Unfortunately, in the short run, in trying to prevent a wage-price spiral from starting, the Fed is slowing the economy in a way that is likely to lock in employers’ advantage over employees.

Yes indeed. What else is new?

Spot the unquestioned premise:

Inflation hawks such as Powell appear to believe that if wages did go up a lot this year — say 7 percent — employers would pay for them with another round of big price increases, which would trigger another round of demands for higher wages and so on ad infinitum.

Why do they pay for them this way? Why not ABSORB the cost? How? Answer: From the billions of profits that they make. Take some of that money and give it back to workers, while keeping prices the same? Am I missing something here?

Who loses? Well, shareholders. Because that’s who you’d be taking from.

This is the same argument made concerning wealth redistribution, and a related one since the wealthiest 1-10% also own the majority of shares, and these are the people it is proposed that we take from (by taxing more).

Is it wrong? No. Because no where is it written, in law, in finance, in accounting, in ethics, in politics, or in philosophy, that shareholders are entitled to 90% of the profits.

To maintain this 90% number by either (1) keeping prices the same and refusing to raise wages or (2) raising wages but also raising prices (inflation, thus keeping real wages the same) is morally indefensible — but quite apart from that is clearly leading to enormous societal pain.

Leaders and rich folk better get with the problem. A society in pain will eventually revolt, their angry eventually will come for you too. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes already.

In terms of what we working class folk can do about it is join in the revolt. One way is organizing through unions. Without collective action, individual workers are simply expendable if they cause too much fuss, and can be picked off one by one if they start asking the wrong questions or making the wrong demands. Most have no recourse alone, since most don’t have the legal and financial resources to fight back— and even if they did, would be involved in an undesirable protracted fight.

I see a number of outcomes:

1) Corporate boardrooms (and the people they represented: namely, the wealthiest Americans) wake up and start treating workers better, both monetarily and in conditions.

2) Government starts taking a bigger chunk of their profits and redistributes it a la 1930s and 40s (and 50s).

3) Workers force the hand of employers through strikes (and so unions) or force the hand of government through votes.

4) Things remain essentially the same. Employees are hit the hardest, inflation is reduced, profits are kept roughly the same in terms of net earnings allocation (percentage of profits) being given to shareholders, and everything just carries on.

I don’t see (4) going on forever, though. I think that’s the least likely. Eventually something will break— and again, probably has already.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/opinion/workers-employers-inflation-raises.html

I look at it a little different. I think that’s what they CLAIM. But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of things, this way they can claim to be disruptors. I imagine they’ll work something out eventually— how long they manage to keep this up, who knows. Eventually the pressure will be too great. You even have Trump and Greene coming out against them.

If only they had real visions and values.

since I'm not patient enough to spoon feed you anymore that I already have. — 180 Proof

You’re either not patient enough or can’t do it. I suspect the latter, actually. But in neither case did you ever spoon feed me anything. What you did was list a bunch of names that any undergraduate could and said “read.”

That’s not spoon feeding, it’s posturing.

stop whining dogmatically — 180 Proof

Not once have I “whined.” And you’re looking far more dogmatic than I am, given you’re the one that’s refusing to defend your thesis one iota.

A simple “I don’t feel like it” would be fine. Given that you do so often, I would wonder why you bother with a philosophy forum in the first place— but at least it’d be honest.

Sure, there's some truth to that, but like I said, the difference was that they weren't invoking gods or spirits as causes for natural phenomena for the most part. — busycuttingcrap

But who was, exactly? Were people attributing the effects of gravity to invisible angels pulling strings prior to Newton? Did Newton stop being a Christian at any point? Doesn’t seem so…

That Apollo pulls the sun on his chariot or Eros causes desire through arrows isn’t really what was abandoned. Mostly because it never really existed in the sense we think— but even if it did, these “supernatural” phenomena continued on well after Thales.

I think what changed was the understanding of phusis.

Maybe find a place between listing a bunch of names and rolling your eyes like a schoolgirl.

If that’s too vague, I’ll make it more specific: of the names you listed, what statement (from any of them, even the non-Greeks) really stands out to you as supporting your narrative?

Certainly, they weren't scientists or atheists in the ordinary, contemporary sense of these words, but they were important in the eventual development of these things (and so hence the characterization as "proto-science"). — busycuttingcrap

They were important in the development of nearly everything in the West. Including Christianity. Should we call them proto-Christians? (Many have made that claim too.)

I think the problem here is the meaning of religion and science, in part.

this development of breaking away from understanding the world primarily in religious terms — busycuttingcrap

I think the understanding of the world changed. I don’t think the characterization of going from “religious terms” (here apparently equated with superstitions on par with Santa Claus) to naturalistic ones (and hence proto-science) is accurate. I think that’s a story that’s been perpetuated without evidence, and gone mostly unquestioned.

Most of them were at any rate. But they generally didn't invoke gods or spirits as (intellectually/rationally impenetrable) causes or explanations in their capacity as natural philosophers, — busycuttingcrap

The gods were as natural to the Greeks as what we currently call natural, in my view. But who exactly fo you have in mind? Democritus? Thales? Parmenides?

or deliberately misread — 180 Proof

I didn’t misread it. I know exactly what was said— and I know it’s exactly wrong.

:up:

the exploration of alternatives to religious modes of understanding — busycuttingcrap

What would “religious modes of understanding” be?

Again, the claim that these early thinkers were just proto/primitive scientists (in todays sense) is just projection. Every one of the early Greeks were religious— all believed in the gods and spoke of such, all were educated in Homer.

It’s really just part of the mischaracterization of “religion,” in my view. Also a product of the long reaction to Christianity — of which the Greeks knew exactly nothing.

I’ve read every one of those men. Hence “I see little evidence for it.”

The narrative that these men were essentially primitive scientists is unconvincing.

In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns – began with – critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking) — 180 Proof

Why do you say this? I see little evidence for it.

Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions. — Art48

I wonder how much you've really thought through these statements. You don't elaborate much about it, so you end up with cliche: science good/true/real, religion bad/false/fictional.

This is right out of recent critiques of Christianity from the likes of Richard Dawkins and company. There's something to these claims, but in a very specific sense, concerning Biblical literalists and creationists. It presupposes a philosophy of science and religion which I don't agree with anyway, and the narrow analysis that "New Atheists" do make is done on the basis of this philosophical background. But it strikes me now as scientism. (Which I'm still mostly a part of, by the way.)

Science is just another kind of religion, from one point of view. An important and powerful one -- but also very destructive. I think we should start thinking from this point of view, instead of a mutually exclusive one. Both science and religion make philosophical assumptions because both ultimately arise from human questions and human concerns.

The universe is an objective reality and science has converged to a worldview that mirrors that reality. Ask a physicist, chemist, or biologist in Italy, Iran, and India a question and you get the same answer. — Art48

No you don't. You get many interpretations in science as well, some of which converge. This correspondence view of truth, where we can "mirror" reality of the outside, objective world, should really be abandoned. Fine to talk about in everyday life, but is itself an interpretation of the world and of truth.

But if God is an objective reality, then why haven’t religions converged? If we assume there is one universal reality, we would expect different people of different times in different countries to have insights which converge. Shouldn’t religions “done right” converge? But they don’t. Might the reason be their faulty “way of knowing,” their childlike epistemological method? — Art48

(1) Religions "done right" certainly do converge in many ways and through many cultures. Even when they're not done right, in fact.

(2) If we're going to focus solely on where religions differ (which they do, in many ways and through many cultures), then we should also say that science (the supposedly "non-faulty" epistemological method) also differs; examples abound. If you cannot think of any, then you're not reasoning fully.

Think about it for a minute: why these generalizations? They're not justified, in my view. Just in terms of looking around, not even due to any deep disagreement about epistemology.

2022 may have been a turning point for action on climate change. It was hard fought, and much less than needed to be done, but it was something.

That’s the biggest story from 2022.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/from-climate-exhortation-to-climate-execution

This Year Was the Beginning of a Green Transition

You’d think the world was ending because a small minority of people want to live their lives a certain way.

Stop being sucked into these overblown media creations, and do something important.

What a strange thing to be singularly focused on.

You should have started with the ending post. :) — Moliere

I know. It made sense when I started— I had it all planned out. I botched it.

life would still be pointless because all schemes, whether grand or pedestrian, are limited and transient. — praxis

Why does being limited and transient render something pointless?

Seems like utter nonsense to me.

But in the grand scheme of things, the harsh truth is nothing really matters — niki wonoto

Except that’s not the “harsh truth” — it’s a statement made from a perspective, like everything else. The person holding this perspective, and making the claim, has psychological reasons for believing it and stating it. Naturally it seems like the one and ultimate truth to him.

But it’s no more true than when the angsty teenager exclaims that “life sucks” after not being invited to a party.

“Everything matters” is also a harsh truth.

That’s perfectly fine. I’m not interested in discussing anything with you, given your history. In case you need it explicitly stated … which you do.

As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about. ::shrug::

to reverse today’s inequality requires a robust embrace of unions—but of unions that are democratic, focused on bottom-up rather than top-down strategies, and place the primary agency for change in workers acting collectively at work and in the communities in which they reside.

— Jane McAlevey

Or we can go with posturing on the internet.

Pretend there’s no such thing as the outside world, while begging for scraps from our Great Leader Trump. :up:

Just a shame that some internet dude wasn’t around to inform Martin Luther King that organizing “doesn’t work well”, that he was engaging in “random whining,” and that what he really should have been doing is more naval-gazing.

Because, you know, “history.”

Union organizing, civil rights movement, environmental movement, etc. “Random whining.”

:lol:

Don’t worry your little heads about it. Go back to naval-gazing. Because that’s worked wonders the last 40 years. :up:

Not one mention — by anyone — about organizing. No talk of working together with others, no talk of unions, no talk of outreach. It’s all up to the “individual.”

Similar arguments are made about consumption. “Hey, you choose to smoke and eat fast food, that’s your right — not hurting anyone else.” Just giving people what they want, what they asked for. Sounds great — very principled.

But all of that is nonsense, of course. And if you want a reason for why society is how it is, look no further than the belief that everything depends on the individual person — a belief your entire post presupposes.

I think attaining accurate knowledge is about simulataneously learning (accepting knew concepts) and unlearning — Benj96

Absolutely.

Apparently they can acquire it, but only with aggressive interaction with humans, and only if begun at a very young age. — Joshs

No, they can’t. Which is why we can’t talk to primates.

The interpretation of these data is controversial, — Joshs

And ridiculous.

"Why do things happen?" Seems like a question.
— Mikie

It is a question. — bert1

No, it's just nonsense. You're free to adopt this sentimental perspective so that no one's feelings are hurt (obviously your own, most importantly), where no interrogative is "wrong," but I'll stick with the perspective that some questions are, indeed, wrong, bad, worse, etc.

As I said, perhaps growing thicker skin is what's really required.

Who thinks it's OK to say "That's the wrong question"? — bert1

It's OK, but with elaboration. Namely: WHY is it a "wrong question"?

And questions are often wrong -- or nonsensical. "Why do things happen?" Seems like a question. But if you can't even imagine a coherent answer, than it's not really a question.

I often think there are wrong questions, almost as often as I think definitions need to be stated more clearly at the outset (see talk about "God" or "capitalism" or "science" or...just about anything).

I also think we should grow thicker skins.

If happiness is a good, or the good, then what is it? If its living in accord with our nature, then what is our nature?

The function of an axe is to cut. To be a "good" axe is to cut well. I think Aristotle would say that the soul or nature of a human is thinking, what normally gets translated as "reason."

So to be happy, we should live in accordance with our function -- with reason; with the goals that one decides on; with virtue.

I've always liked that picture.

Happiness, then, has nothing to do with feelings of pleasure or joy, or a good time. It's a life-long pursuit, and we can't determine whether one has lived a happy life until it's completed.

I like that formulation too. Nietzsche's isn't bad either, really.

Anyway, this was my plan for this thread. Didn't quite go as I expected. Oh well! I moved it to the lounge, so feel free to continue posting whatever you'd like.

And insisting on an irreparable gap between human capacities and those of other animals could be deemed a classic form of anthropocentrism — Joshs

Birds can fly, unlike other species. Is that aviancentrism?

Insisting there's a gap between human capacities and those of other animals is done because there is a gap between human capacities and other animals. Namely, language. It's insisting on a truism.

How many claimed distinctions between anthropos and other animals have fallen by the wayside in recent years? Only humans use tools, only humans have emotions or can feel pain, or can empathize, only humans have cognitive capacities and can calculate. — Joshs

If there were people claiming that animals don't feel pain, I'd love to hear it. Seems ridiculous.

But I'd be happily proven wrong if there's a shred of evidence suggesting other animals have language. They communicate, of course, but they don't have language. There's been a lot of research on that as well, with primates. They simply cannot acquire it, no matter how it's tried.

Primates using a stick to gather ants or whatever is interesting, but it's on par with learning some signs.

I predict that eventually we will come to see that the cognitive differences between us and other higher species is more a matter of degree than of kind. — Joshs

It can be both. We've clearly evolved -- I don't dispute that. So it is a matter of degrees, in a way. On the other hand, language and other capacities are also of a different kind compared to other species.

Since we essentially evolved from animals, do you think that there is a jump somewhere from having no beliefs to having beliefs? I would imagine the capacity evolved by degrees. — Pantagruel

I think the jump was when humans acquired language. That may have been a unique neural event. But even if it was a matter of degrees, whatever species that existed as a transitional form has died off. Either way, we're left as the only species on earth with the capacity for language.

I don't see animals asking questions, let alone answering them.
— Mikie

Have you never seen a dog or a horse tentatively sniffing at something? For me, that often amounts to asking the question whether the something is edible - which is confirmed when they eat, or turn away. — Ludwig V

To me, it amounts to questioning if...they can ask the question. But they aren't doing that. They're not thinking to themselves, "I wonder if this is edible?" Of course not.

So why not claim that water is "questioning" when it flows down a hill? Or that it's "feeling its way" around? We could, I suppose -- but it's a waste of time.

I find most of the questions to be the wrong questions, so the answers tend to be pretty meaningless to me. — Noble Dust

:up:

Why have you come? — Benj96

To expose my beliefs and thoughts to scrutiny. It makes me sharper. I hope to do the same for others.

To engage in the process of learning, I guess.

I hadn't thought of that possibility. Can you give me an example? — Ludwig V

Whether one believes the world is fundamentally hostile or not can determine how one treats others. If one answers that question with "Yes, the world is a hostile place," then it'll be no wonder that they are suspicious, paranoid, untrusting, etc.

The question regarding human nature -- "What is a human being? What am I?" -- and its answer determines a great deal as well, including how we shape society.

Actually, there is quite a bit of research on animal beliefs. I don't think they have a lot of them or that they are overly complex, mostly related to what we would call practical reason. Lower order of beliefs, lower order of consciousness. — Pantagruel

Animals don't operate on beliefs. Animals don't have language. So I've never been very impressed with views that try to explain animal behavior in this way. Don't see the usefulness of it.

The. you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by belief. — Joshs

Here I mean the implicit answers to certain questions. I don't see animals asking questions, let alone answering them.

On the other hand, both humans and other animals are guided by conceptual understanding in which expectations are formed that can be validated or invalidated. — Joshs

Not sure what this means, but I don't see animals as having concepts either. Again I feel most of this is anthropomorphism.

It created this thread, didn't it? — Outlander

What did? Beliefs?

Not sure this thread is useful, either.

Yup. — Moliere

I'm surprised no one asked "What do you mean by happiness?" So I'll ask it of all of you who so far responded. If it a feeling, like joy and pleasure, or something else?

Not only human behaviour, I would go so far as to say this is what characterizes consciousness as such. — Pantagruel

I wouldn't go that far. I don't consider animals as having beliefs, tacit or otherwise. I think that's an anthropomorphic projection.

Take the "seeking and sucking" behaviour of a new-born mammal. It certainly seems to be embedded but I would be reluctant to attribute that to a belief — Ludwig V

Neither would I. But still a great deal of human behavior can be viewed in this light. It's not the only light, of course.

Of course, and I think we should all try our best to be aware of our implicit biases and subconscious conditioning. — praxis

Yes, and perhaps the answers to philosophical questions that these beliefs imply.

It is popular these days in psychological ( Haidt) and anthropological circles to posit that cultural values and ethical norms originate in inherited evolutionarily adaptive affective preferences , such as disgust. — Joshs

Indeed that is popular. The point being?

Not sure. What do we do with this view and how can it help? — Tom Storm

Good question. My personal opinion is that it helps us understand the importance of philosophical questions, particularly ones surrounding the nature of being human, and being in general. So much of our behavior depends on them -- and yet they are rarely questioned. This extends all the way to our societal systems and structures -- none of them are accidents. So every major thing we do -- where we live, what we eat, what we do for leisure, where we work, who we associate with, etc., are not accidents either and in fact follow from how our society functions.

:up:

It does get tiresome.

The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. — Agent Smith

Come on now. If climate change isn’t watertight, what is?

The problem isn’t that it isn’t watertight, it’s that there has been a deliberate push to confuse and delay. Frontline had a 3-part series on this a few months back — worth checking out. It’s about big oil but Exxon especially.

Look no further for why it’s controversial. Anything factual becomes controversial if it threatens powerful interests. That’s been true since Galileo, at least.

If climate change is true — Agent Smith

The amount of ignorance on this very forum about climate change is itself evidence that we should ignore 90% of what’s written on “philosophical” matters.

If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.

Probably better not to use this archaic word. — jgill

Eh. I use it interchangeably with climate science myself— but I understand your point.



No, that’s denial— which is rampant.