class, but for those who face those issues daily they can be just as important if not more important than class. It's all about where you're situated in society. Gender and disability related issues can cut across social classes.

I like talking about social class and I certainly view it as relevant. What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. So when you quote Marx is evokes that conception to me. If you simply want to portray social class as one among many in society I'm totally fine with that. Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related.

Even the Tulip Mania did involve the banking sector, so the access to debt is intrinsic to a speculative bubble to form. — ssu

By "access to debt" do you mean, primarily, traders and investors using leverage? So borrowing funds to invest or speculate. Certainly that can magnify things. We can do that on a much greater scale now with the internet but I'd imagine that practice has been around for quite some time.

I think everyone should agree that loose lending practices encourage speculative bubbles, and that was certainly one of the causes behind the 2008 crash - but I think we've seen bubbles in all types of US markets even in eras with high interest rates (1980s). I'm inclined to see financial speculation as just a natural human activity, and unless the government takes serious, serious steps to squash it I think it's going to happen in a number of different financial environments. I could be wrong though. I just think the 1980s here were a time for rampant speculation despite high interest rates and not being in an era of "endless QE."I think you're certainly right in a general sense that high interest rates discourage speculation.

I think we need to be careful not to conflate American exceptionalism with political realism. American exceptionalism is often idealistic, Wilsonian - it's the view that there's something special about America, maybe it's cultural, morality, history, etc. - and by extension it's often not a bad thing to spread (this part doesn't always come with it.) It's basically the view that the US is inherently different from other nations.

A political realist wouldn't recognize the US as being inherently different from other nations though and for the realist the correct lenses through which to view the international order is power. The US is just one source (although a large one) of power among many.

I've never understood why we need to see the history of all hitherto existing society as a history of class struggle. By all means, you're free to put on those goggles but couldn't someone just as easily claim that the history of all existing society is a history of gender relations or disability liberation? Or ethnic relations, of course. To put social class head-and-shoulders above all the other topics out there has always seemed dubious.

And I claim that the substance of morality is how we must treat each other if we're going to live together in social groups — Srap Tasmaner

Here's a question: How are we to treat those that aren't in our group or even directly oppose our group?

Well thanks for the new word.

The reason I'm lukewarm towards loyalty is because loyalty is always towards some cause or some group, but what of the group/cause? Or is it simply the bond or the pledge that is to be considered laudable? Are Hitler's bodyguards laudable for upholding an oath? If we only admire loyalty towards "good" causes that's not the same thing as just "loyalty."

I was talking more about national security, but I definitely agree with you when you mention the split between social darwinists and those who believe we stand and fall together. I think that would be a fundamental difference in values.

Is that true or is it just a story we tell ourselves in order to navigate the social world. I value liberty a great deal, as well as loyalty, and I feel a sense of the sacred on occasion even though I claim to not be religious. Conversely, do you not value fairness? Do you not care about others? You give every indication that you do. — praxis

Personally, my feelings towards loyalty are lukewarm and I care next to nothing about economic equality. I value harm reduction less than many other people that I know. There are very clear differences in fundamental values between those who strongly value liberty vs those who strongly value security.

If someone values X trait enormously while someone else values the same trait at essentially zero while the two might have the "same" moral value in actuality the two differ starkly on that value.

In any case would you really argue that, say, a Nazi and a communist share the same underlying values?

Some people do have very different values, others have some shared. It's a mix. I'm certainly not saying that all Democrats and all Republicans share no values. Check out Haidt's studies on this, there are genuine differences between ideologies.

You describe the term like it's propaganda or something, but I find it helpful and interesting to know where people are coming from politically/ideologically and "left" is a useful descriptor. Discourse between two individuals doesn't just occur in a vacuum, it occurs against a large network of ideas and background assumptions from both sides. Argument within a certain "side" or movement is often more interesting and insightful than argument between different sides because there's more potential for common ground and understanding as well as nuance, as opposed to just arguing with someone who has a completely different values or few shared values.

I know SLX's left is different from yours or 180s, but it's interesting to me to basically plot these differences and gain an understanding of them so I can better communicate with people. I understand that labeling someone as "left" is just a starting point, but it still conveys information and helps me communicate with others by knowing what to might be productive to say and what likely won't.

I only mention the 'left' because of their ideas. I'm not talking about them as people. I notice ideas or philosophies that are different, which makes you unique. That is why I am mentioning you. "Left" is useful because it can describes a certain set of ideas or values.

Streetlight, I don't know who you are or what you are. All I know about you is what you say. My entire idea of you is based on what you say. I'm here to discuss ideas, not people.

Ok, by identifying different ideologies and watching them argue and favoring one side over the other I was playing idpol. I admit my guilt. I was rooting for you, Streetlight.

I'm not playing idpol here. My idpol is mild at best, if you want serious idpol look to who you were arguing with earlier. It's one thing to discuss ideology and differences in ideas and to put people in relative ideological camps, it's another to view the entire world as essentially a struggle between ethnic groups or classes or sex. I do the former. You won't see me doing the latter. That's real idpol.

Ideologue.

Half a second with SLX should tell you which side of that fence he stands on. It was just an interesting dialogue to me because there are plenty of Americans who feel the system is beyond reform, yet are still being told to basically shut up and vote Biden. I personally don't have a dog in this fight but I did feel sympathetic towards SLX despite us warring a little previously.

I wasn't talking about NOS, I was talking about Streetlight. It's just interesting to me because Streetlight is definitely on the left, but he's certainly not mainstream left.

Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX

The scorn heaped upon Trump's personal (rather than political) behaviour had always had a humongous element of classism built into it. Trump does not act like how we want our rich people to act. He acts - shockingly - like a 'tasteless', that is to say poor man, with all the table manners of a prole. Liberals - who don't give a rats ass about politics so long as everyone is polite - cannot stand this. His base love that fact. His unique appeal is a function of class dynamics, and he trades on it like few others can.

I've been reading through this thread a bit and I just gotta say these post were :fire: :fire: :fire:

In any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden here. Good American liberals when push comes to shove gotta shut up and get in line, no other way about it.

What is your plan when it comes to nuclear proliferation? What kinds of positions would you like philosophers to push to the public? I'm interested to hear. We never discussed nuclear proliferation in any of my philosophy courses. You might want to just pitch your ideas to a different crowd instead of philosophers - maybe nuclear scientists or international relations experts from the way you were describing things in your post above.

As someone who has spent a bit of time in academic philosophy, I wouldn't expect a group of philosophers to be able to give great insight into nuclear proliferation. I think you'd have better luck with maybe those with a background in international relations or even game theory, possibly. Philosophers, especially academic philosophers, largely shut themselves off from the world to place exclusive focus on theoretic rationality. With an issue like nuclear proliferation I think you'd need to be able to talk about practical enforcement mechanisms and oversight... something which I wouldn't expect philosophers to have much of an idea about.

We should teach them that, generally speaking, philosophy is a largely irrational activity which has little relevance to their future lives — Hippyhead

In my view, it's that good philosophy is too rational, and in that sense it has little to no relevance to their a messy, irrational world. Just because something makes sense does not make it real. I think a lot of philosophy is bullshit, but good philosophy is generally too rational and abstract to have much of relevance to a child's future in a world where history is anything but rational.

I think the anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-being. And by being I just mean the way or ways that humans or other non-human animals experience and interact with reality. But we're talking mainly about humans here.

In the anti-natalism thread I asked Schopenhauer whether he'd still be an anti-natalist if all of societies problems (hunger, disease, war, etc) were solved, and he still said yes. If I'm understanding anti-natalism correctly it's an extreme sensitivity to life's inevitabilities. Nobody is fully in control of their life and the anti-natalist is extremely sensitive and opposed to that. I think anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-religious in the Judeo-Christian sense because in Genesis God describes his creation, including mankind, as "good" while the anti-natalist contradicts this.

I'm not trying to argue with you here. We've already agreed that being inherently involves "suffering" and certainly the individual being subject to forces beyond their control (i.e. non-consensual forces), you're just much more sensitive to it than me.

I'm not trying to justify procreation here. I'm not sure if I need to.

However, there is a necessary deprivation to being- that doesn't go away. — schopenhauer1

Oh yeah if you're talking about the "suffering" or whatever you want to call that is inherent in being (i.e. the way that humans experience the world) that's not going away anytime soon. If you want to be hyper sensitive to it that's on you. I hate to say it but you're free to enter into non-being at any point and regardless we'll all be spending billions upon billions of years in non-being after we die (assuming no reincarnation or afterlife) so if non-being is the preferable state then things are probably looking pretty good in your view given the time spent in both states.

Actually, I still think it would be bad to a certain extent as the way this often works is that more "refined" versions of suffering will simply become the biggest forms of suffering and be the new "standard" for suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I feel like you're talking about a utopia/perfect society that is very far removed from our current understanding of society. What you're saying kind of reminds me of that scene in one of the Matrix movies where Neo goes into the "real world" and he discovers the humans are housed unconscious in these gel pods living out their own virtual reality elsewhere. But on second thought maybe they could still suffer in that virtual reality, who knows.

I am content to hear that even if, for all intents and purposes the problems in our society were eliminated you'd still hold to your position. It shows that we're both on the same page that the anti-natalism objection is less to do with society and more to do with just a general objection to being.

Yeah, and this sums up exactly what I'm saying. You're not compelled by unassailable logic to look at things the way you do. Absolutely every single one of your arguments proceeds from some unusual axiom which you have simply chosen to hold despite being free to choose otherwise There are any of a dozen different ways to interpret that silly 'life on Mars' intuition, for example. You've chosen a set of frames which leads you to the annihilation if the human race as an answer. Anyone in their right mind would see that as a sign they might have taken a wrong turn somewhere. — Isaac

I think you're right on the money here, Isaac. I've always been a little suspicious of people who espouse views that they can't (or refuse to) actually live out. If someone really thinks that non-existence is the preferable state of being they're free to kill themselves (not that I am suggesting this.)

Even if society was perfect and we had eliminated war, poverty, and disease humans would still be subject to terrible, non-consensual forces outside of their control, like having to wake up from a pleasant sleep or go to the bathroom. We solve these problems by destroying humanity. /s.

Maybe it's new in its current form, but the entire idea of seeing the world in black and white - oppressed vs. oppressor, good vs. evil, is quite ancient. Identity politics and taking one's racial/ethnic/class identity to be a core component of oneself is again nothing new. I always thought Nietzsche totally did away with the supposed connection between "oppressed" and "good" but it hasn't reached the woke crowd yet. I actually have less of a problem with identity politics than the strong moral, manichaean implications that wokeism has attached to it.

I've been thinking about this for a bit and the funny thing about anti-natalism, is that even if we envisioned a world with absolutely no pain we still have a multitude of conditions "imposed" on us by nature. For instance no one "consents" to waking up tired or wanting to go back to sleep. If I have to walk to my drawer or refrigerator to get food I'm going to need to do that or just get hungry so really there's no way to win.

Non-existence can't be flawed after all according to the anti-natalist and if in even the most perfect universe or society imaginable we'd still be de facto non-consenting to annoyances (say when it comes to waking up or having to walk somewhere) so non-existence is clearly preferable. Of course no one actually acts this out and kills themselves because of this, nor should they. It's just a nice thought experiment predicated on being super critical of everything.

What this means is that while an infant's mind is different from a child's and a child's different from an adolescent's and an adolescent's different from an adult's, there's, to my surprise, no difference between the minds of a 40 year old adult and a 70 year old adult i.e. the mind doesn't, is believed not to, age after reaching adulthood. — TheMadFool

I'd question this. I'm not a neuroscientist or anything, but I'd wager that there are differences between, say a 30 year olds brain and a 70 year olds. For instance, if you look at top chess players they tend to reach their peak at around 30ish. You can still have strong chess players who are older, but especially after 80 that decline is sharp. I'll link the chart below.

https://imgur.com/X7Ijsyl

Obviously chess isn't the end-all-be-all of intelligence, it's just one mental activity, and older people will have life experiences and lessons that the younger just don't have. Brains do age, it seems to me that you get better at some mental activities and perhaps worse at others with age.

rsgkh is not right here, does it really make sense that an organization would just give impoverished drug addicts $300 just for promising to get sterilized? vice did a 10 minute piece on this that you can find on youtube and i can assure you they're not that dumb.

Please don't think that I am trying to outlaw anyone's opinions but I am just wondering what is happening in philosophy if these are the new aspirations? Is philosophy itself collapsing into chaos? — Jack Cummins

I think it's more just a reflection of the forum than of philosophy itself. There are some members who are very into anti-natalism, and, I think as you put it "destruction as an ideal." I'd chalk this up to some of the members on the forum, but I just personally tend to avoid these topics because I've already had these types of discussions and I'm done with them now. I'm not going to entertain a pro-murder argument so I just avoid the thread.

I'll spell it out for you a little clearer: You're somebody's right-wing extremist, Streetlight.

You need to support identity politics to be a true left-winger over here in the States, so sorry to say but you'd be considered regressive in some circles and possibly racist.

The way I see it the libertarians and the right (conservatives) often vote along the same lines, but they are definitely not the same. Atheistic capitalist libertarians and conservative, traditionalist republicans (often communitarian) might vote for the same party but these are two substantially different camps with very different core values.

I did a bit more research on McVeigh though and it does seem that he's on the right so I recant a little of what I said earlier. I do think he's more libertarian than he is right though so.... in any case it's just interesting and kind of strange to me that all libertarians and christian conservatives just get thrown under the same umbrella (that it "the right".) I still do consider left-libertarians a version of libertarianism though and even if it's not so popular in the US (I'd be interested to see the numbers) it must have support elsewhere in the world.