I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. One can be a thinker and have no idea about the work already achieved. For me this latter part is important. — Tom Storm

I would include engagement with others, alive or dead, as part of philosophy -- and therefore part of the kind of thinking I was referring to. But you're correct in that one may ask themselves universal questions without ever having read a prior thinker who also engaged with the same questions. But here we don't have a real metric either. What if one engages with one's community and never picks up a book? I personally know many people who have barely read the original texts of a good many philosophers; if anything, they read commentary and synopses. Where does that fall in measuring success?

Perhaps I'm being uncharitable. I generally know what you're saying -- that a general awareness of these questions is valuable, and I agree. I think depriving oneself of the riches of the past is exactly like you mentioned, reinventing the wheel. But whether or not that is important in defining what makes a "philosopher" is debatable, and I'm skeptical of it.

Again, I consider Parmenides to be a philosopher. There were few people prior to him to read. Skip to today, and we call all kinds of people by their occupation -- from philosophers to economists to physicists -- who have read very little of the influential texts in their field. They still "do" what they do, and we don't find it odd to call them x, y, or z. I know several economists who've never read Adam Smith, and several programmers who have never read Boole's work.

What is the alternative to using the word philosopher? — Tom Storm

I don't know if there is one alternative, but I don't see why "thinker" can't be used as meaning basically the same thing, if by thinking we mean the type of thinking involved in what is normally called philosophy (which, to me, is distinguished by the questions being contemplated).

I laid out what I see as the requirements for being a philosopher. The people I listed all met those requirements. My point was to show that my set of criteria will identify people who we normally think of as philosophers. That helps show that my definition is consistent with everyday usage. — T Clark

I don't see how it's useful in any way. Yes, it's easy to point to Socrates. I'm sure most people would agree. Most people would agree Newton was a scientist. That doesn't tell us much about philosophy or science.

That doesn't really work for a philosopher, but it gets at some principles. Let's try this:

Commitment of your life to practicing philosophy to the exclusion of other important aspects
Ability to express your thoughts so other people can understand them
Submittal of your ideas to other philosophers and competent laymen for evaluation
Ability to competently defend your ideas — T Clark

I'm certainly in agreement with the first one. So maybe we just disagree about what philosophy is.

That's often claimed. But I don't think we know for sure who did.

Regardless— the term is fairly meaningless anyway. What most people signify with “philosopher” is, in my view, already worthless. So there’s little to “devalue” — unless you accept the common usage.
— Xtrix

"Philosopher" is a good name for what Aristotle, Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, and all those other guys are. It's a useful term. — T Clark

I'm not sure they would agree. But even if they did, it's pretty easy to point to what is traditionally (and commonly) used as examples of what a "philosopher" is. I don't think that tells us much -- especially if it does nothing to clarify what philosophy or science is.

Before the word "philosopher" was even coined, what was happening? Was there no "philosophy"? I don't think so. I think Parmenides was as much deserving of the label "philosopher" as anyone.

Every human being can think; not every human being is a thinker.

[Also, it may be useful in an everyday sense -- but certainly not in a technical sense. So while I find nothing wrong with "work" as a useful word in everyday life, that itself doesn't make it useful in physics (where that string of letters takes on a completely different role, and is given a technical meaning).]

If that were true, it would completely devalue what calling someone a philosopher signifies. It would become meaningless. If you and I are philosophers, then no one is. — T Clark

I didn’t make that claim.

A philosopher is someone who, presumably, engages in philosophy — I’d say more than occasionally.

Occasionally doing mathematics doesn’t make one a mathematician, either.

Regardless— the term is fairly meaningless anyway. What most people signify with “philosopher” is, in my view, already worthless. So there’s little to “devalue” — unless you accept the common usage.

If you're asking perennial, universal questions -- you're "doing" philosophy. For that moment, you're a philosopher.

It's a kind of thinking.

In today's world, what people really mean is someone who has credentials, teaches, or has published works dealing with these questions. I don't buy that myself, but I think that's the general usage.

Worth watching for the climate change piece alone. Valuable. I still have a deep respect for Sagan.

There’s a reason why we have two words. — Possibility

What’s the reason?

Again, there's no technical notion for either word. What I'm asking about is usage. It appears most people (so far) do not use them interchangeably. Fair enough. But I'm not seeing good reasons for doing so thus far.

Let me be lazy and quote Wikipedia:

Awareness is the state of being conscious of something. More specifically, it is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. Another definition describes it as a state wherein a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.[1] The concept is often synonymous to consciousness and is also understood as being consciousness itself.[2]

I think this is pretty fair.

It's ultimately a minor point, I suppose. I see most of our lives as being lived in a fairly automatic, unconscious/unaware state anyway.

Where are you trying to get to? — Possibility

A clearer understanding of consciousness and awareness -- basically by acknowledging that there's no good reason to see them as anything but synonymous.

Awareness as information in relation to ‘other’ gives us a basic structure of information we can apply to all levels of relation, from virtual particles to conceptual systems (and possibly beyond), without entertaining the idea that rock are conscious. — Possibility

Awareness = information in relation to "other" is meaningless to me. If you want to make that clearer, I'm happy to learn.

If you can add any set of random four-digit numbers together in your head, you are thinking without sensing. — Mww

I'm seeing the numbers, in my case. Regardless, even if I were blind I don't see how arithmetic is relevant here, unless we want to define "thinking" as numeric operations.

In some Buddhist traditions, mind itself is a sense. And presumably, you have to be conscious to add numbers.

I don't see any reason to take for granted traditional ideas of thought, mind, sense, or consciousness.

I don’t see how anyone can make such vast generalizations about women.

True, I think women are far more likely to be dehumanized— but that’s a product of culture.

Aware means conscious. Consciousness is conscious being. — EugeneW

Awareness/consciousness is a characteristic (or state) of being.

“Consciousness is conscious being” makes little sense to me. I can’t make heads or tails of it.

I don’t see why that move is justified. You can do it, of course, but it doesn’t seem to get us anywhere.

To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think. — Mww

Again, I don’t see why consciousness has to be linked with thinking any more than awareness does. You’re sensing either way.

You can be aware of conscious experiences. This awareness is not a conscious experience. — EugeneW

It isn’t?

Seems unnecessarily confusing. If I’m aware of this chair, I’m also conscious of this chair.

it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from. — Theorem

True. Like the people. Like workers. Etc.

It doesn’t mean everyone is the same, it means decisions are made by the entire community— voting is one way, and still pretty limited. But at least it’s something.

Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly — Theorem

So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured?

so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc. — Theorem

Which is what I am using as well. And when you look at GDP, unemployment, real wages, productivity, etc., the results vary. China does very well in many of these metrics, and not so well in others. The US has seen increased productivity and stagnant wages for 40 years, along with huge wealth inequality. I wouldn't call that efficient distribution.

If you're talking about the ability to produce and distribute goods -- then yes, the modern world generally has improved as technology has improved. I don't think this has much to do with centering our economy on the relationship between owners and workers. I don't see why the major decisions have to be in the hands of a tiny fraction of society, rather than the entire community.

If we reject these notions in politics, we should reject them in the workplace.

or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization. — Theorem

The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution?

Again, take China. Are they capitalist? Are they communist? Their manufacturing doesn't seem to be one or the other. We know the state is involved on every level, and that they made the decision to open their economy to the rest of the world in the 1980s and 90s. Why some vague notion of "capitalism" gets credit for their current economy and not the communist government is obvious, at least in the West -- where communism=bad, capitalism=good.

So I repeat myself: it's just not that simple.

By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. — Theorem

In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state.

It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so.

If you get rid of the Walton family, Wal Mart will go on just fine. If you get rid of the owners of major car companies, cars will still be made. If you replace the leadership roles appointed by board directors to those appointed/voted for by workers, you also won't sacrifice efficiency and productivity. Co-ops are productive and efficient too.

I said 'other' - different facets of a unified whole. I can imagine a paramedic saying that a patient is 'conscious and aware of his surroundings'. Or he might be 'conscious but in such a state of intoxication as to be not aware of his surroundings'. — Wayfarer

I think you're using "consciousness" in a physiological sense, similar to being "alive."

I see it more as someone can be generally awake, aware, conscious -- but yet unconscious of many things - l ke the fire in the attic that you mention, or the goings-on in some Chinese market, or the cellular processes in the pancreas.

I guess I still don't see where the differentiation comes from. What exactly is the difference between consciousness and awareness in the first place? I think it is a unified whole, but both words refers to the same whole rather than representing, say, different sides of a triangle or coin. That is, I see consciousness as being conscious of some particular being or group of beings, but also consciousness of being in general. Ditto for awareness. So to say "I am not aware of that," is the same as saying "I'm not conscious of that," even though the former is considered the appropriate word.

I think "raising consciousness" is important, for example -- for individuals and groups. At the same time, we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that this will solve all of our problems, and try to remember that the vast majority of our activity and our world is not only unconscious, but unknowable for us --in a practical sense. (Some might argue we can theoretically understand everything.)

In meditation, for example, you can use breathing as a technique to increase your awareness of your sensations, your body, your feelings, your thoughts, and your being. I consider this a good thing, especially as a counterbalance to our busy, overstimulated, overworked environment. Psychotherapy, too, can help one increase their awareness of themselves, their family, their world -- simply through talking. I think even philosophy can be healing or "therapeutic" in certain ways -- Brian McGee (I believe) referred to this as "Bibliotherapy."

All well and good. But it's not magic, not supernatural, not really even mystical. Raising awareness can be a learned skill, like anything else -- like speaking and reading and cooking and archery. It's an exercise worth practicing, nothing more. But no matter how much I believe in any of these helpful activities, life is largely absence, and we can only scratch the surface of it. We're human, finite beings at the end of the day.

In terms of technical jargon regarding the cognitive neurosciences there is a difference. In fact, what is coined as 'consciousness' and 'conscious' varies depending on the context too. — I like sushi

I didn't know/wasn't aware/wasn't conscious of that. How are they technically defined?

Basic principles as "do not take drugs when you are young" "don't get involved in problems" "be careful who are you hanging out with" etc... These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. — javi2541997

"Wisdoms"? More like weak, cowardly advice a terrified, cynical grandfather would give.

Drugs can be awesome and enlightening and fun.
Not getting involved in problems is meaningless. To the degree that we should foster collective action, people should absolutely get involved in collective problems, and work on solving them.
Being careful who you hang out with -- fine. But not too careful. Use your judgment, trust others, and don't worry too much about being betrayed -- have a little faith in your judge of character.

All in all, I'd say your "wisdom" is actually an example of how not to live.

No offense.

Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history? — Theorem

That's exactly the point, though. How (1) are we defining capitalist? And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? China is a fairly large and booming economy, by many metrics. Is that capitalism? Is the US economy, with its massive state intervention, from the Federal Reserve to tax cuts to subsidies, etc. capitalism? Are they particularly efficient? Efficient at what?

Western economics are mixed economies. Those that have a higher social welfare system, like the Nordic countries, fair far better in terms of outcomes. Maybe that's what we mean by capitalism?

It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts?

That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. — baker

Yes, I do. There's a long record of it, if you care to go back and look. Taking this exchange on this thread, it's very obvious. Going just fine until you decide to through in your disrespectful comments. Always nice to see you take zero responsibility for it, as usual.

Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness. — baker

You're just making this up. My tone was very measured and very respectful, until YOU decided to be impolite. After that, you're correct: I don't "turn the other cheek." I respond in kind.

Now perhaps I shouldn't lower myself to your level of communication, which is very poor and disrespectful indeed. Others have pointed this out -- and perhaps they're right. But I can't help myself. I don't like posturing, rude people who pretend to know things they don't know, while taking no time to understand another's arguments.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. — baker

Yes, which is why no one likes you.

But it's never your fault, so just forget about it.

Bottom line: you make rude comments to me, expect the same in return. Don't learn that lesson? Too bad. Learn some manners, or shuffle the fuck back to where you came from -- I'm not interested.

It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved. — Theorem

But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything.

So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism."

I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism.

Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. — Theorem

I think co-ops are very efficient.

See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person. — baker

:roll:

You repeatedly take me out of context, put words in my mouth, "disagree" for no reason, and initiate this "bad faith" with condescending comments like

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder — baker

...and I'm the one assuming the worst?

Your tone is often disrespectful and condescending.

So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect.

I'm perfectly willing to do so, as is obvious above -- until condescending remarks get made.

So again, I'm not interested in interacting with those who are impolite and choose to posture and lecture.

But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical. — ChatteringMonkey

I think so too.

I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists! — universeness

What would "true" socialism be, in your view?

I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current. — universeness

Fair enough. But I feel it best to at least once credit my major influences.

I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it. — universeness

Agreed.

Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. — universeness

I like meritocracy as well. That is indeed more of what I mean, as "aristocracy" has connotations of illegitimate power -- handed down to children regardless of their merits.

At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear.
— Xtrix

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you. — baker

I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.

I never once said others don't want to get together with me.

The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context, you'd see that this was an acknowledgement of aspects of human beings which have indeed been around forever (I don't see how anyone could disagree with this), but which in today's world have much bigger effects, and are in fact encouraged in an economic system that prioritizes personal gain.

Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.
— Xtrix

Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue. — baker

I don't understand the "or." It's not either-or.

They make things happen because of strong communities. That people often come together in desperation and under harsh conditions was exactly my point.

Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.
— Xtrix

No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this. — baker

That's what others have mentioned earlier. It is indeed an important factor, which is why I created this thread, which specifically addresses this.

But as I mentioned there, I'm no longer completely convinced that this is the most important obstacle. The problems are pretty well understood, as are the goals/solutions. The case of climate change is a good example. Plenty of solutions, plenty of goals.

I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others.

I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be. — Theorem

We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. Therefore, I also disagree that we don't have effective alternatives. Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.

If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business.

There are other alternatives as well.

But cupcakes are little different to philosophical outlooks, which are direct expressions of human thought, feeling and action. — Theorem

And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa.

Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view).

They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term.
— Xtrix

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness

I appreciate the pushback. That statement of mine was provocative.

Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. If you're familiar with their thinking, you know; if not, check them out -- they express it much better than me. I'm essentially a student of the Germans, the Greeks, and the Enlightenment (actually a product of a number of influences, of course, but these are the strongest ones).

I tend to like the idea of utilizing our differences as humans for the "good" of the world. That, to me, doesn't mean eliminating classes, in the Platonic sense, any more than we should eliminate a division of labor -- or, for that matter, specialization. The goal isn't to make everything the same. [I think equality is learning not to believe all human beings are the same, but believing others as human beings as a bare minimum, despite differences. Thus to discourage dehumanization, objectification.] The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team.

What I mean by the "Platonic sense" is the myth of the metals. It's a "noble lie" in the sense that it is just a fabricated story, but taking the gods out of the equation if you prefer, that view isn't so terrible. It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle.

There's more to be said of all this, but that's a start.

The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption? — ChatteringMonkey

I appreciate this response. This is a very good question.

I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values.

I can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under.

It seems to me that a key problem for change is the view that the bad guys have already won and the situation is hopeless. That worldview seems to me to be one of capitalism's greatest protective factors. — Tom Storm

I agree with this 100%. It’s like a despair— a kind of defeatism. Why bother? Nothing we can do —it’s hopeless.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.

Which is exactly why the push for “individualism” is so handy for those in power. It’s about freedom, individuality, liberty, etc. — and that all sounds pretty good! Until you realize it’s yet another narrative, another bedtime story to lull us to sleep and keep us voting for the rich assholes who don’t give a damn about any of us.

Where do you think that 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' come from? — Theorem

Human beings.

But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature?

HTML and CSS. Ninth edition. Joe Casabona.

It just seems like the problem is that people are being divided and not that they are divided. When you emphasize that fact that they are divided instead of the fact that they are being divided it seems like you’re criticizing the victims for their inability to unite. — Average

I put more blame on those doing the dividing -- and here the media (including social media) plays an outsized role. But it's true, I do also throw some of the blame on "us," too. Whether it's wise to do so, I don't know.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle?
— Xtrix

Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed. — baker

Sounds like defeatism. But so be it.

That can't be right. Human beings have been making dumb decisions for millennia, certainly well before 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' were glints in our minds' eyes. — Theorem

True, but I'm talking about today. At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. But as you mention, this is a very different time, and the problems we face are no longer localized. This is the era of multinational corporations and governments with nuclear weapons. Is nihilism really behind it all? I think so, yes. Acting as if all that matters in life is the accumulation of "stuff" to me qualifies as nihilism.

If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. 'Nihilism' and 'capitalism' are nothing more than modern, highly intellectualized expressions of latent structures rooted within the constitution of the human being. If we want to change the world, we must first change ourselves. — Theorem

We should change ourselves. But there are many structures to a human being. I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions.
— Xtrix

What metric or criterion are you using to measure rationality? — Average

Simplified: acting in a way that is counter to your goals. In this case, making choices that, while they may increase short-term profits, increase the likelihood of catastrophe or, in the case of nuclear war (and even climate change) -- annihilation.

One could argue that perhaps death, suffering, destruction, and extinction is the goal of some people -- and thus these decisions are rational. But I make the assumption that this isn't the case -- i.e., that most people aren't psychotic. That includes corporate and political leaders.

What reason is there to suspect that this might be the case? — Average

Look at the financial sector, for example. Look also to the coordinated effort of business in the 1970s, the elaborate Koch network, lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable, etc.

But even in my own experiences -- you see wealthy people "having each others' backs" all the time. They have the resources and the connections to do so. Legal help. Financial help. Getting into good schools, where one meets other wealthy people, and so on.

It's not to say people within this class don't disagree -- it's that their privileged status, and the desire to keep this status, trumps these disagreements.

“common interest” isn’t a sufficient substitute for individual interests. Rather, it attempts to put one interest above all others. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't. It just means a number of individuals share an interest/goal, and come together to achieve that goal. Especially when it cannot be achieved alone -- which is common.

It doesn’t take into account pluralism or dissent and often forbids it. — NOS4A2

What "it"? Solidarity? This is meaningless. You're talking about something else.

The fact remains: one can practice amicable relations and work with others without any solidarity. — NOS4A2

No you can't.

I don't know anyone who wants to form a political group, union or strong social circle — Tom Storm

I don't know of many either. I've heard a lot of interest in a union, in jobs I've worked. And I think almost everyone I know wants strong social supports -- family, friends, whatever. A group of people they trust and can rely on. All pretty common. Not many people want to form a political group.

I generally think a bigger problem is bewilderment - not knowing what needs to change or how to articulate problems/solutions to being with. — Tom Storm

That's why I started this thread here. But as I mention there, I think the real issue is collective action, coming together -- not so much ignorance of the problems. But that's arguable.

I think that division is part of the whole divide and conquer strategy. Blaming the victims doesn’t seem like the right decision. — Average

True. But who's blaming the victims?

Even if I can be insulting, that doesn't mean I can't respect what makes you human, and love that humanity. — Garrett Travers

And more of this is needed.

Capitalism is just evolution, possibly gone wrong for the way it rewards (fierce) competition. — Agent Smith

I'm leery about attributing to the current socioeconomic system any idea of natural law, evolution, human nature, etc. Capitalism could very easily be described as regression, from a certain point of view.

I don't say we have to live in an economical jungle but in a world where the free market is respected as much as the public administration. — javi2541997

What free markets? Seems to me more a myth than a reality.

In the UK, there are two groups I know of called 'momentum' and 'compass,' who are trying to create a new progressive politics which tries to address many of the issues you raise. They both support Universal Basic Income (UBI) for example. — universeness

Excellent! Glad to hear.



Agreed re: Thatcher and Blair.

No, but the system has to be taken on an individual level. It's what "consumers" -- every individual person can do. — baker

I'm skeptical about claims like this. First, I don't like labeling human beings as primarily "consumers." Secondly, as we've seen with environmental issues, businesses love to make things about individual choices ("decrease your carbon footprint," etc). While there's clearly some truth to this (groups are composed of individuals), the emphasis is deliberate -- and what it ultimately does, in my view, is encourages isolated action and discourages collective action. So don't bother joining any groups to fight climate change -- just buy better light bulbs. Don't join a labor union -- just talk to your boss.

Even if you yourself aren't meaning this, I think it's worth pointing out.

Don't buy stuff at sales and at discount prices, don't buy fast fashion, buy less, buy relatively good quality, treat your things well so that they last. Don't buy junkfood. Don't buy pseudoluxuries (like storebrand versions of luxury items, like storebrand champagne). Buy as few imported goods as possible. — baker

All good ideas that I support wholeheartedly, with the above qualification.

I see what you mean now. Yes, if people have no goals and don’t care about anything, it’s impossible to join together towards an end. Those in power certainly have a goal— to maintain their status and to increase their power. Perhaps they have visions of an ideal society, or an interest in space (Bezos).

I think while the majority is divided and isolated, the ruling minorities are very much in solidarity.

Yea. You. — frank

Me? What does that mean?

Capitalism has as a main goal to pursue wealth, so at least has a goal in their own existence. But nihilism is literally the opposite. — javi2541997

It’s a matter of definition— the main thesis in this thread is about obstacles to joining together with others. Do you have experiences relevant to this? That’s what I’m interested in hearing, if any…

The problem with group identity is that it requires an other for the group identity to have meaning. In order to accept everyone you have to give up yourself, in other words, which is funny because we eventually give up our-selves anyway, in the end. — praxis

I don’t think you have to give yourself up, but I think you’re right in this case that there exists an “other”— namely, those in power.

Money and status. If I could right now, I would buy an enormous tract of land and begin building the largest commons ever witnessed in the history of mankind, way out in New Hampshire, or Appalachia, or Colorodo, or something. A community founded on the principle of the primacy of thehuman consciousness, as off grid as we could make it. But, as it stands, I lack funds, and I lack the people willing to take an oath to that principle. — Garrett Travers

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.

Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery.
— Xtrix

I don’t agree with this. I think that they carefully calculate the consequences of their actions. — Average

I do too. They’re still stupid decisions. Stupid is a childish word, of course. Irrational is better.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions.

Whatever goals we have, I’m thinking more and more there’s only one way to get there: through collective effort. That’s not to say we lose our individual identities— but that one person, isolated, simply can’t take on an entire system.

So then isn’t another way of looking at things to say: the “real” problem to overcome is our own unwillingness to get together?