hand, Tokyo Monogatari is a 1953 film of Yosujiru Ozu. — javi2541997

Oops. Yes I did see that — I know it as Tokyo Story. The Japanese didn’t ring a bell. Ozu is incredible and it’s a great movie.

I love almost everything I’ve seen out of Japan, which admittedly isn’t a lot. Ozu and Kurosawa are at the very top. Miyazaki is up there too.

Kubrick, Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, for sure. — Paine

Indeed. I'd add Scorsese, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, and the Coen brothers whose entire filmographies everyone should watch.

So far, the list below I haven't seen (way more than I anticipated). I always thought my movie knowledge was fairly wide. Quantitatively proven wrong today.

Next is to prioritize which of the following to see first. :chin:

Perfect Blue — javi2541997

4. Tokyo Monogatari — javi2541997

10. Paprika. — javi2541997

Steven King's "The Langoliers" — Outlander

The Lion in Winter — 180 Proof

Sleuth — 180 Proof

A Soldier's Story — 180 Proof

Barfly — 180 Proof

Glory — 180 Proof

The Field — 180 Proof

Ray — 180 Proof

Doubt — 180 Proof

The Grey — 180 Proof

The Sunset Limited — 180 Proof

Lincoln — 180 Proof

Fury — 180 Proof

I Am Not Your Negro — 180 Proof

The Wicker Man — Jamal

Andrei Rublev — Jamal

Stalker — Jamal

The Long Goodbye — Jamal

Headhunters
The Lives of Others — Luke

About Time — Luke

Chef — Luke

Calvary — Luke

The Fall
The Salvation
The Father
1917
Oldboy — Luke

The Milagro Beanfield War — Vera Mont

The Russia House — Vera Mont

Turtle Diary — Vera Mont

The Last Picture Show
Solaris by Tarkovsky
Richard II, with Lawrence Olivier
Alexander Nevski and Ivan the Terrible by Eisenstein
Koyaanisqatsi — Paine

Heart of Glass by Herzog
High Noon
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie — Paine

Damn...

Discovered the Mountain Goats recently thanks to a friend sending along “No Children” and “You Were Cool.” Good find.

Anything by Bergman is good, and Seventh Seal is certainly up there — but for me, Persona may be his greatest.



Seen everything there except Snatch and Bullets Over Broadway (surprisingly, since I love Woody Allen). Thanks for reminding me of Allen. I should have included one of his at least…

inker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - the 1980s version with Alec Guinness. Ok, it's a TV series. So sue me. — T Clark

Never seen that one, but Alec Guinness is always fantastic.

Including TV mini series isn’t out of bounds. In that case I would include the Canadian (1980s) version of Anne of Green Gables. Wonderful.

Doesn't this belong in the Lounge? — T Clark

Eh. I put it under “interesting things.”

also liked "Pride and Prejudice" — god must be atheist

Which version?

Harvey is fantastic. This will be interesting indeed.

Here’s mine:

Seven Samurai

Shawshank Redemption

2001: A Space Odyssey

The Usual Suspects

No Country For Old Men

Persona

8 1/2

Dances with Wolves

Goodfellas

There Will Be Blood

Right. Not sure why this isn’t obvious.

Absolutely. But...and you can see where I'm going with this... None of those ideas we new. Some have been around since I was a young man, others since the 60s. Some since the 1860s. — Isaac

It’s a tale as old as time. No doubt.

They haven't worked. Either they haven't taken hold, or their opposition has been stronger, or they've just not proven popular. — Isaac

Well that depends. You said yourself things were better in some eras. I think that’s true. I also think organizing has been successful— social movements are a good example. Civil rights, women’s rights, etc.

I think we’ve regressed in the economic sphere.

I don’t see an alternative. There’s revolution, of course…but those are hit or miss as well.

Anyway— I don’t pretend to have all the answers. Maybe there’s something I’m overlooking. I’m all ears.

But not enough people want to join unions — Isaac

That’s changing as we speak. At least in the states.

We could take collective action, but that requires people to collect with, and there aren't enough. — Isaac

There’s plenty of people. The task is to get them together. Easier said than done, of course. There are parallels with other social interactions: becoming friends with people— not always easy; just try to get them all together to do something (even something fun) — a very difficult task, at least for me. People have jobs, kids, pets, health issues, appointments, lack of money, other plans, or else they’re too exhausted from all of it to make the effort. I’m in that position myself often enough.

If something like meeting people, making friends, and gathering with them is this difficult, then getting people to unionize or canvas or protest or boycott or strike — or even hold a meeting about any of it — is extremely hard.

But that’s the task, and I don’t see another way forward.

I will say that local government involvement is extremely important and worth doing. Mostly the various town or city committees are run by volunteering retirees and almost no one pays any attention or attends any of the meetings. But it’s an easy way to start doing something. Everyone lives in a town or city.

Likewise everyone who isn’t unemployed or running a business themselves works for a company. There’s a chance to change that company’s practices from within. Working for a smaller non-profit, I’ve had the opportunity to talk directly with the president just from an email sent to the Human Resources department, and it contributed in changing various policies (not just me— it was other input and factors as well). Discussing unionizing with coworkers has also (slowly) gauged interest in having a vote.

This is all anecdotal and small, but I bring it up because 99% of the time, this is it. This is the work. Just talking to people. Showing up. Speaking up. Learning how to communicate. Learning about how government and business functions, thinking about power and how institutions are structured, educating oneself about the socioeconomic system one’s currently living in, etc.

Point is, there’s nothing too small. I don’t know of any other way to bring people together or to affect changes.

So now the more interesting question of what you think is in the way of getting (or, in some cases, keeping) all that? — Isaac

Educating, organizing. Collective action. As always. I think strike-ready unions are one way, funding and voting for progressive political candidates is another.

All of it will take people coming together and acting together. The numbers are on the side of the people, if only they overcome the propaganda and division they’re surrounded by.

Fidgetting with knobs and switches isn't going to change what is a structural problem. — Benkei

I don’t see co ops as “fidgeting with knobs and switches” at all.

yup, it's as cut and dry as anything — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it isn’t.

What’s pathetic is this flabby, tired “both sides” argument and false equivalence from those — like you — who want to pretend to be “fair and balanced” but are in fact ignoring what’s clear as day.

Biden can go to prison. Fine. I hope so. But what he did isn’t close to what Trump did. If one can’t see that, one needs to examine their lives. Maybe too much time online.

Workers are not currently free to negotiate equally which is what leads to such clearly unfair distribution arrangements and the situation is clearly getting worse. — Isaac

Yes — well said.

So, out of the solutions available, which do you favour? Minimum wage (effectively a legal lower threshold on the distribution arrangement), or Universal Basic Income (removes much of the coercion so that each party is more equal). Or do you have a third option you prefer? — Isaac

I’m in favor of those.

I think there co-op model is a good one. I also like the idea of requiring workers on the board of directors. I think Germany has something to this effect.

Then there’s the obvious case of stronger labor unions. Repealing stock buybacks and increasing corporate taxes are also low hanging fruit.

The problem, which I think Mikie eludes to, is that even the simple act of tossing a plastic straw in the trash may contribute to a negative result for others. — praxis

Exactly.

Not an original thought, of course, but one I’ve never taken too seriously until now.

It’s only in capitalist ideology that these are conflated, as if ownership of land and capital is just another form of personal possession. — Jamal

I agree with this wholeheartedly, of course. My comment is indeed much more general.

What?! My very generic Marxist view didn't provide enough details?! :D — Moliere

Well you still nailed the broad view! :grin:

Ultimately you’re right — we can’t have this savage form of capitalism if we don’t have capitalism.

Thanks for clarifying.

I really don’t know what you’re concurring with. Believing laws (or objects) exist without people is not idealism. It’s the opposite of idealism. It’s realism.

Saying physical laws exist somehow out in the universe somewhere without people is just old fashioned idealism. — T Clark

How is that idealism? You meant realism, yes?



Dawkins is a fairly nice bloke. I don’t think he is as negative as you paint him. I still like Unweaving the Rainbow— which is worth a read to see a different side than what you may be familiar with.

I think it’s important to distinguish between personal possessions and ownership for profit. — Jamal

An important distinction. Still: even personal possessions and what one does with them— even, in fact, one’s body — has an effect on the world at large, even if a minor effect.

A part of me wants to say the idea of owning anything is a bit of an illusion. But we don’t have to go that far to admit that things are connected, and so actions taken with one’s possessions are also connected to everything else.

As an example: the guy who wants to drink all day long. Not getting behind the wheel — minds his own business. Seems to me he should be free to do so — he’s harming no one but himself. But lately I think that’s somewhat wrong. The guys healthcare costs has societal effects and so on.

I have trouble determining where to draw the line between personal freedom and social responsibility, I guess. Ownership is one particular aspect that gets caught in this context.

The problem is that workers of all stripes are shut out of decisions and in fact have zero input whatsoever on how the profits which they helped generate are divided up.
— Mikie

The amount the workers are paid is no more determined by fairness than is the amount the owners are paid nor is a fairness standard used to determine the cost of the good or service. — Hanover

I never said fairness was the standard or should be the standard.

I’ll suggest you reread what you quoted. The problem in my view is that the process is undemocratic with workers completely shut out of decision making.

It's all supply and demand. — Hanover

That’s like saying it’s all “market forces.” A useful cop out for the people who give themselves 90% of the profits. “Sorry— it’s just supply and demand.”

Completely unconvincing, but certainly pervasive.

This is to say it's not a decision making process that relies upon fairness that determines the price of goods, the price workers will make, and the profits the owners will take, but it's a business decision that will determine the viability of the business and whether it will be able to survive based upon the way all earnings are distributed. — Hanover

It’s a business decision made by a board of directors acting in the interests of the people who vote them in: major shareholders. Those shareholders end up getting more and more. It has nothing to do with markets or supply and demand. These are decisions made by people. These decisions have also been very different in the past.

Stock buybacks are a product of market forces, of supply and demand? Or a result of a rule passed by the SEC in 1982? It’s the latter.

We have a choice between democracy at work or the current arrangement of the “business experts” making all the decisions, and transferring trillions of dollars from the bottom 90% to the top 1% over the last 40 years of “free markets.” I think it’s an easy one.

Well then that's to do, not with the distribution, but the power of the participants to freely negotiate. — Isaac

The distribution is a direct result of the lack of free negotiations— as you know. If the process was more democratic, the distribution would look far different.

I'm arguing that there is no 'right' way to distribute the profits of a co-operative enterprise, but there is a right amount of freedom to negotiate. — Isaac

When have I argued there’s a “right” number or distribution? I have no clue what that would be. The 90% number seems rather unfair on the surface, but if that was arrived at through free negotiation I wouldn’t have much to say about it.

I no longer know exactly where the disagreement is.

Your target is off. It's not the outcome that's at fault, it's the conditions of coercion which lead to such outcomes. — Isaac

Fine. I don’t recall focusing exclusively on the distributional outcomes, but in any case question (3) in the OP was my primary interest.

There's no profit distribution that's automatically right or wrong, it's about the degree of coercion, the power imbalance in those negotiations. If we removed that, a 90% split to investors could still be right, if that's what everyone freely agreed. — Isaac

Okay then. So why did you ignore my third question?

Regardless— it’s my OP and so I’m too blame for lack of clarity. Perhaps I should have made my point more clear. Question 1 and 2 are ambiguous and rhetorical.

Okay. What about land?

If you through away that ring, there’s still consequences for the world. It’s polluting— ends up in a landfill if in the trash, maybe eaten by an animal if in the woods.

The question is a throw-away one and indeed very broad. I guess I’m getting at the very idea of ownership in the first place. What we do in private, with our private property, still has effects on the world at large— and I think this is often forgotten.

What is your explanation for existence? — Benj96

Before we answer that question, we should ask about what we’re trying to explain. Namely: what is existence?

Or you put it in ontological terms: what is being?

I made an OP long ago on that topic. I refer you to it as a spin-off of your thread here, if you’re interested in exhuming an older thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12109/what-is-being/p1

Is this really the extent of your moral behavior, your deep caring? — NOS4A2

Yep.

I didn’t say I didn’t care. I said I don’t care about what you think you believe. I care deeply about fighting sociopathic, Trump supporting fascists at every turn.

ascribe to me views I do not espouse and do not hold. — NOS4A2

I’ll make it explicit: I don’t care about what you think you believe. I care about actions and decisions in the real world. You have voted for and defended Trump. That speaks volumes— whatever else you want to profess. To say nothing of the numerous other repugnant positions you’ve held.

So yeah, you’re anti-statist, pro-individual, pro “freedom,” blah blah blah. And the guy down the street is “Christian” yet beats his wife and hates homosexuals. Who cares.

Also, it’s not posturing. It’s having fun with the resident fascist.

I think it depends on whether this is a closed system of 100 people, or 100 people in a much larger populous (market) as well as whether the product is essential (a food source/food/shelter) or a luxury item.

Can you clarify those parameters? — Benj96

I wouldn’t get hung up on the 100 number. What I’m driving at is how profits are distributed— and who decides. In our current reality, 90% goes back to shareholders— and the people making that decision is the board of directors, who themselves are voted in by…Major shareholders.

I don’t think the distribution is fair…but if had been decided by the entire workforce, say in a democratic way, I’d have less of an issue with it. The problem is that workers of all stripes are shut out of decisions and in fact have zero input whatsoever on how the profits which they helped generate are divided up.

If we all contributed to baking a pie, to varying degrees, we should all get some day in how it’s divided. If I only contributed a small amount, perhaps I or others would reasonably argue that I deserve a smaller slice compared to the person who cut all the apples and made the dough. There’s all kinds of issues that arise, no doubt.

But compare to a system where most of the work is done by 95 people, yet only 5 decide how to divide the pie up and, not surprisingly, they decide to give themselves 9 out of 10 slices.

Opposed to collectivism but voted for a collectivist. But it’s my imagination that you voted for a collectivist — even though you did. But Trump isn’t a collectivist…no wait, he is. But most people are…so, you did but you didn’t.

It’s like Faye Dunaway in Chinatown: “My sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter!”

Always stimulating.

But notice how it's not a fault of the board, then. It's just what it takes to have a business win the game. — Moliere

But this simply isn’t true. I may have failed to emphasize this, but while this transfer of profits to shareholders — which has increased these last 40 years — hasn’t been good for workers, it hasn’t been good for businesses either.

Capitalism is the more general structure and environment within which actors -- be they corporations, states, individuals, or groups -- act. — Moliere

Sure. But a particular kind of capitalism— one that is currently choosing to distribute 90% of profits to shareholders. This is the background on which people in states and, more relevant to this thread, corporations operate. It’s a system of beliefs and values.

Shareholder primacy theory is a major justification for these actions in my view.

I share your thought about capitalism, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to answer the OP questions.

I didn't say there was no answer, I said there was no moral weight to it. There's no way it ought to be done. There are, of course, multiple ways it can be done. — Isaac

So there’s multiple ways to do things, but we can’t say “ought” or “should”?

Sorry, but I see a very clear moral component between democracy and totalitarianism.

I don’t think distributing 90% of profits to shareholders is fair, and I don’t think the undemocratic decision making process that leads to that distribution is fair either.
— Mikie

So why not? — Isaac

Because I’m not in favor of unjustified power, in this case corporate tyranny.

But we can't determine a fair distribution objectively either because it relies on the value of scarcity and risk, and those evaluations are subjective. — Isaac

Who’s “we”? “We” don’t decide anything— and that’s the point. If everyone concerned had input into how profits were distributed, I’d have little problem with whatever was decided. Invoking subjectivity and objectivity is irrelevant and a diversion.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

Reading comprehension is an acquired habit, I suppose.

Proof positive that you voted for a collectivist — Mikie

According to you and your imagination. — NOS4A2

I’ll help you:

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up:
— Mikie

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more.
— NOS4A2 — Mikie

Keep trying.

Proof positive that you voted for a collectivist (“fascist,” according to you)? Indeed.

The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. — Tzeentch

They were implemented. See Chile, if the others don’t convince you.

Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age. — Tzeentch

Nor has it ever existed.

While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. — Tzeentch

Kansas is a good example. Spending had to come down because there was less revenue. We see what happened there.

But the bottom line here is whether government truly is the problem, and if so what the alternative is. The decisions need to be made one way or another; the entire theory basically transfers decision making to private enterprise, with predictable results. Despite all the pleasant phrases about freedom.

I think appointing liberalism or individualism collectivism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. — Tzeentch

I fixed it.

I’m not scapegoating either. They’re useful covers for the anti-democratic, anti-new deal ruling class.

The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man. — Tzeentch

Yeah. The government is run by the big business (corporate) party. They alternate between blue and red colors. So “government is the problem” is true— but not the whole truth. It has had the benefit of window dressing for policies that have transferred roughly 50 trillion dollars from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

The emphasis shifts away from corporate, private power (where we have zero say) to politicians and the state (where we have some say). That’s not an accident.

As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods. — Tzeentch

The Hindus and Buddhists have a very different conception of “self”. In the latter anyway, it’s considered an illusion.

I’ve yet to see Hellenistic analyses of the self.

If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us? — Tzeentch

Desires something to care about? It doesn’t desire to care— it just cares. It cares about the world. The world is all things.

There’s no question we’re social beings. By necessity. So our care for others is going to be especially relevant — our parents, siblings, grandparents; our children; our community. If we look at how families function, most of these ideas about individualism, collectivism, etc, completely break down. The dichotomy is silly.

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

]

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more. — NOS4A2

Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. — Mikie

You’re just making stuff up now. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs.
— Mikie

Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. — Tzeentch

Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.

The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s.

The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc.

But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me. — Tzeentch

The individualism advocated is a ruse. It's never been about liberty, or freedom of the individual. Maybe someone like you really does care about those things. Maybe Milton Friedman really cared too, who knows? What I care about is actions, decisions, policies. "By their fruits you will know them," as that New Testament guy said.

What have the fruits been? Well, see above. There's all kinds of sophism for each point made -- about corrupt unions, about tax cuts for the wealth, about corporate tyranny, about the environment, and so forth. Yet here we are. And what gets blamed? The government -- still. Not corporate America, who pushed for these policies.

The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention.
— Mikie

Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years? — Tzeentch

No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception.

The idea of a human being as an individual "self" (subject) with a bunch of desires to satisfy is a pervasive one, and held tacitly by nearly everyone. But there's no reason we need to take it seriously. It's one view, yes.

Then what would you argue is the default state? — Tzeentch

The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more. — NOS4A2

Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. :chin: I guess Freud was right.

This is facile. — Fooloso4

:up:

It’s not defense. It’s pointing out a clear difference. Joe Biden can go to prison for all I care. But to argue both scenarios are similar ignores reality.

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up:

Ps. Slavery was a result of capitalism. If that’s collectivism too, so be it.

Racism and slavery, fascism and communism, war and nationalism, were some of the worst products of collectivism. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

That evil “collectivism” — the root of all problems.

Now let’s all go vote for Donald Trump and other fascists. :up:

Says the Trump apologist. :rofl:

Case in point of the results of all this “self interest” talk.