PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy thread


Pages : [1] 2 3

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 10:55 AM
I'm guessing since at least a good third of the board is in college, or has graduated college, it would be interesting to see how many people read, or are interested in philosophy.

See the poll above to give your input. Obviously 10 is a pretty limited # of theorists to choose from, but I tried to think of the heavy hitters.

Xonraider
05-02-2009, 11:05 AM
what poll?

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 11:21 AM
Give me a second hoss.

Also, sorry to leave out any eastern theorists, or most religion, but that's a bag of worms to itself.

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 11:25 AM
I vote post-structuralism. There is no objective truth. Everything is created through discourse. All things are fluid. The individual's sense of self is illusory. Perception creates reality.

Ya dig?

Addict
05-02-2009, 11:29 AM
I vote post-structuralism. There is no objective truth. Everything is created through discourse. All things are fluid. The individual's sense of self is illusory. Perception creates reality.

Ya dig?

my second favourite. I was really torn between Post-Structuralism (gotta love Nietszche, right?), but in the end I picked rationalism. But it's really close for me.

A Perfect Score
05-02-2009, 11:29 AM
We were actually having a great philosophy discussion in IRC the other day. I was telling Brent how my favorite philosopher is Machiavelli, and Brent called him a warmonger. People these days! But yes, of the options given, I've got to go with Existentialism, with Post Modernism a close second.

dabears10
05-02-2009, 11:30 AM
I went with social contract philosophy. Not because I think it makes the most sense but because it is the most interesting to me at this time.

Personally the most interesting part of philosophy discussion and in of itself is what philosophy has become and what can be defined as. Often trying to define the undefined while in my opinion being undefinable.

Addict
05-02-2009, 11:31 AM
We were actually having a great philosophy discussion in IRC the other day. I was telling Brent how my favorite philosopher is Machiavelli, and Brent called him a warmonger. People these days! But yes, of the options given, I've got to go with Existentialism, with Post Modernism a close second.

Macchiavelli was awesome. Even if he was a bit of a warmonger from time to time.

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 11:32 AM
We were actually having a great philosophy discussion in IRC the other day. I was telling Brent how my favorite philosopher is Machiavelli, and Brent called him a warmonger. People these days! But yes, of the options given, I've got to go with Existentialism, with Post Modernism a close second.
Machiavelli was anything but a warmonger. The whole point is to establish stability in society and thus decrease the likelyhood of rebellion.

A dick? Sure. But not a warmonger.

I considered putting him up there with the rational humanists, but he's a bit different in comparison to More and Erasmus.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Plato and Aristotle were totally awesome. I think Kant said a lot of useless stuff.

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Plato and Aristotle were totally awesome. I think Kant said a lot of useless stuff.
It depends on what you define as useless. Obviously Aristotle was wrong on about 99.9% of what he said (ie: people are made up of humors), but considering his period and what he had to work with, it's mighty impressive.

Kant was a piggy-backer to the Enlightenment. After the French Revolution he was discredited for a while, but most of the "rationalism" he espoused is still widely accepted today.

A Perfect Score
05-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Machiavelli was anything but a warmonger. The whole point is to establish stability in society and thus decrease the likelyhood of rebellion.

A dick? Sure. But not a warmonger.

I considered putting him up there with the rational humanists, but he's a bit different in comparison to More and Erasmus.

Again, thats what I was telling Brent, he wasnt a warmonger, he was an advocate of actually getting something done. He didnt dick around, he saw what he thought society should be and this was the way to go about getting to that point. If there was bloodshed, fine. But yes, I've read The Prince multiple times and he is my favorite philosopher to read. He had a very unique take on the world, and thats refreshing at times I find.

Brent
05-02-2009, 11:39 AM
It's definitely Ancient Philosophy for me. Socrates (through accounts), Plato and Aristotle, make up a large bulk of what I read in my rhetoric classes and I loved it. Locke had a lot of ideas I agreed with, and Kant was pretty awesome as well. Admittedly, I think the one who I share a lot of views with is probably Marx and Hegel.

Brent called him a warmonger
I did?

yourfavestoner
05-02-2009, 11:40 AM
Definitely, rationalism. Voltaire FTW.

ATLDirtyBirds
05-02-2009, 11:42 AM
Again, thats what I was telling Brent, he wasnt a warmonger, he was an advocate of actually getting something done. He didnt dick around, he saw what he thought society should be and this was the way to go about getting to that point. If there was bloodshed, fine. But yes, I've read The Prince multiple times and he is my favorite philosopher to read. He had a very unique take on the world, and thats refreshing at times I find.


I quite enjoy the Prince/Machiavelli myself. Of these, I'd say Rationalism.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 11:43 AM
im not quite sure, but Kant said a lot of weird stuff that was basically wrong lol.

the ones that come to my mind are "What is Enlightenment" and his idea of war and such

A Perfect Score
05-02-2009, 11:46 AM
It's definitely Ancient Philosophy for me. Socrates (through accounts), Plato and Aristotle, make up a large bulk of what I read in my rhetoric classes and I loved it. Locke had a lot of ideas I agreed with, and Kant was pretty awesome as well. Admittedly, I think the one who I share a lot of views with is probably Marx and Hegel.


I did?

You most certainly did you drunk bastard.

Brent
05-02-2009, 11:49 AM
You most certainly did you drunk bastard.
Yikes. Well, I was probably over-exaggerating my views. As was said above, he wanted to get **** done and prevent rebellion. I suppose "warmonger" wasnt the best choice. I would say ruthless was a trait he advocated. I'm more of the type that thinks we can solve all problems with discourse but some resort to violence, which is ridiculous.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 11:50 AM
Yikes. Well, I was probably over-exaggerating my views. As was said above, he wanted to get **** done and prevent rebellion. I suppose "warmonger" wasnt the best choice. I would say ruthless was a trait he advocated. I'm more of the type that thinks we can solve all problems with discourse but some resort to violence, which is ridiculous.
id agree with that statement

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 11:51 AM
im not quite sure, but Kant said a lot of weird stuff that was basically wrong lol.
I'm just guessing, but I would bet that Kant and Rationalism is especially denegrated in Germany post-Holocaust.

Americans tend to have a much more positive outlook on Rationalism, in part because they didn't suffer from a lot of its negative aspects in nearly the same way.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 11:53 AM
I'm just guessing, but I would bet that Kant and Rationalism is especially denegrated in Germany post-Holocaust.

Americans tend to have a much more positive outlook on Rationalism, in part because they didn't suffer from a lot of its negative aspects in nearly the same way.
nah its not about Rationalism, just Kant. I havent read enough of Voltaire or Descartes. im 18 after all. but the stuff we read from Kant were kinda weird and not really right lol.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Existentialism is where it's at.

Addict
05-02-2009, 12:24 PM
nah its not about Rationalism, just Kant. I havent read enough of Voltaire or Descartes. im 18 after all. but the stuff we read from Kant were kinda weird and not really right lol.

Kannt did have a pretty skewed view of the world, but that's mainly due to the fact that he not once in his life left his home town. All he knew of the world was what travellers and explorers who visited him, told him. With any philosopher, taking the circumstances around which they formulated their ideas into account is very important.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Kannt did have a pretty skewed view of the world, but that's mainly due to the fact that he not once in his life left his home town. All he knew of the world was what travellers and explorers who visited him, told him. With any philosopher, taking the circumstances around which they formulated their ideas into account is very important.
yea but his "what is enlightenment" thesis was bullcrap

Xiomera
05-02-2009, 12:29 PM
I'm a fan of this philosophy stuff. Some of it is fascinating.

There were many good poll options, but I have a particular appreciation for the Ancient Greeks since they were philosophizing (yes, I've made it a word) before modern science and were essentially theorizing things for the first time, not building off of the work of others.

Nietzche is a close second.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 12:34 PM
Aristotle was awesome. there is that one story of him going down the market and someone called him like an imposter and an asshole or something. he didnt react and when someone else asked him why he wasnt offended. he said: when someone says something, its either true or it is not. if its true, you shouldnt be offended cause well its true. if it isnt, well you know it isnt so why feel offended?

i really love that anecdote

Addict
05-02-2009, 12:34 PM
yea but his "what is enlightenment" thesis was bullcrap

not even gonna argue, his enlightenment-thesis wasn't his best work.

Addict
05-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Aristotle was awesome. there is that one story of him going down the market and someone called him like an imposter and an asshole or something. he didnt react and when someone else asked him why he wasnt offended. he said: when someone says something, its either true or it is not. if its true, you shouldnt be offended cause well its true. if it isnt, well you know it isnt so why feel offended?

i really love that anecdote

Aristotles greatest story, like Socrates, is the way he died. After years of sieging his city (Syracuse) the Romans finally got to the city. Centurion told his men "Find Aristotales, but do not hurt that great man". Anyhoo, soldier who finally found his home kicked the door down, and found him busy with experiments.
Basically, Aristotales was so pre-occupied with his work that he couldn't be bothered by trivial matters such as a Roman invasion or his door getting kicked down by a soldier.
The soldier was so upset because he was ignored that he killed one of the greatest minds in history. He got crucified for disobeying orders and killing an unarmed civilian.

CJSchneider
05-02-2009, 12:56 PM
As an educator, I had to go with John Locke.
My school e-mail signature line contains one of his quotes.
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth."

dabears10
05-02-2009, 01:14 PM
As an educator, I had to go with John Locke.
My school e-mail signature line contains one of his quotes.
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth."

Possession of what truth. That is the main problem. Also, why there was a progression in philosophy.

CJSchneider
05-02-2009, 01:16 PM
Possession of what truth.

And so the discussion begins - What is truth?

The_Dude
05-02-2009, 01:26 PM
And so the discussion begins - What is truth?

Truth is, i hate philosophy ;)

iowatreat54
05-02-2009, 01:27 PM
http://regularrumination.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/philosoraptor-thinks-about-food-full.jpg
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/DrxDrO/philo6.jpg

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-02-2009, 01:28 PM
And so the discussion begins - What is truth?

In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 01:31 PM
its not all about the experts. everyone has to find something for himself. if you discuss though, the truth is something that cant be argued against.

when someone says something is wrong u have to have to base your doubts on something. if u dont have anything you can say against that why should it be wrong

dabears10
05-02-2009, 01:32 PM
In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

This is kind of a very post modern thought. That perception creates a reality, or truth, and this perception you would argue is told to us by experts.

bearsfan_51
05-02-2009, 01:40 PM
This is kind of a very post modern thought. That perception creates a reality, or truth, and this perception you would argue is told to us by experts.
Not really. Postmodernists would say that discourse creates the supposed truth. The very concept of an "expert" is a complete social construction which comes from the manipulation of discourse, not from a supposed enlightened perspective.

I would also disagree with the premise. Most people in the world are actually staunchly anti-intellectual, particularly in the United States, where probably a good half the population doesn't belief in evolution. Expert that.

The problem with Locke, and most rationalists in my estimation, is that they never really define what 'rationalism' is (take truth out of the equation for a second, as even rationalists don't really belief in truth). The observer does not create the event, the event creates the self-perception of the observer, which is inherently unknowable except through discursive practices.

The idea that one has established a basis of rationality is completely self-illusory.

Gay Ork Wang
05-02-2009, 01:42 PM
I believe what ever jerry Angelo says

The Unseen
05-02-2009, 02:31 PM
I'm interested in Philosophy but have not read into much of it. Thus my vote is pending.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-02-2009, 02:31 PM
Example of current world "truth".

My doctors said Im 5'10, almost every where else says Im atleast 6'. Id say go to a gym or just make one on your wall and see how tall you really are

Or just believe the doctors? lol

Lol no Im a legit 6' probably more close to 6'1 now and I went to the doctors like 2 monthes ago

Brent
05-02-2009, 02:36 PM
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/DrxDrO/philo6.jpg
Congratulations, I will now be forced to think about this any time I hear about cloning. Also, this question is going to occupy my mind for a couple hours.

I decided to go with incest as a clone is a separate being.

CJSchneider
05-02-2009, 02:37 PM
I'm afraid I may not be able to discuss much here as I would no doubt take the discussion along a "religious/theological" route.

In regards to truth, truth is absolute, it transcends perspective.

The Unseen
05-02-2009, 02:38 PM
Wow, that actually is a good question. I'd go with incest, since although that person is your clone physically, they may think and act differently. But are we even sure of that?

Menardo75
05-02-2009, 02:41 PM
I am just finishing philosopy 101, and I really enjoyed learning about Kant probably my favorite. It was also interesting to learn about Marks, and Buddha.

the decider13
05-02-2009, 02:49 PM
Descartes and Voltaire are definately my favorites. I honestly don't know anything about Kant.

Je pense, donc je suis: I think, therefore I am

Jose Ortega y Gasset is another interesting one I hardly hear about.

Matthew Jones
05-02-2009, 11:23 PM
Can someone summarize the differences between the different poll options?

Brent
05-02-2009, 11:37 PM
Can someone summarize the differences between the different poll options?
the amount of effort and time required to do that exceeds the amount of time you could spend doing the reading on your own

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 11:18 AM
also Wikipedia. It died on the cross to save your sins, now SERVE IT WITH GLADNESS

Gay Ork Wang
05-03-2009, 11:31 AM
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/DrxDrO/philo3.jpg

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Totally slap in the face to objectivist not to be even mentioned...All kidding aside Ayn Rand is my favorite philosopher to read, while she's an idealist her ideals are so simply awesome that it's tough not to appreciate. Machiavelli's fasinating and I'll always love Voltaire, Nietzsche, Sartre and Descartes.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 01:20 PM
In our world today, truth is popular consensus of "experts". Whatever the majority of "experts" believes in is truth. Because most people don't have the expertise and knowledge in the subject in question, they are almost forced to believe what a higher being in society tells them. This is what truth is today in our world, a belief in the words of the "experts".

There are different types of truths. There are some truths that are so specific that one can't help but use the "experts" as a base for truth without delving into extensive research and experimentation. However there are also truths that each person must discover for themselves which subjective, in these matters while "experts" may exist, their "knowledge" is highly incomplete and thus I feel it is a truth one can only find for himself.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 01:25 PM
Wow, that actually is a good question. I'd go with incest, since although that person is your clone physically, they may think and act differently. But are we even sure of that?

The answer depends on whether your clone is simply a biological copy, in which case it would be incest, or whether that clone would also have my memories and my reactions to my memories, because that would most likely leave the clone with my personality at which point he and I would be the same, thus making it masturbation.

Brent
05-03-2009, 03:04 PM
Totally slap in the face to objectivist not to be even mentioned...All kidding aside Ayn Rand is my favorite philosopher to read
1) I do not like Objectivism.
2) I hated reading Ayn Rand.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 03:14 PM
Ayn Rand is trash.

That said, objectivism is basically just a mis-mash of existentialism, empiricism, and rationalism. There's nothing new to it, other than she's a terrible writer.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 03:53 PM
ouch guys, and I thought we were friends.

Vox Populi
05-03-2009, 03:54 PM
I'll let you know next year when I'm studying it more ;)

Brodeur
05-03-2009, 04:14 PM
I ******* despise all theories of Personal Identity, and to answer the question in hand, I've always enjoyed reading Marx's theories so I just went with him for the hell of it.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 04:24 PM
I ******* despise all theories of Personal Identity, and to answer the question in hand, I've always enjoyed reading Marx's theories so I just went with him for the hell of it.

I agree. Marxism gets a bad rep from the general public because of asshole individuals taking it to extremes.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 04:29 PM
I agree. Marxism gets a bad rep from the general public because of asshole individuals taking it to extremes.

that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 04:33 PM
that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

Well, I think for a basis of society it is good theory, but obviously as society progresses it will become less necessary/applicable.

But as a side note, in all honestly, a good amount of people are complete morons, and telling them how to run their life would prolly be better than them trying to do it themselves.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 04:42 PM
Well, I think for a basis of society it is good theory, but obviously as society progresses it will become less necessary/applicable.

But as a side note, in all honestly, a good amount of people are complete morons, and telling them how to run their life would prolly be better than them trying to do it themselves.

I just can't vibe with the idea that you can end up with a good result even if you run the morons lives completely. My belief is that the only way to better the lives of morons is to make them entirely responsible for themselves so that they have to learn and improve and start thinking for themselves, and those that fail to do those things I don't think are worth worrying about barring a close personal relationship. I think that the quote by Herbet Spencer that "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” sums things up perfectly. Since my greatest issue with morons isn't even that they lack brain power, but that they don't exercise the brain power they do have.

As for communism as a theory I guess it's sweet, I just don't think it can work with humans, we're simply not altruistic and without an altruistic nature there's no incentive to bust your ass and be all you can be. Now there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are a minuscule portion of the populace.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 04:48 PM
I just can't vibe with the idea that you can end up with a good result even if you run the morons lives completely. My belief is that the only way to better the lives of morons is to make them entirely responsible for themselves so that they have to learn and improve and start thinking for themselves, and those that fail to do those things I don't think are worth worrying about barring a close personal relationship.

As for communism as a theory I guess it's sweet, I just don't think it can work with humans, we're simply not altruistic and without an altruistic nature there's no incentive to bust your ass and be all you can be. Now there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are a minuscule portion of the populace.

I can completely agree with that. I don't think a group should have control over everything you do or the choices you make.

I just like Marxism as a basic principle that the good of the group > the good of the individual. Mainly because one of my biggest pet peeves is individuals that cannot see anything beyond themselves at the moment.

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 04:52 PM
Speaking of structuralism, I believe the linguistics department I will be apart of is Chomskyan in approach, so I'll be exposed to that in awhile.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 04:52 PM
I can completely agree with that. I don't think a group should have control over everything you do or the choices you make.

I just like Marxism as a basic principle that the good of the group > the good of the individual. Mainly because one of my biggest pet peeves is individuals that cannot see anything beyond themselves at the moment.

I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 04:56 PM
I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

Yes, I don't necessarily agree that the group is greater than the individual, but just that in some cases the good of the group is greater than the good of the individual. In my experience, the great majority of people make decisions that will usually result in short term benefit to themselves while sacrificing a long term benefit for society.

irishbucsfan
05-03-2009, 04:59 PM
I get that, I just think you're peeving at the very nature of humanity. That said I don't really care if a person is acting selfishly as long as they aren't blinded by short-term selfish pursuits, since I don't agree with the notion that the group is greater than the individual and find the idea of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the masses to be repulsive.

Why? I find blanket statements like that to be repulsive.

Addict
05-03-2009, 05:19 PM
Marxism is a bit iffy since it's kind of a hybrid between a philosophy and an economic model, with a massive political movement that spawned from it.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Has anybody read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins?

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 05:32 PM
The degree to which some of you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet claim to have absolute knowledge, is depressing.

Addict
05-03-2009, 05:34 PM
The degree to which some of you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet claim to have absolute knowledge, is depressing.

I think you forgot to quote someone there. I have no idea who you're typing to.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-03-2009, 05:34 PM
that and the ridiculous assumptions that man can function for the benefit of others rather than himself or that a group of individuals can know how to run someone's life better than that person.

It's because people are not good judges of themselves(most of the time). They tend to overrate their abilities and perceive themselves as better than they actually are. I'm not saying this for everyone, because some can judge their own abilities within reason, but for the most part people overrate themselves because that's where they want to be.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 05:34 PM
Marxism is a bit iffy since it's kind of a hybrid between a philosophy and an economic model, with a massive political movement that spawned from it.

Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 05:37 PM
I think you forgot to quote someone there. I have no idea who you're typing to.
I wouldn't be so rude as to publicly call out anyone. It's more of a general statement against some of the blanket statements which are dripping with unjustifiable arrogance.

It's philosophy people. It's never black and white.

Except for Ayn Rand. She's trash.

Addict
05-03-2009, 05:39 PM
Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

well not good probably, I mean his ideas revolved around the working class going into a mass revolt. Most states that are now considered 'marxist' were actually founded on leninist principles, with a relatively small, zealous group of well-trained revolutionaries doing the dirty work.

Marx would not have been amused by the butchering of his ideas.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 05:41 PM
Which is why I put social materialism instead of Marxism, but I agree for the most part.

It's also arguable how much the political movement had to do with the writing of Marx, or how he would have felt about many of the "communist" regimes.

Yea, I didn't want to risk getting into any political talks and ruin the thread, but like I said before, the general public associates Marxism with extreme cases of individuals and politics that stem from it.

If you look at Marxism just as a basic social theory, it is much different from what people associate with things such as communism.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 05:42 PM
Why? I find blanket statements like that to be repulsive.

I think the individual is the greatest strength of mankind and believe that unimpeded genius is what has driven us out of caves and formed our dominion of this planet. To me the group is only as strong as the members of that group and how well they perform their role so I have quality over quantity-ish feelings toward human beings, I'll also be the first to admit I'm a very low quality human being. I tend to avoid excessive generalizations, but in the case of the individual I break from that pattern. To put it bluntly individual genius is my god. Now I completely understand that most of our great accomplishments where the results of groups working together to accomplish a common end, but what is the most important part of that to me is that those groups are a collection of individuals who for their own varying reasons chose to come together and bring to life the visions of a select few.

Yes, I don't necessarily agree that the group is greater than the individual, but just that in some cases the good of the group is greater than the good of the individual. In my experience, the great majority of people make decisions that will usually result in short term benefit to themselves while sacrificing a long term benefit for society.

I find that very often much long term harm is the result of large groups trying to act for the benefit of others. The idea that the path to hell is paved with good intentions rings true in a different way than it's normally interpreted to me. So while I certainly see that same self-destructive short sightedness that many people seem to be afflicted by, I see far greater and more powerful evil being created as the result of a large groups attempts to help a situation that they simply do not understand. I don't intend for this to get political and so if a mod finds it to be such please removing the following, but I just can't help to think of our war on poverty and how damaging that has been to the atmosphere of progress that the american dream initially entailed. I understand that people don't mean to cause harm but so often people's good intentions mess with the natural balances and incentives of a situation to degrees they never could have predicted or intended and so often a situation just stagnates or worsens because we as a group intervene when had we left the situation alone and perhaps only had individuals work for the result we desire in their own ways I feel we would've progrosed far quicker and the situation that had us so worried would have been resolved more effectively and promptly.

Sorry for the rant guys but yesterday kicked my ass, so I'm still not running at maximum efficiency.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 05:51 PM
It's because people are not good judges of themselves(most of the time). They tend to overrate their abilities and perceive themselves as better than they actually are. I'm not saying this for everyone, because some can judge their own abilities within reason, but for the most part people overrate themselves because that's where they want to be.

I agree that many people are poor judges of their themselves, however I think that the group is just as horrible of a judge as individuals are. Which is why I view failure as such an important thing since failure is a true and honest judge. If we let people fail they would a) better learn their own limitations and b) provide further cautionary tales for future generations. Yet we as a society seem to have this great desire to defeat failure in all cases.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 05:54 PM
I think the individual is the greatest strength of mankind and believe that unimpeded genius is what has driven us out of caves and formed our dominion of this planet.
Ironic, considering that what drove us out of caves was the formation of hunter-gatherer tribes in which the collective unit hunted and shared its profits equally.

To put it bluntly individual genius is my god. Now I completely understand that most of our great accomplishments where the results of groups working together to accomplish a common end, but what is the most important part of that to me is that those groups are a collection of individuals who for their own varying reasons chose to come together and bring to life the visions of a select few.
Which is how a collective entity always works. You just described Marxism.

I find that very often much long term harm is the result of large groups trying to act for the benefit of others. The idea that the path to hell is paved with good intentions rings true in a different way than it's normally interpreted to me. So while I certainly see that same self-destructive short sightedness that many people seem to be afflicted by, I see far greater and more powerful evil being created as the result of a large groups attempts to help a situation that they simply do not understand. I don't intend for this to get political and so if a mod finds it to be such please removing the following, but I just can't help to think of our war on poverty and how damaging that has been to the atmosphere of progress that the american dream initially entailed. I understand that people don't mean to cause harm but so often people's good intentions mess with the natural balances and incentives of a situation to degrees they never could have predicted or intended and so often a situation just stagnates or worsens because we as a group intervene when had we left the situation alone and perhaps only had individuals work for the result we desire in their own ways I feel we would've progrosed far quicker and the situation that had us so worried would have been resolved more effectively and promptly.

A fair opinion, although I think you are putting WAY too much stock in the equity of the human condition. The "war on poverty" (if you could even call our joke of a social welfare system that), is not intent upon stifling individual initiative, but rather giving people a chance to better themselves and in turn, society. It's such a lazy cop-out to attack the help given to those we feel are undeserving simply because one cannot understand their plight. The vast VAST majority of people who succeed in this world do so to a very small degree because of their individual talents. You must also dislike roads, clean water, meat inspectors, etc.

"Progress" is an incredibly vague term btw, so you'd probably serve yourself well to define exactly what you mean. Herbert Spencer, for example, believed in the utilitarian standard of ultimate value, but never really defined what exactly that meant. Similarly, Adam Smith spoke of the invisible hand of the market, but never actually defined what that meant. I'm curious how exactly others benefit by people doing what is entirely in their self-interests, or how we even define utilitarian interests.


This is also my critique of Rand (among many many others). She never actually deals with the fact that people have multiple, often competing individual objectives. It's such a vague and sophmoric way of trying to completely justify self-serving behavior without any attempt to underline what exactly that entails.

Addict
05-03-2009, 05:56 PM
I agree that many people are poor judges of their themselves, however I think that the group is just as horrible of a judge as individuals are. Which is why I view failure as such an important thing since failure is a true and honest judge. If we let people fail they would a) better learn their own limitations and b) provide further cautionary tales for future generations. Yet we as a society seem to have this great desire to defeat failure in all cases.

the key word being society. since it depends on everyone, the better everyone does, the better off anyone is.
And about judging, I think the problem lies in people believing that their successes or faillures define them. I don't really buy into that. I define me. So I'm perfectly fine with being extremely critical of myself. I know what kind of person I want to be, and if I don't do things accoridingly (for better or for worse) I'll give myself hell for it. Could just be me though, I tend to feel better than the rest of mankind.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:01 PM
See, like I believe bf51 briefly mentioned, society isn't so much trying to put down individual progression and success, but are trying to help those who are less fortunate, or as Mr. Hero is putting, 'failing'.

Additionally, a group working together toward a common goal is much more efficient than individuals working alone, even if they have the same goal.

Brent
05-03-2009, 06:02 PM
Has anybody read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins?
Yes, I was going to mention one of the ideas from the book, where acting altruistically is beneficial not only to others in the group but also to ourselves. You can see this not only in early human history (hunter-gatherers) but with the other 4 apes in the animal kingdom. Hell, even early agrarian societies were sharing everything.

Except for Ayn Rand. She's trash.
If I had no problem with having a large sig, this quote would be in there.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Yes, I was going to mention one of the ideas from the book, where acting altruistically is beneficial not only to others in the group but also to ourselves. You can see this not only in early human history (hunter-gatherers) but with the other 4 apes in the animal kingdom. Hell, even early agrarian societies were sharing everything.


he really makes a good point. Selflessness doesn't exist, we do things for others for our own benefit. It makes us feel better to make others feel better.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 06:08 PM
A fair opinion, although I think you are putting WAY too much stock in the equity of the human condition. The "war on poverty" (if you could even call our joke of a social welfare system that), is not intent upon stifling individual initiative, but rather giving people a chance to better themselves and in turn, society. It's such a lazy cop-out to attack the help given to those we feel are undeserving simply because one cannot understand their plight. The vast VAST majority of people who succeed in this world do so to a very small degree because of their individual talents. You must also dislike roads, clean water, meat inspectors, etc.

This discussion is pretty interesting. Excuse me if I sound ignorant because my only philosophy training is a couple university courses which I slept through.

I'm just wondering about the bolded part of your statement. Could you go into more detail about why you believe this because intuitively it seems to be the exact opposite for me.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:09 PM
he really makes a good point. Selflessness doesn't exist, we do things for others for our own benefit. It makes us feel better to make others feel better.

Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.

Brent
05-03-2009, 06:11 PM
he really makes a good point. Selflessness doesn't exist, we do things for others for our own benefit. It makes us feel better to make others feel better.
Well, I like the idea because it makes a lot of sense to me. My reward in helping others is not only something that gives me personal pleasure but I'm also rewarded if it's to the benefit of society as a whole. Of course, as I go down this road, I likely end up talking about socialism and that would get some people here's panties in a twist. I won't say there isnt selflessness because people do things that are selfless all the time.

Dr. Gonzo
05-03-2009, 06:14 PM
Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.

I am not trying to save selflessness doesn't exist but I am sure the fact that a soldier who does that will be remembered as a hero plays a role. Many people just want to be remembered after death as throwing oneself on a grenade assures that. Now I am sure that isn't the only reason someone would do that and I am not even saying it is the main reason but on some level it is a self serving action.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:16 PM
Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.

Well, see, imo this gets into how you interpret the idea of 'yourself' (I can't think of a better term at the moment).

If you view yourself and self benefit as something you obtain while you are alive and can personally experience, then I would agree with you. However, you can view the benefit even after death. While the act of jumping on the grenade is to save others, it can still offer benefit to one's name and legacy after the fact. So, while the intent may not be that, it still can be the outcome. Which would ask is selflessness in the intent or the outcome?

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I am not trying to save selflessness doesn't exist but I am sure the fact that a soldier who does that will be remembered as a hero plays a role. Many people just want to be remembered after death as throwing oneself on a grenade assures that. Now I am sure that isn't the only reason someone would do that and I am not even saying it is the main reason but on some level it is a self serving action.

So what are you saying? It's not the only or main reason, but that for some small reason it is done for glory? Yeah, I'm calling ******** on that one.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 06:21 PM
Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.
How many colors exist in your world?

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:22 PM
Well, see, imo this gets into how you interpret the idea of 'yourself' (I can't think of a better term at the moment).

If you view yourself and self benefit as something you obtain while you are alive and can personally experience, then I would agree with you. However, you can view the benefit even after death. While the act of jumping on the grenade is to save others, it can still offer benefit to one's name and legacy after the fact. So, while the intent may not be that, it still can be the outcome. Which would ask is selflessness in the intent or the outcome?

Because one sees the value of another or more then one life (comrade/ comrades) as being worth more then one's own (self), selflessness exists.

Dr. Gonzo
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
So what are you saying? It's not the only or main reason, but that for some small reason it is done for glory? Yeah, I'm calling ******** on that one.

I am just saying throwing oneself on a grenade is not always a selfless act. I am not saying it is not an honorable act. I am not saying someone who throws himself on a grenade should not be considered a hero. I am saying that it isn't always done just for the good of others. Now I am not inside other peoples heads and nobody can really know for sure what someone is thinking before dying to save others after making a split second decision but I suspect that glory does play a part in some cases and I am sure glory has played a main role in some cases. I also think it is likely that many times glory doesn't play any kind of role at all.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Really, so the soldier who throws himself on the grenade and gives his life for his "brothers in arms" does so because it will make him feel better? Sorry, selflessness exists.

that's the exception, not the rule. It's not a universal truth (I don't believe in that either) but the reason we view a guy like that as a hero is because it's exceptional. Which in turn indicates that rare acts of selflessness are highly appreciated by society as a whole, which in turn creates an incentive for others to be selfless too.

Also, guys who throw themselves on grenades to save their brothers in arms are badass.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
How many colors exist in your world?

I'm afraid I don't follow you there?

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:26 PM
that's the exception, not the rule. It's not a universal truth (I don't believe in that either) but the reason we view a guy like that as a hero is because it's exceptional. Which in turn indicates that rare acts of selflessness are highly appreciated by society as a whole, which in turn creates an incentive for others to be selfless too.

Also, guys who throw themselves on grenades to save their brothers in arms are badass.

Which will limit my involvement here for obvious religious reasons

I never said true selflessness was an everyday occurrence, and I do get your point, but if I can prove that anything, regardless of what it is, is rare, I have still proved its existence.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Because one sees the value of another or more then one life (comrade/ comrades) as being worth more then one's own (self), selflessness exists.

I agree, it does exist. But complete selflessness does not. Sacrificing yourself for others is an act of selflessness, but because your name and legacy is benefited, even a little bit, from the act, it is not an act of complete selflessness. That's how I view it anyway, and it's not to take away from the act itself.

But like bf51 bluntly stated, there is no such thing as black and white. You can't be 100% selfless or 100% selfish. It will always fall somewhere in between.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 06:29 PM
This discussion is pretty interesting. Excuse me if I sound ignorant because my only philosophy training is a couple university courses which I slept through.

I'm just wondering about the bolded part of your statement. Could you go into more detail about why you believe this because intuitively it seems to be the exact opposite for me.
Well, I guess it would require me to define what exactly 'success' is, which honestly I'm uncomfortable doing.

But let's say that it's some type of material benefit, and eschew the immaterial. I could come up with lots of anecdotal examples, but then I'd be no better than anyone else that I'm accusing of being far too rigid in their thinking.

So, let's start from a few basic premises. Everyone is involved in some type of societal and governmental system. The efficiency and guidelines of that system will greatly affect the degree to which that person is able to succeed or not succeed personally. In the absence of any structure, it is almost completely arbitrary. People like to act like the absence of governmental structure promotes individual success, but in fact it's absolutely the opposite. It's called anarchy, it doesn't work.

Taking it a step further, assuming all governmental systems are equal, how does one succeed within that society? Do they do it purely on their own initiative? Of course not. As we've already established, one of the great promoters of invidual success is the structure of society. Furthermore, even working within that system, it's clear that those who are born with great advantages will likely do much better in life than those that aren't. A basic comparison of societal bifurcation would score that point home.

I'm not saying people can't improve their lives (again, assuming we can really define what that means). Nor am I saying that people should march in lockstep to whatever is declared the "will of the people", which is one of the main reason why totalitarian socialism never works. What I am saying, however, is the Herbert Spencer ethos about utilitarian individualism is a complete myth. It has never existed, it never will.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:30 PM
Which will limit my involvement here for obvious religious reasons

I understand that. I put it between whatever these things are called in enlish () because I didn't want to drag religion into it, just wanted to indicate where I was coming from.

I never said true selflessness was an everyday occurrence, and I do get your point, but if I can prove that anything, regardless of what it is, is rare, I have still proved its existence.

I guess I didn't really translate my thoughts very well. You're correct in saying it does exist. Even though I do think that even appearent selflessness has, to a certain extent, selfish motivations.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:33 PM
I agree, it does exist. But complete selflessness does not. Sacrificing yourself for others is an act of selflessness, but because your name and legacy is benefited, even a little bit, from the act, it is not an act of complete selflessness. That's how I view it anyway, and it's not to take away from the act itself.

But like bf51 bluntly stated, there is no such thing as black and white. You can't be 100% selfless or 100% selfish. It will always fall somewhere in between.

But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:36 PM
But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.

okay trying hard not to drag religion into this, I'm sure you'll do the same. But how does that work?

I mean, I can't bring myself to believe that there is something as simple as pure evil or pure good. I'm just curious of how that works in your mind.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Well, I guess it would require me to define what exactly 'success' is, which honestly I'm uncomfortable doing.

But let's say that it's some type of material benefit, and eschew the immaterial. I could come up with lots of anecdotal examples, but then I'd be no better than anyone else that I'm accusing of being far too rigid in their thinking.

So, let's start from a few basic premises. Everyone is involved in some type of societal and governmental system. The efficiency and guidelines of that system will greatly affect the degree to which that person is able to succeed or not succeed personal. In the absence of any structure, it is almost completely arbitrary. People like to act like the absence of governmental structure promotes individual success, but in fact it's absolutely the opposite. It's called anarchy, it doesn't work.

Taking it a step further, assuming all governmental systems are equal, how does one succeed within that society? Do they do it purely on their own initiative? Of course not. As we've already established, one of the great promoters of invidual success is the structure of society. Furthermore, even working within that system, it's clear that those who are born with great advantages will likely do much better in life than those that don't. A basic comparison of societal bifurcation would score that point home.

I'm not saying people can't improve their lives (again, assuming we can really define what that means). Nor am I saying that people should march in lockstep to whatever is declared the "will of the people", which is one of the main reason why totalitarian socialism never works. What I am saying, however, is the Herbert Spencer ethos about utilitarian individualism is a complete myth. It has never existed, it never will.

I understand that one's success is not determined solely by their own actions. Obviously the structure you pointed out is necessary. However, the structure is the same for everybody. For example, a homeless person and a rich person are operating within the same political system in the US.

Now obviously the situation you are born into has a lot to do with your success. That said, I think you're undermining the individual quite a bit, particularly in this day and age where the barriers to monetary success have dropped quite a bit. I just read a statistic that said 2/3rds of the world's billionaires are self-made. I'm sure the millionaire statistic would be similar if not even bigger. I think that points to individual merit having a ton to do with success.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:37 PM
But you do. In saying that when one gives all of one's self they do so with some glimmer of belief in personal gain, you take away from that act, especially if it is total selflessness.


I disagree. I do believe that absolutes can exist.

I don't see it as taking away from the act, though. I believe that sacrificing one's life for others is the most honorable thing you can do in life.

Your 2nd part is where we disagree. Because I do not believe in absolutes, I do not see it as taking away from the act.

Even though the self benefit is unintentional, it still exists. So, imo, while it can be selfless in intent, the act itself cannot be 100% selfless.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 06:39 PM
I understand that one's success is not determined solely by their own actions. Obviously the structure you pointed out is necessary. However, the structure is the same for anybody. For example, a homeless person and a rich person are operating within the same political system in the US.
False. A homeless person has drastically different legal rights than someone that's rich.

Now obviously the situation you are born into has a lot to do with your success. That said, I think you're undermining the individual quite a bit, particularly in this day and age where the barriers to monetary success have dropped quite a bit.
This is one of the most economically disparate societies in the last few centuries.

As for the billionaire statistic, I would only really be able to address that if provided the source, to see what exactly their guidelines are.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:40 PM
okay trying hard not to drag religion into this, I'm sure you'll do the same. But how does that work?

I mean, I can't bring myself to believe that there is something as simple as pure evil or pure good. I'm just curious of how that works in your mind.

This may be that one instance where I can not do so without bring religion into the argument of true selflessness. It may also be why I reacted so strongly.
I will concede to the point that selflessness in a vast majority of situations serves the self in other means if you will concede that true selflessness, in extremely rare cases, exists.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:44 PM
I don't see it as taking away from the act, though. I believe that sacrificing one's life for others is the most honorable thing you can do in life.

Your 2nd part is where we disagree. Because I do not believe in absolutes, I do not see it as taking away from the act.

Even though the self benefit is unintentional, it still exists. So, imo, while it can be selfless in intent, the act itself cannot be 100% selfless.

Explain how the unintentional self benefit in giving your life for another works.

Brent
05-03-2009, 06:45 PM
False. A homeless person has drastically different legal rights than someone that's rich.
You beat me to this. I was about to say, poor people have the police crash their doors in and are dragged out in cuffs and then provided court-appointed attorneys who are often under-paid and overworked. Meanwhile, "white-collar criminals" or whatever term you would like to use are brought in by police typically in a "polite" manner. Then their money allows for them to afford lawyers who are often far more talented at what they do than court-appointed attorneys.

This is one of the most economically disparate societies in the last few centuries.
Again, something you beat me to. The likelihood of someone moving up from one class to a higher one is very unlikely. Not to mention that the possession of wealth in America is almost entirely concentrated in about 1-2% of the people in our society.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:46 PM
I don't see it as taking away from the act, though. I believe that sacrificing one's life for others is the most honorable thing you can do in life.


So, there is absolutely nothing more honorable?

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:47 PM
This may be that one instance where I can not do so without bring religion into the argument of true selflessness. It may also be why I reacted so strongly.

Good to see you stand up for what you believe. I do understand why you reacted the way you did.

I will concede to the point that selflessness in a vast majority of situations serves the self in other means if you will concede that true selflessness, in extremely rare cases, exists.

As I stated earlier, I don't believe in absolutes, and because of that I can't concede to that point. I'll happily concede that in extremely rare cases there is a selflessness that is nearly truly selfless, but that's as far as I'll go. If you believe it does that's absolutely your right, and we should (calmly) discuss absolutes on IRC sometime.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 06:47 PM
What about, instead of sacrificing your own life, you decide to live and then develop a cure for cancer? Would that not be more honorable?

Just something to consider. ;)

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:47 PM
Explain how the unintentional self benefit in giving your life for another works.

Like I said before, the intent of the act can be solely for the benefit of others. However, in hindsight, the act can give the individual immaterial benefit. In the case of jumping on the grenade, in hind sight, many will view it as a heroic act, and in return, the individual's name and legacy will benefit from it.

Which is why I proposed whether selflessness is in the intent or the outcome? Personally, I take into account both in order to make a decision, rather than looking at individual components.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 06:48 PM
False. A homeless person has drastically different legal rights than someone that's rich.

Really? I thought all citizens were equal under the law?

Anyways, I think you get my point. If you come from a poor family, you're still operating under the same political system asa middle-class family. Sure, they likely have some advantages, but you surely are not precluded from success due to your situation.

As for the billionaire statistic, I would only really be able to address that if provided the source, to see what exactly their guidelines are.

The billionaire statistic was from Forbes so I'm assuming it's pretty reliable: http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html

According to this article 80% of millionaires are "first generation affluent": http://ca.askmen.com/money/successful/53_success.html

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:49 PM
So, there is absolutely nothing more honorable?

I see what you did there :o

Brent
05-03-2009, 06:50 PM
What about, instead of sacrificing your own life, you decide to live and then develop a cure for cancer? Would that not be more honorable?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if someone is in the military, being a cancer biologist isn't exactly a career path they are likely to take.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if someone is in the military, being a cancer biologist isn't exactly a career path they are likely to take.

funny coincidence that you make this point in a DRAFT forum.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:52 PM
Good to see you stand up for what you believe. I do understand why you reacted the way you did.



As I stated earlier, I don't believe in absolutes, and because of that I can't concede to that point. I'll happily concede that in extremely rare cases there is a selflessness that is nearly truly selfless, but that's as far as I'll go. If you believe it does that's absolutely your right, and we should (calmly) discuss absolutes on IRC sometime.

I am intelligent enough to say I'll meet you that far.

Addict
05-03-2009, 06:54 PM
I am intelligent enough to say I'll meet you that far.

By the way, I re-read my own post after reading yours and noticed that I used the words "it's absolutely your right"... how's that for bad phrasing?

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 06:55 PM
So, there is absolutely nothing more honorable?

No, it is not absolutely the most honorable. It is my opinion that it is the most honorable, but the fact that I know that 100% of people do not feel the same way is what makes it not absolute in my mind.

IMO, absolutes is all about perception. The fact that I recognize something that I believe as something that not every one agrees with makes it not absolute.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Like I said before, the intent of the act can be solely for the benefit of others. However, in hindsight, the act can give the individual immaterial benefit. In the case of jumping on the grenade, in hind sight, many will view it as a heroic act, and in return, the individual's name and legacy will benefit from it.

Which is why I proposed whether selflessness is in the intent or the outcome? Personally, I take into account both in order to make a decision, rather than looking at individual components.

How does a dead person have hindsight? For your information, dead people do not benefit from a legacy.

Now, your counter would be "No, but they guy who jumps could think of that benfit to his family."

I could agree that could be possible.
Now convince me that happens 100% of the time.
Remember, you said there are no absolutes.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 06:58 PM
Really? I thought all citizens were equal under the law?
You thought wrong. That's pretty naive honestly.



The billionaire statistic was from Forbes so I'm assuming it's pretty reliable: http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html

According to this article 80% of millionaires are "first generation affluent": http://ca.askmen.com/money/successful/53_success.html
You don't think that Forbes magazine, owned by Steve Forbes, grandson of B.C. Forbes, wouldn't have a bit of a bias? Forbes is the lapdog of capitalism. They actually call themselves the "capitalist tool." That would be like me providing the Communist Manifesto to argue the capitalism is bad.

I'm not doubting the cases of individual initiative. But I do severely question the lack of bias from Forbes magazine about the virtues of capitalism. It's also a bit arbitrary to point to a few individuals to argue what is a much broader argument, but I suppose that is part of the disconnect.

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 06:58 PM
No, it is not absolutely the most honorable. It is my opinion that it is the most honorable, but the fact that I know that 100% of people do not feel the same way is what makes it not absolute in my mind.

IMO, absolutes is all about perception. The fact that I recognize something that I believe as something that not every one agrees with makes it not absolute.

I think it's contradictory to say that something is most honorable then say it's not because other people think the other way. You are entitled to have an opinion which makes a generalization. It's not absolute in the sense that it's not provable fact, but if you think it, think it.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 07:00 PM
No, it is not absolutely the most honorable. It is my opinion that it is the most honorable, but the fact that I know that 100% of people do not feel the same way is what makes it not absolute in my mind.

IMO, absolutes is all about perception. The fact that I recognize something that I believe as something that not every one agrees with makes it not absolute.

Absolutes, like truth transcend perception.

The fact that you can not believe in something absolutely because not 100% of everyone else does, makes any argument in the future (here) suspect IMO.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 07:02 PM
How does a dead person have hindsight? For your information, dead people do not benefit from a legacy.

Now, your counter would be "No, but they guy who jumps could think of that benfit to his family."

I could agree that could be possible.
Now convince me that happens 100% of the time.
Remember, you said there are no absolutes.

If you reread what I said, it depends on your perception of self benefit. No, the material body/character does not benefit. Yes, the legacy/name of the person does benefit. IMO, the legacy/name is not separate from the material person. So, even though someone who is dead does not physically benefit from their actions, their legacy and name in the future do, even though they are dead.

Again, like I said, it depends on if you interpret the benefit as something you yourself can physically experience while alive, or whether you consider any benefit after you have passed as well. And imo, I believe the latter.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:04 PM
How does a dead person have hindsight? For your information, dead people do not benefit from a legacy.

Now, your counter would be "No, but they guy who jumps could think of that benfit to his family."

I could agree that could be possible.
Now convince me that happens 100% of the time.
Remember, you said there are no absolutes.

ok just a heads-up, but this is going to turn into a semantics debate real fast if we don't adress this. Not believing in absolutes doesn't mean that we can't say something never, ever happens. In fact, quite the opposite (If I were any good at math I could probably think of a great example, but I suck a math so I'll try to do it without).

_______________________ - this line is selfish




_______________________ - this line is selfless

now the way I belive things to be is that everything happens between those lines, but never one them, things can be very near the line, but never on the line. So there is no absolute selfishness, or absolute selflessness. There's things that come extremely close to it, but no such thing as an absolute.

Things are never black or white, but always a shade of grey.

PS: I realise that 'no such thing' in itself is an absolute, but that's what I ment with semantics, it's not really what we (or at least, I) mean.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 07:04 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if someone is in the military, being a cancer biologist isn't exactly a career path they are likely to take.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cudK8MwW64I/Sdv5UZQGp_I/AAAAAAAAPhM/I2Yes2StMLk/s400/Outbreak_movie.jpg

A small jump, but it helps prove a point. I'm gonna say it's possible.

Brent
05-03-2009, 07:05 PM
A small jump, but it helps prove a point. I'm gonna say it's possible.
I never said it was impossible, just unlikely.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 07:07 PM
ok just a heads-up, but this is going to turn into a semantics debate real fast if we don't adress this. Not believing in absolutes doesn't mean that we can't say something never, ever happens. In fact, quite the opposite (If I were any good at math I could probably think of a great example, but I suck a math so I'll try to do it without).

_______________________ - this line is selfish




_______________________ - this line is selfless

now the way I belive things to be is that everything happens between those lines, but never one them, things can be very near the line, but never on the line. So there is no absolute selfishness, or absolute selflessness. There's things that come extremely close to it, but no such thing as an absolute.

Things are never black or white, but always a shade of grey.

PS: I realise that 'no such thing' in itself is an absolute, but that's what I ment with semantics, it's not really what we (or at least, I) mean.

And that may be a real sticking point for us. I belief that black and white do exist in regards to our present discussion. I'm not saying that they aren't statistically extremely rare. But they do exist IMO.

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 07:07 PM
Just in a general response, this gets back to my belief that the individual is not greater than society. Just because I believe something does not mean it is absolute in my opinion because I know that my beliefs are not perfect and that others will not agree with me.

So, imo, just because I think something is the best or highest ranking, I do not believe it's absolutely the best because it is not 100% consensual.

the decider13
05-03-2009, 07:08 PM
Like I said before, the intent of the act can be solely for the benefit of others. However, in hindsight, the act can give the individual immaterial benefit. In the case of jumping on the grenade, in hind sight, many will view it as a heroic act, and in return, the individual's name and legacy will benefit from it.


Who has time to think that they need to jump on a grenade so that they have a heroic legacy?

I also find it kind of odd that you say there are no absolutes, yet you are saying that absolutely no one can be completely selfless. Just something I noticed, jumping in on the thread late.

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 07:09 PM
I'm not trying to butt in here, but isn't self-sacrifice based on the belief that the cause for which they die is the most important thing? Thus, in a way it is selfish for a person to sacrifice because they want their cause to continue, as opposed to the benefit of their continued existence in the lives of others. It is selfless from the common view that you do not want to die, but not everyone doesn't want to die. Depending on what view of the afterlife we're assuming, things could change. If you believe that you'll go to heaven and have virgins at your disposal if you blow yourself up, it's pretty selfish.

This whole thing is a bit about how things are defined. Otherwise, it's almost like debating in two different languages.

EDIT: I like to use alot of singular "they." Deal with it.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 07:10 PM
I never said it was impossible, just unlikely.

So you are saying it is possible.

And just for the record, I love to play the devil's advocate (shame on me) sometimes. It's usually when people start discussing philosophy that I do so. Please know I have no intention of losing anyone's respect (assuming I have it) or making enemies. As proof. my wife just offered me a bowl of ice-cream, that I am going to log off and go eat with extremely selfish intentions.

Brent
05-03-2009, 07:11 PM
So you are saying it is possible
Many things are.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm not trying to butt in here, but isn't self-sacrifice based on the belief that the cause for which they die is the most important thing? Thus, in a way it is selfish for a person to sacrifice because they want their cause to continue, as opposed to the benefit of their continued existence in the lives of others. It is selfless from the common view that you do not want to die, but not everyone doesn't want to die. Depending on what view of the afterlife we're assuming, things could change. If you believe that you'll go to heaven and have virgins at your disposal if you blow yourself up, it's pretty selfish.

This whole thing is a bit about how things are defined. Otherwise, it's almost like debating in two different languages.

EDIT: I like to use alot of singular "they." Deal with it.

You just cause a black-hole to form next to my bowl of ice-cream.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 07:12 PM
Who has time to think that they need to jump on a grenade so that they have a heroic legacy?

It's not a spur of the moment decision. On average, people that join the army are going to be more likely to believe in the concept of self-sarcifice bringing about individual honor.

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 07:13 PM
You just cause a black-hole to form next to my bowl of ice-cream.

If it's a wormhole, send me some plz

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 07:15 PM
Who has time to think that they need to jump on a grenade so that they have a heroic legacy?

I also find it kind of odd that you say there are no absolutes, yet you are saying that absolutely no one can be completely selfless. Just something I noticed, jumping in on the thread late.

I understand that I'm essentially confusing prolly everyone with my views.

Where some see me as saying that I personally say something is most honorable or there is 'absolutely' no such thing as selflessness as dealing in absolutes, I do not. While my views may appear to deal in absolutes, I believe that since others disagree with me that the general idea is not an absolute. So where I believe there is no absolutes, and CJ does, the whole idea of absolutes, imo, is not absolute. I know, that is ridiculously confusing.

I guess to try and put it simply, I'll concede that if you break down the components of an idea, there can technically be absolutes. However, I do not believe in looking at individual parts separately, but the total idea/result as a whole. And in looking at the overall idea, I believe there is no absolutes.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 07:16 PM
You thought wrong. That's pretty naive honestly.

I'm actually wondering about this though, so maybe you could provide an example or further elaboration. I'm from Canada and at least from my knowledge every Canadian citizen has the same legal rights.

You don't think that Forbes magazine, owned by Steve Forbes, grandson of B.C. Forbes, wouldn't have a bit of a bias? Forbes is the lapdog of capitalism. They actually call themselves the "capitalist tool." That would be like me providing the Communist Manifesto to argue the capitalism is bad.

I'm not sure what you're insuiating here. I don't think Forbes could even be biased about a statistic like that. It's not like they're preaching capitalism in that article. They're just stating a quantifiable fact: that 2/3rds of billionaires are self-made. I'm sure if you looked through everybody on the list and checked into their backgrounds, you could confirm it.

I'm not doubting the cases of individual initiative. But I do severely question the lack of bias from Forbes magazine about the virtues of capitalism. It's also a bit arbitrary to point to a few individuals to argue what is a much broader argument, but I suppose that is part of the disconnect.

I thought you were making the point that people who are monetarily successful are because they were born into it or some other reason, not because of their individual merits. I'm arguing the opposite, saying that most people who have had monetary success are because of their individual merits.

The statisics I brought up aren't about individuals (like say Oprah who is an example of somebody making their fortune by themselves), they're about society as a whole. 80% of millioniares, and 2/3rds of billionaires are self-made, meaning the majority achieved that success due to their own individual merit. At least that's my interpretation of those statistics.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:18 PM
Who has time to think that they need to jump on a grenade so that they have a heroic legacy?

I also find it kind of odd that you say there are no absolutes, yet you are saying that absolutely no one can be completely selfless. Just something I noticed, jumping in on the thread late.

like I said earlier, it's hard to explain absolutism without falling into absolutes (ironic). But it does make sense, ti's the belief that nothing is black or white, but everything is in between those two. Grey.

WMD
05-03-2009, 07:20 PM
Someone should summarize all of these philosophies into one sentence so I can pick one. I'm somewhat interested now but unfortunately didn't care enough in high school to learn about this stuff.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 07:25 PM
I'm actually wondering about this though, so maybe you could provide an example or further elaboration. I'm from Canada and at least from my knowledge every Canadian citizen has the same legal rights.
As Brent said, access to legal resourses, the very nature of the definition of "blue collar" vs. "white collar" crimes, etc. All of these things will drastically alter the way in which one encourters the legal system. The terms of the law are only a small part of it, and even that is never completely equal.


I'm not sure what you're insuiating here. I don't think Forbes could even be biased about a statistic like that. It's not like they're preaching capitalism in that article.
Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination.
I would consider that total bias. So people that aren't rich lack grit and determination? All you have to do in order to acquire wealth is try hard? C'mon......


It's also worth noting, oddly enough, that most of the "self-made" people they mentioned are staunchly liberal, which must say something about their attitude about the value of society and giving back to it.[/quote]

I thought you were making the point that people who are monetarily successful are because they were born into it or some other reason, not because of their individual merits. I'm arguing the opposite, saying that most people who have had monetary success are because of their individual merits.
Not exactly. What I was arguing, or trying to argue, is that merit is not based primarily upon individual atributes. Simply showing individual success is only part of the equation. You would then have to show each case of people who aren't millionaires and why. The OP would argue it's because they are morons. I disagree.

the decider13
05-03-2009, 07:25 PM
It's not a spur of the moment decision. On average, people that join the army are going to be more likely to believe in the concept of self-sarcifice bringing about individual honor.

Sure, a lot of people do join in the idea that it is honerable. But it seems like people are saying that everyone who joins and gives up their life is doing it for selfish reasons. Just seems ironic for how often I read "there is no absolutes"

What about people who save someone in a situation that isn't a war, but just in every day life? Like someone driving down the street sees a house on fire, gets out of the car, runs inside and saves someone inside. Did the guy sit in his car and think "Oh man, people are gonna think I'm a hero if I go in there"

It might be a little idealistic on my part, but I like to believe that there are people out there that are willing to sacrifice themselves for the better of other people.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:25 PM
Someone should summarize all of these philosophies into one sentence so I can pick one. I'm somewhat interested now but unfortunately didn't care enough in high school to learn about this stuff.

You should probably try wikipedia, if one of us was to summarize it chances are there's a fair amount of bias.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 07:28 PM
You should probably try wikipedia, if one of us was to summarize it chances are there's a fair amount of bias.

Haha....the thought of wikipedia being the source without bias....

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 07:28 PM
Someone should summarize all of these philosophies into one sentence so I can pick one. I'm somewhat interested now but unfortunately didn't care enough in high school to learn about this stuff.

Well...it can't be done. I wasn't completely joking when I mentioned Wikipedia. Never use it as a source, but if you want a quick rundown of a well-known topic, it's doable.

Also, some philosopher at a different board I go to recommends this: http://plato.stanford.edu/. I never looked into it, but whatever, I'm posting it.

EDIT: haha, got beaten on the Wikipedia punch

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 07:29 PM
Not exactly. What I was arguing, or trying to argue, is that merit is not based primarily upon individual atributes. Simply showing individual success is only part of the equation. You would then have to show each case of people who aren't millionaires and why. The OP would argue it's because they are morons. I disagree.

I guess I got confused when you said this:

The vast VAST majority of people who succeed in this world do so to a very small degree because of their individual talents.

I personally think that individual merit is more than a "very small degree" and I think the statistics I showed back that up.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 07:30 PM
Sure, a lot of people do join in the idea that it is honerable. But it seems like people are saying that everyone who joins and gives up their life is doing it for selfish reasons. Just seems ironic for how often I read "there is no absolutes"

What about people who save someone in a situation that isn't a war, but just in every day life? Like someone driving down the street sees a house on fire, gets out of the car, runs inside and saves someone inside. Did the guy sit in his car and think "Oh man, people are gonna think I'm a hero if I go in there"

It might be a little idealistic on my part, but I like to believe that there are people out there that are willing to sacrifice themselves for the better of other people.
Hard to say, I'm not really part of that debate.

I agree that there is a seeming contradiction here, but I think a lot of it has to do with the term "honor," which is a complete construction. It's hard to debate terms which aren't real, whether you believe in absolutes or not.

Brent
05-03-2009, 07:31 PM
this: http://plato.stanford.edu/
That's a good source. One of my profs mentioned it as a sort of quick-reference.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Haha....the thought of wikipedia being the source without bias....

the way I see it, we here all have an opinion, a favourite which we'll describe to come out much more sane than the other options. Yes wikipidia is bias, but I think since the articles about these philosophies are written by people who agree with it, at least it's a fair bias across the board.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 07:32 PM
I guess I got confused when you said this:



I personally think that individual merit is more than a "very small degree" and I think the statistics I showed back that up.

That doesn't contradict what I said. This is a circular argument though.

If you like those statistics and find value in them, by all means.

Manic Depressant
05-03-2009, 07:33 PM
That doesn't contradict what I said. This is a circular argument though.

Well you are saying that a person's individual merit has little to do with their success. You think it's a result of the system. I disagree and I think that individual merit is much more important, at least if we're talking about developed nations.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 07:41 PM
This is going to be giant so feel free to skip from section to section, I'll try to keep my thoughts separated and specified but as i've already mentioned I'm really beat right now and procrastinating til it's late enough to pass out again.

Yes, I was going to mention one of the ideas from the book, where acting altruistically is beneficial not only to others in the group but also to ourselves. You can see this not only in early human history (hunter-gatherers) but with the other 4 apes in the animal kingdom. Hell, even early agrarian societies were sharing everything.


If I had no problem with having a large sig, this quote would be in there.

I see that argument, however that's not true altruism that you are describing. My point isn't that acting for the good of others is inherently bad for the individual, it is simply that people working together should only occur when the individuals involved perceive it to be in their interest, that is how hunter-gatherer societies worked, not because everyone wanted everyone else to eat, but because ensuring that the group had food for everyone to eat also ensured that each individual had food to eat and with the stronger natural predators a hunter-gatherer setting off on his own would surely have perished before successfully hunting down a similarly individualistic women to reproduce and found a family before hoping that their children are able to successful find other independent families to mate with. So while I understand why some find this sort of behavior to be evidence of the benefits of altruism I feel that these actions that we interpret as "altruistic" are actually selfish actions just with a more long term perspective, this long term perspective is something very important to me and something I'll probably go into more detail with shortly.

This discussion is pretty interesting. Excuse me if I sound ignorant because my only philosophy training is a couple university courses which I slept through.

I'm just wondering about the bolded part of your statement. Could you go into more detail about why you believe this because intuitively it seems to be the exact opposite for me.

The argument usual has to do with the tremendous influence of surrounding conditions while growing up and how this affects people both in terms of the opportunities presented to individuals and the adult that is formed by growing up in less favorable environments.

Just in a general response, this gets back to my belief that the individual is not greater than society. Just because I believe something does not mean it is absolute in my opinion because I know that my beliefs are not perfect and that others will not agree with me.

So, imo, just because I think something is the best or highest ranking, I do not believe it's absolutely the best because it is not 100% consensual.

Here is probably where our disagreements come from. My belief is that I have no choice but to trust myself, since I can't understand all the cause and effect macinations that lead people to their opinions, nor do I really inhabit the same world since I believe none of us experience and perceive absolute truth thus everyone's experience on this earth is unique to themselves, be it a difference because I'm half blind or be it because as a child I saw socialist totalitarianism go wrong, my world is twinged by my sense and my own personal filters thus while my beliefs are in large part a culmination of many other people's beliefs they are melted together to form my beliefs for my world. So to me an opinion that you truly hold is an absolute to oneself, now this is not a universal absolute, since I don't think human's can rely experience such a thing, so I agree with you there, I think however it is an absolute for your life and unfortunately we are all stuck in our own lives for now.

I'm not trying to butt in here, but isn't self-sacrifice based on the belief that the cause for which they die is the most important thing? Thus, in a way it is selfish for a person to sacrifice because they want their cause to continue, as opposed to the benefit of their continued existence in the lives of others. It is selfless from the common view that you do not want to die, but not everyone doesn't want to die. Depending on what view of the afterlife we're assuming, things could change. If you believe that you'll go to heaven and have virgins at your disposal if you blow yourself up, it's pretty selfish.

This whole thing is a bit about how things are defined. Otherwise, it's almost like debating in two different languages.

EDIT: I like to use alot of singular "they." Deal with it.


Thank you for going into this for me. I was going to make a case along those lines to CJS but I think you've made the point well enough to spare me that additional typing.

Hope that wasn't too discombobulated and incomprehensible. I'll definitely try and explain any confusion about this post. Somehow that came out a lot shorter than I thought, hope I didn't forget to copy and paste like half of it.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:52 PM
completely unrelated i'm sorry, but...

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 07:57 PM
completely unrelated i'm sorry, but...

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg

Probably our second (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33152) best convo ever.

Addict
05-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Probably our second (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33152) best convo ever.

didn't even need to click that link to know what you ment.

Still did just to see that rediculous exchange again :D

Brent
05-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Probably our second (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33152) best convo ever.
How the hell did I miss that?

Addict
05-03-2009, 08:01 PM
How the hell did I miss that?

My guess would be magic.

but most likely because it happened in some random thread we kinda hijacked.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 08:04 PM
How the hell did I miss that?

*shrug* it happens, I'm a thread-hijacker by nature, sometimes it works out well.

Rob S
05-03-2009, 08:05 PM
I got so owned by ethics this weekend. I don't hate philosophy by any means, but I love procrastinating. Anyway: for this professor we were supposed to do a journal entry for every day of class (about a page each). It is due Monday.....I had done zero until saturday morning. So I more or less spent my entire weekend reliving every ethics class of the semester through Microsoft Word......not fun at all. I am at 40 pages as it stands.

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 08:06 PM
I'd like to add an addendum (lolz) to my quoted post. What I meant by the problems with definitions is that the debate seemed to be focused on two definitions. Self sacrifice is selfish if you view it from the perspective of acting according to your ultimate wishes, which is what I was arguing. But the very word "selfish" is commonly defined in colloquial English as excluding things such as "self sacrifice." That is, the definition of the word selfish is used moreso for things that are rationally proven to benefit the existence of the person, usually to an extent beyond accepted norms of politeness, duty, or honor. According to this definition, self-sacrifice is not selfish, aka, it is selfless.

But as I pointed out, it is selfish if you define selfish as achieving your person goals. In this broadened view, many things which many would call selfless are selfish. In fact, according to this definition, perhaps it is indeed impossible to act selflessly when not coerced. This definition is not "wrong" because it is not in line with colloquial English usage, but it is different and must be carefully used in order to not too much confuse others. Perhaps a different word should be used for better disambiguation, but the common ground between both words is useful to draw meaningful distinctions.

Basically, it's hard to argue that a person is being too black and white or too grey or is using abolsutes when the debate is based on conflicted premises. There is nothing wrong, black and white, grey, or absolutist in changing definition. Words express true concepts or concepts of personal value; they are not equivalent or deeply connected. I could call selfishness of personal motive as opposed to colloquial English "buvgoshriblak," and if you knew what I meant, the conversation would still work.

Well, I'm rambling. Philosophy's a pleasant mind ****.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 08:11 PM
I'd like to add an addendum (lolz) to my quoted post. What I meant by the problems with definitions is that the debate seemed to be focused on two definitions. Self sacrifice is selfish if you view it from the perspective of acting according to your ultimate wishes, which is what I was arguing. But the very word "selfish" is commonly defined in colloquial English as excluding things such as "self sacrifice." That is, the definition of the word selfish is used moreso for things that are rationally proven to benefit the existence of the person, usually to an extent beyond accepted norms of politeness, duty, or honor. According to this definition, self-sacrifice is not selfish, aka, it is selfless.

But as I pointed out, it is selfish if you define selfish as achieving your person goals. In this broadened view, many things which many would call selfless are selfish. In fact, according to this definition, perhaps it is indeed impossible to act selflessly when not coerced. This definition is not "wrong" because it is not in line with colloquial English usage, but it is different and must be carefully used in order to not too much confuse others. Perhaps a different word should be used for better disambiguation, but the common ground between both words is useful to draw meaningful distinctions.

Basically, it's hard to argue that a person is being too black and white or too grey or is using abolsutes when the debate is based on conflicted premises. There is nothing wrong, black and white, grey, or absolutist in changing definition. Words express true concepts or concepts of personal value; they are not equivalent or deeply connected. I could call selfishness of personal motive as opposed to colloquial English "buvgoshriblak," and if you knew what I meant, the conversation would still work.

Well, I'm rambling. Philosophy's a pleasant mind ****.

I probably should've explained that myself since I use the first meaning of the word selfish you mention, as in achieving your own goals. good post.

Edit: Or we could all use ayn rand's term "rational self interest" but I suspect I'm the only one here who would be happy with that. :p

The Unseen
05-03-2009, 08:15 PM
This is actually deja vu. I think I've argued a couple times on this board about obscurity of definitions in arguments. I need to ramble about something different.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-03-2009, 08:15 PM
Also, some philosopher at a different board I go to recommends this: http://plato.stanford.edu/. I never looked into it, but whatever, I'm posting it.


I wrote a paper on Plato using that source. My teacher said that I stole the information and the source wasn't reliable. FML.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Most teachers/professors won't allow the internet as a source. Part of it is due to lack of certifiable reliability. Part of it is probably self-preservation.

Addict
05-03-2009, 08:21 PM
I wrote a paper on Plato using that source. My teacher said that I stole the information and the source wasn't reliable. FML.

that's funny since nearly every information on Plato (and his ideas) are kind of irreliable, since Plato's writings very often contained Socrates' ideas, or parts of Socrates' ideas.
But I guess you teacher was just old-school and distrusts the internet ;)

Rob S
05-03-2009, 08:21 PM
Most teachers/professors won't allow the internet as a source. Part of it is due to lack of certifiable reliability. Part of it is probably self-preservation.

really? at least for undergrad at my school I havent ran into this problem.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 08:23 PM
really? at least for undergrad at my school I havent ran into this problem.
Most is an overgeneralization, based on little more than my own personal experience. I don't allow it unless it's from a source with a pre-existing level of credibility. (ie: Time Magazine, CNN, etc.)

iowatreat54
05-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Most is an overgeneralization, based on little more than my own personal experience. I don't allow it unless it's from a source with a pre-existing level of credibility. (ie: Time Magazine, CNN, etc.)

Yes, we are only allowed to use accredited sources if they are online, mainly scholastic published works, or a news source if the professors specifically say we can.

Brent
05-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Most teachers/professors won't allow the internet as a source. Part of it is due to lack of certifiable reliability. Part of it is probably self-preservation.
Funny you should say that, for all the papers I wrote in college I used print sources or article databases the school library had. Hell, as a goof, I once used an article from a journal which a prof I had wrote. He was amused but I wouldnt have dared used it if he and I shared an impersonal relationship. In a class of six, however, that's hard.

Also, just out of curiousity, what subjects do you teach?

Addict
05-03-2009, 08:26 PM
Most is an overgeneralization, based on little more than my own personal experience. I don't allow it unless it's from a source with a pre-existing level of credibility. (ie: Time Magazine, CNN, etc.)

well that's a certifiable source. the risk lies in blogs and wikipedia.

I gotta say though a stanford.edu site soudns reliable enough.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 08:48 PM
Which is how a collective entity always works. You just described Marxism.

A fair opinion, although I think you are putting WAY too much stock in the equity of the human condition. The "war on poverty" (if you could even call our joke of a social welfare system that), is not intent upon stifling individual initiative, but rather giving people a chance to better themselves and in turn, society. It's such a lazy cop-out to attack the help given to those we feel are undeserving simply because one cannot understand their plight. The vast VAST majority of people who succeed in this world do so to a very small degree because of their individual talents. You must also dislike roads, clean water, meat inspectors, etc.

"Progress" is an incredibly vague term btw, so you'd probably serve yourself well to define exactly what you mean. Herbert Spencer, for example, believed in the utilitarian standard of ultimate value, but never really defined what exactly that meant. Similarly, Adam Smith spoke of the invisible hand of the market, but never actually defined what that meant. I'm curious how exactly others benefit by people doing what is entirely in their self-interests, or how we even define utilitarian interests.


This is also my critique of Rand (among many many others). She never actually deals with the fact that people have multiple, often competing individual objectives. It's such a vague and sophmoric way of trying to completely justify self-serving behavior without any attempt to underline what exactly that entails.

Somehow this post didn't get wrapped into my big post on the previous page so I'll get to the issues here that weren't addressed there. The difference between marxism and the group effort I was trying to describe is that marxism relies very heavily on mass co-operation to the extent where strongly individualistic people are a detriment to the society. My group hinges on the fact that this co-operation is completely voluntary. If someone decides that their fate would be better served in another task they are free to leave and follow their will, barring a contract, but that's a legal issue so let's ignore it for this thread.

My issue with the war on poverty is how it creates incentives for people to remain labour class instead of following the natural rise through the classes this country made famous, similarly to how our attempts to help poor mothers actually functions as an insentive for people to have children that they can't really support long term for short term gains the welfare programs that were started with the best intentions have helped life in a lower class better at the expense of upwards mobility. To me the enormous gap in wealth is clearly a result of this as people who grow up in environments where their prospects of rising to the middle/upper-middle class are bleak are much more likely to remain in a similar environment than fighting so that the next generation can start off with more. Granted all this is only a problem because people are looking for short term gains and chose to hope that they are able to figure things out long term, but that's one of the significant blights of western civilization. Again I fear I'm wandering to close to the line where this becomes a political issue and being on thin ice to begin with I think you'll understand why I'd like to err on the side of caution when approaching that line.

When I use the term progress for an individual I'm usually talking about socio-economic progress, although I think that encompass comfort and other not entirely economical issues to a degree, hopefully diffusing the misery in wealth argument. As a society I believe progress to mean moving away from coercion, driving the advancement of our technologies and understanding of the world and moving towards a peace-secured through trade and other mutually-beneficial co-operation, crating a world of innumerable possibilities where critical thinking, hard work and careful planning can ensure individual progress. I think that should make my position more clear.

Brodeur
05-03-2009, 08:53 PM
well that's a certifiable source. the risk lies in blogs and wikipedia.

I gotta say though a stanford.edu site soudns reliable enough.

Well Wikipedia is heavily moderated these days and while using it as a blanket source isn't necessarily wise, it has variable links to the sources where most of the information comes from.

Mr. Hero
05-03-2009, 08:57 PM
Well Wikipedia is heavily moderated these days and while using it as a blanket source isn't necessarily wise, it has variable links to the sources where most of the information comes from.

Which is why using wiki as a source is just lazy. Follow their references and there will be times where you can use those references as a source, if those references don't check out well then the information has to come into question.

bearsfan_51
05-03-2009, 08:58 PM
Also, just out of curiousity, what subjects do you teach?
History, specifically Early Modern Europe.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
05-03-2009, 09:07 PM
Most teachers/professors won't allow the internet as a source. Part of it is due to lack of certifiable reliability. Part of it is probably self-preservation.

This was in High School xD.

Paranoidmoonduck
05-03-2009, 09:22 PM
Somehow this post didn't get wrapped into my big post on the previous page so I'll get to the issues here that weren't addressed there. The difference between marxism and the group effort I was trying to describe is that marxism relies very heavily on mass co-operation to the extent where strongly individualistic people are a detriment to the society. My group hinges on the fact that this co-operation is completely voluntary. If someone decides that their fate would be better served in another task they are free to leave and follow their will, barring a contract, but that's a legal issue so let's ignore it for this thread.

My issue with the war on poverty is how it creates incentives for people to remain labour class instead of following the natural rise through the classes this country made famous, similarly to how our attempts to help poor mothers actually functions as an insentive for people to have children that they can't really support long term for short term gains the welfare programs that were started with the best intentions have helped life in a lower class better at the expense of upwards mobility. To me the enormous gap in wealth is clearly a result of this as people who grow up in environments where their prospects of rising to the middle/upper-middle class are bleak are much more likely to remain in a similar environment than fighting so that the next generation can start off with more. Granted all this is only a problem because people are looking for short term gains and chose to hope that they are able to figure things out long term, but that's one of the significant blights of western civilization. Again I fear I'm wandering to close to the line where this becomes a political issue and being on thin ice to begin with I think you'll understand why I'd like to err on the side of caution when approaching that line.

When I use the term progress for an individual I'm usually talking about socio-economic progress, although I think that encompass comfort and other not entirely economical issues to a degree, hopefully diffusing the misery in wealth argument. As a society I believe progress to mean moving away from coercion, driving the advancement of our technologies and understanding of the world and moving towards a peace-secured through trade and other mutually-beneficial co-operation, crating a world of innumerable possibilities where critical thinking, hard work and careful planning can ensure individual progress. I think that should make my position more clear.

I can appreciate this idea. It's pleasant, it's elegant, it's fun to imagine.

It's also not even remotely realistic. Nothing I've observed of the world in my lifetime leads me to believe that what this ideal describes is remotely possible. Which, in and of itself, for a personal philosophy, isn't all that big of a deal to me. But this ideal and certain philosophers/science fiction writers seem to grease the wheels for people to extrapolate wildly into the realm of societal change. For one to do that, you need to step carefully for the exercise to be remotely useful or directional. Erecting elegant theoretical structures is fine and dandy, but if you leave the structure and it ceases to make sense, recognizing and accepting that is a vital step.

Deriving principles from infinitely paired down situations is risky footing at best.

CJSchneider
05-03-2009, 09:32 PM
like I said earlier, it's hard to explain absolutism without falling into absolutes (ironic). But it does make sense, ti's the belief that nothing is black or white, but everything is in between those two. Grey.

And therby it's failure.

This ice cream was great, I'll go back and read everything everyone posted.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 02:14 AM
i love this thread :)

btw Addict did u ever get to see Zeitgeist:Addendum

Brent
05-04-2009, 08:01 AM
Zeitgeist
Please dont bring up that movie.

The Unseen
05-04-2009, 08:20 AM
I was almost going to watch Zeitgeist until I saw the clip from it about "disproving" the existence of Jesus. They compared his existence to many other common ancient myths and argued that the myth of Jesus was derived from a sun god. One point they used as proof was that Jesus was the "son of god," which sounds like "sun god." I can't even fathom how utterly idiotic that is.

anyways, no religion plz, carry on

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 08:31 AM
not zeitgeist the first one it was crap, addendum was actually prettyx good

Brent
05-04-2009, 08:37 AM
Their claims about the Federal Reserve are misconceived and they manipulate facts to fit their claims. In fact, few of their claims have more than maybe one source, and even then, it's a faulty source at best. That film, just like numerous others, were sparked by 9/11 and people's unfounded fears of the previous administration.

themaninblack
05-04-2009, 08:54 AM
I can't seem to pick from this poll. My studies of Philosophy are quite brief but I seem to be interested in pretty much everything I've read up to this point.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 09:52 AM
Their claims about the Federal Reserve are misconceived and they manipulate facts to fit their claims. In fact, few of their claims have more than maybe one source, and even then, it's a faulty source at best. That film, just like numerous others, were sparked by 9/11 and people's unfounded fears of the previous administration.
im not sure, but i did agree with their idea that money isnt a necessary thing in the world

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 10:02 AM
im not sure, but i did agree with their idea that money isnt a necessary thing in the world

Society is really going to have to grow up before that is possible. It would almost (not saying it would be impossible) require the perfect Utopian society to be able to work. Man's greed is his downfall.

The Unseen
05-04-2009, 10:09 AM
Money as in currency? What do they want, a barter system, a gift economy, or communal sharing of goods?

My guess is that Zeitgeist was made by anarchist types, so I'm betting the latter.

Brent
05-04-2009, 11:04 AM
im not sure, but i did agree with their idea that money isnt a necessary thing in the world
Every time someone talks about some sort of idealist Utopian society I think of Star Trek, because they had reached a point where currency was no long necessary and life was about the pursuit of knowledge and exploration. If only haha.

someone447
05-04-2009, 11:08 AM
I can't decide between rationalism and social contract, I'll be much more knowledgeable on philosophy after this summer though. There is only so much you can get from reading, you need someone to talk about it with, and I am taking a trip this summer with a girl who minored in philosophy, and almost had enough credits to get a major in it.

So with 2 months of hitchhiking and waiting for rides with nothing to do but read and talk, I'm sure I'll have a much better grasp of many different philosophies.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Every time someone talks about some sort of idealist Utopian society I think of Star Trek, because they had reached a point where currency was no long necessary and life was about the pursuit of knowledge and exploration. If only haha.

Same here, that was why I said it was not impossible.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 11:48 AM
Money as in currency? What do they want, a barter system, a gift economy, or communal sharing of goods?

My guess is that Zeitgeist was made by anarchist types, so I'm betting the latter.
The idea is that instead of having the goal to work for a personal profit, u should rather work to preserve Shelter, food and water for everyone.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 11:52 AM
The idea is that instead of having the goal to work for a personal profit, u should rather work to preserve Shelter, food and water for everyone.

What about material possessions?

BeerBaron
05-04-2009, 11:54 AM
Looks like I'm coming in on this thread a bit late but I had to vote for Ancient Philosophy. I find it fascinating.

Was my favorite part of the philosophy class I had a few semesters ago and I just think it's really interesting to look at the world view of the ancient philosophers. Crazy stuff....love it.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 11:57 AM
http://ohkrapp.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bill-and-ted-socrates1.jpg

Like sand through the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:00 PM
Man's greed is his downfall.

Man's greed is also the reason why I can get a little metal box the size of a pack of cigarettes that is a phone, camera, MP3 player, let's me check my email, the internet, my stocks, the weather, etc. Our greed is one of our greatest strengths and has been the driving force behind so much of our advances.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:10 PM
What about material possessions?
Like what though? are material possesions that important if say u want to play golf and u go to the course, take one of the clubs there, play and then put them back there. there is no need to actually own one of them.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 12:11 PM
Man's greed is also the reason why I can get a little metal box the size of a pack of cigarettes that is a phone, camera, MP3 player, let's me check my email, the internet, my stocks, the weather, etc. Our greed is one of our greatest strengths and has been the driving force behind so much of our advances.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00N/00NrpJ-40729384.jpg

This guy could care less about that little box you and I have. He'd sooner steal it and sell it for something that would give him instant, yet short-termed satisfaction as opposed to take it apart and learn how it works (No, I'm not making a blanket statement about all homeless people) I would challenge that it is "vision", "empathy" and "determination" that drives us, as opposed to "greed".

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:11 PM
there is absolutely nothing good to greed...

i dont see how people can say it is the only motivation we have.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 12:12 PM
Like what though? are material possesions that important if say u want to play golf and u go to the course, take one of the clubs there, play and then put them back there. there is no need to actually own one of them.

Would all the clubs at all the golf courses on Earth be the same?

(Playing DA here.)

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:17 PM
Would all the clubs at all the golf courses on Earth be the same?

(Playing DA here.)
ud have a wide variety of all sorts of clubs

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:20 PM
I can appreciate this idea. It's pleasant, it's elegant, it's fun to imagine.

It's also not even remotely realistic. Nothing I've observed of the world in my lifetime leads me to believe that what this ideal describes is remotely possible. Which, in and of itself, for a personal philosophy, isn't all that big of a deal to me. But this ideal and certain philosophers/science fiction writers seem to grease the wheels for people to extrapolate wildly into the realm of societal change. For one to do that, you need to step carefully for the exercise to be remotely useful or directional. Erecting elegant theoretical structures is fine and dandy, but if you leave the structure and it ceases to make sense, recognizing and accepting that is a vital step.

Deriving principles from infinitely paired down situations is risky footing at best.

I don't believe that a world without legalized coercion is that unrealistic. I recognize it would require a shift in our thinking, but these aren't principles that are unheard off and utterly unnatural, rather these principles attempt to build off of human nature. Granted medieval Iceland is the only nation I know of that had a fully voluntary system in place as the people selected one of iceland's chieftains to represent them, not elected, selected, but I feel between the success of the gošorš system and the benefits of similar principles in amercian history that this may be one of the few utopias that can actually function with human beings. Again I don't think if we just changed our political system to one I favor everything would instantly run smoothly, but if we could transition to such a system I think the transition process itself would drive a social shift towards greater individual responsibility and more careful, long term thinking. I just see how the current system molds children into abandoning my concepts and feel that between the removal of the current system which pushes people into the direction of short-term thinking and insatiable material greed and the slow transition to a more ideal system you would also see a transition in the populace and within a generation or two you would see a major change in americans, I think that the resultant change would be for the better. We'll see though, I firmly believe in our lifetime we'll see our political system shifting back in the my direction at which point we'll see whether the people respond.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 12:22 PM
But what if I went to one course and they had a club I really liked. Then I went to another course and they didn't have that same club. What then?

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:22 PM
But what if I went to one course and they had a club I really liked. Then I went to another course and they didn't have that same club. What then?
well the idea is to have all available clubs there, to have enough for the people that want to play. if there isnt one because too many are using them, more are made. why is there a need for you to own them?

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 12:26 PM
well the idea is to have all available clubs there, to have enough for the people that want to play. if there isnt one because too many are using them, more are made. why is there a need for you to own them?

So your answer to my question is yes, every golf course would have the same clubs. OK, what about vehicles, would everyone on Earth drive the same car? What if I wanted two cars? What if I liked cars, and wanted to collect them over a long period of time?

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:26 PM
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00N/00NrpJ-40729384.jpg

This guy could care less about that little box you and I have. He'd sooner steal it and sell it for something that would give him instant, yet short-termed satisfaction as opposed to take it apart and learn how it works (No, I'm not making a blanket statement about all homeless people) I would challenge that it is "vision", "empathy" and "determination" that drives us, as opposed to "greed".

Don't get me wrong I feel bad about the homeless and donate to charity, but there will always be struggling and suffering. It's a reality of not living in a utopia, I just don't like greed is to be blamed. We could be using greed in different ways though, to me greed is very similar to the idea of selfishness being any actions taken in pursuit of one's goals where what makes it greed isn't that it's bad but that a person is working for their own selfish motives. From this I'd argue greed is one of the greatest forces behind the "vision" or "determination" you are talking about. All great inventors are greedy whether their creation was solely for material gain, to help advance an ideology or whether it was to fulfill the desire of realizing a vision, those are all selfish acts fueled by greed.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:30 PM
So your answer to my question is yes, every golf course would have the same clubs. OK, what about vehicles, would everyone on Earth drive the same car? What if I wanted two cars? What if I liked cars, and wanted to collect them over a long period of time?
There is no reason for property. Property is an
outgrowth of scarcity. People who had to work very hard to create or obtain a product or resource in
turn protected it because it had immense value relative to the labor entailed along with the scarcity
associated. Property is not an “American” or “Capitalist” idea… it is a primitive mental perspective
generated from generations of scarcity. People claim “ownership” because it is a legal form of
protection.
In a system of abundance, without the need for money, the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant.
In this new system no one owns anything. Instead, everyone has unrestricted access to everything.
Ownership is a massive burden. No longer will a person need to live in one place. One could travel
the world constantly. Anything needed is obtained, without restriction. There is no reason for abuse
for there is nothing to gain. You can’t steal things that no one owns and you certainly couldn’t sell
them.
Household items are obtained through central distribution in the cities, while recreational items are
available on call or near the location of their use. For example, if you go to a golf course you would
select, on site, your clubs from the most effectively designed models available. You use them, and
then you return them. If you decide to keep the clubs, go ahead - that is your burden… for why
would a person want to transport, maintain and store golf clubs, when they can always have access to
them and then return them onsite? Our homes today are full of junk that we hold onto because of
the supposed value they maintain.

This is what they mean

Transportation:
Within the city, escalators and elevators, along with conveyers and transveyors, move in all directions
and are interconnected with all other transport systems. The transportation system is deliberately
designed to reduce the need for any kind of automobile. This system can take you anywhere in the
city. If you want to travel outside the city, monorails, streamlined cars, vertical take off/landing
aircraft and Maglev trains are used for continental and intercontinental travel. Airports and
International shipping systems are also implemented in and around the cities.
It is worth pointing out that the prevailing means of transportation in our societies today require
fossil fuels to run. In the case of the automobile, the battery technology needed to power an electric
car that can go over 100 miles an hour and over 200 miles on one charge currently exists, and has
existed for many years. However, due to battery patents controlled by the oil industry, which limit
their availability to maintain market share, coupled with the political pressure from the profit based
energy industry, the accessibility and affordability of this technology is limited. There is absolutely no
reason, other than pure, corrupt profit interest, that every single transport vehicle in the world could
not be utterly clean, with zero need for gasoline.
As far as traditional airplanes are concerned, Maglev technology is on pace to making them obsolete.
A Maglev train uses magnets for propulsion. It is fully suspended by a magnetic field, and requires
less than 2% of the energy used for plane travel. The train has no wheels, so nothing can wear out.
These tube based Maglevs could travel up to 4000 miles per hour, in a motionless, frictionless tube,
which can go over land, or underwater. They are fast, clean, and efficient with only a fraction of the
energy usage we use today for the same means.

This is their idea on Transportation. obviously its all idealistic.

its all about the mindset of people today. its about the mindset that you have to work for profit. that its the only motivation you can have

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:32 PM
So you're talking about a world that has somehow overcome the basic economic principle of limited resources and unlimited wants. I can't imagine that actually happening though.

Edit: My question to you renji, in that world what incentive do the workers who produce these goods have to do a good careful job, outside of altruism, since I've mentioned above I think people only act altruistically when doing so is clearly in their own selfish benefit. Although I guess if we've truly overcome the problem of limited resources maintaining the system would be teh selfish motive to work hard. Although I think getting people to function like that might take even more work than getting them to be more self-reliant and responsible to make a system such as my ideal to work.

someone447
05-04-2009, 12:32 PM
there is absolutely nothing good to greed...

i dont see how people can say it is the only motivation we have.

Greed is what has allowed mankind to rule the world. Without it we would have never advanced out of the hunter-gatherer stage. Excessive greed is in no way good, but nothing in excess is good.

CJSchneider
05-04-2009, 12:32 PM
Don't get me wrong I feel bad about the homeless and donate to charity, but there will always be struggling and suffering. It's a reality of not living in a utopia, I just don't like greed is to be blamed. We could be using greed in different ways though, to me greed is very similar to the idea of selfishness being any actions taken in pursuit of one's goals where what makes it greed isn't that it's bad but that a person is working for their own selfish motives. From this I'd argue greed is one of the greatest forces behind the "vision" or "determination" you are talking about. All great inventors are greedy whether their creation was solely for material gain, to help advance an ideology or whether it was to fulfill the desire of realizing a vision, those are all selfish acts fueled by greed.

We surely disagree on the definition of greed then. Greed is done with purely self serving intentions with gain only to self. This will eventually prompt me to discuss "self" later on I'm sure. With greed, to some extent, there is a touch of maliciousness I believe. Greed would not then be behind vision and determination.

Addict
05-04-2009, 12:32 PM
i love this thread :)

btw Addict did u ever get to see Zeitgeist:Addendum

lol no it's still on my list of things to see though...

someone447
05-04-2009, 12:37 PM
I don't believe that a world without legalized coercion is that unrealistic. I recognize it would require a shift in our thinking, but these aren't principles that are unheard off and utterly unnatural, rather these principles attempt to build off of human nature. Granted medieval Iceland is the only nation I know of that had a fully voluntary system in place as the people selected one of iceland's chieftains to represent them, not elected, selected, but I feel between the success of the gošorš system and the benefits of similar principles in amercian history that this may be one of the few utopias that can actually function with human beings. Again I don't think if we just changed our political system to one I favor everything would instantly run smoothly, but if we could transition to such a system I think the transition process itself would drive a social shift towards greater individual responsibility and more careful, long term thinking. I just see how the current system molds children into abandoning my concepts and feel that between the removal of the current system which pushes people into the direction of short-term thinking and insatiable material greed and the slow transition to a more ideal system you would also see a transition in the populace and within a generation or two you would see a major change in americans, I think that the resultant change would be for the better. We'll see though, I firmly believe in our lifetime we'll see our political system shifting back in the my direction at which point we'll see whether the people respond.

We talked about this before in PMs. I don't believe a utopian society is possible, greed and selfishness are hardwired into all animals, not just humans. Without selfishness our genes would never survive to reproduce. That doesn't mean I don't believe our goal should be a utopian society, its just that it isn't viable. However, we should constantly be working towards that utopian ideal, but it is just that, an ideal.

Lets work towards it, but at the same time be realists about the chances of it happening. It won't but the effort made to make it will change the world for the better.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:37 PM
So you're talking about a world that has somehow overcome the basic economic principle of limited resources and unlimited wants. I can't imagine that actually happening though.

Edit: My question to you renji, in that world what incentive do the workers who produce these goods have to do a good careful job, outside of altruism, since I've mentioned above I think people only act altruistically when doing so is clearly in their own selfish benefit. Although I guess if we've truly overcome the problem of limited resources maintaining the system would be teh selfish motive to work hard. Although I think getting people to function like that might take even more work than getting them to be more self-reliant and responsible to make a system such as my ideal to work.
yea they had ideas how to do that though to make such things as oil obsolete. i thought it was a very interesting watch, im not sure how exact those ideas of the ideas of having enough Resources are correct, but i do think their criticism towards society nowadays was spot on.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:42 PM
We talked about this before in PMs. I don't believe a utopian society is possible, greed and selfishness are hardwired into all animals, not just humans. Without selfishness our genes would never survive to reproduce. That doesn't mean I don't believe our goal should be a utopian society, its just that it isn't viable. However, we should constantly be working towards that utopian ideal, but it is just that, an ideal.

Lets work towards it, but at the same time be realists about the chances of it happening. It won't but the effort made to make it will change the world for the better.
i really dont think greed is handwired in the human nature. is their really such thing?

i liked their way of treating that idea:

The bottom line is that our behavior is based upon what we learn, coupled with the bio-social
pressures that we must deal with in order to survive. Our genetic makeup does not tell us anything
about how to actually function. It is what we learn and are accustomed to which creates our behavior.
An insulted man who pulls out a gun and shoots somebody had to learn, at some point in his life, what a gun was, how to pull the trigger, along with what he was to find ‘insulting’ to begin with.
Every word on this page is learned by this author one way or another. Every concept is a collective
accumulation of experience. There is really nothing that we think which isn’t presented to us in some
environmental form. A person born in a particular culture will absorb the values, traditions and
hence behaviors of that culture. A Chinese baby taken at birth and raised in a British family in
England will develop the language, dialect, mannerisms, traditions and accent of the British Culture.

I dont believe their is such thing as human nature as in being greedy and violent. it is more human behaviour that is derived from the environment and the society they were raised in.

someone447
05-04-2009, 12:43 PM
We surely disagree on the definition of greed then. Greed is done with purely self serving intentions with gain only to self. This will eventually prompt me to discuss "self" later on I'm sure. With greed, to some extent, there is a touch of maliciousness I believe. Greed would not then be behind vision and determination.

Everything is done for purely selfish reasons, people don't give to charity to help other people, they give to charity for the feeling they get when they help other people. Everything is done for the benefit it gives you, if something doesn't benefit you in some way you won't do it, period.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:44 PM
Everything is done for purely selfish reasons, people don't give to charity to help other people, they give to charity for the feeling they get when they help other people. Everything is done for the benefit it gives you, if something doesn't benefit you in some way you won't do it, period.
i believe the exact same thing but they had such a discussion like 3 pages ago

Addict
05-04-2009, 12:45 PM
Everything is done for purely selfish reasons, people don't give to charity to help other people, they give to charity for the feeling they get when they help other people. Everything is done for the benefit it gives you, if something doesn't benefit you in some way you won't do it, period.

You sir, are correct. But about 4 pages late.

someone447
05-04-2009, 12:47 PM
i really dont think greed is handwired in the human nature. is their really such thing?

i liked their way of treating that idea:



I dont believe their is such thing as human nature as in being greedy and violent. it is more human behaviour that is derived from the environment and the society they were raised in.

In the last 20-30 years there has been a lot of research that points to nature being as important as nurture, if not more.

If it is derived from the environment how do you explain 100 years of peace in all of recorded human history? Those wars are all different cultures. Culture has an effect on the more superficial aspects of man, but the core of mankind lies in its innate nature.

Yes, they had to learn how to shoot a gun, but you don't have to learn how to kill somebody. You also don't need to learn what is supposed to offend you. There is one major reason for violence, a lack of resources. Among men, women are resources(bear with me). There are a limited number of women and each man has unlimited want. If another man does something that will lower your chances of getting with women(or food or shelter or any other limited resource) you will get mad. This isn't a learned thing, it is in our genes. It is the same reason lower males attack the alpha males in many species in the wild. We are animals, pure and simple.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:48 PM
We surely disagree on the definition of greed then. Greed is done with purely self serving intentions with gain only to self. This will eventually prompt me to discuss "self" later on I'm sure. With greed, to some extent, there is a touch of maliciousness I believe. Greed would not then be behind vision and determination.

OK I can understand that, maybe I should find another term to use here other than greed then as you can see from my definition of greed. I feel like you're discussing excessive short-term greed, which is only a part of greed in the way I use hte term. What would you use to describe the motivations of an individual doing something like discovering cancer, because sure saving millions of lives is one motivation, but the lab I used to work in will strike a major blow to cancer and saving lives is only a part of the equation, the blatant material gains are also a significant motivation as is the utterly selfish desire to solve that puzzle due to the purely self-serving joy that the researchers get from discovery/proving or disproving their own theories/make their visions a reality. I think greed is far more complex than you are making it out to be and I believe all those motivations I just described are greedy, but the later two clearly are not "purely self-serving intentions with gain only to self"

We talked about this before in PMs. I don't believe a utopian society is possible, greed and selfishness are hardwired into all animals, not just humans. Without selfishness our genes would never survive to reproduce. That doesn't mean I don't believe our goal should be a utopian society, its just that it isn't viable. However, we should constantly be working towards that utopian ideal, but it is just that, an ideal.

Lets work towards it, but at the same time be realists about the chances of it happening. It won't but the effort made to make it will change the world for the better.

I hear you on this. I don't expect a utopian society to form on this earth any time soon, however I think the utopia we are working for should be one that will be realistic on the nature of man and use greed and selfishness to shape a utopia that could function on those principles rather than trying to defeat them.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:49 PM
I personally dont think an utopian society will be established any time soon either, i doesnt mean though we should just let it go

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:52 PM
In the last 20-30 years there has been a lot of research that points to nature being as important as nurture, if not more.

If it is derived from the environment how do you explain 100 years of peace in all of recorded human history? Those wars are all different cultures. Culture has an effect on the more superficial aspects of man, but the core of mankind lies in its innate nature.

Yes, they had to learn how to shoot a gun, but you don't have to learn how to kill somebody. You also don't need to learn what is supposed to offend you. There is one major reason for violence, a lack of resources. Among men, women are resources(bear with me). There are a limited number of women and each man has unlimited want. If another man does something that will lower your chances of getting with women(or food or shelter or any other limited resource) you will get mad. This isn't a learned thing, it is in our genes. It is the same reason lower males attack the alpha males in many species in the wild. We are animals, pure and simple.
It is easy to see how this kind of assumption manifested, for if you look at the historical record of the
human species thus far, we see an endless series of wars, genocides, conquests and power abuses.
Given that this is the pattern we recognize… is it easy to assume that it must be “human nature” or
“instinct” to behave in ways that are historically recurring.

[...]

Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University, Robert Sapolsky, spent 30
years personally studying a Baboon troop in East Africa. This troop exhibited the same social
hierarchy, competition and dominance patterns as human beings do today.
However, something interesting happened about 10 years into the study. The troop was exposed
accidentally to a disease that killed off the Alpha male baboons, leaving only the subordinate male
baboons along with the females. This event dramatically altered the social nature of the troop. None
of the remaining baboons filled the newly open positions of dominance. The hierarchy virtually
stopped and aggressive behavior subsided tremendously. This is still the case with this troop 20 years
later. Even when new, adolescent males would come join the troop, it took about 6 months for the
behavior of that new baboon to adjust from the typically competitive patterns to the troop’s new
balanced and non-aggressive behaviors.
While this observation leaves many questions, it goes to show how behavior changes based on how
the environment changes. To think that our human society is locked into some prison of ‘instinct’
and ‘human nature’ is not viable. Even if we have ‘predispositions’ to certain survival patterns, it is
still the environment that generates the actual behavior.

the main idea is to get people to understand that helping society, making he world easier doesnt only help others but also helps the human himself. thats the hardest thing to do.

If it is really human nature, how do u explain that there are people that are extremely violent and there are people lets say like Mother Theresa that is nothing like that. Is Mother Theresa not a human?

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:54 PM
yea they had ideas how to do that though to make such things as oil obsolete. i thought it was a very interesting watch, im not sure how exact those ideas of the ideas of having enough Resources are correct, but i do think their criticism towards society nowadays was spot on.

I had had that recommended to me a while ago on another site and never got around to watching it. What I'd imagine though is that for their critique of our society to truly hold water we would have to find ourselves in this heaven of unlimited resources. Mind you I'm not just talking about finite things like oil, but other things like a man's time, skill and planning, all of those are resources limited by each of us only being one person. Now if we somehow were to overcome this all and have truly unlimited resources, a pure hypothetical IMO, then I can see those gripes as holding water since so much of our society is the result of simple economic principles based largely on this unlimited wants and limited resources conundrum.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:56 PM
I personally dont think an utopian society will be established any time soon either, i doesnt mean though we should just let it go

That's not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that if we are chosing a utopia to work towards chosing one that runs counter to human nature is fool hardy. Greed, liberty and responsibility are principles I feel that run hand in hand with the progress humanity has made and so I think they are principles that you can build a utopia off of without asking men to be more than just men.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 12:59 PM
i think greed is mostly created by money and scarcity as well as materialistic possessions. those kind of things exist in capitalism. would it exist though in a communistic state? im talking about a real communistic world, not something like ******* china or cuba.

someone447
05-04-2009, 12:59 PM
the main idea is to get people to understand that helping society, making he world easier doesnt only help others but also helps the human himself. thats the hardest thing to do.

If it is really human nature, how do u explain that there are people that are extremely violent and there are people lets say like Mother Theresa that is nothing like that. Is Mother Theresa not a human?

There are different ways to achieve your goals, when you are powerful, violence is typically the best way. If you are smart, using your intellect will serve you better. I am not a very violent person, but that is because I know fighting and the like isn't my strength. I achieve many more of my goals when I use my brain to reason through something. You can never remove the violence from the ones for whom violence works. Killing them would be the only solution, but that is violence anyway.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 12:59 PM
As for the nature versus nurture issue I do concur that brainwashing from childhood can be hugely effective, my proof? The phelps farm, that said renji, you are talking about messing with the things that have driven us as far as we have come, everything that you would need to "treat" with nurture to allow that utopia lies in deep contradiction with the entire history of our species.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:00 PM
i think greed is mostly created by money

That is a completely ridiculous statement. Greed is what created money. Mankind was greedy well before money was around. Without greed people never would have started storing food, leading us away from the days of hunter-gatherers.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:02 PM
That is a completely ridiculous statement. Greed is what created money. Mankind was greedy well before money was around. Without greed people never would have started storing food, leading us away from the days of hunter-gatherers.
so what is there to be greedy about without materialistic possessions and money?

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:04 PM
There are different ways to achieve your goals, when you are powerful, violence is typically the best way. If you are smart, using your intellect will serve you better. I am not a very violent person, but that is because I know fighting and the like isn't my strength. I achieve many more of my goals when I use my brain to reason through something. You can never remove the violence from the ones for whom violence works. Killing them would be the only solution, but that is violence anyway.
how is that human nature though? if u have the option between the two, its up to you to decide, what u ultimately chose is not prescribed, its something that involves from your person. you dont always chose violence, its because u chose violence because u believe in it to be the best possible option and looking back it obviously wasnt.

Without greed people never would have started storing food, leading us away from the days of hunter-gatherers.

u really think no one wouldve thought: Hey, its easier if we store something, so after some point we dont always have to go out and hunt, say if we are sick, we can just use the storage. it benefits us.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:05 PM
so what is there to be greedy about without materialistic possessions and money?

Food, land, shelter, or any of the multitude of things animals kill each other for.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:07 PM
how is that human nature though? if u have the option between the two, its up to you to decide, what u ultimately chose is not prescribed, its something that involves from your person. you dont always chose violence, its because u chose violence because u believe in it to be the best possible option and looking back it obviously wasnt.



u really think no one wouldve thought: Hey, its easier if we store something, so after some point we dont always have to go out and hunt, say if we are sick, we can just use the storage. it benefits us.

It is human nature to use the most efficient means to achieve the end we want. Violence is often the most efficient means.

Hunting and gathering was actually much easier than early farming. Early farming only allowed those who were good at it to gain power. That is why it started cropping up.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:07 PM
well yes, thats why the idea is to give everyone shelter and food. thats not greed though. thats surviving.

the biggest difference between humans and animals (beside our awesome thumbs) is the ability to reason, to think. most of the things, most of violence are totally idiotic looking back at it and it stems from wrong sets of minds. my point is to try to diminish these wrong sets of mind

It is human nature to use the most efficient means to achieve the end we want. Violence is often the most efficient means.

Hunting and gathering was actually much easier than early farming. Early farming only allowed those who were good at it to gain power. That is why it started cropping up.

well Violence isnt always the most efficient way, thats idiotic. its usually the easiest way but looking at the whole picture, its not smart or the best way at all to do things.


and i think i dont get ur second point. are u talking about storing the hunted meat or about developing into a farming society

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 01:08 PM
so what is there to be greedy about without materialistic possessions and money?

There will always be materialistic possessions, be they a patch of land you call home, a hut you live in or an ipod. A world without materialistic possessions is simply impossible. But even if we ignore material positions you would see greed in people's actions, where they go, what they do, the oppurtunities that present themselves, all ofthose things will show greed.

how is that human nature though? if u have the option between the two, its up to you to decide, what u ultimately chose is not prescribed, its something that involves from your person. you dont always chose violence, its because u chose violence because u believe in it to be the best possible option and looking back it obviously wasnt.

Well it obviously was for some. Otherwise gengis khan's stable boy wouldn't have been ancestor of half the world's population, gengis was clearly too busy to **** enough so it had to be one of his aides.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:11 PM
well yes, thats why the idea is to give everyone shelter and food. thats not greed though. thats surviving.

the biggest difference between humans and animals (between our awesome thumbs) is the ability to reason, to think. most of the things, most of violence are totally idiotic looking back at it and it stems from wrong sets of minds. my point is to try to diminish these wrong sets of mind

You seem to think that there is an unlimited supply of resources in the world, that just isn't the case. The only way to have a utopian society is if we can find a way to replicate resources at almost no cost. Since that doesn't seem like it will ever be possible, good luck with a utopian society..

Napoleon ruled Europe for years, Alexander ruled the known world, Genghis Khan ruled the known world, America essentially rules(d) the world, the Romans, need I go on? Violence accomplished all that for them. Violence is not a way to build lasting power, but it will build you power for your lifetime, which is all that person really cared about anyway, increasing their power.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:11 PM
There will always be materialistic possessions, be they a patch of land you call home, a hut you live in or an ipod. A world without materialistic possessions is simply impossible. But even if we ignore material positions you would see greed in people's actions, where they go, what they do, the oppurtunities that present themselves, all ofthose things will show greed.



Well it obviously was for some. Otherwise gengis khan's stable boy wouldn't have been ancestor of half the world's population, gengis was clearly too busy to **** enough so it had to be one of his aides.
that is the question though: why is it impossible? Ghengis Khan went around cause possessions were important. why should it be though? why would Khan have to get so much land? just for the heck of it?

my question is why to people want power? there has to be a better reason than: well its just the way the cookie crumbles.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:12 PM
that is the question though: why is it impossible? Ghengis Khan went around cause possessions were important. why should it be though? why would Khan have to get so much land? just for the heck of it?

Because greed and a lust for power is innate in humans. It wasn't a product of his society, it was a product of him being human.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:13 PM
You seem to think that there is an unlimited supply of resources in the world, that just isn't the case. The only way to have a utopian society is if we can find a way to replicate resources at almost no cost. Since that doesn't seem like it will ever be possible, good luck with a utopian society..

Napoleon ruled Europe for years, Alexander ruled the known world, Genghis Khan ruled the known world, America essentially rules(d) the world, the Romans, need I go on? Violence accomplished all that for them. Violence is not a way to build lasting power, but it will build you power for your lifetime, which is all that person really cared about anyway, increasing their power.
i do not believe that. but if it was possible to assure food and shelter, i dont think there is really anymore greed out there.

lets just say: there is enough food and shelter for everyone. Would there be more greed?

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:15 PM
Because greed and a lust for power is innate in humans. It wasn't a product of his society, it was a product of him being human.
and thats the idea i dont get. society obviously didnt find a real answer for this question, so its just easy to say: its just the way it is, humans are like that and done. thats ********. Why not find a real answer? why are there humans that dont care for power at all, why are there humans that care so much about power? there has to be a better reason than: well its just like that

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:15 PM
i do not believe that. but if it was possible to assure food and shelter, i dont think there is really anymore greed out there.

lets just say: there is enough food and shelter for everyone. Would there be more greed?

Yes, people will always want more food or a more comfortable shelter. The only way to eliminate violence is through unlimited resources, greed can never be eliminated.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 01:15 PM
that is the question though: why is it impossible? Ghengis Khan went around cause possessions were important. why should it be though? why would Khan have to get so much land? just for the heck of it?

Power, influence, to change the world, who the **** knows why gengis went to war, if it was only to get stuff he wouldn't have gone that far because after china I'd imagine he had enough crap where if all he wanted was crap he'd be content. To dismiss violence entirely is foolish, it can certainly accomplish many goals other than gathering possessions, in fact I'll argue that violence and war is one of the worst and least efficient ways because of the simple destruction it causes, the resentment in conquered areas, etc.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Yes, people will always want more food or a more comfortable shelter. The only way to eliminate violence is through unlimited resources, greed can never be eliminated.
this is ********. i eat till im full. why do i need more? i live in my house so i can survive, sleeping without getting wet. why would i need 15 houses

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:18 PM
and thats the idea i dont get. society obviously didnt find a real answer for this question, so its just easy to say: its just the way it is, humans are like that and done. thats ********. Why not find a real answer? why are there humans that dont care for power at all, why are there humans that care so much about power? there has to be a better reason than: well its just like that

All humans care for power, every single one of them. They may not act like it, but thats because they don't know how to get the type of power they want. The real answer is that greed and power are hardwired into all animals, not just humans. You are searching for an answer that isn't there. The more we learn about mankind the more we find we have very little difference from other animals.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 01:19 PM
i do not believe that. but if it was possible to assure food and shelter, i dont think there is really anymore greed out there.

lets just say: there is enough food and shelter for everyone. Would there be more greed?

There would still be greed, people would want comforts, people would want a bigger tv, a nicer car, a better shelter, tastier food, a new phone, a new stereo, *insert new technology here* you can't wipe out greed without first gaining absolutely unlimited resources and even then that might not be enough.

and thats the idea i dont get. society obviously didnt find a real answer for this question, so its just easy to say: its just the way it is, humans are like that and done. thats ********. Why not find a real answer? why are there humans that dont care for power at all, why are there humans that care so much about power? there has to be a better reason than: well its just like that

I'm going with daddy issues, an oedipus complex or getting picked on as a kid. If you want to understand the drive for power that'll take serious psychological and neurological study that no one is currently privileged to.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:19 PM
Power, influence, to change the world, who the **** knows why gengis went to war, if it was only to get stuff he wouldn't have gone that far because after china I'd imagine he had enough crap where if all he wanted was crap he'd be content. To dismiss violence entirely is foolish, it can certainly accomplish many goals other than gathering possessions, in fact I'll argue that violence and war is one of the worst and least efficient ways because of the simple destruction it causes, the resentment in conquered areas, etc.
well there is nothing wrong with saying violence and war is one of the least efficient ways. i absolutely agree. but thats what i am saying, those guys had all these different options. if it was human nature, they wouldve naturally gone for that. why dont u though? i mean its human nature to be violent, that means u would think of war and violence as the best option

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:20 PM
this is ********. i eat till im full. why do i need more? i live in my house so i can survive, sleeping without getting wet. why would i need 15 houses

You have a much too idealistic view of mankind, I envy you.

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 01:21 PM
All humans care for power, every single one of them. They may not act like it, but thats because they don't know how to get the type of power they want. The real answer is that greed and power are hardwired into all animals, not just humans. You are searching for an answer that isn't there. The more we learn about mankind the more we find we have very little difference from other animals.

Which is the entire foundation of anarcho-capitalist utopia I'm in favor of. Understanding that we are just animals with certain traits that have fueled our evolution the only possible utopia is one that is built off of human nature.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:22 PM
There would still be greed, people would want comforts, people would want a bigger tv, a nicer car, a better shelter, tastier food, a new phone, a new stereo, *insert new technology here* you can't wipe out greed without first gaining absolutely unlimited resources and even then that might not be enough.
well then get a bigger one, but why not in turn let everyone have one? what is the benefit for urself if u have one and the others dont if they could. if u are able to invent a nicer car, then go for it, but why not then share it with society?



I'm going with daddy issues, an oedipus complex or getting picked on as a kid. If you want to understand the drive for power that'll take serious psychological and neurological study that no one is currently privileged to.

doesnt that mean though its different for every person? its the way he was raised like those daddy issues or whatever. im not saying there are no people who are interested in power or whatever, but is it always necessary?


All humans care for power, every single one of them.
this is a statement i need you to back up first. just throwing it out is games and fun but doesnt really help. there has to be a reason why someone thinks: hey having power is cool.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:23 PM
You have a much too idealistic view of mankind, I envy you.
explain to me: why would i need more food if i am full

Mr. Hero
05-04-2009, 01:24 PM
well there is nothing wrong with saying violence and war is one of the least efficient ways. i absolutely agree. but thats what i am saying, those guys had all these different options. if it was human nature, they wouldve naturally gone for that. why dont u though? i mean its human nature to be violent, that means u would think of war and violence as the best option

Just because war isn't the best way to get stuff doesn't mean it's a worthless option. If this were a political board you'd here me railing against war quite often, that doesn't mean war isn't the best option for some people to secure some of their goals. Gengis clearly wanted more than just possessions, he didn't go to war just because war is fun, he went to war for some reason, be it his own ego and legacy, or wanting to shape the world any of a billion other things he wanted power for, but what's clear is he wanted some sort of power and for him the best way was military action.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:24 PM
well there is nothing wrong with saying violence and war is one of the least efficient ways. i absolutely agree. but thats what i am saying, those guys had all these different options. if it was human nature, they wouldve naturally gone for that. why dont u though? i mean its human nature to be violent, that means u would think of war and violence as the best option

Violence is one of the MOST efficient ways of gaining power, however, it is also one of the most harmful. Look at any of the most powerful men in history, they have one thing in common, they accomplished it through violence.

War and violence is not the best answer for everyone, some people aren't good at it. Those people find other ways to get what they want. That is the beauty of mankind, our intellect allows us to achieve things in many different ways, violence just happens to be one of them. If you are good at war you go to war, if you are a smooth talker you will charm your way to power. Humans use their talents to achieve their goals. If your talent is violence you will use that without hesitation because "by any means necessary" is genetically wired into us.

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:26 PM
Just because war isn't the best way to get stuff doesn't mean it's a worthless option. If this were a political board you'd here me railing against war quite often, that doesn't mean war isn't the best option for some people to secure some of their goals. Gengis clearly wanted more than just possessions, he didn't go to war just because war is fun, he went to war for some reason, be it his own ego and legacy, or wanting to shape the world any of a billion other things he wanted power for, but what's clear is he wanted some sort of power and for him the best way was military action.
okay, thats totally understandable. thats not what i am saying though. but the reason for him to chose those options was because of his goals. not because he is human.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:26 PM
explain to me: why would i need more food if i am full

Because more food=power.

If you don't think power is important do an experiment. For the next week do whatever someone asks of you, don't ever state your opinion, just agree with what everyone else says. Completely disavow any sort of power in your life. Come back here and tell me how well that worked out for you.

someone447
05-04-2009, 01:27 PM
okay, thats totally understandable. thats not what i am saying though. but the reason for him to chose those options was because of his goals. not because he is human.

His goals are because he is human...

Gay Ork Wang
05-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Because more food=power.

If you don't think power is important do an experiment. For the next week do whatever someone asks of you, don't ever state your opinion, just agree with what everyone else says. Completely disavow any sort of power in your life. Come back here and tell me how well that worked out for you.
why is more food = more power if we are talking about a scenario where there is unlimited food?

your experiment is idiotic though, it doesnt even make sense. doing idiotic things i believe are wrong has nothing do to with power rather than being dumb.

Addict
05-04-2009, 01:31 PM
You have a much too idealistic view of mankind, I envy you.

ideas are what makes the world go around. One cannot be too idealistic, as long as one does not lose sight of the realisty in which these ideas are to be realised.

I'm a pretty idealistic guy, but I try hard not to forget that some things are pretty hard to change. There's nothing wrong with having ideas. Frankly people without ideas are uninteresting. If nobody thinks of anything new, how is anything ever going to change?