Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philosophy thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by iowatreat54 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mr. Hero; 05-03-2009, 04:49 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mr. Hero View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        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.

        by BoneKrusher
        <DG> how metal unseen
        <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by iowatreat54 View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mr. Hero View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Mr. Hero View Post
              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.



              "Frosties are corn flakes for people who can't face reality"

              Comment


              • #67
                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.

                Sig by Fenikz

                I remember NFLDC
                don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                Comment


                • #68
                  Has anybody read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    The degree to which some of you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet claim to have absolute knowledge, is depressing.


                    Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                      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.

                      Sig by Fenikz

                      I remember NFLDC
                      don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Mr. Hero View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Addict View Post
                          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.


                          Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Addict View Post
                            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.


                            Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                              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.

                              Sig by Fenikz

                              I remember NFLDC
                              don't tell anyone, but Charlie Casserly is a dope fiend

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information