As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.
— Xtrix

I agree, but that also sounds like a good description of much of the American populace as a whole. — Pfhorrest

That depends when it comes to the neoliberal part, at least according to polls. But there is still a good percentage, I imagine. But even if it is like many others who don't have as much power, we have to the account for the special problems and issues that arise from those who do have such power -- like, as has already been pointed out, the hyper-sensitivity to threats to the status quo, etc.

This sounds like a good explanation for the above. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. It's striking, too, that the people most ardently defending the corporate sector are the ones which are most negatively effected by their policies. That's quite an impressive feat.

I would rather live under robber barons — NOS4A2

What a shocker!

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

My only contention is that the so-called 1% are not your masters. Elon Musk is unable to assert any control over you, and if he did, he would be subject to legal penalty. — NOS4A2

Even put in these deliberately ridiculous terms, yes he does. Not only by the impact he has on his workers, on the automobile industry, on the stock market, on lobbying for legislation that he deems favorable, etc. -- all that has an impact on society of which you and I are a part. In the same way of singing out Mitch McConnell and saying "He doesn't have any control over you." Sure, if you mean coming to my house and pointing a gun at my head and giving me orders. But in that sense, no one has ANY control over me. But that's an absurd way to think about political and economic power.

It's also funny that you choose Elon Musk. Why not Jeff Bezos? Does he not control our lives to a large degree? Of course he does. Same for the Waltons. Same for the boards of directors across the country. Same for the thousands of lobbyists in Washington representing the interests of these privileged people.

At any rate, I become suspicious of hatred when it becomes indistinguishable from envy. — NOS4A2

This projecting on others of emotions of "hatred" or "envy" is also predictable and tired. I have no hatred or envy for these people. They can keep their money. What I want to understand (and change) is the system which produces such inequality of power and wealth. This is something you and other state-corporate apologists don't want to understand.

The reason the so-called 1% are able to seek their advantage from those in power is because those in power give it to them. — NOS4A2

Right, so once again put the blame on weak politicians and government, the one system in which we have at least some say. All the while completely ignoring the structural aspects which makes it nearly impossible to gain positions of major political power without first going through the filtration process of camping finance and major media use (both in the hands of the corporate sector). So yes, there are plenty of honest, brave politicians who refuse to accept money or give corporate-approved speeches to get a large audience, but we don't hear from them. Why? Because without conforming, they don't advance. A point people like you also conveniently ignore in favor of licking the asses of your corporate masters.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. T
— Xtrix

Care to back that up, or is “essentially” your get out of jail card? — Brett

There's overwhelming evidence for this. Excellent scholarship has been conducted. Tom Ferguson is one of my favorites. Worth checking out his "Golden Rule" book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition.

By "essentially" I mean de facto, but it's not absolute. Contradictions do exist. Government and the corporate sector aren't completely the same. But when you see who's allowing those in government to take power, through the cost of campaigning and the access to media, there's really no question who's in charge and who's beholden to whom. True, with Bernie Sanders and some others, that's beginning to change a little in terms of camping funding, but the remaining structures stand. Without the support of those in power, it's extremely hard (though not impossible) to break through. In such a system, the vast majority will be in the pockets of those who have the resources and own the needed institutions.

Even the bad things. Because people in general are not shining bastions of morality, but will exploit a situation to their benefit when given the chance, even at someone else's expense, and then try to rationalize away why what they're doing is perfectly fine. — Pfhorrest

I think it's worth diverting the discussion a bit by discussing these rationalizations.

A criminal trying to rationalize his crimes would be laughed at in court, but with enough wealth one can afford the most complex rationalizations from the intelligentsia -- from the likes of Milton Friedman, for example...very nice person, likable, well-spoken, scholarly, etc. But a complete apologist for the ruling class. Employing the intellectuals is a very important piece of all this. It supplies the excuses they tell themselves and others, quite sincerely. So again we're in the realm of, essentially, philosophy. And we see how this propaganda tickles down to millions of people, including several on this forum.

But one impression I have of people with substantial wealth is that they tend to have their radar up for threats to their social, financial, political status quo. After all, their wealth may be threatened in the event of social turmoil, or they may at least be inconvenienced. If they feel entitled to deference, they won't take inconvenience lightly. — Bitter Crank

I think you've hit on something that simply has to be true once you've gained real power. Otherwise i's like being part of the board of directors and not caring about stock value. But this trait is an interesting one, because then the question becomes: which way would you prefer trends to go? Where are you going to put your power and resources? To a movement that challenges the status quo (which is working for you) or a countermovement? Fairly obvious, to me.

I think the economic externalities to the rest of society is the main reason why we shouldn't allow concentrated wealth to exist, but I think it's a worthwhile additional critique. — Saphsin

Externalities -- a VERY important point, yes.



This isn't quite what I was looking for in terms of differences in psychology -- I meant more their philosophies. But regardless, it's not shocking to learn.

If the 1% are parasites, it is not because they have any kind of behavioural disposition of any sort: they are parasites by virtue of their occupying a structural position in society with disparity as it is. The most lovely, talented, hard-working, virtuous, kind, and giving person could belong to this class: they would still be a fucking parasite insofar as their wealth would objectively be built off the backs of others. — StreetlightX

This is exactly right.

My expectation is that the 1% are ordinary people as far as psychology goes. — Pfhorrest

I'm not so sure about this. I don't think they're genetic mutants or that the quality of their brains are somehow different -- so maybe "psychology" isn't right. To put it simplistically, I wonder about their philosophy. As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.

Why should we care about their beliefs, moralities, attitudes, etc? Because they're the ones making the major decisions that will influence the course of human history. Taking climate change, if most of the people responsible for rising emissions are motivated by personal gain and greed, disregarding the future consequences because God told Noah there wouldn't be another flood -- that's relevant. So their demographics are especially worth looking into.

it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

Brett denies being interested in the question "who they are"; he says it is your question. — Bitter Crank

I'm not too concerned with what Brett thinks given his line of discussion so far. The question is simple enough: Who are the so-called 1%? Misleading, because it's most like 0.1%, but the "masters of the universe" comment is enough to contextualize what is meant: concentrations of wealth and power in the United States.

You've already supplied sources and given concise analyses, so where the confusion lies I have no idea.

The undifferentiated wealth sloshing around in the trough in 2020 has a history. You can trace the development of wealth backwards to sometime in the medieval period, probably not much before then. There are, for instance, a few companies in the world that have been in continuous existence since 1200. Some of the wealth in England goes back to grants that William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard) made after he won the battle of Hastings in 1066. Some of the valuable land in New York City is owned by descendants of Dutch settlers before New Amsterdam became New York. Land is the original wealth. From land one can extract rent, food and fiber (like wheat and wool). England accumulated a wad of wealth by exporting fine wool to manufacturers on the continent. Later, it was coal and iron. The reason the British claimed North America was to have the land from which to extract wealth. The Germans wanted Lebensraum, and came close to getting most of Europe. Land is wealth. Nations are willing to go way out of their way to get it. — Bitter Crank

This is excellent. It's very important to know the history if we're to have any chance of fully understanding our current situation. There have always been those in power (since at least the neolithic revolution and the settling into villages), a "ruling class." Power has been taken through various means: brute force, greater numbers, the use of horses (or elephants or...), better weapons, monopolies on goods and services, an excess of capital, indebtedness, etc. etc. etc.

Our current situation, where the "ruling class" (the so-called "masters of the universe") don't take power by force but rather through their massive wealth and resources, gained through a system whose rules they've taken advantage of (and shaped in their favor) -- rules like private ownership -- and which they rely on the state to enforce, is what we are questioning.

During the neoliberal era, in reaction to the New Deal and the movements of the 60s, corporate interests have won out and we're living the results. The statistics since the late 70s onwards in areas of productivity, manufacturing, real wages, union participation, wealth inequality, etc., all tell the story. The RAND corporation estimated in a study on wealth transference that about $47 trillion has been moved from the bottom 90% of incomes to the top 10% in the last 40 years -- as just one example.

Nothing you don't know, but worth keeping in mind when asking the question about the 0.1%.

whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity,
— Xtrix

Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. — Pop

That's fine. Assuming we know what self-organization is, it could plausibly account for abiogenesis and the concept of the "self," and even consciousness generally. But we don't fully know what consciousness is, so describing a mechanism isn't yet telling us much. Furthermore, as I mentioned, it's arguable whether "consciousness" (in the sense of awareness of anything whatsoever) is really sufficient to define a human being, when so much of our lives are unconscious (looking strictly at what we typically do).

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.
— Xtrix

He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. — Pop

This is why I was referring:

"By the word 'thought', I understand all those things which occur in us while we are conscious, insofar as the consciousness of them is in us. And so not only understanding, willing, and imagining, but also sensing, are here the same as thinking. For if I say, I see, or I walk, therefore I am; and if I recognize this from seeing or from walking which is performed by the body; the conclusion is not absolutely certain: because (as often happens in dreams) I can think that I am seeing or walking, even though I may not open my eyes, and may not be moved from my place; and indeed, even though I may perhaps have no body. But if I deduce this from the action of my mind, or the very sensation or consciousness of seeing or of walking; the conclusion is completely certain, for it then refers to the mind which alone perceives or thinks that it is seeing or walking." - Principles of Philosophy, Part 1 section 9: "What thought is." —

but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness?
— Xtrix

This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry: — Pop

Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields.

Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative.

So while Descartes doesn't necessarily take up Aristotle's zoon echon logon (rational animal), he will essentially say we're "conscious things" or the "res cogitans" (thinking/ conscious substance"; a.k.a., "minds"). Not long afterward, we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.

The 1% is not the “masters of the universe” because they do not possess the monopoly on violence. They are private citizens and are beholden to the same laws and penalties. — NOS4A2

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

If we think of the capitalist system as a game, then all of us are playing this game without knowing always knowing its structure and rules. We see it all around us; we live in it. But as in any power system, political or economic or whatever, those in particular who are not in power should oblige themselves to ask at least two questions:

a) What is the nature and rules of this system? (How does it work.)
b) Is it a just system? (Is it legitimate.)

I think you'll often find that those who benefit from system x will be much more likely, on average, to defend x and more often have the intellectual ability to do so; after all, those of privilege and power have access to higher quality educators (recall Aristotle and Alexander) and generally are in close alliance with other noble ranks, like the clergy and the intelligentsia.

In other words, they know very well the answers to the first question. Since they're also beneficiaries, they find sophistical, complicated ways of answering b) in the affirmative. All the while professing enlightenment or Christian ideals.

These apologetics have always been fairly successful, but it's truly amazing that in today's society you'll find millions of little apologists all around you, even and especially amongst the lowest income levels. This shows just how effective the propaganda has been, almost to 1984 levels.

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system. — Bitter Crank

This goes to the heart of it.

So circling back to rephrase my original question: what are the people like who have benefited most from such a system?

- Nowhere close to all entrepreneurs, even those who have those personality traits, go on to become self-made millionaires, and nowhere near all millionaires (never mind the billionaires who are the real topic of the OP) are self-made. Having those personality traits may be a necessary condition of entrepreneurship (at least in our present system), and entrepreneurship may be a necessary condition of being a self-made millionaire (at least in our present system), but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; and even more to the point, having those personality traits is not a sufficient condition for being an entrepreneur, nor is entrepreneurship a sufficient condition for being a self-made (m|b)illionaire. — Pfhorrest

Well done. Logic at it's finest.

It's having that priority already taken care of that allows the ultra-wealthy to prioritize other things instead. — Pfhorrest

A very important point.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred. — Brett

Who are you arguing against? Certainly not I; I said none of those things.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.
— Xtrix

Can you support that statement with evidence? I mean it’s not a fabrication is it? — Brett

Rather than being sarcastic, you might have simply asked for the scholarship I was referring to in the preceding sentence, which you politely left out:

That's what the scholarship seems to suggest. — Xtrix

Incidentally, I fail to remember you referring to anything of the sort in your initial contribution to this thread. And yes, until you have checked my sources and been convinced by it yourself, you might consider an assertions of mine with the appropriate skepticism.

Whatever personality traits there might be in common between rich people, it’s worth bearing in mind the different potential causal relations there. Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, or does being rich make you a certain kind of person? — Pfhorrest

When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.

Chomsky says they aren't organized, but behave as if they are. Human nature on display? — frank

I missed what this is referring to. Who's "they"?

The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. — Pop

OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means.

As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.
— Xtrix

We have to start with consciousness. — Pop

I once thought this way, and of course in some respects (as I mentioned) it HAS to be true -- how can we even talk about whether we're conscious or unconscious without being conscious? Etc. But what I was getting at is whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, in epistemological or "knowing" relations with the world -- particularly as a subject, with sensations and perceptions (representations) of some "outside" object, which the tradition has thought of us as being (since at least Descartes). I'm not questioning whether those relations exist, just whether they're primary or not. I think there're good (and "common sense") reasons to believe they're not.

But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. — Pop

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.

I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion. — Pop

Very true -- but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? Or, better: what of the actions that we're awake and conscious for (in a way), but which we do without attention -- like driving? I can drive and hardly be conscious of what my foot is doing. Sometimes I arrive at a place while being completely lost in thought.

Martin Heidegger used to talk about turning the doorknob to get into the classroom. What about these kinds of actions? Perhaps starting there will tell us something about what we are, besides what we are conscious of, what we know, and what we think?

For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Does it work for you? — Pop

I follow you up until the last couple words. How about simply an "evolving process"? Which is to say: something which is constantly changing. I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. But if we're constantly changing, then isn't that saying we're temporal?

So: "I am constant change" or "I am temporal." But then the question is: what is this "I" and, more importantly, what is the "am" (the sum)?

Maybe instead it should be something like: "I am." The "I" implies a split, a separation between one "thing" and "thingness" in general. So yet another way to formulate it would be simply "existence" or "there-ness" or "am-ness." No need for an "I."

As far as consciousness goes -- true, we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.

Why? Because, as you know, we're not conscious of 99.9999999999% of the world, including our own bodies and, in fact, our behavior -- which psychology has shown to largely be habitual and automatic.

So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative.

These aren't easy questions, but you're right to take up Descartes as a good starting point.

I know that’s only three individuals out of many. But regardless you can’t say my thoughts on hard work are fabricated. — Brett

Yes, I can.

And while I’m at it I notice you don’t call my list of negative traits a fabrication. — Brett

Yes, I do.

That’s my actual statement. First of all experience. You don’t have to believe me, but experience is not fabrication. Nor is reading. That’s why you asked for some reference to reading on the subject. — Brett

Are you really not understanding this, or just arguing in an attempt to save face somehow?

You made a bunch of statements without support, and you know it. Stop wasting my time.

I appreciate it, thank you.

Like the idea that they work hard. Hardly fabricated. — Brett

Yes, that is fabricated if there's no evidence to support it. When it comes to this particular idea, there's indications that the trend is toward inherited wealth. Picketty discusses this at length. So again, why should I believe your generalization over others? Where's the beef?

So you don’t yet know what the answers are, which is why you want research, but you know I’m wrong. How do you explain that? — Brett

I never said anything about knowing you're wrong. But if you're right, you've not demonstrated it with anything other than simple assertions and statements about "reading and thinking." So again, if I said something like "the rich are generally very nice people" -- would that be something informative?

A bit of experience, a bit of reading, a bit of reasoning. If you like you could post which ones you think are wrong or don’t make sense. — Brett

It's not that they don't make sense -- but whether it's accurate or not, who knows? And why should I believe you? I'm looking for research and evidence -- not opinions, however educated and reasonable they may sound.

The argument was that the rich are rich because they inherited money. — Brett

Fine -- but that's not my argument, and not the point of starting this thread.

Then you have to know who they are instead of just determining it from prejudices. — Brett

I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of people, Brett. So clearly I'm not expecting one to go through each individual biography. I'm looking more for general statistical actions. Apparently there is scholarship out there which people (like Bitter Crank) have recommended; that's what I was looking for from people here.

No, it’s a group of people with opinions discussing something. — Brett

Tell me where I’m wrong then. — Brett

You're missing the point. I'm not saying you're wrong. But neither can you tell me *I'm* wrong if I made the claim that "the rich are sociopaths." Without evidence, what's the sense of giving opinions? I didn't ask for opinions, I asked for research.

How would you enforce this, how would you manage human behaviour? — Brett

What exactly are you attributing to "human behavior"? The profit motive? Seems like the age-old argument that capitalism aligns better with human nature than socialism or other systems.

It's utter nonsense, in my view, but I'm willing to hear you out if that's not your argument.

To achieve that they would need to do what 1% did, which is build a business from scratch and produce the same wealth that so many resent the 1% having. — Brett

You're giving yourself away when you talk like this. So many tacit assumptions.



Thanks for the recommendations.

There are a number of studies about who these people are, and how they operate. If you want to know more (much more) about wealth and power, start with G. William Domhoff, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His four books are among the highest rated titles in sociology (OK, not the same as the best selling books on Amazon).

Who Rules America? (1967, #12)
The Higher Circles (1970, #39)
The Powers That Be (1979, #47)
Who Rules America Now? (1983, #43) — Bitter Crank

Thank you -- I'll check these out. Much appreciated.

This isn’t admiration. It’s an attempt to work out what sort of people they are. I also posted the negative aspects of such people. — Brett

Yes but this is hardly research, Brett. Your list of positive or negative attributes doesn't tell us much, other than your own intuitions about the matter. Without historical or documentary evidence, etc., it's not very helpful.

I have a hunch that most of the wealthiest people, the people making the real decisions in corporations, abide by a neoliberal ideology. I suspect most of them are from the Protestant tradition, etc. But I can't prove any of this -- hence why I started this thread. I'm looking for research. Jane Mayer has done some good work on this, but in a narrower sense.

I'm not sure you're understanding what is being called for here. I'm not interested in individual biographies.

What makes you say that?
— Xtrix

What do you mean? — Brett

What makes you say any of the characteristics you mention?

Class mobility is still certainly a thing in this country. — BitconnectCarlos

Where's the scholarship on this? I'd like to see some evidence. Because it's often claimed, and of course there are examples and thousands of anecdotes, but I have a hunch it's complete nonsense -- at least when talking about what we're discussing here, which is the 1%.

It's a lot like talk about voter fraud -- yes, it happens, but so rarely as to be imperceptible.

The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not only unnatural (it's a result of state intervention to protect capital and wouldn't happen in a truly free market), — Pfhorrest

Massive state intervention.

Also, the idea of a "free market" is often invoked as an ideal of some kind, by Rand and Friedman and others, but it's pure fantasy, as you know.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

It seems to me that everyone’s done everything except address the OP. — Brett

True, but still interesting. As for your list -- I was thinking more in terms of ideologies and values, not necessarily the character attributes you mention. But where do you get that list, may I ask? What makes you say that? In fact, I'm sure a significant percentage were already born into wealth. You don't have to be a hard worker or very future-oriented for that.

But regardless, even if this were true for the majority, isn't most of your list also true for many people you know?

In the 1% you certainly have successful people but I'd hardly call someone with a net worth of $10MM one of the "masters of the universe." — BitconnectCarlos

That's a good point. I wanted to add that the more accurate figure is a tenth of 1%, but thought it was too specific. So I'm using "1%" more to signify the masters fo the universe, as in the Occupy slogan and as a shorthand. But you're right.



Excellent, as usual.

These are all things I believe: 1) The rich, on balance, have more opportunity than the poor. 2) Even in a completely economically equal society, there would be no equality of opportunity. 3) The notion of "equality of opportunity" is a dubious one. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not a matter of "opportunity," which is basically meaningless; it's a matter of conditions. Sure, a kid in the ghetto can become a millionaire -- plenty of examples of things like that happening.

I notice people of conservative and libertarian ideologies loves to speak about things like "opportunity" and "access" (access to healthcare, for example). Gotta watch the language. It's really a sneaky way of defending a savage variant of capitalism, in my view.

What you say sounds a lot closer to what people understand as Chomsky's approach. — Bitter Crank

If by "people" you mean most laypeople, I don't know where you get that. Besides some vague notions of innateness ("nativist") tendencies and the LAD (language acquisition device), "people" don't really have a clue. And again, I'm essentially repeatedly verbatim what Chomsky himself says.

It makes sense to me that the capacity and operation of language would reside in the brain as directed by our species' genetics. Our very complex brains were not built 'de novo'. The need for, and means to communication existed in our predecessor species. We are not born with a ROM-stored language (Chinese, Urdu, Swahili, Norwegian...) but we are born with instructions to acquire the available languages which present themselves to us. We don't have to be taught' it's more like "language falls into place in our brains". — Bitter Crank

Besides taking minor issue with terms like "communication" and "instructions," that sounds about right. Chomsky repeatedly will say that his main claim shouldn't be controversial and is, in fact, a truism. Yet it continually gets misinterpreted.

It’s not me talking but professor Shravan Vasishth, an Indian-origin professor of psycholinguistics at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

How would you describe Chomsky’s approach? — Olivier5

Chomsky's approach is best described as "biolinguistics." He's interested in universal grammar, the innate (genetic) structure of language. This presupposes the brain and treats language as a "system" (on par with the visual system), with its own set of properties -- properties described using theories of computation and mathematics. It has nothing to do with "intuition" about "what is possible or not possible." Whoever Vasishth is, he has no clue what he's talking about in this regard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbKO-9n5qmc

This methodology involved consulting your own intuitions about what is possible and what is not possible in language. This was a brilliant new way to unpack the structure of languages, of your own native language. — Olivier5

What nonsense. Chomsky's approach isn't anything like this whatsoever.

But truly, I am looking more specifically for philosophers who have surpassed him in terms of his ethic and his transvaluation of values. — Coryanthe

I realize I responded without really understanding the question. What would constitute deeming something as "surpassed" or "beyond" Nietzsche's ethical thinking? How would we know it surpassed him, or is simply different -- not necessarily farther, shorter, better, worse, beyond, etc. Those terms don't seem to me to have much meaning when engaged with past thinkers.

I will say that although Heidegger doesn't specifically discuss ethics (at least in my reading), ethics is still very much tied with the thoughts of the thinker in general. In this sense, I do argue that Heidegger was interested in something that is, in some ways, "bigger" than Nietzsche -- namely, being -- but even here it's difficult to say exactly why, other than the topic of being is literally everything since it permeates all beings -- including ethics. (Including music, nature, physics, matter, energy, God, etc., as well.)

Other than that I have no idea what "beyond" means in terms of Ethics. Niezsche's thinking on values, if anything, simply says we need to question the values of the past and create new ones for the future. He favors moralities of strength, courage, nobility, self-overcoming, creativity, pride, etc. There have been plenty who disagree, plenty who agree, plenty who come up with something different...

That's true. In terms of ethics, Heidegger, when talking about the authenticity of dasein, does seem to be talking in almost ethical terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this interpretation is justified. Heidegger seems almost Aristotelian in some ways, although he almost never speaks of happiness or the "good" or morals much, so far as I've read. I'd also argue that "authenticity" is related in some way with non-conformity, thinking outside the box, developing a style and identity for oneself, thinking for oneself, and things like that -- things which he mentions without moral judgments but which I and many others would consider "good" and valuable in many respects. It relates to skills and (good) habits that make up much of our lives, in fact. One can become an individual, spontaneous and situation-driven, without always needing to conform to the culture -- yet also not insane and inappropriate. By contrast, "inauthenticity" does seem rather bland, conforming, unthinking, unexamined, etc.

I don't think Heidegger puts it this way, but so far as I can tell it's as good an interpretation as any. What I know most in this case is from Hubert Dreyfus, who I think is a credible authority.

Heidegger goes beyond Nietzsche in some ways, but not necessarily in terms of ethics.

There was never a firm partition between science and philosophy. As academic disciplines they only became distinct relatively recently. Natural science used to be called Natural Philosophy (hence Ph.D.), and this nomenclature was a true reflection of the state of scholarship, which knew no boundaries between what we today call "science" and "philosophy." — SophistiCat

Very important to keep in mind.

And the GOP will be better positioned for the midterms than perhaps any party at any midterm ever. Seriously. This could be a midterm swing that approaches 1894 levels. — Baphomet

That's pure hysteria. The senate map in '22 looks decent for Democrats. 2024 isn't as good.